Camp Pendleton cross controversy

[Terry_Washingto]

Posters in the Camp Pendleton, California area may have noted a controversy about a cross erected at the USMC(United States Marine Corps) base last autumn. Personally I think it’s a monumentally BAD idea- it’s hard to imagine the Corps British counterparts- Her Majesty’s Royal Marines- engaging in such a divisive exercise. The Corps is composed of men and women of all faiths and none whatsoever- are the Marines who erected it implying that Marines killed in Iraq and Afghanistan are not just military fatalities but religious martyrs?- given that Al Qaeda/Taliban claims to represent the “nation/kingdom” of Islam this line of argument comes(at least to my mind) unhappily close to the “clash of civilizations” (between Christianity and Islam) frequently propounded by the late unlamented Osama Bin Laden and his fellow jihadists.Anybody else think as I do?

Terry

 

[Dale_M]

In keeping with the requirements of this forum that all new threads begin with a link to a current news story, here is a news article from yesterday.

Marine Corps still pondering controversial crosses

The Marine Corps is still pondering what to do with two unauthorized memorial crosses atop a 3,000-foot Camp Pendleton hillside.

Officials have been in decision-making mode for roughly six months, since the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers ignited a controversy by complaining that the crosses constitute an unlawful endorsement of Christianity on federal property.

The crosses were installed by troops and their families in 2003 and 2011 high above the base’s Camp Horno.

nctimes.com/news/local/military/military-marine-corps-still-pondering-controversial-crosses/article_e98d3201-2659-5db9-8ff2-906d110b0ee6.html

Last month, the base commander forbade the placement of an additional cross, pending a resolution of the controversy.

Dispute grounds 10-foot cross

mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Dispute-grounds-10-foot-cross-3517059.php

 

[CaptFun]

A few thoughts on a complicated subject. Though the answer is easy, leave the crosses be (not just THIS one, but ALL the crosses that are under attack by troublemakers).

Most of the hills have NOTHING on them, Atheists believe in NOTHING, and yet non-atheists are not insisting that the nothings everywhere be replaced and sic-ing lawyers on the Marine leadership.

Father, all-powerful and everliving God, we do well always and everywhere to give you thanks through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Through his cross and resurrection he freed us from sin and death. < from the Mass.
So, shall we then run about amending our attitude to “seldom and hardly anywhere” to please a few cranks that probably don’t even speak for most atheists?

1st Amendment to US Constitution reads: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There have been court cases which have decided that the military MAY abridge a citizens’ “freedom of speech” and other "rights’ and have rules regarding “Military Expression.”

While this is common sense and recalls the axiom " … loose lips sink ships" - meaning that freely speaking of (say) a warship’s departure time might put that ship and all the people on it in jeopardy of being sunk by the enemy; it’s really stretching things to imply
that some marines putting a cross on a hill is akin to a forced conversion.

Since there was no prior restraint to the cross being put up, no cited law that was broken,
the precedent of crosses on graves of Christian soldiers on military land, it would seem that the burden of proof ought to be on the Atheist/Freethinkers (hey weren’t those who put UP the cross “thinking freely”?).

We know who the troublemakers are. In San Francisco a group tried to get the famous
Mt. Davidson cross taken down from the public park there. It caused the city (which was willed the land, including the already built and famous cross in the first place) to hold an election to be able to auction the summit (and cross) portion of the park off.

The resolution passed and the cross is now owned by the Armenian Church.

Those who sued the city “won” the concession of lighting being removed from the cross area - lighting that was used remotely by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934 to illuminate the cross.

Here’s a bit of that history - not concerning military land but public - and the eventual solution.

mtdavidson.org/mount_davidson_cross

I live in Dana Point, CA just miles from Camp Pendleton. I’d like to go there and pray at the foot of that cross. What about my “rights?”

 

[CaptFun]

I did call those who were calling for the removal of the cross “troublemakers,” for a variety of reasons I won’t relate right now.

HERE is this situation in REVERSE! A communist/atheistic Government that was trying to have no trace of Christianity in their new, model socialist town Nowa Huta in Poland.

The Catholic “troublemakers” fought for their rights, later put up a similarly “unauthorized cross” and eventually won the day against the broken promises and harrassment of the atheist government (which eventually fell).

inyourpocket.com/poland/krakow/sightseeing/Nowa-Huta-Monuments/The-Nowa-Huta-Cross-and-Riots_55753v

Pope John Paul II had a hand in this before he was Pope.

 

[tarboy]

sorry but how is your example the reverse?
In both cases the govt was/is attempting to restrict the expression of religion

I did call those who were calling for the removal of the cross “troublemakers,” for a variety of reasons I won’t relate right now.

HERE is this situation in REVERSE! A communist/atheistic Government that was trying to have no trace of Christianity in their new, model socialist town Nowa Huta in Poland.

The Catholic “troublemakers” fought for their rights, later put up a similarly “unauthorized cross” and eventually won the day against the broken promises and harrassment of the atheist government (which eventually fell).

inyourpocket.com/poland/krakow/sightseeing/Nowa-Huta-Monuments/The-Nowa-Huta-Cross-and-Riots_55753v

Pope John Paul II had a hand in this before he was Pope.

 

[CaptFun]

sorry but how is your example the reverse?
In both cases the govt was/is attempting to restrict the expression of religion

Actually in the Camp Pendleton and Mt. Davidson cross cases** it was/is a citizens’ group attempting to restrict the expression of religion and trying to make the government bend to their will **(The USMC, the City of San Francisco).

In Nowa Huta, Poland the "citizen’s group" was trying to expand or preserve the expression of religion against the HOSTILE Government of Poland.

In the first (American) cases the Government was legally challenged on its acquiescence to religion (the crosses were allowed); in the second the atheistic Government tried to build a new socialist city where God would not be allowed. The people (citizens group) fought it, won concessions and put UP a cross in defiance. <(the reverse of removing one).

The REVERSE (I meant) had to do with “cross OUT” or “cross IN”.

John Paul II said an outdoor mass in Nowa Huta when he returned to Poland (while the Communist government was still in charge).

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Religions get to do what they want on their private land. Don’t do it on the public lands. What’s so hard about that? It’s always the extremists in any religion that go pushing these boundaries. It’s absurd, religions have so much freedom in this country and they don’t have to pay taxes, they ought to rejoice in their freedom. Every weekend in the public park near me some local fundamentalist church holds a public outreach with bad music and dumb skits, so you see they are totally free to use even public spaces in the right way. And what do they blab about? How persecuted Christians are! All this freedom isn’t good enough, no, they want to take over public hillsides and put up their boastful affronts. The Bible says “Do not make a show of your religion, or it will be in vain”.

 

[BernardM]

Religions get to do what they want on their private land. Don’t do it on the public lands.

If the majority of a community want to do something that in no way harms or imperils anyone else they are free to do so. Putting up a cross as a memorial is an old tradition that harms no one. I just can’t imagine how horrible it must be for those 2 Marines to have to look at a cross their fellow Marines put up in memory of their fellow Marines who did not make it back.

How can they eat or sleep knowing that terrible cross is on the hillside and will at anytime magically come to life and transport them to a mystical theocracy were they can only watch re-runs of The Walton’s, The Lawrence Welk Show, and HeeHaw?. The horror, the horror.

What’s so hard about that? It’s always the extremists in any religion that go pushing these boundaries.

Actually the extremist are on the other side trying to remove things like this. Glad I could clear this up for you.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

If the majority of a community want to do something that in no way harms or imperils anyone else they are free to do so. Putting up a cross as a memorial is an old tradition that harms no one. I just can’t imagine how horrible it must be for those 2 Marines to have to look at a cross their fellow Marines put up in memory of their fellow Marines who did not make it back.

How can they eat or sleep knowing that terrible cross is on the hillside and will at anytime magically come to life and transport them to a mystical theocracy were they can only watch re-runs of The Walton’s, The Lawrence Welk Show, and HeeHaw?. The horror, the horror.

Actually the extremist are on the other side trying to remove things like this. Glad I could clear this up for you.

Can my Wiccan friends put up a gigantic statue of their potbellied mama-goddess on the hillside next to the cross, for all the women who have died in the Marines? Can my Muslim friends put up a Crescent and Star for all the Muslims who have died fighting for the Marines? No problem, right?

 

[BernardM]

Can my Wiccan friends put up a gigantic statue of their potbellied mama-goddess on the hillside next to the cross, for all the women who have died in the Marines? Can my Muslim friends put up a Crescent and Star for all the Muslims who have died fighting for the Marines? No problem, right?

Provided there is enough support in the community, no. If it is just one person trying to tweak someone else (which is what not Wiccans would do) then yes there would be a problem.

 

[Jerry_Miah]

Provided there is enough support in the community, no. If it is just one person trying to tweak someone else (which is what not Wiccans would do) then yes there would be a problem.

So community support trumps separation of church and state? I don’t think so. That’s what the founders would have called “tyranny of the majority” – the danger of just letting the majority vote on rights.

 

[Terry_Washingto]

I ask again- are those who argue for the Cross’s erection seriously asserting that Marines killed in say Afghanistan or Iraq( fighting against self-declared “jihadists”) not only military fatalities but also religious martyrs? How would people living nearby react if a group of Muslim or Jewish marines erected a giant Crescent and Star/Star of David to “honour their fallen brethren”?

It’s times like these that I thank God that our own “bootnecks”( slang word used by Royal Marines to describe themselves) are far more sensible!

Terry

 

[CaptFun]

I ask again- are those who argue for the Cross’s erection seriously asserting that Marines killed in say Afghanistan or Iraq( fighting against self-declared “jihadists”) not only military fatalities but also religious martyrs? How would people living nearby react if a group of Muslim or Jewish marines erected a giant Crescent and Star/Star of David to “honour their fallen brethren”?

It’s times like these that I thank God that our own “bootnecks”( slang word used by Royal Marines to describe themselves) are far more sensible!

Terry

Summary:

Question 1: Yes (I argue for the cross being allowed); and NO (Schmidt’s being a “religious martyr”) is nothing I imply. He might be one on the basis of “greater love no one has than to lay down his life for his friends …” (in this case accidentally via “friendly fire” so maybe not even here).

Question 2:** I do live near Camp Pendleton.** For all I know there MIGHT be a star of David or Crescent erected in honor of a fallen soldiers’ creed. And though you surmise that I simply MUST be offended by that - to your astonishment I contend it wouldn’t (and doesn’t bother me at ALL). Thank you fallen soldiers of all faiths! < Sincerely.

This little hill in question already has memorial crosses on it. It is not dominating nor even visible from the nearby I-5 freeway. You have to hike to even see it. All this STUPID complaint did was to ruin the day of Schmidt’s visiting family who came all the way from San Antonio to see the LITTLE tribute his fellow marines had put up for him.

I thank you for posting the story Terry, but, since you are a Catholic … why are you
taking the atheists side vs. the Methodist’s side in this? Or are you?

I’m not all in a dither that Schmidt’s family didn’t put up a CRUCIFIX for example - and because they didn’t, surmising that his buddies must be insulting and demeaning the sacrifices of Catholics - thereby justifying causing legal trouble for the Marines from afar, while considering the consequences to the grieving family irrelevant.

mysanantonio.com/news/military/article/Dispute-grounds-10-foot-cross-3517059.php

Since you are asking those QUESTIONS … as opposed to citing a statement of those who were actually putting up the cross in honor of their accidentally slain friend (by “friendly fire” - hence by the Marines, a sister service or an ally) … you are not sure yourself.

No one in the article mentioned martyrdom, not even for the secular US.

And who would they be religious martyrs for? Is Obama a Pope? Was the slain Lance Corporal under orders from his Methodist Minister to win the world for Wesleyism by killing Mohammedans in a counter-jihad?

On the speculation that somehow Schmidt MIGHT be considered a religious martyr by some (sometime) - and you think that would be DIVISIVE and a BAD idea (though apparently the atheist group’s ideas are NOT bad and - IF divisive - divisive in a good and just way?); one must consider as superior the obvious merits of the self-serving atheist group that “targeted the … cross” with their “complaint.”

Your final statement(s): You said this AGAIN? Some things to think about:

**British bootnecks being more sensible than the American Marines: How so? ** Pardon me for noticing but … if putting up one 13 ft cross on a remote hill to honor a Methodist soldier is so BAD an idea (that it might … what … inflame jihadists MORE than news stories demonstrating the power of Atheists might?) … how much more might these things:

Thousands of** flags with a big red cross** right in the middle of them flying everywhere (the Union Jack). < BTW I’m fine with the Union Jack’s cross even though my Irish ancestors might have been persecuted by British governments of long ago - I’m Catholic,and forgive them their trespasses, particularly since “they” didn’t trespass against ME!

Her Majesty’s Royal Marines. This is the bootneck’s first name, HMR? Her Majesty has as one of her titles “Defender of the Faith …” and is the titular head of the Church of England.

royal.gov.uk/monarchuk/queenandchurch/queenandchurch.aspx

Seems to me a lot of Catholics (and probably Atheists too) have been drafted into the various His and Her Majesty’s services over the years - so I don’t see the UK’s example of this “virtue” of enforced official secular atheism as being remotely as “virtuous” as the late, unlamented Red Army of the USSR!

There is a psychological principal called " … pick your battles." Prioritize. When you make a public stand, make it on something important and be right.

This is good advice for all of us.

Although I’m glad you posted the info - the next battle you pick has almost GOT to be better than this. My apologies if I have you wrong from the info I had. I realize sometimes one might try to BE a bit controversial to draw attention to an important issue and even be a “devil’s advocate” to draw out some wisdom by those who would defend the opposite position. If that’s what you were doing … sorry. But you might tell us now if that was the case.

houseofnames.com/marines-coat-of-arms <British Marine’s coat of arms. Cross prominent. How will we sleep tonight?

 

[CaptFun]

webmatters.net/cwgc/vauxbuin.htm < Crosses at British Military Cemetary in France.

This may be from the days when " … there are no Atheists in foxholes …" was a popular saying, circa World War I, but these British Soldiers’ Memorials have prominent crosses too … even on the headstones that aren’t SHAPED like crosses.

If the big distinction would be that the soldiers remains are there - perhaps the Schmidts could donate a lock of their son’s hair, a few of his ashes, or a relic of some sort to the Camp Pendleton site. If the issue is really private property vs. public, the base can sell the 1’ X 1’ area as part of a fundraiser for the PX or something.

THAT much tolerance might be more than the litigious and pushy far off Atheist group could bear though.

I think it’s nice the British Government hasn’t busied itself in messing with these crosses and headstones with crosses. Even if some would delight in their removal.

 

[He_Man]

So community support trumps separation of church and state? I don’t think so. That’s what the founders would have called “tyranny of the majority” – the danger of just letting the majority vote on rights.

I was goin to respond, then remembered, you’re banned. Sometimes, I almost miss you Jerry Miah. Then I remember we have Al “it’s not short for Alfred” Moritz to deal with. It’s like you never left.

On topic, crosses good, God good, etc.

 

[CaptFun]

I was goin to respond, then remembered, you’re banned. Sometimes, I almost miss you Jerry Miah. Then I remember we have Al “it’s not short for Alfred” Moritz to deal with. It’s like you never left.

On topic, crosses good, God good, etc.

Thanks for posting He Man. I was wandering in the white room alone again. I hate that dream.

 

[Terry_Washingto]

The issue nobody wants to address is: does it amount to “establishment of religion”(in the sense of officially favouring a particular faith) for employees of a federal institution( the Marines) to place on government land a religious symbol associated with a particular religious belief(the Cross)?

now your Founding Fathers(including sadly my own Presidential namesake George Washington) may have gotten it wrong on slavery but when it came to “Church and State-no union on ANY terms”(to quote Thomas Nast in a famous 19th century cartoon), they were spot on.

Apropos of the late Marine Schmidt- surely his parents could have thought of something more appropriate than placing a Cross(on government property)- like a plaque or a nonsectarian memorial?

Back to HM Royal Marines- yes, the Queen’s title is “Defender of Faith” but “bootnecks” fight and die for Queen and country NOT the Church of England!

PS It’s precisely BECAUSE I am a Catholic that I don’t want to see my/our Faith reduced to what then NY Governor Mario Cuomo termed a “political plaything” and God “a celestial party chairman”.

Terry

 

[Holly3278]

I imagine its the Atheists who are making a big deal out of this. Personally I get so sick and tired of Atheists getting so offended at any public display representing religion.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

Apropos of the late Marine Schmidt- surely his parents could have thought of something more appropriate than placing a Cross(on government property)- like a plaque or a nonsectarian memorial?
Terry

Kudos to his family for honoring him in a way that means something to them and to him. They have done well.

DGB

 

[CaptFun]

The issue nobody wants to address is: does it amount to “establishment of religion”(in the sense of officially favouring a particular faith) for employees of a federal institution( the Marines) to place on government land a religious symbol associated with a particular religious belief(the Cross)? Ok. I’ll bite. “No.” It doesn’t. If the Marines allow ANOTHER cross on that hill - I am not compelled to be a Methodist (like the late Lt. Col. Schmidt).

“The cross” is also used by all sorts of people, some who might even be deliberately mocking Christians. Madonna wore huge ones, and used to have them in the background of her videos which used to go out on the public airwaves. But I was not compelled (nor even tempted) to adopt the Kabbalah or whatever by the Government that allowed her to display it on the air. “Public air”. Cable is a different deal.

now your Founding Fathers(including sadly my own Presidential namesake George Washington) Lol … I think you could do worse Terry :yup:

may have gotten it wrong on slavery America "inherited’ it from Britain - but to be fair, at some point it got restricted to just the South. Washington and some of the other Southerners may have even wanted to end the system right away, but were at war. And the problem of having a civil war … which did happen anyway … was something many tried to avoid. America got many blessings from Britain too … including perhaps the values that eradicated slavery in the end!

but when it came to “Church and State-no union on ANY terms”(to quote Thomas Nast in a famous 19th century cartoon), they were spot on. This was a work in progress too. There was no “Church of England” like domination, but there were anti-Catholic laws here and there for example. And expansive freedom of religion seemed guaranteed, at least in theory, with the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,*** or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;*** clause.

Apropos of the late Marine Schmidt- surely his parents could have thought of something more appropriate than placing a Cross(on government property)- like a plaque or a nonsectarian memorial? I’ll read that story again. As I remember it , it was his fellow Marines at Pendleton that made the tribute. His family visited the base to see the cross - but the Atheist groups’ complaint spurred Marine leadership to … not approve the cross there (yet). So the family saw … nothing. Which is what Atheists believe in - so ***one COULD argue ***that they forced their (Non-God) religion on the Schmidts and friends. Also the ‘why can’t the Methodists put up a plaque because a cross bothers some people’ idea probably would not be applied to say, a Black Muslim Memorial. For example "Why can’t this Black Muslim family put up a different color crescent? Not everyone is black … and it bothers some people.’ < Wouldn’t fly! And it’s even worse if critics ok the color but ask them to “change the Crescent”.

Back to HM Royal Marines- yes, the Queen’s title is “Defender of Faith” but “bootnecks” fight and die for Queen and country NOT the Church of England! I really have no problem with any of that. My point was all this folderol over a little cross is like straining out the gnat (to paraphrase Jesus) where by comparison there are many more crosses elsewhere (shall we say). The Atheists in England probably know they can’t successfully push the Queen around or replace the Union Jack flag with Darwin’s “missing link” (yet). Out here in Wonderland you never know - but you brace for “Murphy’s Law”*.

PS It’s precisely BECAUSE I am a Catholic that I don’t want to see my/our Faith reduced to what then NY Governor Mario Cuomo termed a “political plaything” and God “a celestial party chairman”. That’s a proper sentiment. But an official Atheism (a religion even if a very disorganized one - because it takes a faith positon) indulged everywhere even when it is QUITE intolerant - is a counter-dilemma. Christianity being a pinata and God “a celestial opiate of the people?” Even WORSE, IMO.

Terry

• Murphy’s Law - “If something CAN go wrong, it WILL. AND at the worst possible time!”