Morongo Bill and Scott Fajack have alerted me to a new development. Looks like I may have spoken unfairly as to the character of the person who took the Sunrise Rock cross from its site in the Mojave National Preserve. The Barstow Desert Dispatch has printed a letter sent to them indirectly by a person who claimed to have taken the cross. I reproduce that letter in full here.
The person’s choice of the Desert Dispatch says to me they were more or less local — they could have gotten a letter on the front page of the Los Angeles Times if they’d wanted. The letter itself is obviously conscientious and thoughtful. I still think the act was ill-considered, but if this letter is for real I now think better of the motives behind the act.
The letter:
1. The cross in question was not vandalized. It was simply moved. This was done lovingly and with great care.
2. The cross has been carefully preserved. It has not been destroyed as many have assumed.
3. I am a Veteran.
4. A small non-sectarian monument was brought to place at the site but technical difficulties prevented this from happening at the time the cross was moved to its new location.
5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz. Since then the government has actively worked to promote the continued existence of the cross, even as it excluded other monuments from differing religions. This favoritism and exclusion clearly violates the establishment clause of the US Constitution.
6. Anthony Kennedy desecrated and marginalized the memory and sacrifice of all those non-Christians that died in WWI when he wrote: ‘Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles — battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.’ The irony and tragedy of that statement is unique.
7. Justice Kennedy’s words in particular and others like them from the other Justices caused me to act.
8. At the time of its removal there was nothing to identify the cross as a memorial of any kind, and the simple fact of the matter is that the only thing it represented was an oddly placed tribute to Christ. This cross evoked nothing of the sort that Justice Kennedy writes of, it was in the end simply a cross in the desert.
9. Discrimination in any form is intolerable, as is hatred.
10. Discrimination or hatred based upon religion should be despised by all Americans, and offering that this event was caused by hatred or malice is simply ignorance of the actual intent.
11. Despite what many people are saying, this act was definitively not anti-Christian. It was instead anti-discrimination. If this act was anti-Christian, the cross would not have been cared for so reverently. An anti-Christian response would have been to simply destroy the cross and leave the pieces in the desert.
12. We as a nation need to change the dialogue and stop pretending that this is about a war memorial. If it is a memorial, then we need to stop arguing about the cross and instead place a proper memorial on that site, one that respects Christians and non-Christians alike, and one that is actually recognizable as a war memorial.
13. If an appropriate and permanent non-sectarian memorial is placed at the site the cross will be immediately returned to Mr. Sandoz.
14. Alternatively, if a place can be found that memorializes the Christian Veterans of WWI that is not on public land the Cross will promptly be forwarded with care and reverence for installation at the private site.
15. In short this has happened because as Abraham Lincoln said: ‘To stand in silence when they should be protesting makes cowards out of men.’ Perhaps this was an inappropriate form of protest if so I humbly request your forgiveness and understanding for the actions that I have taken here.”
I really hope that letter is real. In this light, I completely support removal of the cross as a legitimate form of protest.
Wow. I am very impressed.
I agree with Space Kitty. Sounds like a new Memorial is needed.
Wow, indeed! It is very difficult to argue with the dedication or logic of this individual. He clearly feels very strongly. I especially liked point number 15. This took courage.
Bill:www.wildramblings.com
Horse hockey, what a load of crap.
How… persuasive.
Is this true?
5. The cross was erected illegally on public land in 1998 by a private individual named Henry Sandoz.
As an outsider, viewing casually from a distance, I was under the impression that the cross was an artifact from sometime shortly after the Great War ended, a survivor of two or three generations. As such it would carry a historical context inoculating it from judgments and requirements that contemporary culture might reasonably impose. If no such provenance exists, no special treatment should follow.
I agree. Point #15 shows courage and conviction.
There has been a cross on site on and off since the Depression Era. The one at the center of the foofooraw, however, was built and emplaced well after the land came under the management of the National Park Service in 1994.
The key word is still THIEF… It doesn’t matter why. Would you absolve a someone who robbed a bank, or robbed a store, or mugged another person…to get money to give to charity? Poor analogy I agree, but a thief is a thief, is a thief, no ifs ands or buts about it.
Lee Murray