Wooden cross at beach cut down

There better be rage high and low over the liberal trash that did this. Could you even begin to imagine the outrage if a crescent had been chopped off the top of a masque or other religious symbol? The fact that christianity is the only religion that is allowed to be freely mocked with no political correct recourse is not acceptable.

There won't be any outrage over this because - as you rightly said - Christianity is the only religion that can be openly mocked and ridiculed in our society. In fact, thanks to the Herald for even covering this.
It's interesting that the anti-Christian zealots who accuse Christians of imposing their values on others (after all, we have a lot of nerve of preaching that we should love our neighbors) are really the ones imposing their own brand of extremism on everyone else.

What was a 20-foot Latin Cross doing on City Property anyway?

If a Crescent (a symbol of Islam) were cut down from the top of a Mosque, it would be vandalism to PRIVATE PROPERTY. On private property, such as a church or a mosque or a temple, or even just a residence, one has the well-established right to freely express religious belief. And because there is a prohibition against the establishment of an official religion, we are free to put crosses, crescents, stars, fishes and spaghetti monsters where ever we please. But when the government endorses one religion over others, our religious freedom is threatened. Keeping our government free of religious symbology means we can all practice (or not) religion as we see fit without government interference. If you need proof that having no official religion is favorable to religion, just look at Europe: those governments HAVE official religion. Church attendance and belief in god are at all time lows. In Denmark, they officially endorse Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark. 80% of Danes do not believe in a personal god. So, keeping government out of the Jesus business is good for religion. Move the cross to a church and be done with it.

I wonder if Iran had anything to do with this. Or, maybe Venezuela was behind it. They've got plenty of oil.

JDW wrote:

What was a 20-foot Latin Cross doing on City Property anyway?

I thought the story explained this? Go back and read it.
First, the cross is on state property, not City property. Second, it was placed to commemorate an historic event, and not placed as a symbol of religion.

JDW do you think the cross doesn't belong there? Please see the Supreme Court case just a few years ago that tried to remove "In God We Trust" from our currency.

I am not religious but like it or not this country's laws, values, the very core of this country is based on religion.
This probably is not a reliougus act, just a bunch of drunks. The anti religious freeks make it more than that. Yes, freeks that want or have no moral values at all or see a way to make money off it

Being that it was a sign of California's colonial and missionary past, I will shed no tears over the loss of this propagandistic and fear-inducing symbol.

There are better forms for commemorative statuary to take, ones that are more appealing and universal.

Johnnie Wilcox wrote:

Being that it was a sign of California's colonial and missionary past, I will shed no tears over the loss of this propagandistic and fear-inducing symbol.
There are better forms for commemorative statuary to take, ones that are more appealing and universal.

Were the pre-European days when native tribes brutalized each other and ripped out the hearts of their living victims for the sun god that much better?

The Americas were not full of pure and peaceful civilizations before Columbus opened the door for colonization, despite what revisionist historians try to cram down our childrens' throats.

I am no religious zealot, but only cowards do that in the middle of the night.

lets put the cross back up!!!!!!!!!!

This is an abhorrant crime. It was there for decades! It not only represented a great religion, but had extreme historical significance. How dare someone remove it in this vile manner! I hope the perpetrators are caught and jailed. Seems they'll be too cowardly to claim responibility. By the way, if whoever did this is reading this, you are a narrow-minded, ethnocentric, low-charactered coward who has no respect for others.

By the way, I'm a Muslim.

I agree, let's put the cross back up! Maybe this time in metal, or in the ocean or something.

I really hope this is investigated, and not casually brushed aside.

Yosemite Sam wrote:

<quoted text>
First, the cross is on state property, not City property. Second, it was placed to commemorate an historic event, and not placed as a symbol of religion.
JDW do you think the cross doesn't belong there?

To your first rebuttal: Actually, according to an official land survey, the monument itself, known as "The Crespi-Portola Monument" is located on city property. The fallen cross is resting on State Parks property.(The story is misleading, a bit.) I personally asked that the site be surveyed by the State Parks department so that the exact property line could be determined in 2007. The State Parks surveyed the area and told me the cross was on City property. The Parks department also recommended that the cross be removed as it is not appropriate as an interpretive monument. I relayed this information to the City government. They told me that the cross was an interpretive monument and wasn't meant as a religious symbol. The local chapter of the ACLU followed up that request for information by sending the city attorney a letter in 2008 asking for clarification on the city's position. To my knowledge, that letter remains unanswered.
To your second point: The Latin Cross is the most widely recognized symbol of Christianity. It likely had its origins in the Roman Catholic Church, though they tend to favor the Crucifix, which has a depiction of the dying Christ, his passion and ultimate resurrection. Some Christians use the Latin Cross, some do not. However, to even the most casual observer, it is a Christian symbol. A solitary wooden cross, without adornment or embellishment, really has no other meaning. At the time of the Portola-Crespi expedition, it symbolized the Roman Catholic Monarchy of Spain and was likely placed somewhere on the coast of Monterey Bay by Spanish Catholic Missionaries and Explorers (Conquistadores) to claim the land as their own, even though other peoples had been living here for thousands of years. It's unlikely that the spot chosen in 1969 by the well-meaning citizens of Monterey is anywhere near the original site of the cross, as the expedition followed the Salinas River to the sea. It's more likely near Marina that the original cross was placed.
IF the intention of the citizens of Monterey was to commemorate the 'discovery' of Monterey by the Spanish by placing an interpretive monument, the plaque (and not the cross) would have been sufficient. IF they had wished to be historically accurate, it would have been somewhere else.
To say that the cross is simply a monument to history and NOT a religious symbol denigrates it as the powerful symbol that it is to both Christians and non-Christians alike. It does have meaning and its meaning is religious. And as such, it has no place on public land, whether it be state or city-owned.
It is lamentable that the cross was cut down by vandals. I personally would have much preferred a civil debate on its merits as a monument and its meaning as a Christian symbol. There are many people who live in Monterey who are non-Christians. Do they not have the right to enjoy public lands free from Christian symbology? How do you think Native Americans view this reminder of their tragic historical interactions with Europeans? Does the fact that the cross is not historically accurate and that it is not suitable as an interpretive monument (claiming that it holds no religious meaning) satisfy anyone?
The preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose is not allowed by the courts or the Constitution. To argue that a 20-foot Latin Cross is the only way to commemorate the 'discovery' of Monterey is preposterous. To say it is not a religious symbol is disingenuous. To cut it down without this debate is a crime.

William wrote:

I wonder if Iran had anything to do with this. Or, maybe Venezuela was behind it. They've got plenty of oil.

You really believe that a foreign power did this??

JDW, thank you for that post. Who exactly put up the cross in 1969, do you know?

Someone needs cheap firewood!

According to the plaque, it was a group of Monterey citizens who donated the monument to the city. I do not have any more information about who these citizens were, how they raised the money for the monument or if there was any discussion within the city leadership about its appropriateness, value as an interpretive monument or the implications with regard to the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. But since it was placed in living memory, I encourage anyone who was there and who does have information to post.

I am really sorry that the cross was cut down by vandals. I am hoping that we can avoid putting up the cross again without serious public discourse. Simply because it's been there for 40 years is not reason enough to blindly restore it. And just because it was cut down by apparent criminals doesn't mean it should be hauled away as so much kindling. We need to talk about this.

Thank you JDW. You not only have educated the Herald and its readership, but have provided a powerful example of the utility and importance of blogs, especially vis a vis "professional journalists. I hope the Herald and the Pine Cone are inspired to go "back to school" and take it up a notch, or sell to someone as sophisticated as its readership.

Typical liberal. If the people who did this are caught, will they be charged with committing a hate crime?