Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

rug

(82,333 posts)
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:04 AM Jul 2013

'A' Mountain's religious shrine needs to be moved

?pubId=13639249001

5 hours ago
Stephen Uhl is a former Roman Catholic priest, a retired psychologist and a friendly atheist. Contact him at author@outofgodscloset.com

The "A" Mountain religious-shrine issue has generated a lot of interest and enthusiastic expressions of widely varying opinions. Personal opinions range from "if you don't like the shrine, live somewhere else" to "it's junk littering our desert, get rid of it."

What's a wise City Council to do as it weighs its options on how to react to the complaint by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF)? In my view, the City Council should follow the law while showing sensitivity to Catholics who consider the shrine holy, to others who see it as integral part of our community's heritage, and to secularists who want public areas free of religious symbolism.

Our Founding Fathers knew of the centuries of bloody religious wars that tore Europe apart, as well as the decades of colonial sectarian strife among settlers on the eastern shore escaping from European dissent. These men recognized that faith-based issues could have similar consequences for our new country. An attempt to defuse this destructive potential was the purpose of the opening sentence in the First Amendment to our federal Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Thomas Jefferson interpreted this phrase to mean a "wall of separation between Church and State"; the Supreme Court interprets it to mean that government shall neither favor religion over irreligion nor one religion over another. Our government must be neutral to religion. Accordingly, multiple court decisions affirm religious shrines such as those on "A" Mountain are unconstitutional because they violate these principles

http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/a-mountain-s-religious-shrine-needs-to-be-moved/article_818e6d44-f60e-5874-a188-ad47e0819fb7.html

Sentinel Peak in Tucson is called "A" Mountain because of this:



Here, it is painted green for St. Patrick's Day.

If you're curious, it stands for the University of Arizona.
7 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
'A' Mountain's religious shrine needs to be moved (Original Post) rug Jul 2013 OP
It was never the intent pipoman Jul 2013 #1
Various Supreme Court rulings would contradict you. Goblinmonger Jul 2013 #2
I wonder what prevents them for selling that little piece of land to someone for, say, $!? cbayer Jul 2013 #3
That certainly seems both sensible and practical. okasha Jul 2013 #4
Maybe they can just add electrons to it. rug Jul 2013 #5
Lol! Now that's Solomonic. cbayer Jul 2013 #7
Seems simple, doesn't it? cbayer Jul 2013 #6
 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
1. It was never the intent
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 09:34 AM
Jul 2013

of the establishment clause to disallow religious symbolism from public view, or even to remove religious symbolism public lands...just not allow the government to establish a state religion. The .gov didn't put this monument there, and i don't believe they maintain it..so many important issues which are actually problems it is hard for me to care about shit like this with actual civil right/liberties encroachment happening in other area of our government..

 

Goblinmonger

(22,340 posts)
2. Various Supreme Court rulings would contradict you.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:16 AM
Jul 2013

And have you read what Madison (you know, father of the Constitution) had to say about the mix of religion and government? You know that initially he wanted to make it impossible for clergy to run for office because then government would be paying a member of the clergy.

But, hey, who cares about the SCOTUS and the guy who wrote it.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
3. I wonder what prevents them for selling that little piece of land to someone for, say, $!?
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 10:17 AM
Jul 2013

While I think the FFRF needs to continue to challenge state/church separation issues, it seems that they should prioritize. This seems so small, so remote, so innocuous. Aren't there bigger fish to fry?

Are they going to go after those tributes along some roadways to honor someone who may have died in an accident? Those often have crosses or other religious symbols attached to them.

okasha

(11,573 posts)
4. That certainly seems both sensible and practical.
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 03:53 PM
Jul 2013

Sell the bit the shrine sits on to whatever group maintains it. Land is no longer public, shrine no longer on public property, locals who venerate the site happy.

That "A" on the side of the mountain, on the other hand, is stabbing-pain-in-the-eyes ugly. Someone needs to start a campaign it remove it.

cbayer

(146,218 posts)
6. Seems simple, doesn't it?
Wed Jul 3, 2013, 04:56 PM
Jul 2013

And I agree completely about that A.

We saw so many eyesores on our recent road trip.

We also saw a lot of religious icons. Some are way over the top. Others really seem to belong there.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»'A' Mountain's religious ...