Letters: Enjoy the cross, or not

Why make a federal case out of a wooden cross? Just put up another cross and enjoy it or not.

[Riego]

Where to begin?

Lorne Braddock writes, "As were most of his contemporaries, Don Gaspar De Portola was in pursuit of religious freedom."

Gaspar de Portola was the governor of 'Las Californias' appointed by the King of Spain during the time of the 'discovery' of Monterey. In fact, he wasn't the first European (that was Vizcaino) and he wasn't the first person here, surely. So, that characterization is incorrect in either sense.

Are you seriously comparing Portola to the Free Thinkers and Secularists among our Founding Fathers or the Puritans? Please. He was a political tool of the Governor of Mexico and the King of Spain. He was charged with expelling the Jesuits, who had founded the Missions of California in favor of another sect of the Roman Catholic Church - the Franciscans. He was commissioned in the Spanish Army, serving in Portugal and Italy before being dispatched to California.

Following is an excerpt from Portolá's diary, on setting out for San Diego:

Diary of the journey that Don Gaspar de Portolá, captain of dragoons in the Espa&ntild;a Regiment, Governor of the Californias made by land to the ports of San Diego and Monterey, situated in 33' and 37o [N. Latitude], having been appointed commander-in-chief of this expedition by the Most Illustrious Don Joseph de Galvez, in virtue of the viceregal powers which had been granted to him by His Excellency [The Viceroy]. The expedition was composed of 37 soldiers in leather jackets with their captain, Don Fernando de Rivera; this officer was sent in advance with twentyseven soldiers and the Governor [followed] with ten men and a sergeant.

The 11th day of May,[1769], I set out from Santa Maria, the last mission to the north, escorted by four soldiers, in company with Father Junipero Serra, president of the missions, and Father Miguel Campa. This day we proceeded for about four hours with very little water for the animals and without any pasture, which obliged us to go on farther in the afternoon to find some. There was, however, no water.[Translated by Donald Eugene Smith and Frederick J. Teggart in Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, Vol. I, 39.]

Portola was on a mission from his King, traveling with Catholic missionaries to convert and enslave the locals, seize their land and claim the whole territory for the Catholic King of Spain, as well as to make sure the Jesuits could not continue their mission in California unmolested. The King had recently expelled ALL of the Jesuits from Spain because they were a threat to his sovereignty. They were replaced by the Franciscans who were more docile and compliant to his policies.

So, from what I can see...Portola was engaged in pursuit of just the opposite of religious freedom.

You are wrong about your history and you are wrong about the cross. How do you expect us to take your opinion seriously when it is based so solidly in falsehoods?

[PGjack]

David Huntley has it right. A christian symbol certainly, but christians forget that the Spaniard's landing was the beginning of the utterly heartless destruction of an existing culture and people. This extermination was continued and very nearly completed by our American christian culture. Is that what the cross symbolizes, and what so many letter writers are so passionately proud of, the death of the native people?

[Art Vandelay]

When can we start throwing Christians to the lions like in the good ol' days when they were willing to be martyrs instead of obnoxious tyrants as some are in this country? They cannot be given an inch.

Already, they point to 'In God we Trust' on the currency and 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance' as though those phrases were specified in the Constitution and written in stone. It would take a lot of work to pry those words from the money and the pledge, so we must not let them have anything else. They are good at turning things into sacred objects and whatnot.

[Paul Robeson]

Once again, Lorne Braddock has decided to use the pages of the Herald to display the depths of his ignorance. For over 100 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has disagreed with his opinion that the interpretation of the 1st Amendment is left to the states. Furthermore, in Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court held that any government action must have a secular purpose; must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion. What secular purpose is served by placing a Christian cross on public property? I think the answer is "none." Mr. Braddock seems to have a lot of time on his hands. It would be better spent filling in the gaps in his education instead of spouting off on subjects of which he has little knowledge.