Stolen Mojave Cross Which Was Replaced Is Taken Down Again May 22, 2010

Stolen Mojave Cross Which Was Replaced Is Taken Down Again

Remember that Mojave cross that was up, then stolen, and then replaced?

It’s been taken down again.

There will likely be an update to this story in 5… 4… 3…

Browse Our Archives

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Aaron

    If someone shoots it the next time it pops up, do they win a Kewpie doll?

  • Evan

    This story makes me dizzy.

  • Richard Wade

    A new variation on “Whack a Mole,” it’s “Whack a Cross!” They pop up, they get knocked back down.

    Is there something very special about the original 1930’s cross? Is there magic in it that cannot be replaced by another cross?

    I just don’t get this. In the Supreme Court the cross was discussed as a symbol, and the argument was over the symbol’s meaning, ending with the ridiculous rationalization that it is not specific to Christianity, but is somehow a universal symbol of a memorial to the dead.

    But all this midnight lunacy of stealing the cross, then illicitly replacing the cross with a replica, and now taking down the replacement seems to suggest that there is something intrinsic to the original cross that is the important issue, as if it’s the Mona Lisa and replacing it with a copy is just not acceptable.

    If the original stolen cross had been brought back and illicitly replaced, would the National Parks Service have to take it down? Would they have to take it down only to have the proper paperwork filled out so they could put it back up again? The nearest hardware store should stock up on half inch bolts.

    I think the original cross may never be found and it will become the stuff of legend. Sightings will be reported, but like Elvis or Big Foot it won’t be there when people rush out to see it. For decades small pieces of rusty pipe with white paint on one side will be sold as “pieces of the Original Mojave Cross” just as chips of wood were sold as pieces of the Cross of Jesus during the Middle Ages.

    You can always count on the persistence of superstition and free enterprise.

  • Jennifer

    This type of stuff appalls me!! We ask for tolerance to not believe, yet we aren’t willing to let others believe as they see fit. If christians want to honor their dead with a cross who are we to say no!!! Let them be!!!!!!!!

  • DurrHurr

    I thought the cross was historically a symbol of torture and Roman dominance. When did it become the universal symbol of war dead?

  • Richard Wade

    You’re missing the point. The people who are objecting to the cross having been erected on public land are not trying to prevent Christians from honoring their dead. The issue is about these two factors:

    1. A cross is a distinctly Christian symbol, despite the transparently disingenuous rationalization by the Supreme Court Justices who claimed that it is a universal symbol of memorials to the dead.

    2. Erecting a well recognized Christian symbol on public land to honor WWI veterans and prohibiting any and all other symbols to represent non-Christian WWI veterans is a blatant endorsement of one religion over others by the government, and is violating the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

    Nobody’s trying to prevent Christians from honoring their dead. We’re trying to prevent the steady erosion of everybody’s freedom by the incessant intrusion of one religion’s symbols and beliefs into every nook and cranny of government. In essence, the Supreme Court has prevented non-Christians from properly honoring their dead on the same land, and has said that non-Christians should just shut up and be satisfied with a cross to honor everyone.

  • Vas

    RE: the Sandoz’ wish to replace the mojave cross…
    “We would love to do it, but we have to abide by the law or we’re just like the people that stole the one that was there,”
    Wands Sandoz (“cross caretaker”)

    So by this logic then Henry and Wanda Sandoz who illegally erected the cross in late 1990’s are just like the people who stole that same cross, Like people who ignore the law and just do as they damn well please. There is simply no historic fabric associated with the 90’s cross, it is not even a historic reconstruction of the original 1934 cross, what it is is a replacement with no resemblance to the historic cross save it’s geometric form, (and even the form is off). The Sandoz’ show no knowledge of the most basic tenants of historic preservation and/or restoration and have no business being involved in this situation, they appear to be self appointed defenders of the faith, and vandals who think nothing of defacing public lands with Jesus’ tag.

error: Content is protected !!