Thursday, May 13, 2010

Anonymous Letter Re: Mojave Cross Theft

I have already expressed my opinion and disgust about the thief (or thieves) of the Mojave cross theft in this post. If this anonymous writer thinks he/she/they will get away with this, they are in for a BIG surprise. He/she/they will be CAUGHT AND PROSECUTED! There are so many points to refute in the anonymous letter, but I am too weary to deal with it tonight. Feel free to share your thoughts about this terrible incident in the comment section.


P.S. The Bible explains why this (these) criminal(s) did what he/she/they did:

1Cr 1:18
For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.


Anonymous letter explaining cross theft sent to Desert Dispatch.

Copy of article:

May 11, 2010 5:27 PM
From Staff Reports
BARSTOW • An anonymous caller, claiming to know the details of the theft of the Mojave Cross, contacted the Desert Dispatch newsroom at around 4 p.m. Tuesday. He said he was not directly responsible for the cross’s theft, but knew who was. He told a reporter that the person responsible for the theft wrote up the following explanation and statement regarding the removal of the cross. He asked that the Desert Dispatch to print the statement in its entirety.

We make no claims to the validity of the origins of this statement. We concluded, however, that the short time between the reporting of the cross’s theft and the receipt of this lengthy statement signified at least a strong connection. We are passing along this information in the hopes of illuminating what might have happened:

"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."


There are 51 comments. Here are some of the best:

exchequerofnance wrote:
Better to ask forgiveness than permission. You forgot a couple of things.
1. It's a crime;
2. The Supreme Court is the arbiter, not you;
3. You are a citizen, and therefore are consenting to be governed by the laws of this land;
4. You may hide the cross, but the message cannot be hidden, and as Billy Graham wisely pointed out from the Bible -- Be sure your sins will find you out.

The Tax Man Cometh

5/13/2010 8:12 PM PDT on


carpetjohn3 wrote:
Don't think I would want to be this guy who cut it down as $25,000.00 would go along way for a person who might live out in the desert.

With over 9 million who had died in WW1 and all the vets who live out there I don't think that I would want to be this person when they find him, and they will find this person and anyone else who might be involved in this as you just have to know that when they get one of them they will turn in the others to get out of jail time...

If it were me I would think about making a deal now before there is a nock on the door and its to late to do it then...

Now there is the question of crosses along the side of the road of people who have died out in the desert is this low life going to go around and take them down also???

They are going to get you guys so you better watch your backs......
5/13/2010 7:18 PM PDT


matt85 wrote:
So the rule of law doesn't apply to these thieves? The cross stood for years and those who demand it remain and be displayed - and who have WON in the courts - have waited patiently. Within weeks of a final decision by our courts that it was a reasonable to display it, those who don't agree have stolen it. If you don't understand the horrible irony of this mentality then you too are a liberal, a socialist or worse.

wolf73b wrote:
So, if this schmuck gets to violate the law, simply because he disagrees with it, why do we have laws? Can a bar owner allow smoking in his bar, because he disagrees with that law? Do I get to speed, because I disagree with that law? How about stealing? Can I walk into Vons and take what I want?
5/12/2010 9:34 AM PDT


barstowcob wrote:
All I see is an attempt to justify hatred of Christians and disrespect of veterans.
5/11/2010 10:02 PM PDT on


longtimeago wrote:
This self centered whack job "lovingly" spit in the face of veterans and families all over the country. This isn't about "a tribute to Christ". This was a memorial erected by people who wanted to remember fallen friends. Is this loon now going to go "lovingly" gather up all the crosses on the side of highways across America? Why can't people leave stuff alone? Anti discrimination my a&&. This discriminats against Veterans and the friends that wanted to remember the fallen.
5/12/2010 6:09 AM PDT

Hat Tip:


No comments: