Echoing the words of the Gettysburg Address by Abraham Lincoln: "four score and seven years ago" ( 87 years) - slavery was in existence in defiance of the constitutional equality of all men for nearly 100 years; before legal intervention proceeded to finally correct it. Thus, the mere passage of time that elapses before a constitutional violation is corrected, is not an excuse for its continued debasement.
Another argument used by the donors of Christian doctrine monuments placed intentionally upon public properties is that : retroactively, when considering the date the monument was placed, it was a reflection of a "part of the history of the property", and therefore it should remain as an object of "historical significance."
In opposition to that opinion, I state that signs were posted that "Negroes" were not allowed in establishments in many southern states for decades, and that was unarguably "part of their southern history".
But we do not honor and continue to endorse those prejudicial proclamations - simply because they were "part of the history"of the south. Additionally, and to the point -- those placards were eventually removed because they breached mandated federal law.
Your neighboring City of Concord, allowed the verbiage "No Negroes allowed" to live in certain residential developments in the 1950's; and this is part of the that Citys history. This is also a constitutional violation that was struck down and rightfully removed; and one can not argue that it should remain posted "because it is part of the history of the city".
The existence of the rationalization of an incorrect violation of separation of church and state; by the proclamation that the monument is "historical", is deceivingly circumventing the true intent of the monument- which is decisively clear. One merely has to literally read the first four commandments to realize this.
Another argument used by the donors of these monuments is that: " no one else bothered to place any other monuments on the site for 40 years, and now they complain" .
This is also a redundant argument - as we can all probably agree that if an atheist or Pagan had placed their symbol of belief on this public property in 1965; they would have surely been denied permission.
This year is 2012, and non-Christian believers would probably still be denied access to post any symbols on most, if not all - public properties that contain the said Christian monuments.
I am appalled at the imbalance of justice and the inequality displayed by the City of Oakland for favoring and condoning only this Christian monument on this public property; as it is insulting to the constitutional choice and lifestyle of alternative beliefs of any other citizens who are not adherents to Christianity and its Bible.
I do not have an objection to Christian churches and supporters placing their dogmatic objects of faith on private property; in fact I view it as constitutionally commendable.
However, the endorsement by the City of Oakland for this same dogma on public property is a substantiation of inimical favoritism.
Oakland is a very diverse and ethnically inspired city. I am sure that many people who frequent this zoo are unaware of this biased monument pronouncing the favoritism of Christian doctrine that dominates the western skyline; an antithetical testament that is demeaning to the citys expressed goals.
Ironically, the first posted sign that one observes when they enter the public property of the zoo is a sign that states: "It's your zoo".
Oaklnad Zoo Entrance - Public photo by Joey Piscitelli
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
