A refresher on the history of some (non-native) religions in San Diego

From a review of San Diego history published in 1908:

Catholics:  San Diego was originally a Catholic mission, later abandoned and Old Town became secularized, and in the late 1840's, according to records, a priest arrived to lead a congregation.  They built a church, and then replaced it in 1858 with the Church of the Immaculate Conception (shown above).  There was a succession of priests, and then Father Antonio Urbach held office from 1866 to 1908.  He oversaw the growth of San Diego from small settlement to town (San Diego City's population in 1860: 771; in 1900: 17,700).  Part of this growth was moving out of Old Town and into St Joseph's Cathedral in what is now downtown (at the time it was "Horton's Addition", located to the west of San Diego).

Protestants:  The first Protestant service was held in Old Town in 1853, led by an Episcopalian army chaplain.  When that Reverend left, services became sporadic as occasional itinerant preachers came through town.  Only in 1868, did a minister arrive to take over.  He cleaned the abandoned army barracks and held services there, until the first Episcopalian church in San Diego went up in 1869 (now the Cathedral Church of St Paul).

At nearly the same time, a succession of Methodist ministers held services in various locations, and then in the first Methodist Church in 1870.  In 1887 they tore that church down and put up a gigantic (for that time) three-story building with mixed use for the church and businesses, and then sold off that building when they outgrew it in 1905.  The First Methodist Episcopal Church opened downtown in 1906, and the congregation then moved to Mission Valley in 1964.  The Mission Valley location has an original stained glass window, a cornerstone, and other pieces of the 1906 church on display.

The first Baptist church saw service in 1869, on Seventh Street between F and G (today that area is parking lots and hotels).  The second, larger Baptist church went up in 1888 on Tenth and E (again, long gone).  By 1900, the Baptist congregation boasted a membership of almost 700. Also in 1869, a small Presbyterian church was built on Eighth and D, and they also moved to a new facility in 1888. 

Jews:  An article in the San Diego Herald  in 1851 reported that the three Israelites of San Diego were observing the Day of Atonement.  The first congregation, with 18 members, began renting spaces for holiday observances in 1872.  With the temporary population boom of the late 1880's, the Jewish population of San Diego was over 300.  In 1889, the congregation (then organized as Beth Israel) built a facility on Beech and Second.  But the congregation diminished with the economic and population collapse of the 1890's, and there was no rabbi and only sporadic services for two decades.  With local prosperity things turned around, and Beth Israel moved to a new place in 1926.  The old temple went through several owners, including a Spiritualist group led by a psychic, then fell into disrepair before being declared San Diego Historic Site Number 82 in 1973, and Beth Israel bought the site back for renovation.

Lomaland and equality

As Women's History Month commences, we can look back to a time in San Diego when women could not vote, serve on juries, or participate in many aspects of society.  Yet there was a place in San Diego where women did have quite a measure of equality, that place being the Point Loma Universal Brotherhood and Theosophical Society Homestead (called Lomaland for short). 

Theosophy was a movement founded in 1874 by psychic Helena Petrovna Blavatsky.  This was the time of the popular spiritualism that had taken hold of the nation starting with the fraudulent Fox sisters, so the field was ripe for new seeds.  As for Theosophy, it consisted of a large set of revealed truths about the individual and the universe and according to Blavatsky was a replacement for all other religions.  Among the beliefs was equality between the sexes, with our eternal spirits being perpetually reincarnated in male or female bodies.  For these and other reasons, Theosophy held particular interest for women:

Theosophy appealed to a segment of white, middle-class, intellectual women who sought spiritual power, usefulness in the world, and greater control over their lives. Since the Theosophical Society had no ordained ministry, it opened leadership opportunities to women, "[allowing] its women and men leaders alike to travel the world lecturing and organizing. In it, women no less than men rose to the highest positions of responsibility."

When Blavatsky died, she was replaced by William Judge, and when Judge died Katherine Tingley took over.  Tingley had only joined the Theosophical Society two years previously, but she convinced the leadership that she was channeling Judge's spirit, and he was giving her full control of the organization.  Having declared herself absolute authority over the movement for life, she instituted changes such as shutting down the national branches and concentrating resources in the new national headquarters in Point Loma.  The Theosophists arrived in the late 1890's and would stay for almost half of a century, with thirty of those years under Tingley's control.  Lomaland became particularly known as a place of culture, with regular patronage of the arts and well-cultivated lands serving as an attraction for San Diego residents looking for a pleasant day out.

Lomaland operated as a commune, with the role of women different from that of general society, but not too different.  While a woman herself, Tingley had a Victorian sense of morality that colored the original Theosophical doctrine.  She believed women did belong in the home, and other than Tingley, the rest of the leadership in Lomaland were mostly men.  Yet conditions were better for women and other minorities in Lomaland, they could find acknowledgment as fully-functioning human beings, and at least sixty percent of the residents were usually women. 

In today's parlance, we would refer to Lomaland as a cult, and contemporaries looked upon it askance.  A Los Angeles Times headline from 1901 blared:  "Outrages at Point Loma; Exposed by an 'Escape' from Tingley. Startling Tales told in this City. Women and Children Starved and Treated Like Convicts. Thrilling Rescue."  Tingley sued for libel and defamation and won, but the sentiment was not eradicated.  Tingley died in 1929, just before the decline of Lomaland.  Her successor loosened her authoritarian dictates, but liberalization proved disastrous.  He brought back the national lodges for example, which took resources from Lomaland.  The uniforms and other strict rules were lifted, and the colony began to dissolve.  By 1941, there were about 130 residents left in Lomaland, most of whom were elderly.  The property moved into foreclosure and the society moved to the Los Angeles area.


What can we make of Lomaland and its morality?  As a religion with revealed wisdom, the Theosophy leadership could create rules that cut through the strictures holding society back.  As such, the commune was particularly attractive to the underserved of society, such as women.  But not all of the rules were positive and healthy, and while the status of women could be changed in the law, how do you change a universal truth revealed by spirits?   And, of course, there is the matter that Theosophy was, as a whole, made-up nonsense and adherents were wasting time in its study.  As Humanists we can recognize the good that religious orders are capable of providing, but we can also see that the associated baggage is often too great a burden.  Better to work out a morality from rationality rather than proclamation in order to create a just society that will serve all of its members.

Civil rights activists, not who you think

Last week Dallin Oaks, one of the Quorum of Twelve Apostles (and therefore a "prophet, seer and revelator") at the head of the Mormon Church, gave a speech at Chapman University (a Christian college in Orange County with a law school) which dwelt on a common theme among those who would govern from faith:  the freedom of others is impinging on my freedom of religion.  Oaks was, tellingly, a judge on the Utah State Supreme Court (1980 to 1984) and the audience of 800 law students and others, also tellingly, applauded.  In the talk, Oaks called the workers supporting California's Proposition Eight, which ended same-sex marriages, the new civil rights workers.

In his speech and in an interview, Oaks said he didn't want to dwell on same-sex marriage. But the examples he cited of intrusions on religious liberty were almost all related to that debate.

But these arguments reveal more about the arguer than about the subject at hand.  Religious freedom is only under attack if you consider controlling society to be part of your religion.  As one writer from a Mormon background wrote about Oaks' presentation

... What are the evidences that religious freedom is under legal attack in the United States? He cited a few cases (some of the same ones used in scare-tactic ads from the now-discredited National Organization for Marriage) but none of them pertains to the rights of churches or private individuals (acting as private individuals) to create and maintain their own religious beliefs and practices.

... In his address, Oaks clarified that the major threat to religious freedom was actually “moral relativism.” But where some see the decadence of “moral relativism,” I see the advancement of religious pluralism and the erosion of a conservative religious prerogative to define public life.

Unfortunately, for some Californians these debates are not merely academic and have had real-world deleterious effects.  Time will tell if Humanists can keep these losses from mounting.

Mount Soledad Cross history, in outline

The cross atop Mount Soleded is under scrutiny with a court ruling that it is unconstitutional.  But there have been similar rulings before.  Here, for brevity, is a timeline of the cross gleaned from internet sources.  You may supply your own narrative.

*  1913:  Citizens place first cross placed at pinnacle of Mount Soledad, made of wood
*  1923:  Cross stolen, returned, burned down by Ku Klux Klan
*  1934:  Group places second cross, stucco over wooden frame
*  1952:  Wind blows down cross
*  1954:  Concrete cross placed, dedicated Easter Sunday
*  1950’s to 1980’s:  “The Mount Soledad Easter Cross” is the scene of annual Easter services
*  1989:  Philip Paulson begins lawsuit against city over the cross
*  1989:  Plaque placed indicating the cross is a War Memorial
*  1991:  Judge Gordon Thompson rules the cross violates the California State Constitution
*  1992:  Voters approve Prop. F, to transfer the land to a non-profit corporation
*  1993:  City appeals 1991 ruling, City asks for ruling from all 28 judges, judges unanimously vote to uphold ruling
*  1994:  City sells 24 square feet at base of cross for $24,000 to association, no bids
*  1994:  City appeals previous rulings to Supreme Court, which declines to hear case
*  1997:  Judge Thompson rules the land sale violated California Constitution, gives City 30 days to remove cross
*  1998:  City accepts bids for the land, sells to highest bidder for $106,000
*  2000:  Judge Thompson approves sale, but Court of Appeals rules that the sale violated the California Constitution
*  2003:  Supreme Court declines to hear City’s petition
*  2004:  Plaintiffs and Association reach agreement to remove cross, City Council approves motion that if upcoming Prop. K loses, the agreement will go forward
*  2004:  Voters reject Prop. K, which would have approved sale of land
*  2004:  Congressional law allows the Department of the Interior to accept the land and the cross
*  2005:  City Council declines to give the land to the Federal Government
*  2006:  Federal Government takes cross using eminent domain law
*  2006:  Philip Paulson, who began the suits nearly twenty years earlier, dies
*  2008:  Federal judge rules that the cross can stay because a cross is a general symbol, not specifically Christain
*  2011:  Court of Appeals (Ninth Circuit)  rules that cross violates constitution

Getting in on the ending action

Another group is traveling the country proclaiming the end of the world.  This time the date is May 21, 2011, as calculated by Harold Camping, 89 year old retired engineer and preacher of the Word:

"Beyond the shadow of a doubt, May 21 will be the date of the Rapture and the day of judgment," he said.

In more detail, the Rapture will be on May 21, and the Destruction on October 21.  For more explanations, visit their website:

Study the proofs that God has so graciously given in His Word showing us that these dates are 100% accurate and beyond dispute.

But keep in mind the poor history of past Rapture predictions.   And recall that the Book of Revelation was a strange Bible add-on that the early Christian leaders tried to quash.  And as an added bonus, the Rapture is a more recent tale put together from other Bible statements that contradicts the Book of Revelation.  I.e., as a Humanist, fill your time with other pursuits.

The important secular contribution of Christmas

The U.S. Census Bureau presents some interesting facts about the Christmas Season (December 2009):

•  Sales at department stores rose 45% over November
• Bookstore sales were up 98%
• Jewelery store sales increased 135% over the previous month
• $30 billion in sales for on-line and mail order shopping, more than any other month in 2009
• On-line and mail-order shopping consisted of 21,895 businesses (as of 2008), employing 332,405 people 

And here in San Diego County, retail sales are 9% ahead of where they were last year:

Since the beginning of September, retailers have added 3,700 workers, compared to 1,100 last year. By November, there were 500 more workers at retail stores than the previous November, marking the first year-to-year gain in monthly employment in the retail industry since August 2007.

San Diego's Holy Men at work for the Season

Back in 1984, San Diego Chargers defensive back Miles McPherson used religious faith to help overcome drug addiction, and then entered the ministering field himself in the early 1990's.  First he founded an evangelical organization called "Miles Ahead", and then in 2000 he created The Rock Church.   The first service drew over 3,000, and the nascent church quickly found a place in the modern megachurch movement.  Today The Rock Church boasts an average weekly attendance of around 12,000.  Fun Fact:  The Rock Church facility on Rosecrans Street is 443 feet long and 45 feet high, just like Noah's Ark (300 cubits long, 50 cubits wide, 30 cubits tall, with a cubit about 0.5 m).

Like other modern megachurches, The Rock Church presents a positive message and a focus on good works without much political commentary.  Yes, at base they are trying to believe in tales that are as made up as Star Trek (but with less applicability to the modern world).  But they are also able to motivate large charitable campaigns, such as park clean-ups, involving thousands of person-hours of work.  And this week was their annual Christmas-themed event of giving away 10,000 toys and 60,000 pounds of food.  So good for them, and let's hope that they can keep their beliefs in place.  As Humanists, however, we can also see that religion is bound to take over more and more of one's life and interfere in society.  Also, just as the religious feel compelled to proselytize, we can argue for the need to use secular reasoning when setting policy.

Your representatives at work

In 2005 a group of Congressional Representatives gathered to form the Congressional Prayer Caucus, which lists among its goals as protecting our dwindling right to pray and the acknowledgment that the history and laws of our country have a basis in the Divine.  Among its 68 members is California's own Gary Miller,  representing part of the in-land Los Angeles metropolitan area. 

Now this group has issued a letter with 48 signatures of Representatives (although not Gary Miller's) to chide President Obama for his lack of religious content in his speeches.  In particular, Obama called the national motto "E pluribus Unum" rather than "In God we trust".  Then he left out "Creator" when reciting a line from the Declaration of Independence.  As the letter points out:

“Once may be a mistake. But twice is a pattern. These omissions and inaccuracies are a part of a larger pattern we are seeing with the President where he is inaccurately reflecting America and undercutting important parts of our nation’s history,” said Forbes. “Trust in God is embedded into the fabric of society and history in the United States. If we allow these threads to be pulled, we will begin to unravel the very freedoms that birthed America.”

This group could be merely exercising personal choice and freedom to worship as they please.  But leaving religion within personal boundaries is rarely achieved.  That they would state that religion and the right to pray is under attack in itself is evidence that they see a more central role for religion in society and law.

Confidence or arrogance?

An atheist group has put up a billboard with the image above in New Jersey, prompting some accusations of insensitivity.  In response a Catholic group has placed a billboard nearby this one stating "You know it's real, this season celebrate Jesus."  Most passing drivers take little notice:

The Post found a few motorists who actually paid attention to billboards enough to have an opinion. One woman said, "We agree, Jesus is the reason for the season," but a Catholic man said he wishes the Catholic League didn't get into this pissing contest. "It doesn’t need to be plastered on a billboard," said Michael Gerber. "I should be able to celebrate in my own way. And if it’s tit for tat, it defeats the spirit of Christmas."

Are atheists becoming arrogant?  Are they the mirror image of fundamentalist believers?  All religions are implicitly (or explicitly) calling all other religions incorrect.  And the religious would say that atheism is yet another belief among many, and while it may believe itself to be special, is not.  An atheist would counter that atheism is not a belief but a lack of belief. 

The Humanist position is mostly outside of this argument.  Humanism looks to secular reasons upon which to base law and society.  People can still have their beliefs in revealed thruths if they find comfort in them.  Some of the religious find this position unacceptable;  all of society must follow the precepts of their religious truth.  This is what leads to the "mostly" in the previous statement.  Whether arrogant or not, or even if a particular religion turns out to be true, Humanists work to keep religion from encroaching into secular areas.

Evoking tolerance to excuse intolerance at the international level

As it has every year since 1999, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Islamic states, has proposed a ban on the defamation of religion at the United Nations.  Last year the vote was 81 to 55 in favor, while this year the vote was a less favorable 76 to 64.  The resolution has changed over years in search of a workable formulation:

The resolution was amended from versions passed in previous years in an attempt to secure support from Western nations. Instead of defamation of religion, it speaks of "vilification." It also condemned acts of violence and intimidation due to "Islamophobia, Judeophobia and Christianophobia."
Last year's resolution, as in previous years, focused on Islam and did not mention Judaism and Christianity.

The United States and the other non-Muslim states have generally opposed these resolutions as a limit on freedom of speech.  As the US envoy to the UN committee noted

"The resolution still seeks to curtail and penalize speech," he said. "The changes ... unfortunately do not get to the heart of our concerns -- the text's negative implications for both freedom of religion and freedom of expression."

Within some of the 56 Islamic states, themselves hardly exemplars of freedom and tolerance, any statement that the beliefs of Islam are not true is vilification and unacceptable.  The argument reduces to one of worldview.  On one side, religious law supersedes secular rights, while the other side reverses the order.  A Humanist would look to secular reasoning above revealed law.  So from a Humanist perspective these seemingly tolerant, accommodating and pacific resolutions are not advisable.