Mt. Soledad Cross...another Church/State discussion

[Zguy28]

There is a war memorial in San Diego on Mt Soledad. It has a huge cross at the center which is trying to be removed by an atheist over the last 15 years. Over 75% of voters in the city want it to stay, yet it is being taken down by one man. Thoughts on this?

Here is what the actual memorial site has to say:

October 29th 2005In July of 2004, the City of San Diego placed Proposition “A” on the ballot, asking the voters whether or not they wanted the City to give the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial Walls, the Veterans Memorial Cross and the land they both sit on to the Federal Government under the jurisdiction of the National Parks Service. Proposition “A” passed handily with 75% of the voters voting in favor of the transfer. However, even prior to the vote, Philip Paulson, the Plaintiff, had filed objections to the proposition. Unfortunately, the court was not able to rule on his objections until after the election was held.

On October 3, 2005, Judge Cowett, a Federal Judge, ruled that Proposition A was unconstitutional. That means that the transfer will not be able to take place unless the ruling is appealed and reversed by a higher court. The San Diego City Attorney, Mike Aguirre, has indicated that the City will not appeal this ruling. Neither will the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association. However, it is unclear whether or not other parties (parties not named in the lawsuit) will attempt to appeal Judge Cowett’s ruling.

If Judge Cowett’s ruling is not appealed, it appears that the City of San Diego will have no choice other than to enter into a settlement agreement with Paulson and the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association.

Proceeding on a parallel path in the courts is the issue of whether or not the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association is the legal owner of the half acre parcel it purchased from the city in 1998 and whether or not it owns the Memorial Cross. These issues are slated to come before Federal Court Judge, Gordon Thompson, Jr. within the next few weeks. The City of San Diego contends that it owns both the land and the cross - a position that is opposite from arguments it has made in the underlying case for over 10 years. The Mt. Soledad Memorial Association believes it has always owned the cross and holds the deed to the half acre parcel in question. The City of San Diego has not returned the money paid to it by the Association when the Association purchased the parcel in 1998.

May 10th 2006

Cross update:

I’m sure you are all aware of the ruling made by Judge Thompson yesterday in Federal Court that requires the City of San Diego to comply with his 1991 injunction that requires the cross to be removed from the park. Many people are asking what our response will be to this ruling so I thought it prudent to issue a statement that all of you can use to answer questions and uncomfortable situations that may come your way.

Judge Thompson’s ruling has three elements:

(1)It requires the City to move the cross within 90 days. The clock started yesterday, May 3, 2006 and, by my reckoning, the 90-day period ends on 8/1/2006.

(2)It imposes a fine of $5,000 per day on the City for every day the cross remains in the park beyond the 90-day grace period.

(3)It rendered the Settlement Agreement calling for relocation of the cross “moot” – i.e. it no longer exists.

As you are seeing in the news, there is a considerable amount of public discomfort with Judge Thompson’s ruling and there is the potential for violence and/or vandalism of the site. However, as things unfold, it is important to keep in mind that this issue is entirely between Mr. Paulson (the atheist who initiated the cross litigation) and the City of San Diego.

Judge Thompson’s order placed the responsibility for removing the cross squarely in the hands of the City. Therefore, our association must take the role of “observer” and must not become an active participant in whatever transpires. We must also keep in mind that our purpose is to honor veterans.

[Destino]

You want my thoughts? I think it's bull**** and I'm sick of atheists waging a legal war on Christianity. People claim that Christians are being intolerant for not wanting every mark of thier belief scrubbed from public places - but that's garbage. A handful of individuals are using the courts to push their values on the rest.

[SkinsOrlando]

You want my thoughts? I think it's bull**** and I'm sick of atheists waging a legal war on Christianity. People claim that Christians are being intolerant for not wanting every mark of thier belief scrubbed from public places - but that's garbage. A handful of individuals are using the courts to push their values on the rest.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[Zguy28]

You want my thoughts? I think it's bull**** and I'm sick of atheists waging a legal war on Christianity. People claim that Christians are being intolerant for not wanting every mark of thier belief scrubbed from public places - but that's garbage. A handful of individuals are using the courts to push their values on the rest.

Tell me how you really feel. And in caps next time. Just kidding with you Des..

[ashburnskinsfan]

You want my thoughts? I think it's bull**** and I'm sick of atheists waging a legal war on Christianity. People claim that Christians are being intolerant for not wanting every mark of thier belief scrubbed from public places - but that's garbage. A handful of individuals are using the courts to push their values on the rest.

If this was a war memorial specific to Christians, I could understand your perspective. But why does a war memorial which honors my relatives (who were not Christians) have a big Christian cross on it?

Would you want a war memorial to your Christian relatives to have a Star of David or Crescent on it?

[gbear]

If the voters opted to sell, the land should belong to whomever it was sold to to do whatever they wish with it. This case is sad, but I suspect I think so forfar different reasons than most. Allowing the voted on sale made the most sense and would have prevented the outcry.

[prophet]

You want my thoughts? I think it's bull**** and I'm sick of atheists waging a legal war on Christianity. People claim that Christians are being intolerant for not wanting every mark of thier belief scrubbed from public places - but that's garbage. A handful of individuals are using the courts to push their values on the rest.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[HOF44]

If this was a war memorial specific to Christians, I could understand your perspective. But why does a war memorial which honors my relatives (who were not Christians) have a big Christian cross on it?

Would you want a war memorial to your Christian relatives to have a Star of David or Crescent on it?

This is a christian country!! If you fight and die to protect it you should be proud to be burried under the cross!!

[Destino]

If this was a war memorial specific to Christians, I could understand your perspective. But why does a war memorial which honors my relatives (who were not Christians) have a big Christian cross on it?

Would you want a war memorial to your Christian relatives to have a Star of David or Crescent on it?

Great question at the end, my answer: I wouldn't mind at all.

When I see symbols of other cultures I don't recoil in disgust and claim that because I witnessed it on public land that I am having it forced on me. Differences are ok. I don't like is the idea that the only way to show respect is to hide differences and never expose your neighbor or anyone else to it. I don't like that secularism imposed on me is ok but a cross is insulting.

[Prosperity]

If this was a war memorial specific to Christians, I could understand your perspective. But why does a war memorial which honors my relatives (who were not Christians) have a big Christian cross on it?

Would you want a war memorial to your Christian relatives to have a Star of David or Crescent on it?

There are no atheists in fox holes, or Jews or Muslims or Hindus...

EDIT to add content:

In my ideal world the symbol that the community chooses would be up to the community, but they would choose a more inclusive symbol.

[Skins24]

If this was a war memorial specific to Christians, I could understand your perspective. But why does a war memorial which honors my relatives (who were not Christians) have a big Christian cross on it?

So...all the non Christians should have their crosses removed right?

[HOF44]

So...all the non Christians should have their crosses removed right?

They don;t all have to be crosses.

http://library.thinkquest.org/2901/faq.htm

6. There are twenty-five accepted symbols that can be placed on government stones. Most have a simple cross indicating Christian ,but there are symbols for other faiths, such as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Methodist, Mormon, American Indian, and Atheist. The atheist symbol is an atom molecule.

[Bang]

I think the cross is also symbolic of peace in almost every culture, and in many other cultures also used as a symbol to honor the dead.

i don't have a problem with it. I could agree that if other faiths who have honored dead there want to erect a similar structure they can, so long as it remains an aesthetic addition to the overall memorial. Here in DC we have additions made to memorials all the time to recognize races that were not when the memorial was made.

~Bang

[Prosperity]

I think the cross is also symbolic of peace in almost every culture, and in many other cultures also used as a symbol to honor the dead.

I am pretty sure that is not true, but if it is considered that way in this culture then that may be enough.

[Zguy28]

They don;t all have to be crosses.

http://library.thinkquest.org/2901/faq.htm

6. There are twenty-five accepted symbols that can be placed on government stones. Most have a simple cross indicating Christian ,but there are symbols for other faiths, such as Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Methodist, Mormon, American Indian, and Atheist. The atheist symbol is an atom molecule.

What does the MEthodist look like if not the Cross?

[Zguy28]

EDIT to add content:

In my ideal world the symbol that the community chooses would be up to the community, but they would choose a more inclusive symbol.

I agree, that would be ideal in most cases.

Heres an example of when it goes wrong in my opinion, but who am I and what do I know?

The Red Crystal relief?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4497840.stm

[Prosperity]

What does the MEthodist look like if not the Cross?

cross+flame?

I agree, that would be ideal in most cases.

Heres an example of when it goes wrong in my opinion, but who am I and what do I know?

The Red Crystal relief?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4497840.stm

Well, I doubt anyone in need will really care, but if they want to do it to be more easily accepted in non Christian countries (in this case Israel)...hey why not?

[Goaldeje]

Great question at the end, my answer: I wouldn't mind at all.

When I see symbols of other cultures I don't recoil in disgust and claim that because I witnessed it on public land that I am having it forced on me. Differences are ok. I don't like is the idea that the only way to show respect is to hide differences and never expose your neighbor or anyone else to it. I don't like that secularism imposed on me is ok but a cross is insulting.

:applause: Bingo. If the mere sight of a symbol of someone else's faith causes such distress and revulsion, you probably need counselling of some sort. And I say that from a psychological perspective, not sarcastic. We talk a lot about tolerence and such, but this isn't tolerance. This is tearing down what some people believe in because a small percentage of the population whines too damn much. Squeeky wheel, I guess.

[ashburnskinsfan]

So...all the non Christians should have their crosses removed right?

I think a memorial to military heroes looks more like this:

Whether there are crosses or Star of Davids on the graves of soldiers has nothing to do with the San Diego cross. There are no graves there, and it is billed as a war memorial. It is simply a giant Christian cross whose supporters now claim it represents all soldiers. Not for me.

[ashburnskinsfan]

:applause: Bingo. If the mere sight of a symbol of someone else's faith causes such distress and revulsion, you probably need counselling of some sort. And I say that from a psychological perspective, not sarcastic. We talk a lot about tolerence and such, but this isn't tolerance. This is tearing down what some people believe in because a small percentage of the population whines too damn much. Squeeky wheel, I guess.

Take it easy with the straw men. :doh: Distress and revulsion? :doh:

Personally I'm not arguing we should tear down Christian symbols on government property. But a memorial to all fallen heroes does not need to promote one religion over another.

Perhaps you should get some counselling so that you can deal with "a small percentage of the population whining too damn much" about upholding the law of the land. :laugh:

[Teller]

Yet again, one fool and one activist judge who apparently have never read the Establishment Clause, overruling the will of the VAST majority. Disgusting.

[Prosperity]

Yet again, one fool and one activist judge who apparently have never read the Establishment Clause, overruling the will of the VAST majority. Disgusting.

Don't you find it amazing at just how many judges are out there that don't understand what is as clear as the light of day to Honorary Hog. I mean after all they are experts in the field of law and have years of experience.

[Teller]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Period. Plain as the light of day, indeed.

[Prosperity]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Period. Plain as the light of day, indeed.

here is a quote I stole from DJTJ (Justice O'Connor's words):

Reasonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religion Clauses in a given case. But the goal of the Clauses is clear: to carry out the Founders’ plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. The well-known statement that “[w]e are a religious people,” Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 313 (1952), has proved true. Americans attend their places of worship more often than do citizens of other developed nations, R. Fowler, A. Hertzke, & L. Olson, Religion and Politics in America 28—29 (2d ed. 1999), and describe religion as playing an especially important role in their lives, Pew Global Attitudes Project, Among Wealthy Nations U.S. Stands Alone in its Embrace of Religion (Dec. 19, 2002). Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

Our guiding principle has been James Madison’s–that “[t]he Religion … of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man.” Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 2 Writings of James Madison 183, 184 (G. Hunt ed. 1901) (hereinafter Memorial). To that end, we have held that the guarantees of religious freedom protect citizens from religious incursions by the States as well as by the Federal Government. Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940). Government may not coerce a person into worshiping against her will, nor prohibit her from worshiping according to it. It may not prefer one religion over another or promote religion over nonbelief. Everson, supra, at 15—16. It may not entangle itself with religion. Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 674 (1970). And government may not, by “endorsing religion or a religious practice,” “mak[e] adherence to religion relevant to a person’s standing in the political community.” Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 69 (1985) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).

When we enforce these restrictions, we do so for the same reason that guided the Framers–respect for religion’s special role in society. Our Founders conceived of a Republic receptive to voluntary religious expression, and provided for the possibility of judicial intervention when government action threatens or impedes such expression. Voluntary religious belief and expression may be as threatened when government takes the mantle of religion upon itself as when government directly interferes with private religious practices. When the government associates one set of religious beliefs with the state and identifies nonadherents as outsiders, it encroaches upon the individual’s decision about whether and how to worship. In the marketplace of ideas, the government has vast resources and special status. Government religious expression therefore risks crowding out private observance and distorting the natural interplay between competing beliefs. Allowing government to be a potential mouthpiece for competing religious ideas risks the sort of division that might easily spill over into suppression of rival beliefs. Tying secular and religious authority together poses risks to both.

http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/s...03-1693.ZC.html

I think she makes a compelling argument

[Cskin]

Don't you find it amazing at just how many judges are out there that don't understand what is as clear as the light of day to Honorary Hog. I mean after all they are experts in the field of law and have years of experience.

It's not that they don't understand the clause... it's that someone else has set the precedent, a false one finding meaning in the clause that most Constitutional scholars find inncorrect, and these judges simply continue the falsehood because it suits their liberal agenda. Liberalism... the enemy within.