Posted on 05/13/2006 6:26:18 AM PDT by radar101
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders has indicated that he would fight hard to save the Mount Soledad cross. He also indicated that “The courts have routinely approved secular monuments that have crosses as an element of the (war memorial) monument.”
This is not a true statement. There is not one single federal or California case that has ever approved the permanent placement of a cross on federal land, state land or city land, monument or no monument, war memorial or no war memorial. Quite the contrary, there are 10 c ases that have ruled on the permanent presence of crosses on public land, and they have all agreed that such crosses are unconstitutional.
Several of those 10 cases presented the courts with the exact argument the mayor wants to make, e.g., that a Latin cross which becomes part of a veterans memorial somehow loses its predominantly religious significance. In every case, that argument has been rejected. Courts have held that the official designation as a war memorial does not relieve a Latin cross of its predominantly religious message.
Apparently, someone is giving the mayor very bad legal advice and that someone is not the city attorney. Mike Aguirre's office has repeatedly advised the City Council and the mayor that the city can not win this case.
The mayor says this fight is not about the cross, but about the war memorial. Agin, this is untrue. The war memorial isn't going anywhere. It is the cross that will be moved. The cross was dedicated on Easter Sunday, not Memorial Day. Easter sunrise services were held up there every year until the courts pointed out the religious significance of the cross.
This is a 40-foot, 20-ton symbol of the Christian religion that significantly predates our war memorial. Of course it is a religious symbol! That is why people are trying to save it.
Why do you think the Thomas More Law Center and American Center for Law and Justice are offering to help the mayor? They aren't veterans' organizations – they are Christian advocacy groups.
Finally, the mayor also told the Union-Tribune that he has his “marching orders” from the 190,000 voters who voted for Proposition A. But he conveniently forgets to mention the 250,000 who voted six months earlier to move the cross to a nearby church by voting no on Proposition K. Why is he following the marching orders of 190,000 voters and ignoring the marching orders of 250,000 voters?
He also fails to mention that the city passed an ordinance on July 21, 2004, stating unequivocally that the city “shall” enter into the agreement to move the cross to a nearby parcel of private property if Proposition K failed, which it overwhelmingly did. Do our city officials have no integrity? Isn't 17 years of litigation enough for the city to figure out what must ultimately be done? And does the mayor really believe that 190,000 votes can relieve the city of its obligation to obey the Constitution and comply with valid court orders?
The mayor's hard-earned reputation as a pragmatic and moderate leader is being seriously tested by his response to this case. He has succeeded in cutting the firefighters' pay and holding the police to another year without a raise, but he wants to throw millions of tax dollars away on a case that every judge who has looked at it and even his own city attorney have told him he can't win.
JIM McELROY Attorney for plaintiff Phil Paulson San Diego
ONE ATHIEST wants it gone.
76% of San Diego voted to keep it.
"This is a 40-foot, 20-ton symbol of the Christian religion ..."
Huh, the "Christian religion"?!?!?
What's that and where's the nearest "Christian church"? And what are its rites, tenets and how does one join this "Christian religion"?
Atheism is the national religion (philosophical worldview comprising beliefs and faith claims about morality and mankind's origins and destiny) imposed at the behest and for the benefit of a tiny minority of true believer atheists.
Just wait.
It's time to push back and push back hard.
Accusing the Mayor of misinformation when he makes the biggest blunder of all does indicate where he is coming from. "Christian religion" indeed...
It's been rather obvious from the start that this case has nothing to do with the so called "separation of church and state" and everything to do with removing the cross.
That is an excellent idea; all Congress needs to do is to remove jurisdiction over these cases from the federal courts and let the ACLU and its very few acolytes in the US sue, sue and sue. But don't expect the REpublican Congress to "waste" time doing this; they're too busy shoveling money for worthless projects and preventing renewable energy from being used in offshore Hyannis Port as a favor to Teddy Kennedy.
If this Paulson character doesn't like the view, MOVE.
I believe there was a court case about a cross on some federal land in Oklahoma several (10+) years ago. At least I think it is on federal land. Anyway, the cross is still there. I'm trying to remember the specifics of the case. I do know the anti-cross folks lost the case though.
You're kidding, right? This particular story in San Diego has been going on for over a decade. WE'RE LOSING. We are. Push back hard? WHO? This Country will be unrecognizable in 20 years. I used to be optimistic. But I'm not anymore. We had the biggest chance this past six years, and we elected spineless crooks who didn't give a rat's ass about the things they said they'd do during election times. The Dems will take over and we will have a Democrat President in 2008. I'm being realistic.
This is what has always bothered me about so-called atheists. My understanding is that they don't believe there is a God. So therefore, why does this bother them so much? I think they DO believe there is a God, and they HATE Him. So, they must do all they can to remove anything from their sight that reminds them of this fact. I don't believe in monsters under my bed. So, I just don't think about them. Meanwhile, those who DO believe in monsters under their bed, are free to put garlic, or whatever else repels monsters,under there, and it does not bother me one whit. The fact that God-believers outnumber monster-fearers, and are willing to pay for their symbols, is tough luck to the monster- fearers!
How can you NOT believe that there are monsters under the bed. Havn't years of "Calvin" cartoons shown you the truth. LOL
No, the real question is why is does the city have to bow down to one religiously intolerant bigoted @sshole like Phil Paulson and ignoring the 190,000 people that want to keep the cross?
What would George Washington do? It beggars belief to think that writers of the Constitution would ban this cross. Those who say it does aren't expressing a real opinion on the Constitution, they are consciously lying. It is an example of the complete control that liberalism has over debate in the society, and the complete servility of their "conservative" "opponents" that this argument is treated seriously at all.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.