Federal Judge: Mt. Soledad Cross Must Come Down

[Alfalfa]

Federal Judge: Mt. Soledad Cross Must Come Down | Fox News

A cross atop Mount Soledad in California is an unconstitutional religious display on government land and must come down, a federal judge in San Diego ruled late Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns ordered the cross, which honors veterans, must be removed within 90 days -- a decision that could result in the case being sent back to the U.S. Supreme Court. Burns immediately stayed his order pending an expected appeal.

The original lawsuit was filed in 2006 by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the Jewish Veterans of the United States of American and several other Southern California residents.

Evidently it's not over yet. But I doubt the SC will take up the case.

I find it interesting JVUSA would file this lawsuit considering the close relationship jews have had with the city of la jolla over the years...

 

[Misty]

They left out the part where a private person offered to purchase the land so the government/religious conflict would no longer be a problem but they refused to sell it.

They just want the cross gone cuz you can see it from everywhere.

 

[Alfalfa]

They left out the part where a private person offered to purchase the land so the government/religious conflict would no longer be a problem but they refused to sell it.

They just want the cross gone cuz you can see it from everywhere.

Yes, the court ruled it a smoke and mirrors ruse and disallowed it.

 

[Alfalfa]

They left out the part where a private person offered to purchase the land so the government/religious conflict would no longer be a problem but they refused to sell it.

They just want the cross gone cuz you can see it from everywhere.

No, they want the cross removed because it is on public land, was referred to as the "Easter Cross" for 80 years until it was questioned, and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause.

If the city voted to change it to giant crescent honoring islam, would you be okay with that?

 

[bodecea]

They left out the part where a private person offered to purchase the land so the government/religious conflict would no longer be a problem but they refused to sell it.

They just want the cross gone cuz you can see it from everywhere.

That was going to be a sweetheart deal sale....and the JUDGE disallowed it, Misty because it was so transparent.

 

[novasteve]

Given the state is a religion for libfags maybe we should start banning government

 

[Alfalfa]

They left out the part where a private person offered to purchase the land so the government/religious conflict would no longer be a problem but they refused to sell it.

They just want the cross gone cuz you can see it from everywhere.

That was going to be a sweetheart deal sale....and the JUDGE disallowed it, Misty because it was so transparent.

What's even funnier is the HOUSE OF REPS voted to make the prop federal land and the court ALSO threw that out as being equally transparent and an attempt to bypass the court system and the plaintiffs right to equal protection.

As if a giant cross on federal land would be any more constitutional than a giant crescent, menorah or pasta strainer.

 

[bodecea]

They left out the part where a private person offered to purchase the land so the government/religious conflict would no longer be a problem but they refused to sell it.

They just want the cross gone cuz you can see it from everywhere.

That was going to be a sweetheart deal sale....and the JUDGE disallowed it, Misty because it was so transparent.

What's even funnier is the HOUSE OF REPS voted to make the prop federal land and the court ALSO threw that out as being equally transparent and an attempt to bypass the court system and the plaintiffs right to equal protection.

As if a giant cross on federal land would be any more constitutional than a giant crescent, menorah or pasta strainer.

Now...if the city would go thru the proper procedures to sell the land at a legitimate price.....it will just be another private hill with another cross on it...we've got dozens of those all over San Diego Co.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

The first quarter second I saw this...my first thought was "bet it is California"....surprise.

 

[Alfalfa]

That was going to be a sweetheart deal sale....and the JUDGE disallowed it, Misty because it was so transparent.

What's even funnier is the HOUSE OF REPS voted to make the prop federal land and the court ALSO threw that out as being equally transparent and an attempt to bypass the court system and the plaintiffs right to equal protection.

As if a giant cross on federal land would be any more constitutional than a giant crescent, menorah or pasta strainer.

Now...if the city would go thru the proper procedures to sell the land at a legitimate price.....it will just be another private hill with another cross on it...we've got dozens of those all over San Diego Co.

The giant cross never received a proper building code variance in 1913 (or subsequently as there were 3 crosses but each one was ignored like it was "grandfathered" in because it was christian) and if the land is sold the new owners would have to get a new permit for the cross, which will never happen.

Because once they allow this one anyone might be able to put up a giant religious symbol on their private property and there are just enough religious nuts to do it everywhere they can.

 

[Alfalfa]

The first quarter second I saw this...my first thought was "bet it is California"....surprise.

Why is that?

 

[bodecea]

What's even funnier is the HOUSE OF REPS voted to make the prop federal land and the court ALSO threw that out as being equally transparent and an attempt to bypass the court system and the plaintiffs right to equal protection.

As if a giant cross on federal land would be any more constitutional than a giant crescent, menorah or pasta strainer.

Now...if the city would go thru the proper procedures to sell the land at a legitimate price.....it will just be another private hill with another cross on it...we've got dozens of those all over San Diego Co.

The giant cross never received a proper building code variance in 1913 (or subsequently as there were 3 crosses but each one was ignored like it was "grandfathered" in because it was christian) and if the land is sold the new owners would have to get a new permit for the cross, which will never happen.

Because once they allow this one anyone might be able to put up a giant religious symbol on their private property and there are just enough religious nuts to do it everywhere they can.

Been to San Diego Co.? There are crosses on almost every third hill here.....on private property, of course.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

There's a giant cross on one of the hills in San Francisco. It's in the movie Dirty Harry.

The city sold the land to the Knights of Columbus in the 80s, I think, to prevent church/state issues.

 

[Alfalfa]

Now...if the city would go thru the proper procedures to sell the land at a legitimate price.....it will just be another private hill with another cross on it...we've got dozens of those all over San Diego Co.

The giant cross never received a proper building code variance in 1913 (or subsequently as there were 3 crosses but each one was ignored like it was "grandfathered" in because it was christian) and if the land is sold the new owners would have to get a new permit for the cross, which will never happen.

Because once they allow this one anyone might be able to put up a giant religious symbol on their private property and there are just enough religious nuts to do it everywhere they can.

Been to San Diego Co.? There are crosses on almost every third hill here.....on private property, of course.

Yes I've been to San Diego but didn't see a cross anywhere.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, they want the cross removed because it is on public land, was referred to as the "Easter Cross" for 80 years until it was questioned, and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause.

If the city voted to change it to giant crescent honoring islam, would you be okay with that?

So 80 years ago it wasn't a violation, 50 years ago it wasn't a violation, 20 years ago it wasn't a violation, but now it is?

It seems to me that it's not the Constitution that is the problem, but rather the people who are reading it.

 

[Yurt]

No, they want the cross removed because it is on public land, was referred to as the "Easter Cross" for 80 years until it was questioned, and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause.

If the city voted to change it to giant crescent honoring islam, would you be okay with that?

So 80 years ago it wasn't a violation, 50 years ago it wasn't a violation, 20 years ago it wasn't a violation, but now it is?

It seems to me that it's not the Constitution that is the problem, but rather the people who are reading it.

interesting argument, however, it begs the question....what about gay marriage? or equal rights? or women's right to vote?

i'm torn on religious issues, because i can see if it was another religion. what if it were a crescent moon? the difficulty is, we as a nation have fought hard for religious freedom so as not to become a theocracy. as such, we have the first amendment and subsequent scotus cases. while this country has christianity as the majority religion, what if that changes?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, they want the cross removed because it is on public land, was referred to as the "Easter Cross" for 80 years until it was questioned, and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause.

If the city voted to change it to giant crescent honoring islam, would you be okay with that?

So 80 years ago it wasn't a violation, 50 years ago it wasn't a violation, 20 years ago it wasn't a violation, but now it is?

It seems to me that it's not the Constitution that is the problem, but rather the people who are reading it.

interesting argument, however, it begs the question....what about gay marriage? or equal rights? or women's right to vote?

i'm torn on religious issues, because i can see if it was another religion. what if it were a crescent moon? the difficulty is, we as a nation have fought hard for religious freedom so as not to become a theocracy. as such, we have the first amendment and subsequent scotus cases. while this country has christianity as the majority religion, what if that changes?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

No law was made establishing a state religion. This was never meant to prohibit a cross in a cemetery and that should be more than obvious to anyone with at least a second grade education. This part of the First Amendment has been bastardized by an activist judiciary willing to invoke their own personal opinions into our laws.

 

[Alfalfa]

No, they want the cross removed because it is on public land, was referred to as the "Easter Cross" for 80 years until it was questioned, and is therefore a violation of the establishment clause.

If the city voted to change it to giant crescent honoring islam, would you be okay with that?

So 80 years ago it wasn't a violation, 50 years ago it wasn't a violation, 20 years ago it wasn't a violation, but now it is?

It seems to me that it's not the Constitution that is the problem, but rather the people who are reading it.

You can't be this...lacking in education.

 

[Alfalfa]

So 80 years ago it wasn't a violation, 50 years ago it wasn't a violation, 20 years ago it wasn't a violation, but now it is?

It seems to me that it's not the Constitution that is the problem, but rather the people who are reading it.

interesting argument, however, it begs the question....what about gay marriage? or equal rights? or women's right to vote?

i'm torn on religious issues, because i can see if it was another religion. what if it were a crescent moon? the difficulty is, we as a nation have fought hard for religious freedom so as not to become a theocracy. as such, we have the first amendment and subsequent scotus cases. while this country has christianity as the majority religion, what if that changes?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

No law was made establishing a state religion. This was never meant to prohibit a cross in a cemetery and that should be more than obvious to anyone with at least a second grade education. This part of the First Amendment has been bastardized by an activist judiciary willing to invoke their own personal opinions into our laws.

I'm sorry, who's talking about a cross in a cemetery? Did you just fib?