U.S. govt gets giant cross in San Diego

[Bonnie]

Originally posted by Jim

U.S. govt gets giant cross in San Diego By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - A giant cross in San Diego that's been contested for 17 years by an atheist became the property of the federal government Monday with President Bush's signature.

Supporters hope the legislation transferring the 29-foot cross and war memorial it's a part of to the federal government will protect it for good. A series of court decisions have deemed the cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

"Just because something may have a religious connotation doesn't mean you destroy it and tear it down," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., after an Oval Office signing ceremony attended by other cross supporters and Republican House members from San Diego who sponsored the bill.

"It's a great victory for our veterans," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

But the legal fight that began in 1989 when atheist Philip Paulson sued San Diego over the cross is not played out yet.

Paulson's attorney, Jim McElroy, said he filed papers in federal court in San Diego last week to void the transfer and declare it unconstitutional.

"I don't think anybody really thinks the cross is going to remain on Mt. Soledad. It's been 17 years of litigation, and every court, every judge who's ever looked at it has ruled it's unconstitutional," McElroy said.

The bill signing "smacks of election-year politics," he said.

Paulson, a Vietnam War veteran, contends that the cross, dedicated in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans, excludes veterans who are not Christian.

State and federal judges have ordered the cross removed, saying it represents an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion. In July, the U.S. Supreme Court blocked an order that the city take it down by Aug. 1, giving lower courts time to hear appeals.

City officials have argued that the cross is part of a secular war memorial, and the cross has been embraced by San Diego residents who last year overwhelmingly approved a measure to preserve it by donating it to the federal government. A judge declared the measure unconstitutional.

The legislation authorizing the transfer passed the House and Senate in recent weeks after California's two senators, Democrats Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, agreed to let it go through.

Federal ownership could help insulate the cross from additional legal challenges, because under federal law, which is more flexible than California law, religious displays may stand on public property if they have a secular meaning.

 

[Gunny]

I find McElroy's assumption, and any court that agreed with it to be stupid.

 

[pegwinn]

Won't be long before crosses and stars of david will be removed from cemetaries.

 

[Annie]

Won't be long before crosses and stars of david will be removed from cemetaries.

I've thought the same, then I wonder, would Congress go along with what would in effect be desecration of vets resting place?

 

[Bonnie]

I think many vets would turn in their graves if they knew the bullsh-t going on today. It's come to sheer ridiculousness.

 

[dilloduck]

I think many vets would turn in their graves if they knew the bullsh-t going on today. It's come to sheer ridiculousness.

We're going to have to wash your mouth out with soap after today--you may as well let it all go, Bonnie!!

 

[Gunny]

Won't be long before crosses and stars of david will be removed from cemetaries.

Yeah. Mustn't force the dead to look at them.

 

[Bonnie]

We're going to have to wash your mouth out with soap after today--you may as well let it all go, Bonnie!!

As long as it's not Lifeboy soap

 

[PsuedoGhost]

Atheists confuse the shit out of me. I'm an atheist, but I dont see the purpose in trying to change people's religious beliefs, or removing religion from society. All atheists are managing to accomplish by taking on these "crusades" to remove religious symbols from the public view is committing, social and political suicide... It makes me sad to be considered lumped together with these idiots who do this kind of crap.

Now granted... Some of their activities have been justified... But still... This is ridiculous.

Have you visited their website? It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. They have a scholarship on their site for college students, and it asks you to write an essay about your activism in promoting separation of church and state in your life... These people are crazy! CRAZY!!! :shocked:

 

[pegwinn]

Yeah. Mustn't force the dead to look at them.

X actly.

I still don't get how a symbol, of any sort, is imposing itself on a person.

 

[fuzzykitten99]

You would think these pathetic losers with too much time on their hands would get tired of hearing their own bullshit.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Atheists confuse the shit out of me. I'm an atheist, but I dont see the purpose in trying to change people's religious beliefs, or removing religion from society. All atheists are managing to accomplish by taking on these "crusades" to remove religious symbols from the public view is committing, social and political suicide... It makes me sad to be considered lumped together with these idiots who do this kind of crap.

Now granted... Some of their activities have been justified... But still... This is ridiculous.

Have you visited their website? It's the craziest thing I've ever seen. They have a scholarship on their site for college students, and it asks you to write an essay about your activism in promoting separation of church and state in your life... These people are crazy! CRAZY!!! :shocked:

No they are not "crazy"....they are Communists/variations thereof. They have infiltrated the schools and the media to promote their "crazy" ideas one step at a time. Regular atheists like you never before had any problem with crosses, etc. existing in America. If you support America, recognize your true enemy.

 

[theHawk]

Won't be long before crosses and stars of david will be removed from cemetaries.

Thats exactly what I was thinking. These rabid religion haters will soon fight to have crosses removed from Arlington.

I have yet to see a liberal point out how a memorial or display of religion on public property equates to a "law respecting an establishment of religion".

But I guess liberals are too dumb to know the difference between a law written in books and a statue of something sitting in the grass.

 

[pegwinn]

Thats exactly what I was thinking. These rabid religion haters will soon fight to have crosses removed from Arlington.

I have yet to see a liberal point out how a memorial or display of religion on public property equates to a "law respecting an establishment of religion".

But I guess liberals are too dumb to know the difference between a law written in books and a statue of something sitting in the grass.

I know a guy who is an atheist and swears that the mere existence of a cross on public land (to be fair he rails against all symbols of any religion) is an imposition on his right to be free of religion. He advocates that national cemeteries use plain unadorned markers. He figures that the dead won't care as they no longer exist.

The only argument I ever had that shut him up for a moment was: "When I die, If I am wrong I will never know it. And if you are right, you will never know it."

 

[Annie]

I know a guy who is an atheist and swears that the mere existence of a cross on public land (to be fair he rails against all symbols of any religion) is an imposition on his right to be free of religion. He advocates that national cemeteries use plain unadorned markers. He figures that the dead won't care as they no longer exist.

The only argument I ever had that shut him up for a moment was: "When I die, If I am wrong I will never know it. And if you are right, you will never know it."

If we are to 'respect the troops' shouldn't we respect their beliefs, when alive? Give then the cross, star of David, crescent, whatever. It's the least we can do.

 

[Avatar4321]

This whole issue is so ridiculous.

However, I am not sure how this solves it. If I understand the article correctly, it has just transfered property to the federal government, which of course would still face the same bad reasoning the court used before.

I am also trying to figure out how this guy has any standing. I cant see how this guy is injured at all.

 

[Gunny]

This whole issue is so ridiculous.

However, I am not sure how this solves it. If I understand the article correctly, it has just transfered property to the federal government, which of course would still face the same bad reasoning the court used before.

I am also trying to figure out how this guy has any standing. I cant see how this guy is injured at all.

The Federal Government can have it declared a National Historical Marker/Monument and then it's "hands off EVERYONE."

The guy's claiming discrimination. That's all the standing you need in Left Coast courtrooms.