Supreme Court justice saves cross – for now

[Desertdog]

Supreme Court justice saves cross – for now
Kennedy steps in as 'national treasure' weeks from removal by judge's order
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50900


Mount Soledad cross and veterans memorial (soledadmemorial.com)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy intervened in a 17-year battle over a large cross on city property in San Diego, allowing the 29-foot structure to remain until its supporters complete a legal challenge.

As WorldNetDaily reported, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ordered the city to remove the structure by Aug. 1 or face a fine of $5,000 a day. Thompson ruled the cross unconstitutional in 1991, but the case has remained in courts and become an issue of public policy.


The dispute was started by an atheist charging the cross – the centerpiece of a national war-veterans memorial – violates the so-called "separation of church and state."

Kennedy issued a stay, without comment, that stops any legal proceedings while supporters of the cross battle in court.

Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to stay Judge Thompson's order. The court has scheduled oral arguments on the matter for the week of Oct. 16, weeks after the cross was scheduled to be removed.

In 2004, Congress paved the way for the cross to be preserved by designating the structure and the land on which it stands a national veterans memorial. The congressional action authorized the Department of the Interior to accept the property as a donation, to be administered under the National Park System.

Despite widespread support, however, the San Diego City Council declined to make the donation, prompting formation of a grass roots organization, "San Diegans for the Mt Soledad War Memorial," headed by Jewish businessman Philip Thalheimer.

The group led a petition drive, obtaining more than 100,000 signatures calling on the council to reverse its decision. The council put the question to voters in the special election in which 76 percent chose to preserve the cross. State Court Judge Patricia Cowett, however, ruled the proposition violated the California constitution. Her order is under appeal.

Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial said in their appeal to the Supreme Court that they wanted to avoid the "destruction of this national treasure."

Last week, former POW and U.S. senator Jeremiah Denton requested that President Bush authorize the federal government to take over the site.

In a letter recently delivered to the president, the war hero requested the federal government exercise its power of eminent domain in order to maintain the land as a national monument.

Over the past month, the president has received more than 450,000 e-mails from various conservative and faith-based organizations to save the cross. The White House has informed a source from a well known pro-family organization who wishes to remain anonymous that it will respond to the requests soon.

Responding to a question from WND last week, presidential press secretary Tony Snow said: "Right now, the president and the administration are actively reviewing both administrative and legislative options for preserving that veterans war memorial."

Meanwhile, in Congress, Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., introduced last week a bill to save the war memorial in its present form.

Hunter said in a statement, the memorial "has been a fixture of our local community for over 50 years, honoring veterans of all wars, including the global war on terrorism."

 

[LAR-15]

Soundz Good!

 

[fulloflead]

It's a good thing we have a secular government, that way we don't get a "tyrany of the majority" type of situation where people effectively establish one particular religion as the official one. You know, by putting giant crosses on government land and such to show everyone who's boss. It's a good thing that's illegal. And it's a good thing we have the courts to over-rule all the mob mentality.

.

 

[Desertdog]

It's a good thing we have a secular government, that way we don't get a "tyrany of the majority" type of situation where people effectively establish one particular religion as the official one.

A cross makes NOT a religion, no matter what atheist, agnostics or judges say.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

x2 Desertdog.

Let us hope that somewhere along the line, some level of judicial review will actually read the bloody Constitution, which actually says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

What the heck does building a statue have to do with enacting a law?

 

[One of Many]

The problem is that the Courts are trying to make laws respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. By trying to force the removal from the public eye, of any and all symbols associated with any religion, the Courts are in essence prohibiting the free exercise of the religions that are being hidden from public sight, and favoring (respecting an establishment of religion) the ATHEIST RELIGION, which allows others No Symbols representing a religious belief in a Supreme Being.

The atheist religion denies that there exists any power greater than the human, or the physical laws that nature operates under. The atheist equates random chance to the highest order of structure and organization observed in all of nature (what religious people refer to as the creation of a supreme being).

The proper way to deal with these issues of religious symbols on public property, is to allow any group to rent a standard sized portion of space on the public property, and erect at their own expense a symbol of their choice, within size and decency limits (no obscene indecent or pornographic symbols).

Then all religions are given the same opportunity too express themselves, by exercising free speech as allowed under the first amendment. The Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim etc. groups would have equal rights, and the atheist would be able to put up a symbol that represents the anti-God point of view as well.

 

[Shadan7]

Then all religions are given the same opportunity too express themselves, by exercising free speech as allowed under the first amendment. The Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim etc. groups would have equal rights, and the atheist would be able to put up a symbol that represents the anti-God point of view as well.

And who decides what qualifies as a religion? You've already accused atheists of having one (they'd deny it). Does every single sect of Christian belief get to put up their particular version of a cross? The Scientologists? How about the Pastafarians? It's gonna get awful crowded on that building. Or do you leave it up to some supposedly impartial judge...

Seems simpler to say "sorry, no religion zone. Move along. Build your churches, your temples, your reading rooms on private property..."

7

 

[MechAg94]

Next time we build a memorial, I am sure we can accomadate everyone.


I find it amusing that atheists seem to be so thin skinned that they track down any and all religious symbols and file lawsuits. I think they just feel threatened and are not very confident in their belief.

Atheism is a religion in that atheists have great faith in their belief that there is no God.

 

[mountainclmbr]

I agree and disagree. Athiesism is a belief system and, therefore is a religion. The war against crosses or other historical symbols is more about the religion of Socialism than Athiesm. Socialism holds the belief system that elite politicians are to be trusted and worshipped because they alone can supply all of your needs. It should be self evident that control oriented politicians will usually try to destroy any belief system that does not hold them at the highest level of worship. I just call it jelousy. The constitutions prohibition of the establishment of religion is forcing people to obey the beliefs of the government. The left comes closest to meeting this definition by their taxes and PC laws and general controlling laws that are meant to benefit the ruling class and supress self reliance.

 

[MIL-DOT]

i think this line in the constitution hasn't been getting a proportionate share of attention :
"...OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERSIZE,THEREOF."

 

[pcf]

I find it amusing that atheists seem to be so thin skinned that they track down any and all Christian symbols and file lawsuits.

Had to make a minor correction to your statement.

 

[coylh]

For a more informed explanation of what atheism is: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/intro.html

Now back to your regularly scheduled bickering...

 

[Lone_Gunman]

A cross makes NOT a religion, no matter what atheist, agnostics or judges say.

I am a Christian (Southern Baptist even) and go to Church pretty much every Sunday I am not working, but I am opposed to religious symbols on public property.

I certainly don't want a Crescent Moon, or Buddha, or that Elephant god thing that the Hindus worship to be placed on public property, and as a concession I am willing to not have Christian symbols placed on public property.

I apply this same logic to school prayer. I am willing to leave all prayer out of school. You never know what kind of wacked out religion your child's teacher has. I don't want my kid praying to what I consider false religions, so as a concession, I am willing to leave prayer out of school entirely.

 

[Shadan7]

Lone Gunman hits the nail right on the head. Atheism, as it is understood today, wasn't even around at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. No, the Founders knew that to protect one religion, you had to protect them all by making sure none was dominant. Beliefs rise and fall, fads come and go, the worm turns - why should any of us have to accept someone else's personal belief in our government or schools just because for some short period of time they are more politically powerful? I was raised Catholic, which for about a thousand years was the dominant religion in the West - now it is considered by many to be nigh-unto devil worship. Some who fervently believe in one set of 10 Commandments will find another set to be blasphemous - why should they have to put up with that other set in their courtrooms?

Better to leave government out of religion and religion out of government.

7

 

[longeyes]

What makes sense to me is to make FUTURE venues religion-free, either that or accommodate any and all sects. But mucking with extant religious symbols? Going after monuments to which strong feelings are already attached? This is a sure path toward certain sectarian strife, not toward spiritual peace.

It would be ideal if the debate were really about Constitutional issues than what it truly is, part of an ongoing and gravely serious cultural war, a component of which is militancy against all things "American," including traditional Christianity, and which will no doubt end with another Great Awakening, for better or worse.

For every Cross the restless symbol-seekers expunge there will be a hundred or a thousand secularist teachers harassed in the future. It will become a very nasty tit for tat as this cultural struggle is exacerbated. The litigious atheists, who seem to have a bug up their behinds about this, will eventually try the patience of those now observing in so far respectful silence but inwardly fuming.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Who the heck uses WND as their main source on a story? You might as well ask al Quieda for an independent unbiased story on the US, and it still be more reasonable.

 

[Marshall]

OH NO, a cross! Put it away, take it back, I'm powerless. Don't get that Holy Water around me either!

As far as I am concerned, atheist need to grow a spine. If they don't believe, they don't believe, fine. They shouldn't be such wimps in their conviction, or lack thereof, to feel they have to tear down any threat to their belief, or non belief, as it may be. I am sick and tired of the vast majority of the people having things that mean something to them taken away by leftist judges, the same judges that would control your guns if they could, on behalf of people to which these things mean nothing. I feel firmly that these symbols remind atheist of what they have turned their back on, GOD. Misery loves company though so I'm not surprised by their actions. They say God works in mysterious ways. Well, so does Satan, just not as mysterious.

I'm glad to hear what Kennedy has done. Finally, some level headed thinking comes into play.

 

[Cesiumsponge]

Atheists have no official sanctioning body, core dogma literature, or oganized hierchy at all. It is a lack of beliefs not only from a God, but a Goddess, gods, goddesses, monotheistic or polytheistic, or anything spiritual in nature which amounts to hundreds of thousands of religions out there in the world. It would be very difficult to throw all atheists in the same category unless you turn to grossly sweeping generalizations because they don't go to Sunday Atheist meetings or go to Atheist summer camp, or generally convene to discuss Atheist matters.

While it's fun (and easy) to sweep all opposing beliefs (political, social, religious, or otherwise) into a neat little category of "crazy people opposed to my beliefs", it's presumptuous to state that they're all identical. On a mostly conservative, Christian, and Republican forum, there are plenty of examples of pro-2A forum members that don't fall into that majority political/religious heading.

Attempting to fit all Atheists into one neat little group and calling them spineless, thin-skinned mercenaries with nothing to do rather than seek and destroy any signs of religious struture as a breech of "church and state" is as an immature as claiming all conservative Christian Republicans are fundamentalist nuts afraid of any beliefs outside of their own and must blow up abortion clinics and lynch African Americans. Yes, you have extreme (any belief, religious or otherwise) doing extreme actions, but that by no means defines the majority.

Just because an incredibly small, but vocal minority stirs the pot, doesn't automatically mean anyone under that general heading is identical and would react the same. If you're going to negatively define a structured system based on the actions of one man/woman, then there is enough ammunition laying around to shoot down every political belief and religion, including yours.

There are nearly 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world (second largest religion to Christianity). Are you to believe that all 1.5 billion of them are no-good suicide bombers because a vocal minority stirs up the pot? There are always going to be a few bad eggs...but even then, complaining about a statue is far from extreme as far as extremism goes.

 

[Soybomb]

Luckily we have rights that are supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority, at least in theory. If you think voting and letter writing should reverse the decision on this then you agree that san francisco citizens have no right to handguns because the majority voted as such?

You can't pick and choose only the rights you like.

 

[One of Many]

Worshipping the Creation, rather than the Creator

There are many people that place more reverence on the symbol of their religion, than they do on the subject of that symbol. They are like idol worshipers, that make an idol with their own hands, and then bow down and worship their creation. They do not seem to comprehend that the symbol is nothing but an identification mark, representing the ideals associated with that symbol. They will violate the principles associated with that symbol, without any thought at all, but get bent out of shape when the symbol itself is desecrated by someone holding to a different symbol.

There are thousands of denominations in the "Christian" faith, all holding different doctrines, yet all claiming to be the true worshippers of Christ; most use the cross as their symbol of identification, but some use the stylized fish. The different Jewish groups seem to use the Star of David to identify their belief; and the Mohammedans use a crescent, even though they also have factions, such as the Sunni and the Shiite. I am not familiar with all of the identifying marks used to represent religious thought. Most of these marks are shared by different factions, within the main belief system.

There are some religious people that believe NO SYMBOL should be used to represent their GOD, or the faith they hold in The God; those same people hold that there is no man-designated Holy Day that is to be held in sanctity. Those people only hold in religious regard the day identified by their God in the Holy writings (not man made creeds).

Some religious people create special titles to recognize influential leaders of their order of faith; people they worship in place of the God they identify with, associating the power of deity with their revered leaders.

Other people worship only MAN, believing that there is no supreme being, and that anything a man desires to do is acceptable, because each man is his own god. Those that have the power and the will, reign supreme over those that have less power, or will to exert their power. Guns and the right to own, possess and carry them, becomes the religion of some people, as it is seen to be the representation of the power of man.

Conflict in the name of a belief system has been the way of mankind since man was created from the dust of the earth, in the days when Cain slew Able. Conflict between nations created by rival brothers (Jewish and Arab) has existed throughout the centuries. Whether it is a religious rivalry, or an ethnic/tribal/racial rivalry, all of these rivals hold to some type of symbol as an identification to their friends and foes. The destruction or capture of these symbols is seen to be a sign of the potency of the group taking the opponents symbol.

The Atheist, believing only in the power of man, sees the destruction and prohibition of the symbols of deity worship as a sign of the strength of the religion of Atheism or Humanism. The absence of religious symbols is not a neutral position; it is a position favoring the atheistic belief. The only neutral position is that allowing any and all symbols equal display, when those displays are erected by private funding, without any cost to the government.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I have a question to those who support the idea of the cross on public property:

Would you be equally supportive of a statue of Buddha, or perhaps the Crescent Moon of Islam on public property?

If not, why not?

 

[bouis]

Lone_Gunman: if it were over the graves of thousands of Muslims or Buddhists who gave their lives for this country, I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Who would, except someone who disliked Muslims or Buddhists?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

bouis,

I am not sure I understand you. Would you support the religious icons of Buddhism or Islam being placed on public property (not talking about cemeteries)?

 

[bouis]

If the symbols had special significance to the community, were rationally related to the purpose of the government property on which they were located (e.g., a cross in a cemetary...) and were not presented in a way that was imposing, confrontational, or offensive to (reasonable) others, no, I'd have no problem with it.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

I don't think anyone has a problem with religious icons in cemetaries. Thats not what we were talking about.