Judge says giant cross must be removed from San Diego mountain

[Capt. Obvious]

Source: CNN

A giant cross that has stood on a Southern California mountain for decades must be removed because it violates the constitutional separation of church and state, a judge ordered this week.

The order Thursday by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns continues a long legal battle about the 43-foot cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego.

Burns ordered that the cross would have to be removed within 90 days. But the cross may be able to stay if the case is appealed, the judge ordered.

....

Bailey said his organization plans to appeal, which would mean the cross would stay as the decades-long legal battle continued.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/justice/california-cross-battle/

---

Good.

RW coworker is outraged about this ruling. Also good.

[cosmicone]

1. I know .. the wingnuts and teabaggers

are going to explode over this! Just in time to ruin their Xmas.

[idwiyo]

2. Good. I think we should start a fundraiser to sponsor installation of giant FSM statue

right next to the cross. For as long as that cross remains.

[Pantagruelsmember]

14. Appropriate response

Katashi_itto
Hindus Propose Giant Monkey God Statue On Oklahoma Capitol Grounds
(Addicting Info) How’s that law for religious displays working out for you, right-wing Christians of Oklahoma? Sure, you got to put up your giant 10 commandments monument in front of the State House. But this opened up the door for the Satanic Temple to ask for a memorial. Now, the Hindus are calling for their own religious statue to be placed on the state capitol grounds in Oklahoma City. Hindu group wants to erect a giant statue of Lord Hanuman.

[CrispyQ]

19. Bravo!!

[murielm99]

143. I think the Hindus have a great response!

And I am a practicing Christian who loves Christmas.

[Loudly]

3. The religionists will ultimately win this one.

Because of the influence of religionists IN OUR GOVERNMENT.

And because of their previous victory at Mojave:

http://aclj.org/american-heritage/mojave-desert-cross-rededicated-veterans-day

[jwirr]

4. Our Constitution now applies to a religious symbol in another nation? What is going on here?

[Xipe Totec]

18. ?! What other Nation?

[jwirr]

51. Sorry I was thinking about the statue in South America. I am 72 years old - and wrong some of the

time. Thanks for the correction.

[bowens43]

5. Good. I am so tired of Christains pushing thier religion on the rest of us.

[Demo_Chris]

6. Dynamite it in place and use the scrap to make Darwin Fish trunk medallions. nt

[Iggo]

7. Just follow the fucking rules, christians!

Jeezuz H. Kee-ryst! What's so goddamed difficult to understand here?

[FrodosPet]

139. Same for the Detroit City Council

Hopefully, the new council members will be more respectful of the separation of church and state, and not allow themselves to be preached to in public chambers.

[Ranchemp.]

8. What's the big fucking deal?

A cross that's been on a mountain top for decades? So fucking what? This is such a stupid issue, aren't there more pressing issues to address? You know, things like equality, gay marriage, bloated defense budget?
This is nothing but a distraction from the real issues.

[Capt. Obvious]

10. This has been a decades long fight as well

if you read the rest of the article.

[TeeYiYi]

17. It's a Korean War memorial...

that was erected in 1954 in honor of the soldiers whose lives were lost in that war.

The fights over the monument didn't start until 35 years later, in 1989.

I'm no fan of christian symbolism and I'm a firm believer in the separation of church and state but I think this monument should be allowed to stand.

TYY

[Capt. Obvious]

27. And two Vietnam veterans are the ones who started that legal fight

Fuck them.

[MyNameGoesHere]

31. I am no fan of crosses period

so why do you think one or two here and there is ok? And by the way, The present structure was erected in 1954; it is the third cross in that location, the first having been put up in 1913. Remember "In god we trust" has been rammed down our throats during this time period as well. Also the "under god" added to the pledge. I mean we were on a commie hunt and everyone knows that god is the commies krypton.

See it is when you "allow to stand" that it starts creeping into society and becomes a fixture. The proverbial slippery slope. I chose surer footing than that.

I would send it off in a wonderful explosion with a about 50 pounds of dynamite.

[haele]

71. Actually, no. It became a Korean War Memorial back in 1989/1990. It was an Easter Cross in 1954.

La Jolla was a covenent development since 1913. No Jews, Blacks, Mexicans, Native Americans, Chinese, etc allowed until 1965, and even then, they had a tough time buying property if it was known.

The Korean War Memorial was claimed because this last version of the La Jolla/Mt. Soledad Easter Cross was built in 1954, after the old stucco frame cross had fallen apart.
I know some long-time La Jolla residents. There has been a huge controversy over that cross since UCSD was built in 1960, and they couldn't continue to exclude all those nasty non-white christians from living in their nice little get-away from LA community.

Haele

[TeeYiYi]

97. From the link in the OP...

The cross was erected in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans and has been the subject of near constant judicial back and forth since 1989, when two Vietnam War veterans filed suit saying it violated the California Constitution's "No Preference" clause.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/13/justice/california-cross-battle/

TYY

[cleanhippie]

102. It's a Christian cross on public property.

Call it what you will, that fact remains, and it's unconstitutional. Period.

What's the big deal? Don't you think we should follow the rule of law?

[TeeYiYi]

130. It could be worse...

TYY

[cleanhippie]

137. Is that Base Jump Jesus?

[haele]

108. CNN - the OP's wrong. The Korean War Memorial was added to the base of the cross.

The actual memorial was put in around 1991/92, after the evangelical group supporting the cross in 1990 claimed it had been erected in 1954 "to honor the Korean War Veterans". I was actually living in La Jolla, doing part-time work for UCSD at the time.

Before then, it was called "The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross". One of my elderly neighbors at the time who had lived in La Jolla all her life told me it had been erected in 1954 by a local architect who lived a couple blocks down the road when the old wood and stucco Easter Cross burned down in a brush fire in 1952. The land is designated federal land, at one time considered part of old Camp Elliot (there was a WWII aircraft and ocean watchtower, a meterology station, and a MARS transmitter also at the site unitl 1964), but since no one but the locals and the military ever went there, so long as whatever was put up didn't interfere with military operations, it was pretty much ignored.

That site had been used for easter sunrise services since the 1920's - it's the tallest hill on the coast, and you can see pretty much the entire costal/inland San Diego County from the point the Cross is located.

I understand why you're upset that about a memorial under a controversy, but this whole issue is contrived. There's nothing about the cross itself that was erected as a War Memorial. The Korean War memorial and plaque with a highly exaggerated dedication date of 1954 (because the Easter Cross was erected at that time) was added in the early 1990's to give the site the illusion that this was supposed to be in honor of the Korean War, and the Memorial itself will not be removed when or if the cross is removed or if the land under it is bought and transferred to a private owner.

The RW Christian coalition doesn't want to take control of the land the cross is on because that would mean that this isn't "One Nation Under God". It's a f'n game to them. They want a huge cross promoting their religion on federal ground rather than compromise or include veterans that don't belong to thier particular little worldview.

That was the sticking point the last time this came up.

And it's the sticking point now, because the people with the most money in La Jolla, the people who can perminantly fix this problem by purchasing the land at a significantly reduced price from the federal government, are RW prosperity gospel a-holes who want to force their religion on the federal government and the citizens of the United States. The RW'ers refused to join in with the Episcopal church that is only half a mile down the hill and would have maintained the property to purchase it.
Probably because they'd have to keep the plaquards put up by the non-Xtians - like those Jewish Korean War Veterans who have a plaque up but are complaing about the cross that had originally been erected and re-erected as a not so subtle "No Jews Allowed in La Jolla".

Haele

[Ranchemp.]

46. I read the article, and so fucking what?

This was dedicated to the Korean War Veterans, of which my father lost his life in fighting the Chinese when they came over the border, he was at the Chosin Resevoir.
There are a lot more pressing issues to address than this.

[Capt. Obvious]

48. Are you working at the soup kitchen too?

[Ranchemp.]

50. WTF does that have to do with your faux outrage?

My father lost his life fighting in Korea, I will always support the cross being atop that mountain and will fight any effort to remove it.
This has got to be one of the stupidest efforts of the separation of church and state to date.

[Capt. Obvious]

56. I don't think I'm the one expressing faux outrage here

[Ranchemp.]

58. Ya you are, and so am I because it is such an asnine issue.

[LanternWaste]

80. An issue so asinine that only the asinine would "fight any effort to remove it...."?

An issue so asinine that only the asinine would "fight any effort to remove it...."?

[Ranchemp.]

83. Yeah, pretty much!!!!!

And if you don't like it, too bad.

[cleanhippie]

103. Thanks for demonstrating EXACTLY why this cross should come down.

And it will come down.

Don't like it? Too bad.

[Ranchemp.]

104. We'll see if it comes down,

my money is no, it will be allowed to stay.
Don't like it? Too bad.

[cleanhippie]

105. Again, thanks for demonstrating exactly why it needs to come down.

As well as how willfully ignorant and obtuse believers can be when it comes to the rule of law.

You have a nice day.

[LanternWaste]

125. Actually, in this case, I think you're the target of the "too bad", regardless of your petulance

Actually, in this case, I think you're your own target of the "too bad", regardless of your petulance or the asinine need for a symbol to remember loved ones.

So... "too bad"





(Insert rationalization here for attempt as self-validation)

[Ian David]

63. It's a giant, fucking cross on government land.

If they want to have a war memorial, there are all kinds of different shapes.

Monoliths are very popular.






And so are domes...



And arches...

[Ranchemp.]

69. Who fucking cares what shape it's in,

except a few hand wringers.

[Capt. Obvious]

70. Only two hand wringers I see on this thread

You're one of them.

[Ranchemp.]

73. Right. If that's what floats your boat,

have at it.

What I see are certain people lamenting that a cross (gasp) is on federal land honoring the Korean War Veterans and just because it's in the shape of a cross, it MUST be removed because it might violate the constitution which is the stupidest thing I've heard today so far.

[Capt. Obvious]

74. If believing that it's a Korean War memorial floats your boat

Don't read this post

Anyhow, I'm just happy the giant cross is coming down because it apparently does violate the constitution.

[Ranchemp.]

76. Don't hold your breath that it's coming down,

the ruling is going to be appealed all the way to the SCOTUS, and I predict that it will be allowed to remain.

[Ian David]

95. When it DOES come down, I want a turn swinging the sledge hammer, just to piss YOU off.

And I'll be sure to email you a photo.

[Ranchemp.]

98. And when it stays up,

I want you to email me a picture of you wringing your hands and crying.

[Ian David]

136. I'll just move on to another battle, fighting other religious bigots. n/t

[frylock]

78. clearly, YOU care

[Ian David]

93. Because it's a giant religious symbol on public land and implies an official imprimatur. n/t

[Ranchemp.]

96. Yeah, right.

[neverforget]

141. I want this put up to honor all the muslims that have died in service to our country.

[Bandit]

32. Believe it or not some of us can walk and chew gum at the same time.

Why should one religious group get to flaunt their religion on public property and others can not? Either all or none....

[Ranchemp.]

45. It was dedicated to the Korean War Veterans,

of which my father lost his life in, and, once again, who fucking cares if it's on public property, there are a lot more urgent issues to deal with.

[maxsolomon]

53. It's an urgent issue to those fighting an implicit government endorsement of a religion.

Which is not you, apparently.

But there are 300 million people here, and every one of them disagrees on what constitutes an urgent issue. I think it's urgent that someone kick Mitch McConnell in the nuts, but no one else wants to take up my cause.

The fact that its a memorial to your Father aside, can you understand the point being made here?

[Ranchemp.]

54. Yeah, and I'll bet the vast majority of americans don't give a shit

whether or not a cross, dedicated to the Korean War Veterans, is atop a mountain on federal land.

[maxsolomon]

55. some do, and it's their right to pursue legal action.

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)

if they also volunteer to help little old ladies cross the street, let them have their cause.

the vast majority of americans don't give a shit about almost everything. the list of things they don't give a shit about is infinite - monarch butterflies, fukushima radiation, chinese occupation of tibet, the lord's resistance army, etc. etc. hell, a lot of americans don't give a shit about veterans.

public indifference is not a criteria for enforcing the constitution.

[Ranchemp.]

57. Show me where the govt is promoting a religion with this cross

dedicated to Korean War Veterans?
Just because it's a cross seems to get some people's undies in a wad, well, I say fuck em, get a fucking life and move on to IMPORTANT issues, things like marriage equality, living wage, gay rights, etc.
I laugh my ass off over this stupid wringing of hands over a cross on a mountain top.

[Capt. Obvious]

62. You certainly come off like you're laughing your ass off

Why are you wringing your hands over a cross coming down?

It's such a non-issue that shouldn't upset you.

[Ranchemp.]

66. It's an emotional issue to me because it's dedicated to the memory

of my late father and to all those that fought and died in Korea, if you can't grasp that, then the hell with it.

[Capt. Obvious]

67. I'm sure the Jewish veterans appreciate it

[Ranchemp.]

68. Then put a star of david up next to it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

75. With all those McMansions nearby....

...I don't think there's enough room on Mt. Soledad to build 50-foot icons for every religious faith represented during the war effort.

[frylock]

119. oh yeah, that's going to happen..

the only reason that cross was erected was as a giant FUCK YOU to the Jewish community.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Jolla#Antisemitism

[LostOne4Ever]

84. Its also dedicated to the atheists and non christian american soliders

who died as well.

It needs to go.

[Ranchemp.]

85. No, it doesn't and don't hold your breath

that it will come down, this is going to go all the way to the SCOTUS and I'll bet my pension that the SCOTUS strikes down the ruling to remove it.

[LostOne4Ever]

90. Because SCotUS has a record of keeping this sort of thing?

Oh wait....

It has a libertarian bent because the swing vote is a libertarian. Its not like Libertarians are really big on seperation of church and state like us? huh?



It should go down and it is going down.

[Ranchemp.]

94. We'll see.

I'll bet my first year's pension that it stays.

[LostOne4Ever]

101. Kind of a meaningless statement on anonymous forum

No?

What will be will be. Recent history of the court suggests the exact opposite and seeing as we hold the presidency I don't see it turning super conservative any time soon.

[frylock]

79. at one time, vast majority of americans didn't give a shit if negroes could vote

[Ranchemp.]

86. You're equating the right of AA's to vote to

this monument?

[frylock]

112. no, i'm equating your glib attitude toward the feelings of the jewish vets..

to people who don't give a fuck about something unless it directly effects them.

[CreekDog]

120. so we should decide this based on an election?

[Ian David]

65. Not all of your father's buddies were chrisTians. And not all of the taxpayers paying for that land.

[LanternWaste]

82. I can only imagine that many other people too, pretend to themselves they are clever enough to know

I can only imagine that many other people too, pretend to themselves they are clever enough to know what is, or is not worthy of our time and concern.

[Ranchemp.]

87. IMO, this is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down on the to do list.

It's not even on my to do list.

[LanternWaste]

126. Fighting for its continued maintenance obviously is though.

Fighting for its continued maintenance obviously is though.

But sure... keep pretending you're clever enough to have absolute knowledge of this... you may even fool yourself. Good luck!!

[freshwest]

131. Look, Ranchemp. I've got the same position on this as I did on the Palinesque opportunism when the

WW2 Memorial was closed in Washington, D.C. by the parks department because under the shutdown, LIFE SAVING work had to get priority.

Instead, the RWers made a mockery of what the veterans LIVED AND DIED FOR. They did not do what they did for a memorial, cold dead stone, or even glory in death.

They didn't want to die, the dead get no comfort from this. And our grieving their death will never bring them back. They wanted to come home and LIVE in a country free of Nazism and fascism, to protect YOU AND ME.

We've talked before and you know my father's service work. He was lucky to survive and come home. Being the service, like many other veterans, was NOT what he signed up for. It was for what would come later. Unfortunately, your father never got to enjoy that. A cemetary cannot replace that loss.

The real memorial to these men is this nation, not some place where blowhards use their deaths for political advantage while manipulating hearts of many for their own profits.

When the Palin Poutrage was going on I was furious. Not at the memorial being closed. I was furious at the focus on the dead, as if they were more important the living. She and the rest of the lying cabal she is associated with, only went for her own glory.

NOT ONE SINGLE WORD for active service members and their families losing their food stamps, losing their homes, cars and being evicted because the jobs they contracted to do for all of us were not paying during the shutdown. And they were being overworked and stressed by the sequester.

That was all the doing of Palin's party, and she did not speak for the LIVING. My father, I said at the time, would have been mad that these traitors want to take our government apart. Not that a memorial was closed by the same people. That people were losing their livelihood due to the big money Palin represents.

Your father and mine were not foolish people. They did not fall for media claptrap. They were men who wanted to get things done. They would have seen the injustice of what has been going on and not allowed it.

Your father does not know about this memorial. I don't know what his religious beliefs were, but in my family we had all types and we didn't let any of it except the Golden Rule affect us. My father would not have gotten into a lather over this memorial being changed or a cross taken down.

Your father is not being hurt by this. Don't hold onto to a fantasy of what you think is harmful to him when it is not. This is just another media story. Seek comfort and meaning in what your father sought for you, not a graveyard.

JHMO.

[Joanie Baloney]

113. I understand

that you respect your father's service and courage in Korea. My dad was a veteran too. Now imagine if your family were Jewish...or Muslim...or atheist. What would you think about that giant cross "dedicated to Korean War veterans" then? A little left out? Confused? How about Constitutionally screwed? And every day, your commute takes you past that cross. Nobody wants to blow up the cross. It just shouldn't be on government land purporting to be a symbol for ALL veterans.

Can you empathize with that at all??

"Imagine there's no heaven...it's easy if you try...."

[stopbush]

124. Is it also dedicated to the Jews who lost their lives in the Korean War?

How about the atheists?

Didn't think so.

You're coming off as a jerk in this thread.

I care if it's on public property. In fact, I care a whole lot that this abomination is on public property.

[haele]

64. Actually, word from long-term La Jollans is that it was originally put up to mark a covenant area.

They called it a "Korean War Memorial" in 1989 was passed to keep from getting sued by the more wealthy non-WASPs who had been forbidden by covenant to buy property or homes in the Mt. Soledad area prior to the Civil Rights Act dissolved the practice of covenant contracts. Before then, it was the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross.

There has been a cross up there since 1913; the current cross has been up since 1954.. However, crosses like that were put on hillside developments as a warning to non-WASPs not to even try to buy a home in that area all over California since the land booms began in the 1910's. (Especially in Southern California since there was a concern about "those jumped up Hollywood types" who were the wrong type of people) There have been complaints about the cross since the anti-covenant law was passed.

Now, if it was a real war memorial instead of a "in-your-face-you-heathens" local Xtian majority editorial comment by the primary ultra-catholic developer families of the area, they would have taken it down and erected a proper plinth memorial with seals way back in the 1990's when they decided to change it from being an Easter Cross on federal property (which is not allowed) to a "Korean War Memorial" because the latest one had been built after the Korean War.

The ACLU has actually indicated that it would have no problems if the nearby Episcopal church bought the land from the federal government, but because the non-Episcopalian cross supporters kept trying to push the "Federal War Memorial" story (basically sectarian pissyness), federal judges have had problems approving the sale. (The mega-mall evangelicals and Opus Dei Catholics didn't want the Episcopals in charge, and none of them seem to be able to get together and create a foundation to oversee a transfer from public to private land for public use, and maintain it as a park.)

The reason there is not a similar problem with the Mt. Helix Cross not 15 miles away from the Mt. Soledad Cross (and installed for the same reason) is that the property the Mt. Helix Cross was on was ceded to a private foundation (see comment above) once there became some criticism about the cross on public land - and it's not really visible to people unless they get up on the top of the hill.

As it is, the current cross is not really architecturally sound to begin with - looks like it was made with retaining wall block set on it's side, even though it's supposed to be re-enforced - and the "cross-bar" portion of the cross is not stable (cracking), and has had to be repaired several times already. Plus, it's a safety hazard - idiots have gotten in to climb the dam' thing, fallen, and impaled themselves on the surrounding fence several times.

The Rose Canyon fault (capable of a magnitude 6) runs not 15 yards away from the cross - one good quake 20 miles either direction from the cross, and it's not going to be a cross anymore. Guess when that happens, they can put up a more stable plinth monument - that is, if it now really is a War Memorial and not a middle finger to the unbelievers.

Haele

[Hoyt]

106. Well that puts a different spin on it. Like a Klan cross, should be destroyed.

[Ranchemp.]

107. You're comparing a cross that was erected honoring Korean War Veterans

to a Klan Cross? Are you daft?

[Hoyt]

110. Apparently it was not, you are wrong. I thought you were sworn to defend the Constitution.

Quit cursing at folks too until you have read what people are trying to tell you.

[haele]

114. Again, it was erected as an "Easter Cross", not a War Memorial. That was put in around 1990.

CNN is wrong.
And yeah, it was originally like a Klan Cross when at least the first two were put up in La Jolla, just not put up by wealthy WASPS and a few white Catholics instead of Klan members. I'll be generous and say it morphed into an Easter Cross by the 1960's, but it was originally a "No Non-christian Whites allowed" marker.
I live here, and I know people who were around that area when this last cross was erected. The date the last cross was put up was a lucky coincidence for the RW'ers who wanted to keep it up when non-christian veterans complained about a christian symbol put up by local civilians on Federal Land.

Haele

[cleanhippie]

138. How would one tell the difference?

A cross is a cross is a cross.

Except when it isn't?

[frylock]

77. what are you doing to address those issues?

you know, aside from pissing and moaning on the DU?

[mainer]

116. It makes me wonder if crosses in government cemeteries have to go next

Isn't a cross on a christian soldier's grave sort of similar?

As an atheist, I have to say this was one battle that should've been left alone. It's like poking a stick in an anthill.

[haele]

132. No, headstones at government cemetaries are slabs, not crosses.

Sometimes at battlefield site cemeteries, you'll see crosses, but since around the 1880's, the official markers at U.S. Government/Veteran's cemeteries are either posts, slabs or plaques over the gravesite. The veteran or his/her survivors get to choose a symbol to put into the marker, but there officially is no cross marker anymore.

Haele

[Hestia]

133. Nope, because all other faiths have their symbols too - Pagans have the Pentagram, Asatru have

Thor's Hammer (not sure of the Nordic name), Jewish have Star of David's, etc. It's not exclusive to one religion.

[Bradical79]

142. Separartion of church and state is a real issue.

It's unfortunate that you think constitutional issues are "stupid".

[arely staircase]

9. demolish a korean war veteran's memorial just in time for Christmas!

Talk about handing the RW a gift on a silver platter.

[Capt. Obvious]

11. And they had just stopped flogging the War On Christmas too!

And then these (who?) had to go ahead and gift wrap this (what?) for them.

[frylock]

81. fuck the RW and all chickenshit appeasers of the RW..

oh noes!!1 we can't do anything to upset the tender sensibilities of the RW!

[Ranchemp.]

89. I'll be willing to bet a lot of LW'ers fought and died

in that war and they really don't give 2 cents on this manufactured outrage.

[Capt. Obvious]

99. You are correct

They don't give 2 cents about your manufactured outrage.

[Ranchemp.]

100. You're right

they don't give a shit about my outrage or the manufactured outrage of a monument to the Korean War Veterans in the form of a (gasp) cross, I would say that most of those KWV's would support leaving it there.

[LanternWaste]

127. At least be honest and accurate-- in memorium for dead vets if for no other reason.

" I would say that most.."

You'd pretend that, rather that would say that.

At least be honest and accurate-- in memorium for dead vets if for no other reason.

[frylock]

109. listen, i fucking live here, and this cross is not a memorial to your dad..

or any other vet that may have lost their lives in that war. you're so blind you can't even see that the memory of your dad is being USED as a bullshit excuse to keep the cross in place. read through haele's posts and learn a little regional history.

[Joanie Baloney]

115. That's what I wanted to say!

But, damn you, Frylock...you've removed the words from my mouth!

Happy Festivus, BTW!

[frylock]

117. and a Happy Festivus to you and Pilot!

I’ve got a lot of problems with you people, and now you’re going to hear about it!

[raindaddy]

12. What if it were a Buddha?

Maybe instead of these constant battles over religious symbols we should be more inclusive. The cross has been there for decades, why not just leave it? It's become part of the scenery.

There's a Buddha in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park. I can't imagine the park without it. Instead of being offended people seem to appreciate it whether they consider themselves Buddhists or not. You'd have a lot of angry Californians if some Christian group complained and they were forced to remove it.

I don't know we seem to think something is being accomplished by winning a battle over a cross on a hill. We had it removed, we saved it!!! Other than a bunch of hurt feeling has anything really changed?

There are a hell of a lot of Constitutional breeches affecting our lives that are being ignored. Instead we're fighting battles over a cross on a hill?

[Capt. Obvious]

13. "The cross has been there for decades, why not just leave it?"

They've been fighting for decades to have it removed. Why didn't the Christians just give in?

[AtheistCrusader]

30. It's not a sequential fight.

We have many different courts, all with separate bandwidth. This case sets a possible precedent that will aid elsewhere, and can further improve things like the 'Lemon Test' that I used in all matters of state/faith intersection.

It's worth pursuing.

[Xithras]

35. Since you cited San Francisco...

There is a 103 foot cross on top of Mt. Davidson in the center of San Francisco that was built in 1934. When faced with a sustained legal challenge over its ownership, the city of San Francisco did the sensible thing. They put the entire top of the hill up for sale at a public auction, and it was purchased by an Armenian Christian group. The cross is still there today, still on top of the mountain, in the middle of that park, overlooking the city. Because it's no longer owned by the government, it's not an issue.

San Diego could have done the same thing a LONG time ago. The fact that they have chosen to drag this out in a doomed attempt to protect a government owned cross is entirely on them.

[Capt. Obvious]

37. San Diego tried that

[Xithras]

44. No, they didn't.

San Francisco put their cross up for auction, and conducted an equal and unbiased sale to whomever wanted to buy it. Local Christian groups pooled their money and competed for it, and the Armenian church association won.

San Diego initially hand-picked a group to preserve the cross and conducted a sale that was illegal under state law. When they attempted to sell it more openly a second time, the city again violated the law by showing preference to a religious group. When the city tried to get authorization to conduct an open and fair sale FIFTEEN YEARS after this all started, the voters in San Diego rejected the opportunity, which instead triggered a requirement that they sell the cross itself and remove it from government owned land. Rather than do that, the city responded by donating the land under the cross to the federal government, thereby moving ownership of the cross from one government agency to another. Even that vote was illegal, as the measure specifically stated that its intent was to preserve a religious symbol on government land. At that point George Bush stepped in and took the cross under federal jurisdiction. While that relieved the City of San Diego of its ownership, it did nothing to stifle the fight. The cross is still sitting on government owned land today.

If the city of San Diego had done what San Francisco did, and simply sold the cross and the land in a fair and open public auction in the first place, there wouldn't have been any problems whatsoever. The controversy around the Soledad Cross is entirely the fault of the San Diego City Councils lame attempts to find loopholes and dodge laws requiring that governments remain neutral in matters of religion.

It will be the height of irony if the Mount Davidson Cross, which was quietly sold in accordance with the law, is left standing at the end of this while the Soledad Cross, which its defenders have so staunchly fought for in violation of those very same laws, ends up being moved or destroyed. If San Diego had simply followed the law in the first place, that cross wouldn't be in ANY danger today.

[Capt. Obvious]

47. I shouldn't have been so assertive in my statement

I was taking the link at face value.

You know your stuff on this case.

[raindaddy]

40. Considering the cost of extended legal battles seems like a wise choice.

I didn't know anything about the cross on Mt. Davidson or it's history. Thanks for posting this Xithras!

[Kablooie]

15. Why couldn't they just add a little to the design so it's not a cross anymore?

Then the memorial could remain but not have a Christian bias.

[BlueJazz]

16. I say cut off the the right and left part of the cross and name it "Our Festivus Pole"

Everybody is happy

[olddad56]

21. I'm so tired of all the Festivus believers trying to push Festivus on the Rest of Us.

[Arugula Latte]

28. Save your airing of grievances about Festivus for Festivus, pal.

[olddad56]

111. okay, we will be wrestling on Festivus.

[BumRushDaShow]

22. It would need to be coated in metal to work though

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

20. Won't Jesus be a little

freaked out, coming back here for the rapture and seeing all these crosses?

[dipsydoodle]

23. Should have something like we've got in the UK

but with a larger appendage



Cerne Abbas Giant chalk figure, near the village of Cerne Abbas in Dorset, England. Made by a turf-cut.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_figure

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Wow, that giant is really, really happy to see you and/or pummel you with a stick

[raindaddy]

41. Is that penis circumcised???

I'm sure after years of arguing over an erect penis being displayed on public land there would be years more of arguing over whether it should be circumcised or not.

[Hestia]

134. It is so cool how y'all rechalk it every 7 years (correct?)! Now *that's* history

[dipsydoodle]

135. Not quite.

I think its chalk soil so they weed it and lift turf to redefine the edges.

[deutsey]

24. I love this quote by Bill Hicks

A lot of Christians wear crosses around their necks. Do you think when Jesus comes back he's gonna want to see a fucking cross? "No way, dad, they're all wearing crosses, fuck it, I'm not going back, they totally missed the point."

[AtheistCrusader]

26. Seems like a technical violation of the second commandment, doesn't it?

[PassingFair]

129. If Jesus had arrived in 1950's America....would Christians be walking around with tiny...

electric chairs around their necks?

[deutsey]

140. Lenny!

[Arugula Latte]

29. Cue Fox "News" outrage in three ... two ... one ...

[kelliekat44]

43. There will be a war within the FOX "News" audience as well. Some vets for, some vets against.

The Mount Soledad cross has been the subject of litigation since 1989, when two veterans sued San Diego to get it off city land. In 2006, Congress intervened in the dispute, resulting in the federal government taking ownership of the property.

A group of plaintiffs, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, then sued. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals court ruled that the dominance of the cross conveyed a message of government endorsement of religion.

The Obama administration and the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which erected the cross, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, supported by 20 U.S. states and various veterans groups in arguing the cross should be allowed as part of the memorial.

Nothing surprises me anymore.

[SoapBox]

33. ...good.

[onehandle]

34. Great Result! Those decades of effort will now feed, clothe, and shelter thousands!

Oh wait...

Nope. This is just about making some whiners obtain maximum smugness.

[Capt. Obvious]

36. It will also make douchebags angry

It's a fair trade off I suppose.

[Arugula Latte]

38. ^ ^ ^

[onehandle]

39. Fattening the RW's coffers and supporting Faux's War On Christianity meme.

Meanwhile down mountain, families go hungry failing to make a living on smugness.

[Capt. Obvious]

42. Are you typing these messages on your phone

or do you have a laptop at the soup kitchen?

[onehandle]

60. So it was these whiner's day jobs to enhance their smugness?

Nice work if you can get it.

[Capt. Obvious]

61. Did you put the soup ladle down to type that?

[LostOne4Ever]

92. Only a handful of rightwing idiots will believe that

And the point remains. It should not be there.

Good riddance.

[frylock]

118. what else can we do to appease right-wing faux anger?

the republican party is on it's death bed. surely there is something we can do to resuscitate them by capitulating to further demands.

[Munificence]

49. I have been

to church 2 times in my life, my mom drug me (and herself) in for Easter when I was maybe 6 and 7 years old.

I do not see a problem with the cross. If we are gonna go down this road then we need to go all the way down it. All artwork depicting a cross or religious symbol needs to be banned from being in a "state" or "federally owned" museum, it needs to be forfeited now, including national archives, Smithsonian, etc. Any item in government possession that depicts god, Jesus or depicts a cross needs to be removed from the possession of the state, be it a cross in the side of a building of a school or public owned building, they all need to go...that is, if we are going down this road.

[Democrats_win]

52. Reality: Saves Christians from idolatry

These false christians will be outraged that their idol is removed. Yet the Bible clearly forbids idolatry. The pride of the false christians will cause them to complain about the "war" on false christians rather than humbly accepting the correct ruling.

[Nika]

59. We had a similar controversy with the old tall cross on Skinner's butte near the center of Eugene...

... Oregon. It took many years for that fight to be resolved, but the cross was moved to a new hillside home at a Bible college. A large flagpole was erected to replace it, as the cross was allegedly a war memorial as well, and that filled that void in the scheme of things of that controversy.

I suggest they move this 59 year old cross, put a more neutral replacement for a memorial to Korean, and move on. not all people who served in the Korean War we Christian. Which makes me think this too was an excuse, calling a religious icon a memorial when it in face was never that primarily.

Cross controversy[edit]


The Skinner Butte Cross at New Hope Christian College (formerly Eugene Bible College)

From the opinion of the 9th Federal Circuit Court,[8] the official history of this controversy is as follows
:
The City of Eugene ("City&quot maintains a public park on and around Skinner's Butte [sic], a hill cresting immediately north of the City's downtown business district. The land was donated to the City and has been maintained as a public park for many years. From the late 1930s to 1964, private individuals erected a succession of wooden crosses in the park, one replacing another as they deteriorated. In 1964, private individuals erected the cross at issue in this litigation. It is a fifty-one foot concrete Latin cross with neon inset tubing, and it is located at the crest of Skinner's Butte. The parties who erected the cross did not seek the City's permission to do so beforehand; however, they subsequently applied for and received from the City a building permit and an electrical permit.
Since 1970, the City has illuminated the cross for seven days during the Christmas season, five days during the Thanksgiving season, and on Memorial Day, Independence Day, and Veteran's Day.

The cross has been the subject of litigation since the time it was erected. In 1969, the Oregon Supreme Court held that the cross violated both the federal and the Oregon Constitutions because it was erected with a religious purpose and created the inference of official endorsement of Christianity. Lowe v. City of Eugene, 463 P.2d 360, 362-63 (Or. 1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1042 , reh'g denied, 398 U.S. 944 (1970). Soon after, the City held a charter amendment election, and on May 26, 1970, the voters, by a wide margin, approved an amendment to the City Charter designating the cross a war memorial. Pursuant to that amendment, the cross was deeded to the City as a gift, and a bronze plaque was placed at the foot of the cross dedicating it as a memorial to war veterans. The Eugene City Charter provides that the "concrete cross on the south slope of the butte shall remain at that location and in that form as property of the city and is hereby dedicated as a memorial to the veterans of all wars in which the United States has participated."

On June 14, 1997 and as a result of the 9th Federal Circuit's ruling, the cross was subsequently removed and reinstalled at Eugene Bible College near Churchill High School and a flagpole flying an American flag was erected in its place. U.S. Representative from Oregon Charles O. Porter was one of the people who had advocated for the removal of the cross.[9]
See also[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinner_Butte

[1000words]

72. A glorious victory in the War on Christmas! Viva!

Yes, that's sarcasm.

[LanternWaste]

88. Simultaneously, a subtle victory in preventing one additional step in allowing religious law to run

Simultaneously, a subtle victory in preventing one additional step in allowing religious law to run the country.

No... that's not sarcasm.

[Ranchemp.]

91. This issue is going to lead to the religious law to run the country?

Does the phrase "jumping the shark" ring a bell to you?

[LanternWaste]

128. ""jumping the shark" ring a bell to you?" Yes-- your posts now that you mention it.

""jumping the shark" ring a bell to you?" Yes-- your posts now that you mention it. Bless your misguided little heart.

Now, please continue putting words and ideas in the mouth of other posters when they've not said such a thing... as you appear to be having a difficult time putting coherent ones in your own mouth.

Cool story, bro! Seriously... bless your little heart.

[Nye Bevan]

121. Why not just allow the land to be sold to the veteran's organization?

Then it's a cross on private land which is fine constitutionally. Problem solved.

[COLGATE4]

122. If the Feds decide to sell the land they have

to offer it to all interested parties - no guarantee a Veterans' group would win a bid for it. They could just offer it to the highest bidder, but (s)he might just turn out to be a developer with plans for a 40 floor condo with a hell of a view.

[Nye Bevan]

123. Wow, yes, that would be a superb view (nt)