House passes bill to save Mount Soledad cross

[Sam Odom]

By Dana Wilkie
COPLEY NEWS SERVICE


2:14 p.m. July 19, 2006

WASHINGTON – The House on Wednesday passed a bill that would transfer the land beneath San Diego's Mount Soledad cross to the federal government.
With a 349-74 vote, House members voted to seize the land and give it to the Defense Department in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the 43-foot-tall cross that towers over La Jolla.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20060719-1414-bn19cross2.html

[grytpype]

1. I'm glad they're working on such serious matters.

If that cross went down, I don't have to tell you what would happen.

[MoseyWalker]

7. they are just too, too busy with

so much important stuff.

The legislative branch is a joke.

it's hard work doing almost nothing - pretty much all the time.

did they vote a raise for themselves this week?

[slackmaster]

12. And in 2006 our country STILL hasn't adoped the Metric System

:mad:

[MindPilot]

32. numbers are hard work...

[Endangered Specie]

42. Don't count on that happening anytime soon btw...

I seriously doubt it would ever happen, it would cost SO much.

[Blue_Tires]

52. "The metric system is the tool of the devil!......

My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it...."


---Abe Simpson, a true prophet for our times:patriot:

[slackmaster]

13. Stutter-punch

:mad:

[MoseyWalker]

15. You lost me

huh?

:-)

[slackmaster]

18. Great Question! I double-clicked the mouse, thus duplicating my post

:argh:

The term stutter-punch comes from the days when computer data was entered as holes in paper Hollerith cards. If a data entry (or "keypunch") operator hit a key twice instead of once, it made too many holes and that was called a stutter-punch. It was a common error, and a common reason for a data card to be rejected.

[Sapere aude]

2. Well if the cross is on federal land it is still illegal isn't it?

The land has to be private for the cross to be legal.

[partylessinOhio]

4. Perhaps they will deed it to Falwell. He collects religious places like

Heritage USA.

[slackmaster]

14. Possibly so, but the process would have to start over from scratch

And there is no guarantee the federal courts would rule the same way state courts have.

[Sam Odom]

16. What to do with the Califorinia Missions on state land?

[slackmaster]

24. I guess nobody has accused the state of adopting Catholicism

As its state religion.

:shrug:

[MindPilot]

25. The missions are historical landmarks. The cross is a religious symbol

There is a difference, it is admittedly a very fine line, but it has to do with the perception of people who look at it--reasonable man test--and the history of its usage. In the case of the cross there is no history that indicates it is any more than a cross.

It was turned into a war memorial *after* the first decision in '91. Everything that has come after that has been a transparent effort by Christian advocacy groups like the UCLJ to preserve a christian symbol at its present location.

[Sam Odom]

26. I disagree

Agreeably tho :)

A frigging cross is a cross, reasonable men know what it stands for, Christianity.

[MindPilot]

29. Well yes, but the issue of perception is one of entanglement

This is how the court looks at it. The cross on top of a historical church doesn't tell the "reasonable man" that the state is supporting a particular religion at the exclusion of others. There are clearly other aspects to the cross in the picture you posted. additionally those missions are without question historical landmarks.

With the Soledad cross, there is nothing else there to suggest that is anything other than state (city) support for a particular religion. And over the course of the past several years, city officials by their words and actions have made it abundantly clear that it is a religious symbol and that is why it should remain where it is. For example a previous mayor (Maureen O'Connor) declared in a press release that "San Diego is a Christian city." Back when it was originally erected, the area was white Christan only--by law. Of course the cross was in some ways a sign that silently said "niggers and kikes keep out"

As near as I can find out, there has never been any attempt to have that area declared a state historical landmark. Which is kind unfortunate because there is some significant history there. In 1923 the KKK burned the cross on Soledad to chase away a black family who moved nearby. That act was witnessed by a young boy named Gregory Peck and as a result he went on later in life to do his part for civil rights by making "To Kill A Mockingbird".

I think the cross should be replaced with a monument to the civil rights struggle--that would honor all the veterans, not just the Christian ones.

[stepnw1f]

38. These Religious Fascists

need to be confronted PUBLICLY. A long and honest and open debate. They won't do it though. They can't afford to....

[XemaSab]

47. The Missions were here before there WAS a California

[partylessinOhio]

3. This is exactly why this country was founded on separation of

church and state.

[Sapere aude]

5. Take the cross and carve it into a Korean war soldier's image if it is a

war memorial. Of course the fundies want a cross not a real war memorial. They are hypocrites if the say it isn't a religious symbol. Also stop the Easter sunrise services. I use to live in El Cajon so I am familiar with the sunrise services. They even put a picture of the cross in the Union Tribune newspaper to advertise the Easter sunrise services. Easter by the way is a Christian holyday not a Korean war historical date.

[Ian David]

6. Hey, that'll show those gay-marrying flag-burning Mexican-aligators...

that keep stealing our pretty white women off cruise ships and harvesting their stem-cells to make animal-human hybrids!

[MindPilot]

27. Right. There were NEVER any services held on any day

commemorating veterans until after the first order to remove it in 1991. Services were however held every Easter Sunday.

[pinto]

8. Another pointless waste of legislative time. Election year fluff.

[bluerum]

9. Who owned the property before it was seized?!?

“The memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose of commemorating our nation's war dead and veterans,” said El Cajon Republican Duncan Hunter, one of three San Diego-area congressmen who wrote the legislation to preserve the cross, which was dedicated in 1954 as a Korean War veterans memorial.

Since when are crosses secular? It is an internationally recognized religious symbol with overtly christian overtones.

“If this bill were nothing more than a veterans' issue, we would have a very simple decision before us today,” said Rep. Susan Davis, a San Diego Democrat. “But unfortunately, that is not the case. The courts have told us time and time again what this issue is about: It is about a demonstrated preference of one religion over all others.”

I don't know - maybe we should make the whole country a memorial to our war dead and be done with it.

What a waste of time.

edit sp.

[slackmaster]

11. It's owned by the city of San Diego

Ever since it annexed La Jolla in the early '60s.

[bluerum]

17. And under what provisions will it be "seized"?

[slackmaster]

19. The Lug Nut Rule

a.k.a. Gross Vehicle Weight rule of right-of way - In a traffic dispute the largest vehicle prevails; or the 800-pound gorilla's right to sit anywhere he wants to.

[MindPilot]

33. Oh I love my rep Susan!!

She "gets it".

[gratuitous]

10. I'm sure this will sail right through the Senate . . . NOT

Let's see, 94 legislative days this year for the House. Two or three wasted on flag burning and pledge of allegiance constitutional amendments; one for the Mt. Soledad cross; a few more spent on other symbolic votes on bills that will never become law. It's a damn good thing there's nothing important going on, otherwise people might conclude that the House is being run like a particularly inept lunatic colony by its Republican overlords.

[bemildred]

20. I'm sure glad they have time for all this important stuff. nt

[HuffleClaw]

21. i can't see this latest trick passing a court challenge

but in BushWorld who knows.

[MindPilot]

22. What part of "Congress shall make no law..."

do they not get?

Several courts have already determined that it is a religious symbol and perceived as such under any "reasonable standard" test.

Congress just passed a law respecting the establishment of religion; it is unconstitutional on its face.

Not only that, the city just gave away a piece of prime real estate to the federal government, or more accurately, happily allowed the federal government to steal it. As a longtime, tax-paying, property-owning citizen of San Diego, I have a real problem with that.

[Sam Odom]

23. See post #16

?

[moobu2]

31. The missions are 100’s of years old

and presented in an historical setting as an integral
part of California’s past. The Humongous Christian cross is purely of a religious nature, even though some typically dishonest and sneaky Christian right wing nuts attempted to disguise the cross as a war memorial.

The two issues (the Missions and the cross) aren’t the same.

The legality of when religious symbols can be displayed on public property seems to be that they can be as long as they’re presented in some historical nature and that‘s why they attempted to change the cross into a memorial etc…. The cross is religious, the missions are historical.

[MindPilot]

34. Check post 29

:hi:

[stepnw1f]

28. what a fuck'n waste

[MindPilot]

30. Yeah, apparently Billbray (R-unelected) and his crew care

way more about dead soldiers than live ones.

[stepnw1f]

36. Oh the Irony is Deafening

may every Republican grow a dick from their foreheads.

[rodeodance]

35. says its constiutional

With a 349-74 vote, House members voted to seize the land and give it to the Defense Department in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the 43-foot-tall cross that towers over La Jolla.


Sycuan
“The memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose of commemorating our nation's war dead and veterans,” said El Cajon Republican Duncan Hunter, one of three San Diego-area congressmen who wrote the legislation to preserve the cross, which was dedicated in 1954 as a Korean War veterans memorial.

“Therefore, the display of the Mount Soledad cross on federal property – is constitutional.”

[rodeodance]

37. “Mount Soledad Easter Cross.”

Those fighting to remove the cross from Mount Soledad argue that say it's a Christian religious symbol and should not sit on public land atop a prominent hill. They note that even historical maps refer to the monument as the “Mount Soledad Easter Cross.”

“If this bill were nothing more than a veterans' issue, we would have a very simple decision before us today,” said Rep. Susan Davis, a San Diego Democrat. “But unfortunately, that is not the case. The courts have told us time and time again what this issue is about: It is about a demonstrated preference of one religion over all others.”

Those fighting to keep the cross contend it's a tribute to the war dead.

The bill, H.R. 5683, would allow the cross to remain on Mount Soledad by giving title of the memorial to the federal government and having it administered by the Secretary of Defense.

[MindPilot]

40. So Duncan Hunter can say it's constitutional and therefore it is?!

Sorry Congressman, you don't have that power.

[XemaSab]

48. Duncan Hunter's name always seems to be floating around stories like this

just like he's the lightest turd in the bowl.

Building a fence... issuing a bullshit bill calling for withdrawal just so it would be shot down... turning the Channel Islands into a private hunting club...

He's a busy, busy man.

[leesa]

39. I will be anxiously awaiting the first giant Muslim , Jewish, Wiccan, etc.

symbol to be erected in that same space. PLEASE.

[MindPilot]

41. Only a cross can honor the war dead.

Didn't you know? All veterans are Christians. :sarcasm:

[noonwitch]

43. This is a silly and pointless battle.

Who cares about a cross on public land? I don't. It is no big deal. No one is being forced to participate in christianity by it's presence. People need to just let this one go.

Geez, anyone ever been to Grand Haven, MI? The city there operates a "musical fountain" that plays christian hymns, blasts them out for the whole downtown waterfront to hear. Nobody objects because it brings families down there at night to spend their money on ice cream and slushies.

These kind of issues are things that we can compromise on. I have less objection to the Soledad Cross than I do to "under God" in the pledge, if children are forced to recite it as such in a public school.

[MindPilot]

44. Yeah, don't sweat the small stuff.

Who cares if women are forced to have babies they don't want? I'm male.

Who care if blacks are kicked off the voter rolls? I'm white.

Who cares if the government impedes medical research? I'm healthy.

Who cares if unions are busted? I'm retired.

How about we let them turn the country into a totalitarian theocracy and they'll let us convert to the state religion? That's a nice compromise; now let's all sit around the fire, hold hands and sing Kumbya.

[saigon68]

45. LOL

Good one :-)

[noonwitch]

46. How does not tearing down a cross do all that?

That's a pretty big jump in reasoning. My point is that all those things that you mentioned are important battles. A court battle over a cross on public land is a waste of limited time and money, and is basically a symbolic battle for either side. And it's a symbolic and hollow victory if the court ordered it torn down.

A cross in a public park does not establish a state religion. Forcing kids to take a loyalty oath (the pledge) that invokes God is establishing a state religion, if it is done in public schools. Moments of silence or teacher led prayer would also be an establishment of religion-a validictorian mentioning God, Jesus, Allah or the Goddess in his/her graduation address is an expression of free speech.

[MindPilot]

49. tip of the spear, foot in the door...

My point is of course that a big issue is only a big issue to those who are directly affected by it. And my comparisons were hyperbole, but DU doesn't have an icon for that. :)

Your contention that the "under god" is more of an establishment than the cross is the exact opposite of the position most people take. (I agree BTW; the "under god" should go along with the "in god we trust" from the money.) The idea is that "under god" is "ceremonial deism" and therefore is very general and doesn't represent an establishment of a particular religion. The key word is "particular". (Naturally that concept excludes Atheists, Pantheists, Satanists, and anyone else who doesn't buy into the idea of a one true god, but who gives a flying rat's ass about them?)

A cross by itself sitting on the most prominent mountaintop in the area is without question a symbol of a particular religion. In the case of the Soledad cross, it not only sits on city-owned land, but the city officials have repeatedly affirmed their preference for a particular religion with statements like "San Diego is a Christian city" and "the cross represents San Diego."

Also the Soledad cross case was decided under the California Constitution, not the US Constitution. The California Constitution is a little more specific with regards to preference.

[Raine]

51. I agree

it's a landmark, I see it whenever I go to SD and it's not as bothersome as lots of other stuff.

[MindPilot]

54. Well, if you like it so much...

have it moved to your front yard.

[Raine]

55. Yeah right

:eyes: I don't think the city would allow anything that big but here's a :rofl: for the suggestion.

[Freddie Stubbs]

50. A majority of the Democrats in the House voted for this

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2006/roll386.xml

[Zhade]

53. That's FUCKING unconstitutional!

You cannot transfer property to the government to protect a religious symbol!