Appeals Court Rules Calif. Public Park Cross Unconstitutional

[jefferson_dem]

Source: AP



SAN DIEGO (AP) — A federal appeals court has ruled that a San Diego war memorial cross in a public park is unconstitutional.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the 3-0 decision Tuesday in a two-decade dispute over the cross at Mount Soledad.

In its decision, the court says the cross conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Constitution.

The court, however, says its decision does not mean that no cross can be part of the memorial. It says modifications can be made to make it constitutional but does not specify what they would be.



Read more: http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/01/04/appeals-court-rules-calif-public-park-cross-unconstitutional/

[truedelphi]

1. Here's an idea - Let the RW Protestant Christians pay for the land

Underneath the cross. Charge them one million dollars, and put that money into the General Fund for the State of California.

It's not even a "Christian" cross - it is Protestant. SO let them pay for the land.

One week's worth of your TV evangelists screaming from the pulpit of the rewards to come to their congregation for donating the money would come up with the dough.

Hell's Bells - we might even be able to charge them 15 million for the land.

[Xithras]

4. Already been tried.

The cross, and the land under it, was sold in 1994 to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. That sale was ruled illegal because it was sold with the intent to preserve the cross, which is ITSELF an illegal endorsement of religion. The government can't say "We're only selling this to Christians."

The only way to sell it, legally, is to put it up for public bid and allow it to be purchased by the highest bidder, irrespective of their plans for the land. The problem is that it's considered a "high value" site, and in all probability it would be bought by a developer, the cross would be knocked down, and something else would be built there...a private structure in the middle of a public park.

[truedelphi]

5. Thank you for that. Quite interesting.

Apparently praying for the cross to get the right people to approve it didn't
work either... :shrug:

[MindPilot]

20. Daryl Issa, Duke Cunningham & Duncan Hunter

Since the sale was illegal, Issa, Hunter & Cunningham slipped a provision in the omnibus budget bill that would take the land from the City of San Diego by eminent domain and transfer it to the federal government for the stated purpose of preserving the "War Memorial". So basically the city council was so motivated to keep the cross on that mountain top that they re-purposed it as a war memorial and gave away what is arguably one of the most expensive pieces of real estate on the planet. The theory was that because the original unconstitutional ruling was found under the California Constitution, it would be protected under the US Constitution.


on edit: In case it's not clear, the San Diego City government and our elected representatives will happily strip the citizens of millions of dollars in city assets so they can kowtow the sky daddy.

[freshwest]

29. OMG! What a bunch of crooks! Wait, we knew that already. Thanks for the background on this story.

[SkyDaddy7]

7. "It's not even a "Christian" cross" WTF?

And what kind of cross is "Christian". PLEASE TELL ME!

[truedelphi]

27. it is a Protestant cross, but this cross is not in the style of crosses that

The Catholic Church approves of. So in a sense I misspoke - it is a Christian cross, but it doesn't represent all Christians. I apologize for stating it incorrectly the first time around.

Catholic Church favors a cross with the body of Christ hanging from it, nails and wounds and all.

[TheMadMonk]

12. Sorry luv, but a Christian Cross is BARE to symbolise the resurection.

The Catholic Cross, has the body to remind folk what a bastard their god can be if you don't toe the line.

[Goblinmonger]

13. Um, Catholics are Christians, you know. n/t

[TheMadMonk]

32. So they tell me. /nt

[glinda]

25. I think it should be painted with polka dots.

[brewens]

2. T-shirt idea. My 1st Amendment Freedom FROM Religion Right

Gives You The Right To Keep Your Superstition Out Of My Face!

[valerief]

3. Don't these Xtians have anything better to do? Sheesh. nt

[4saken]

6. Good.

It should be clear that the crucifix does not tend to have positive symbolic connotations and value to non-Christians. It is sometimes just viewed as the torture device that it is.

[Harry Hope]

8. Appeals court says cross on federal land is unconstitutional

Source: CNN


January 4, 2011

Appeals court says cross on federal land is unconstitutional

By the CNN Wire Staff

(CNN) -- A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that a cross displayed on public property for nearly a century is unconstitutional.

Three versions of the Christian symbol have been erected atop 822-foot Mount Soledad in the posh La Jolla neighborhood of San Diego, California, since 1913.

The current 43-foot 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 against the city, saying it violated the California Constitution's "No Preference" clause.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the notion that the cross -- since the late 1990s surrounded by plaques and paving stones honoring veterans and war dead -- was solely a memorial.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/01/04/california.cross/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29

[nadinbrzezinski]

9. They WILL go all the way to the Supreme Court

it IS quite the wedge in local politics.

I horrified one of the Mt Soledad defenders when I told him to add a star of david and a muslim half moon. You'd think I nailed the lord to the cross myself!

[Hatchling]

17. Put a Pentacle in there and we have a winner! nt

[MindPilot]

22. My favorite is when they say "well, then just don't look at it"

To which I usually reply, "if that cross were on fire and I were a Black man, would you still say "just don't look at it?"

[hunter]

28. The original wooden Easter Cross on the site WAS burned by the KKK in 1923.

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

[freshwest]

30. Why did they do that? Too cheap to build their own to burn?

[hunter]

31. It was their own.

San Diego was "whites only."

"If it's left with me, there'll never be a nigger on the police force in San Diego. ~ San Diego Police Chief Arthur Hill, 1930

http://www.sandiegohistory.org/journal/88winter/midst.htm

[MindPilot]

35. Yep...a dark secret in San Diego history.

This used to be essentially SoCal's KKK "cultural center". I can't put my finger on the reference right now, but at one point most if not all the local government leaders were active KKK members. The same held true for LA. It was codified into the CCRs in La Jolla that only WASPs could live there, and that was true until the mid sixties. According to his autobiography, Gregory Peck witnessed those cross burnings--and perhaps even lynchings--as a boy and later drew from that experience when he made To Kill a Mockingbird.

[freshwest]

38. hunter and MindPilot

These are important revelations about the history of California and my now beloved Left Coast. I was brought up in TX and thought that the South had a monopoly on bigotry, but I'm finding it in places I never expected.

This explains the Duncan Hunters, Darryl Issas and the extremely RW GOP in California. Sometimes one hopes these things have changed.

Growing up the South, that movie with Gregory Peck did reflect the good and the bad. A sense of empathy that seems to have been lost, and what many people did not realize was that there were many who fought against the dominant system. There was a lot of soul searching done, but I wonder that it never touched the hearts or politics of the RW.

I have spent a lifetime trying to understand their view of reality, and more recently, have tried harder to grasp the bedrock of why they do the things they do. Labeling them won't work because it just increases the force field of resistance to change. They believe there is no survival for them in a different world.

Listening to Ed Schultz (?) the other day they were discussing Lindsay Graham's cavalier attitude to the social safety net. His parents died when he was in his twenties and died collect a dime of Social Security that they paid into. And since he was above school age, he didn't get orphan's benefits to help him.

In my case, having lost my parents much earlier in life and needing those benefits to finish high school, I knew right away that without them my life would have spiraled down into something that would have driven me far down in society. The majority of people in my family, like Graham's didn't' live long enough to retire or draw their pension. But one couple did and they were red-hot FDR supporter and union organizers in the thirties. So I grew up seeing saw things differently, although my father was a business man.

But any sympathetic leanings end at the level that these GOP, KKK, or whatever reach out to touch someone with a fist be it physical or fiscal and their love of power with all its arrogance. They make me sick!

[Rage for Order]

10. What a terrible ruling

Can't wait until the Supreme Court overturns this ridiculous decision

[Goblinmonger]

14. Not a fan of the first amendment, huh?

Lemon test is just rubbish?

[Rage for Order]

15. Quite the contrary

Having a cross on public land does not establish a state religion any more than George Washington placing his hand on a bible when he was sworn in as our first president established a state religion.

[COLGATE4]

16. And your legal analysis that brings you to that stunning conclusion

is based on what, exactly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

18. You might want to read on the Establishment clause

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference by the U.S. government of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

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

Why if they put symbols for all major and minor religions, though not a standard thing... could successfully lead to the argument that it is not setting primacy over one religion.

[MindPilot]

23. Even if they put symbols for all religions (not sure there is enough space )

That still doesn't resolve the issue of showing preference for religion over no religion.

I seriously doubt that there can be much of a case made for accommodation in this situation, especially when there is a church about 1/4 mile down the road.

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. Oh trust me I know

and I suggested to one of these idiots to put just a star of david and a Muslim half moon on it... and he went completely nuts... since it would be defiling the place. Which tells me... this is not a memorial.

But anybody who is really familiar with the issue knows that.

[MindPilot]

19. Eight attorneys, three judges and an easy 150 years of case precedence

all brought to bear on this case. They could have saved all that money they spent on law school and just asked you.

[Goblinmonger]

21. Was George required to put his hand on the Bible?

Or was that his choice?

Explain how the cross is not a violation of the Lemon test.

[DavidDvorkin]

26. George didn't put his on a bible when he was sworn in

That's a myth with no historical support.

[MindPilot]

36. He did TOO! I seen it on the teevee!

Oh, wait, wrong George...sorry.

[DavidDvorkin]

37. George the Very Least

There was George the Quite Good, George the Much Lesser, and then George the Very Least.

[NYC Liberal]

34. So it'd be no problem if Congress erected a giant cross

on top of the Capitol dome? Or the Supreme Court put up a statue of Mohammad with "allah akbar" etched in it in front of the court building?

[NuclearDem]

11. Way to honor the Korea vets...

By spitting on the Constitution that they say the vets went over there to fight for.

Take it down, replace it with something else.

[tomhayes]

33. It's CLEARLY illegal AND

We have ANOTHER cross on a mountain in San Diego: Mount Helix

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mount+helix,+&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=80.963621,86.220703&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mt+Helix,+Casa+de+Oro-Mount+Helix,+San+Diego,+California&ll=32.767258,-116.983372&spn=0.00097,0.000658&t=h&z=21