ForumGarden

SAN DIEGO - A federal judge on Wednesday ordered cash-strapped San Diego to remove a 29-foot cross from city-owned property within 90 days or face $5,000 in daily fines.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. marked the latest twist in a 17-year legal battle waged by a San Diego atheist against the hilltop cross that towers above tony beachside La Jolla.

"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue," Thompson wrote, for the court to enforce his 1991 injunction that forbid the cross to stand on public property because it violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

Atheist Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran, has been challenging the placement of the cross on city-owned parkland since 1989. Paulson declined comment Wednesday, but his attorney, James McElroy, said he hoped the city would back down.

"I don't think our elected officials will have the courage to put $5,000 a day in fines on the back of the taxpayers when they have not been able to win this fight in 15 years," McElroy said.

Mayor Jerry Sanders said that he would ask the City Council and the city attorney to aggressively pursue a stay on the injunction from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. City Attorney Mike Aguirre said Wednesday that continuing the court battle would likely be futile.

The city has tried to sell the half-acre beneath the cross to a nonprofit association that maintains the surrounding memorial walls. But federal judges have repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would keep the cross. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal in 2003.

A city-sponsored referendum asking permission from residents to sell the property failed in 2004, but 75 percent of the voters approved a second referendum the following year to transfer the land to the federal government. A Superior Court judge ruled that the 2005 measure was an "unconstitutional aid to religion." That decision is being appealed by the city.

The 20-ton cross was dedicated as a memorial on Easter Sunday in 1954 atop Mount Soledad to the veterans of the Korean War





Wow can't believe this. I don't think it should be removed, since it is a memorial. What do ya'll think?

Oh fer Christ's sake....people really WILL go out of their way to find stupid sh!t to gripe about, won't they?? :-5





And folks wonder why I want to go live in a cave at the top of a mountain, all by myself. :-2

Mybe they should replace the cross with a swastika and dedicate it to the jerk offended by the cross.

I am not positive but I am sure the majority of u.s. soldiers that fought in that war were christian but could they put in a multi-religian memorial for the minority that were not?

watson wrote: I am not positive but I am sure the majority of u.s. soldiers that fought in that war were christian
What makes you think that, watson?

LilacDragon wrote: Mybe they should replace the cross with a swastika and dedicate it to the jerk offended by the cross.


What kind of statement is that?:o

I have no way of knowing at this time and I could be wrong; but historically the military has been predominately different denominations of the Christian religion.

But I am also sure it was not 100% Christian. I think I may try and look that up when I get of work.

watson wrote: I have no way of knowing at this time and I could be wrong; but historically the military has been predominately different denominations of the Christian religion.

But I am also sure it was not 100% Christian. I think I may try and look that up when I get of work.


Of course it wasn't 100% christian.

I am sorry I would love to continue this discussion but work calls. Little kids just cant behave.

watson wrote: I have no way of knowing at this time and I could be wrong; but historically the military has been predominately different denominations of the Christian religion.

But I am also sure it was not 100% Christian. I think I may try and look that up when I get of work.
I'd be interested to know if that's accurate. If you do look it up will you post your findings?

Oh, and welcome to FG! :yh_peace

Maxi_Uno wrote: Of course it wasn't 100% christian.
Is there an echo in here?

BabyRider wrote: Is there an echo in here?
YES!

Maxi_Uno wrote: YES!
Just checking! :yh_bigsmi

I say keep the cross where it is. It is like a senotaph to the veterans of the Korean War who would have been mostly nominal Christians anyway even if they weren't true believers. If the atheist wants a memorial to represent his beliefs, it would have to be just thin air, or a big vacuum flask, because it would represent nothing.

LilacDragon wrote: Mybe they should replace the cross with a swastika and dedicate it to the jerk offended by the cross.


Are all of you forgetting that not everyone in America is Christian? Crosses belong in homes and in Churches, not in our public courthouses.

I have a really neat Hindu kid in my class right now. His father is a doctor in our town. they are excellent American citizens. Don't they have any rights?

Let me put it to you this way:

How would you feel about being sworn in with your hand on The Quoran?;)

I get this attitude a lot since I teach in the Bible Belt.

Usually, it's somone saying we should teach religion in school. But it's the same topic, freedom of religion. This is my reply to all those who think that Christianity should be in all our public buildings and schools:

OK. What religion should we teach? Buddhism? Hinduism? Islam? Oh, of course! “In God We Trust!” It’s got to be Christianity! America is overwhelmingly Christian after all. (Although I do know a very nice Hindu family, aren't they an important part of our country?) Fine, which version of Christianity should we teach? Lutheran? Presbyterian? Baptist? Methodist? Catholic? (It is the oldest after all) Are Mormans Christian? Are you starting to get my point? No matter what the schools did, they'd never please everybody.

Perhaps they’re worried that Christian values and morals aren’t being taught to young people. They shouldn’t worry another second. Every American teacher I've ever met has modeled and practiced nothing but the best of Christian virtues: honesty, integrity, respect, and dignity. But who Who better to teach these things than the people that care the most about the children, their parents. Where better to learn than the Church?

The Pilgrims came to America because they didn't like their religion being controlled and dictated by the state. George Washington didn't like it. Thomas Jefferson didn't like it. Trust me, you won't like it either.

Jives wrote: Are all of you forgetting that not everyone in America is Christian? Crosses belong in homes and in Churches, not in our public courthouses.

I have a really neat Hindu kid in my class right now. His father is a doctor in our town. they are excellent American citizens. Don't they have any rights?

Let me put it to you this way:

How would you feel about being sworn in with your hand on The Quoran?;)


Jives, this cross was dedicated several years ago as a war memorial, why should it be torn down. It's not there to force someone into a religion, its there to honor men and women who fought in the Korean war. I still think it should stay and the moron wanting it gone should find something else to waste his money on.

How would you feel about being sworn in with your hand on The Quoran?


Anyone is permitted to make a secular affirmation in court if they choose.

Jives wrote: Are all of you forgetting that not everyone in America is Christian? Crosses belong in homes and in Churches, not in our public courthouses.

I have a really neat Hindu kid in my class right now. His father is a doctor in our town. they are excellent American citizens. Don't they have any rights?




A common argument and one that is cleverly crafted. It deflects attention from the issue of censorship and makes it seem as if someone must be protected from the visual assualt and insult of having to perhaps peripherally see a cross or other symbol they simply don't want to see.

You see, I'm suing to ban all public liquor advertisements including beer whether it's in magazines, billboards, TV, radio, etc Alcoholic images belong in bars. Not everyone drinks. Don't teetotalers have rights too?

75% of the city's voters confirmed they like the cross where it is. It was placed there decades before the memorial. It is a piece of history. It should mean nothing to an atheist.



Whatever happened to government by the people?? Why can one judge, a fellow citizen, override the will of the people?



It sucks. San Diego should refuse to pay the fine as the federal gov't has no jurisdiction in this case.

Brand new person stepping in here!

Let's try this.

It's publicly owned land.

Not everyone in San Diego County is Christian, and it wouldn't matter if they were.

It contains a Christian symbol and it's associated with people who might or might NOT have been Christian.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government shall not support a particular religion.

This is publicly owned land and it displays a CROSS.

Why wouldn't elected representatives look at this as an opportunity to do something "right" and quietly remove the religious reference?

Why is it necessary to have a Christian/religious symbol over a memorial of people who represented many/NO religions?

This is public land as well. It also memorializes veterans - WWII in this case. Should we remove these crosses as well?

Ok - so maybe not a swastika.

One has to wonder why it is that so many people seem to have nothing better to do then be offended by someone else's "religious symbols". And why is it that Athiest seem to be loudest about it?

I don't know...ask one.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the government shall not support a particular religion.


At least you didn't say it was unconstitutional. Am I rubbing off on you? Just a little?:p

Justice Kennedy has issued a stay allowing the cross to remain until the issue can be revisited by the courts. I'll say it again, the First Amendment of the constitution ensures the "free exercise" of religion.

Adam Zapple wrote: At least you didn't say it was unconstitutional. Am I rubbing off on you? Just a little?:p



Justice Kennedy has issued a stay allowing the cross to remain until the issue can be revisited by the courts. I'll say it again, the First Amendment of the constitution ensures the "free exercise" of religion.And prohibits Congress (that's the federal gov't) from making laws involving religion. Local gov't simply displaying a piece of hisoric religious art is not related to religion at all. If it were, most public museums would have to close their doors.

Thank you, Accountable. Congress making a law respective to the establishment of religion seems to be a part of the First Amendement that too many people seem to not get.

Why not just let him add a memorial of his own for all the aetheists that died? Unless the christians object to him doing that. In which case they are as bad as him. Surely people have a right to honour their dead any way they see fit and how they do it is up to them? so long as he is not forced to kneel and pray for them I don't understand his objection. The dead are beyond caring about it anyway which fact and the reason died you would have thought memorials are to remind people of.

gmc wrote: Why not just let him add a memorial of his own for all the aetheists that died? Unless the christians object to him doing that. In which case they are as bad as him. Surely people have a right to honour their dead any way they see fit and how they do it is up to them? so long as he is not forced to kneel and pray for them I don't understand his objection. The dead are beyond caring about it anyway which fact and the reason died you would have thought memorials are to remind people of.
I really think the only reaction to an atheist-specific memorial would be a little laughter, maybe a joke or two about making a concrete symbol representing nonexistence. You're right, gmc. It's the living atheists who are offended, not the honored dead.

Accountable wrote: I really think the only reaction to an atheist-specific memorial would be a little laughter, maybe a joke or two about making a concrete symbol representing nonexistence. You're right, gmc. It's the living atheists who are offended, not the honored dead.


What would an aetheist have? How about the centre of a doughnut representing the circle of life and the nothiness within:yh_rotfl

Being a Native San Diegan I can say I have been around since the cross was put up on Mt. Soledad it was a memorial to our WWII soldiers nothing more. Now it has been voted as of yestarday that it stays where it is no fines imposed till the State hears the Appeal.

The people voted and that vote was taken way to sell the land to the government and leave the cross alone. I respect those who are christian or whatever but this is foolish waste of time and money in my humble opionion which we could put to much better use by the city like new roads, schools, sewer system you name it the City of San Diego is in enough trouble without having to fight to keep a cross that has been there for 59 years. Something should just be left alone a point doesn't have to be made either way period. This is my home town and I want the cross to be left right where its it..:-5

And what does a religious symbol have to do with WW II dead? I'm all for monuments to service people...my father was one. I can think of several ways to honor them, none of which have anything to do with a Christian cross.

Things like this were established at a time when it was considered "ok" to use public funds and create religious symbols. I'm hopeful that time has passed.

Let me ask you this, Carla....if that cross were replaced with a large, illuminated flag, would you be happy? Or is it the cross you want?

Lulu2 wrote: And what does a religious symbol have to do with WW II dead? I'm all for monuments to service people...my father was one. I can think of several ways to honor them, none of which have anything to do with a Christian cross.



Things like this were established at a time when it was considered "ok" to use public funds and create religious symbols. I'm hopeful that time has passed.



Let me ask you this, Carla....if that cross were replaced with a large, illuminated flag, would you be happy? Or is it the cross you want?Why does it matter? It is not establishing a religion, forcing worship, or prohibiting worship. It is a memorial - one which the local citizenry have chosen to keep. Why should the question go further?

Suppose it were a crescent and a star? And on public land?

Lulu2 wrote: Suppose it were a crescent and a star? And on public land?Suppose suppose. Suppose away. Suppose its a cross with a gas line to make it an eternal KKK flame.



Why does it matter? It is not establishing a religion, forcing worship, or prohibiting worship. It is a memorial - one which the local citizenry have chosen to keep. Why should the question go further?

Suppose it WERE a gas line with a KKK symbol? Suppose it were a swastika (which is a very ancient symbol.) How would you feel about that being on public land, supported by public funds?

What I'm trying to get you to admit is that symbols are powerful. We all know what a raised middle finger represents. We all know how offensive a KKK uniform can be. Those are symbols and they have no business on public land.

You want to buy that hill and raise a swastika? I'll support your right to do it...offensive as it might be. But I believe to my bones that public places and funds have no business displaying religious icons. And if you don't see that as an "endorsement," then I give up.

Accountable thank your for putting my feelings into words it is a memorial that has stood there for 59 years leave it alone like many other memorials all over the world.

[QUOTE]Why does it matter? It is not establishing a religion, forcing worship, or prohibiting worship. It is a memorial - one which the local citizenry have chosen to keep. Why should the question go further?[/QUOTE]

Lulu2 wrote: Suppose it WERE a gas line with a KKK symbol? Suppose it were a swastika (which is a very ancient symbol.) How would you feel about that being on public land, supported by public funds?



What I'm trying to get you to admit is that symbols are powerful. We all know what a raised middle finger represents. We all know how offensive a KKK uniform can be. Those are symbols and they have no business on public land.



You want to buy that hill and raise a swastika? I'll support your right to do it...offensive as it might be. But I believe to my bones that public places and funds have no business displaying religious icons. And if you don't see that as an "endorsement," then I give up.Even if it is an endorsement, it's one by the local people, no Congress. Congress can make no law prohibiting religious expression. By extension, the federal gov't as a whole can't legally block it either.



Yeh, I know. They do a sh*tload of stuff not strictly permitted by the Constitution. :yh_frustr I blame Lincoln and Roosevelt for starting the ball rolling.

Then sell the land to a private group and be done with it.

Suppose it were a crescent and a star? And on public land?


Muslim servicemen and women at Arlington National Cemetery are buried under a star and crescent. Atheist are even buried under an atheist symbol. Better tell the ACLU to go tear them down.

I think a cemetary is somewhat different than this situation, "Zapp.

It's public land so what's the difference. If a memorial in San Diego has to come down all the memorials in Arlington should have to come down. You can't pick and choose.

(SIGH) There's a big difference between a cemetary (which is usually termed "sacred ground") and a roadside memorial which doesn't contain bodies, which supposedly honors war dead (many of whom were undoubtedly not Christian) and which has been passed back and forth in an obvious effort to keep it managed through public funds.

You know what - in most of my 42 years, I have never stopped at a cross and thought to myself about the religion that it represented. I have never been offended by a Cresent and a Star. I am not even offended by a burning cross - although I am offended by the hatred and the violence of the men and women behind them. Swastika - it isn't offensive either.

Look - what it really boils down to is this.....

HOW DOES THAT CROSS AFFECT YOU AND WHY DO YOU FIND IT SO OFFENSIVE?

It stands on a piece of land that you drive by, walk by, ride your bike by, whatever. It doesn't impede your day in any way, shape or form. Maybe, it makes you stop for a second and think of some men and women who put their life on the line so that you would be free to believe what you want to. Do you really stop and wonder what religion they are? Does it really matter so much to you?

Children are starving in Africa and South America. Homeless dogs are being put to sleep by the millions in the United States. An earthquake killed over 5,000 people in Indonesia in May. New Orleans and other parts of the Southern U.S. were destroyed by a hurricane last year.

When you look at those things and all of the other things going on in the world today - can't you find something to be offended by besides a cross?

Of course I do! I've been to many African countries and seen children dying of AIDS! I've seen horrendous birth defects in India which would've been cured at birth here. I see my country doing things of which I'm ashamed. I see economic, environmental and social problems everywhere I look.

But...please don't just trivialize the feelings of those who strongly object to public funds being used to promote religion. The fact that it doesn't seem important to you indicates to me that you're probably a Christian or that you at least were raised to be one.

If we're not stringent about keeping our government out of the hands of people with a religious agenda, we can easily wind up in the same league as the Taliban.

I can almost see you rolling your eyes, reading that, but stop and think about this....the moderate Muslims in Afghanistan didn't bother resisting the Taliban because...well, gee....who cares? Why should we object? We've always been Muslim. Religion's for the good, right? There are SO many other things to worry about...why sweat this one? After all, a little religion never hurt anybody!

Surely you understand that relgigous fundamentalists are dangerous people? Surely you understand that Christian fundamentalist are as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists? They all want control of things. They all want to impose their doctrines on you and me.

Government should not endorse religion. The founding fathers understood that. Read some of their opinions on organized religion. They were wise men.

The term "slippery slope" is so over-utilized that I'd like to find another one, but it'll do here. IF we allow religions to blur that line and IF we allow elected "leaders" such as George Bush to insert their theological beliefs into government, we are on the same road as the Afghanis and the Pakistanis and the Saudis.

To those who say "WHY NOT RELIGION IN PUBLIC LIFE"....I say "Why do we need it?" People can pray in private, worship in private, utilize those values in private and do very well without inserting it into government. "Render unto Caesar...."

So--to answer your question...a cross does NOT offend me! What offends me is a religious symbol on publicly supported land or in publicly supported places.

I could be wrong, but I really don't think that many "public funds" were being spent on the upkeep of the almost 60 year old cross until someone was offended by the "spending of public funds". And since the community has voted and 75% of the people in San Diego WANT to spend their money to keep their symbol - maybe the rest of us could just let the cross alone.

I was baptist a Methodist. I haven't attended church with any regularity at any point in my life. I believe in everyone's right to believe as they see fit - so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

The cross was put there to honor service members who died to defend our freedoms. Since a majority of citizens of San Diego are Christian (whether the Athiests like it or not) a cross was used. If a majority of the locals were Jewish, then they probably would have put up a Star of David. If they were Muslim, then they would have used a symbol that had meaning to Muslims. And your point is....

I think what it boils down to is this...until the people in this country stop taking everything that is or could be a symbol for something that they personally don't believe in as a threat, we are going to have problems.

You know...the old idea of "the majority rules" is just soooo easy! "The majority ruled" to prevent blacks and whites from marrying awhile back, and "the majority ruled" when it was ok to keep womens' salaries suppressed. "The majority ruled" when prohibition was enforced and "the majority ruled" before women could even vote.

My point is and always will be...keep religion out of/off of publicly owned land. I can almost guarantee that atheists don't care if "the majority" is Christian or not. It's not a "holy war." It's an effort to keep government free of religious influence/endorsement.

Why do you continue to think it's ok for public funds to support Christian symbols?

Lulu2 wrote: Surely you understand that Christian fundamentalist are as dangerous as Muslim fundamentalists? They all want control of things. They all want to impose their doctrines on you and me


How long have you known me? And you still say crap like this. Your constant comparisons of me, and people who believe like me, to the Taliban is far more offensive than any symbol sitting on public land. No christian group or religious organization forced La Jolla California to put up a cross. It was a community wide effort to establish a war memorial for Korean vets. No christian Taliban group forced this cross to be installed against the will of the people. Yet this Paulson dude and others want to misuse the heavy hand of the law to force it down against the will of the people. Exactly who is imposing their doctrine? Who is trying to control which symbols are used and which aren't? Who is acting like the Taliban here?

If the residents of the city vote for whatever it is to stay - then YES - they should be allowed to spend the money that they pay to the city as they see fit.

It that is a matter of majority rule, then so be it.

If I remember right, all major decisions made in this country are done in a majority rule fashion. While that may be "easy", that is the way our system of government is set up. I am sure those who were in the "minority" when G.W. was elected weren't too happy about it either, but we live with it.

And maybe, just maybe, if we spent more time worrying about the really important things in life and not what "symbol" is offensive, the world really would be a better place.

Lulu2 wrote: Then sell the land to a private group and be done with it.
Tried and failed.



From the opening post:

Sheryl wrote: The city has tried to sell the half-acre beneath the cross to a nonprofit association that maintains the surrounding memorial walls. But federal judges have repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would keep the cross. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal in 2003.

A city-sponsored referendum asking permission from residents to sell the property failed in 2004, but 75 percent of the voters approved a second referendum the following year to transfer the land to the federal government. A Superior Court judge ruled that the 2005 measure was an "unconstitutional aid to religion." That decision is being appealed by the city.