U.S. gov't gets giant cross in San Diego

[deadparrot]

WASHINGTON - A giant cross in San Diego that's been contested for 17 years by an atheist became the property of the federal government Monday with President Bush's signature.

Supporters hope the legislation transferring the 29-foot cross and war memorial it's a part of to the federal government will protect it for good. A series of court decisions have deemed the cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

"Just because something may have a religious connotation doesn't mean you destroy it and tear it down," said Rep. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., after an Oval Office signing ceremony attended by other cross supporters and Republican House members from San Diego who sponsored the bill.

"It's a great victory for our veterans," said House Armed Services Committee Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060815/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cross_dispute

[Kerrytravelers]

1. Oh good. One more cross. Because there aren't enough all over the place.

I'm a Christian. I don't need to see a cross 24/7 so I can feel validated. That's insane.

[MadMaddie]

3. Why is the President involved in this local issue?

This is why he and his cabal are pathetic failures.....they are so busy trying to micromanage all of the small issues that impact a few neocon supporters instead of what is important for the greater good of the nation.....

[Kerrytravelers]

4. Greater good of the nation... now that's funny.

I don't think he ever gave one whit about the greater good of the nation. These people are unbelievable.

[MadMaddie]

6. Yea...I know.....sometimes you have to say it out loud....

to remember there were times when "The greater good of the nation" was important. Sigh....not until we have cleaned the Repugs out of DC will there be a chance to get to normal again...

[BushOut06]

2. Tear the fucker down

EXACTLY why it should be torn down - because it has religious connotations! Figures BushCo would stick his nose in this. After all, he's been acting as if he's above the law, why not trash the first amendment while he's at it?

[Odin2005]

7. What about the Jesus statue in Rio?

If you apply the reasoning of some of my fellow atheists the Rio Jesus would have to go.

[Bigmack]

14. Rio is not in this country....

they can do what they want. We, however have a Constitution that doesn't establish religion.

[The Wielding Truth]

56. What is wrong with holding on to relics of our past history. You don't

tear down Monasteries that have been donated to the public. You are advocating removing the flavor of this land . I say let it continue to stand. It is an historic symbol and should be saved to remember and inspire us to be tolerant and respectful of those who came before. Nothing in our past has been pure because we are human and we have differences that this cross will attest to. Should Stone Hendge be dismantled???
Find another cause. * has given us many.

[wickerwoman]

22. Is the statue in Rio on public property

in a country whose constitution mandates separation of church and state?

[Bacchus39]

30. where in the Constitution does it mandate separation of

church and state?

and yes, the Corcovado with its statue of Jesus is a National Park. However, being in Brazil it has no bearing whatsoever on the US.

[OregonDem]

33. Its in the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....

By making a permanent religious symbol to be public property the state is creating a law which respects an established (or organized) religion, namely Christianity.
While it is true that this amendment says that Congress is the only one who cannot do it, later amendments (the 14th I think) to the Constitution stated that local and state governments had to abide by the Bill of Rights also. The president also swore an oath to uphold the Constitution which he is violating by doing this.
Although the Constitution doesn't specifically say "seperation of church and state" it is just easier to say than "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

[Bacchus39]

62. the establishment clause does not mandate separation of

church and state.

I do not interpret the establishment clause to be equivalent to separation of church and state either.

If I am not mistaken, national cemeteries also use religious symbols and they are permanent.

[Zomby Woof]

65. Madison and Jefferson would disagree

Just because YOU do not interpret the establishment clause as the "wall of separation" (as Jefferson deemed it in his address to the Danbury Baptists, as he was the author of the Statute of Religious Freedom in Virginia, the antecedent for Madison's draft of the First Amendment), does not make it so. 200+ years of jurisprudential precedent trump your 'interpretation'.

The crosses you refer to at national cemeteries are grave markers for individual soldiers, which is fine, because those soldiers were christian. Stars of David mark Jewish soldiers' resting places. And so on... These markers would be expressions of their guaranteed individual religious liberty.

The cross in San Diego isn't a grave marker for ONE soldier, it is a marker for ALL of them, and that crosses (no pun intended) the line from individual religious liberty into breaching the establishment clause. It's a fine line, albeit strong. It is doubtful that the cross represents the religious sympathies of every soldier commemorated there. One size does not fit all. The cross's reach exceeds its Constitutional grasp.

It is a typical conservative talking point to say "the Constitution doesn't say anything about separation of church and state!". Well, it doesn't say anything about the "separation of powers" either, but could you argue that we don't actually have checks and balances? Does conceptual interpretation mean anything to you? Does context?

Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are among the biggest proponents of the lie that there is no wall of separation. That is because the wall is the barrier preventing them from achieving what they desire: The establishment of ultraconservative fundamentalist jihad-style christianity as THE state religion. I have followed Pat Robertson's career for years, (which was aided greatly by being his neighbor in Virginia Beach for a very long time - we even voted in the same precinct). I know what a dangerous sonofabitch he is, and I view ANYONE who denies the wall of separation between church and state with more than casual suspicion.

[Bill McBlueState]

67. exactly

It's surprising you would have to educate someone about the First Amendment on DU, but DU is full of surprises.

Welcome!

[slackmaster]

28. I oppose spending money to tear it down

Or to keep it up. With the fiscal mess faced by the city and the state, surely we have more pressing issues to worry about.

[ShockediSay]

5. Christo Fascists

Taliban Christian Fundamentalists

what's the diff?

God's on our side?

[Pavulon]

9. vice and virtue is not

going to cut off a part of your body or put an ar round behind your ear for posting your opinion.

That is the primary difference. They have a side, you have a side, I have a side, and we are not killing one another over it.

[The Stranger]

24. A fundamentalist is a fundamentalist is a fundamentalist.

And maybe you haven't been paying attention, but when pushed, and out of earshot, they are talking about killing those who don't "believe."

[kestrel91316]

31. As a matter of fact there is a rather large segment of the "christian"

right that DOES advocate for a return to biblical stoning (death penalty by torture) for the heinous crimes of adultery, arguing with one's parents, failing to practice the "correct" religion and such.

Just thought you might want to know, in case you had some notion of moral superiority of Christianity over Islam.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[leesa]

15. It wasn't placed as a war memorial. It became a war memorial.

I'm glad you won't mind the other religious symbols when they come to be placed there as well.

[The Stranger]

25. Go read the Constitution.

Then come back and we'll talk.

[Zhade]

42. So because we want to prevent the government from endorsing religion...

..WE'RE like the Taliban? What kind of pretzel logic is that?

I find it extremely offensive that you would make such a bigoted remark about all atheists. I'm not like the Taliban.

By the way, it was NOT originally a war memorial. You might want to learn more before assuming who's wrong here.

[Kerrytravelers]

8. It's not the cross itself that bugs me (I know I may be alone here,) but

the argument made that the cross represents the Veterans. Really? So, there have been no Jewish, no Muslim, no Atheist soldiers? Please.

If they were to perhaps place some other representations of other religions the way they do the cross, I would have a different opinion.

Of course, that doesn't represent Agnostic or Atheist people. I would be very open to ways of representing them, as well.

[Disturbed]

12. Busholini Regime is promoting Christianity

all the time. This is only one more example. It has been said by many Christians that a person has to believe certain things in order to be a Christian. Millions of Americans don't believe in those certain things. Uh..What are "those certain things'? I am not a Christian so maybe some Christians here could enlighten me?

[Kerrytravelers]

54. Those certain things depends on what "Christian" you ask.

My fundy fruitcake in-laws have a pretty bigoted and narrow definition. I, on the other hand, don't believe there is one certain thing. I think the choices we make in life, like how we treat people and the good that we do, determines what kind of afterlife/next life we have. I also do not presume to know what the next stage after death is.

You are correct. By the * administration getting involved, this is but one more example of the federal government forcing their version of Christianity is all our faces.

[Zhade]

43. This atheist thanks you for thinking of us.

Threads like this tend to get ugly, with more Christians than I'd hope not seeing why this is wrong. Thank you for remembering that we taxpaying nonbelievers also matter in this country (or should).

[Kerrytravelers]

55. I always try to put myself in someone else's place.

How would I like it is a rule was made that all representation of Irish people was against this country. That we could only have symbols of the English. There have been plenty of Irish-Americas who have contributed and deserve recognition.

Ok, bad example, but you get my idea!

Anytime you need a Christian backer, you come let me know! If you're not free to believe, then neither am I!





kt

[brentspeak]

11. I don't approve of Bush getting involved, but I approve of retaining

the cross. It's a historical landmark for the area, proselytizing to no one.

[leesa]

16. Then why are so many upset by it if it is not offensive?

[slackmaster]

26. It must be very hard for the people who are honestly offended by it

I can't imagine being surrounded by symbols that caused me enough mental anguish to be motivated to try to make them go away. I seem to be able to pick and choose what to allow myself to find offensive, but it seems for some people it may not be a matter of choice.

The state of California has an amazingly large number of place names associated with Catholicism. If I was bothered by the sight of a cross on a hill I don't think I could stomach living in a city named after a saint, in a state with a capitol called Sacramento.

[Zhade]

44. It's not the symbol. It's the violation of the 1st Amendment.

If the government can violate it in one city's dispute, who's to say it won't violate it across the nation?

I don't have a problem with religious symbolism in its place - which is NOT on taxpayer-funded public land. I get a say, too, even though I don't believe in gods. It's my country, too. Saying we should just let this slide (not saying you are making that statement) is telling us our citizenship isn't worth a believer's - that we're not truly full citizens of the United States.

It's wrong of them to violate the Constitution and make anyone feel that way.

[fishwax]

58. can you pick and choose which constitutional violations you find irksome?

It isn't that people are offended by a symbol and cannot get past that. Rather, they are offended that the government, in violation of the first ammendment, is endorsing this religious symbol and housing it on public property.

[slackmaster]

60. I do it every day

All the time. There is no shortage of things to be irked about.

[PerceptionManagement]

13. The bill signing "smacks of election-year politics,"

"I don't think anybody really thinks the cross is going to remain on Mt. Soledad. It's been 17 years of litigation, and every court, every judge who's ever looked at it has ruled it's unconstitutional," McElroy said.


You know, the corrupt, incompetent republicans that surround Chimpy the War Criminal may be the most selfish, thoughtless regimes the planet has ever seen. This isn't about veterans. It's about a wedge issue at Diebold time. It's about imposing the conservative religious agenda.

What if instead of a cross, there was a statue of L. Ron Hubbard. Does any freeper on the planet think we would be having this discussion? No. I don't think so. They'ed throw the "veterans" under the bus faster than pervert Bill O'Luffah wanks to racist Michelle Malkin (and her Ghost Writing Husband).

[savemefromdumbya]

59. let's hope it doesn't end up like the Tower of Babel?

what would happen if someone knocked it down? That would be FOX headline news for weeks.

[kurth]

17. We must federalize and protect crosses and crucifixes

against flag-burning godless gay abortion doers. It's a grave threat to God and Country.

[Zorro]

18. Separation of Church and State

protects religious freedom for all. This simple concept seems lost on this current administration and all those that continue to fight to ensure the cross remains on public, now federal property.

Public funding for any religious institution or memorial runs counter to one of the fundamental principles in the Constitution, and is IMHO an anti-American act.

From a Christian POV, I say this cross is a graven image, and those that proclaim theirselves as Christians should not be lying and dissembling about the cross as a "War Memorial" and not a religious symbol. The history of the "memorial" is that it was created after the fact to provide a covering excuse for the cross to remain on public property.

As a veteran, I think the cross could/should be demolished and a more appropriate non-religious symbol be put in its place.

Too many wingnuts think that removing the cross is an attack on Christianity. Frankly, I am quite tired of government policies being perverted by ignorant loudmouths with persecution complexes.

[Zhade]

45. Terrific post, thanks for saying that.

NT!

[grilled onions]

19. This Will Solve All Our Problems

They spend far too much time on crosses,dragging rocks around with the "Big Ten" on it,stumping bible facts to even those who don't want to listen but they turn a deaf ear on those in medical pain,mental anguish,the rumbles of war,unemployment and the homeless. It's much easier to deal with build symbols then to do with the real issues.

[manhunter2006]

20. Whats the beef...

Makes you wonder what kind of life the "atheist" had for him to spend 17 years
contesting a war memorial cross. That guy had waayyyy too much time on his hands.
Seems like a pretty vindictive and shitty way to spend your time.
Im an agnostic at best and a cross on a hillside doesnt bother me at all.
then again I have a life and a clue..

[slackmaster]

29. I can't find any public record of him owning property in San Diego

He does own a house in another county.

[Zhade]

46. You may have a life, but not a clue on this case.

Wasn't started as a war memorial. Strictly religious at first. The "memorial" came later.

Every court has found the cross on taxpayer-funded public land violates the 1st Amendment.

There's nothing petty or vindictive about protecting the 1st Amendment, which includes freedom from religion as well as of religion. What many fail to realize is that if this government gets away with endorsing Christian symbols this way, there's nothing to prevent a later administration from doing the same with other symbols, some of them very objectionable to many.

Government intertwined with religion always spells disaster. Secularism works, and retains the rights of both the nonbeliever and the believer.

[Megahurtz]

57. You have a point there. n/t

[Richard Steele]

66. So you have no problem with the Gov. illegally supporting one religion?

I think you need to get a different clue.

And BTW, it DOESN'T "make me wonder" at all.
Some people actually CARE when the law is broken;
it seems clear that he's one of them.

[RebelOne]

21. I am an atheist and I could care less about this cross.

I don't live in San Diego and don't have to look at it.

[slackmaster]

27. Agnostic San Diegan here

The sight of that cross reminds me that I am home. I used to be an active Christian, at least I tried to be. The cross and its surroundings are deeply associated with memories of my youth. I have lived in several places from which I could see the cross.

[LordLovesAWorkingMan]

34. good point

The cross is now a local landmark and part of the local public domain, not a religious symbol per se. I hope this ends the argument once and for all...certainly better things to break your pick over in SD county.

[maxsolomon]

36. a cross is a cross is a cross

it is a religious symbol whether you want it to be or not, though quotidian familiarity drains it of much of its meaning.

the maneuvering of the pro-cross groups is pitiful - first you turn it into a war memorial so you can claim that the horrid atheists (who are JUST LIKE the TALIBAN :eyes:) are trying to unsupport the troops.

why can't V just blow it up with some fireworks?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[maxsolomon]

51. so much to moderate

so many silly people.

[Zhade]

52. Heh, true.

The sad thing is, there may be very few people alerting on what is obvious bigotry, which saddens me - don't atheists count as human beings too?

Sigh.

EDIT: looks like the mods managed to get to it. THANK YOU, mods. It is appreciated that bigotry is disallowed here!

[maxsolomon]

63. and you got popped too!

bad zhade

[Javaman]

23. That's the one with the rocket launchers right? nt

[OregonDem]

32. Its the federal government endorsing a particular faith,

I don't mind crosses on the side of the road, as long as they were put there by the victims family. I don't mind crosses on the gravestones of our soldiers because that is a representation of that individual's faith and as long as Arlington allows other symbols of different religions including atheism (which they do) then I don't have a problem with it. I also wouldn't have had a problem if they sold the land to private landowners who wanted to keep the cross. But as long as the government is using public property to basically say this is a christian nation then I am against it. It will be used in the future as evidence that church and state were never separated, and that it is acceptable to legislate the enforcement of religious laws and more endorsements of Christianity. Don't believe me?, well look at how the religious right uses "In God We Trust" (an obvious violation of the establishment clause) to further their agenda in putting the ten commandments everywhere on public property. The religious right continues to deny that we were established to allow for freedom of religion by the government remaining neutral on the issue of faith and they have also forgotten that this nation was founded by people escaping theocratic nations. They will continually strive to make sure that the state uses its authority to make right wing Christianity the religious monopoly in the US. The best way for people to retain there freedom of religion is to diligently strive to make sure the government stays out of religious matters.

[Zhade]

47. Great post, with one caveat...

Selling the land to private owners to specifically preserve the cross was rejected by the courts.

[Kailassa]

35. It's only right that the cabal endorses the cross.

The cross is an instrument of torture,
and much more recognisable than the waterboard.

As such, the cross has always been a symbol
of terrible suffering, so the sight of crosses everywhere
is an apt reminder of the terrible suffering and death
this cabal has callously inflicted on so many,
both in America and overseas.

[slackmaster]

37. I hope you realize the "cabal" now includes every Democratic Senator

They all voted in favor of the federal government taking possession of the land.

[Kailassa]

38. You mean there is still a Democratic Party?

That's good news, it seemed to me the cabal had taken over both.

[Zhade]

48. Voting with the cabal doesn't necessarily make you of the cabal.

It does, however, make you craven and wrong, to aid in the violation of the Constitution.

[Throd]

39. I'm an athiest, not a vampire

crosses don't bother me much.

Yes, I understand all the arguments against government endorsement of a religious symbol, but considering all the dysfunction here in the Golden State, it isn't something that I'll get all worked up over.

[Zhade]

50. It IS just one more in a long line of violations of American rights.

Still wrong, though.

(Good opening line, I grinned.)

[Barrett808]

40. So the Wiccan war widow will be getting her plaque any day now, right?

"A victory for all veterans," it will be.

[Zhade]

41. Total violation. The government cannot accept land...

...in order to retain religious symbols. It's a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.

[PittPoliSci]

53. why do people erect stuff they know people are going to complain about?

why erect a gigantic cross when you know it is going to piss somebody off?

[slackmaster]

61. I wasn't even born in 1954 when the present cross was put up

But I do know enough about local history to find it believable that others being offended by it never entered the minds of the people who put it up. The local realtors didn't let Jews buy property in La Jolla until the early 1960s when the founders of UC San Diego made it clear that Jewish faculty and staff would be needed to build a great university, and back then anyone being an avowed atheist was considered by most to be a pariah.

[maxsolomon]

64. the CCRs in many western neighborhoods are appalling

in my neighborhood in seattle, asians & blacks weren't allowed in. jews were.

now anyone who can afford a 700k tear down is allowed in.