| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"johac" |
| Date: |
13 May 2006 03:19:23 AM |
| Object: |
Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains? |
More than a few have complained. Now it looks like they want to get
Dubya into the act. I don't see why it makes a difference whether the
cross is on federal, state, or city owned land. It is on public land and
needs to be removed.
---
The Mount Soledad controversy
Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains?
By Robert Steinback
May 12, 2006
Depending on your point of view, the elevated concrete cross on the
highest piece of real estate in San Diego is a generic California
landmark, a secular war memorial or the definitive symbol of
Christianity.
However defined, the presence of the 52-year-old Mount Soledad cross on
public land has turned it into the latest flash point in what its
defenders describe as the intensifying war for America's soul, this one
pitting the preferences of the majority against the rights of a very
small minority.
For 17 years, the city, backed by a determined army of Christian
advocates, has fought a stubborn atheist plaintiff who argues the cross
represents an unconstitutional preference by government for a particular
religion. The plaintiff, Philip Paulson, has won, or won on appeal, at
every stage. An exasperated U.S District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr.,
noting it is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this Court to
enforce its initial [1991] permanent injunction, issued a blunt order
May 3 threatening the city with a $5,000-a-day fine if the cross is not
removed within 90 days giving the saga the appearance of finally
nearing its conclusion.
But defenders of the Mount Soledad cross believe they're holding a new
ace in the hole: Five votes on the U.S. Supreme Court. So they're
fighting on with undimmed vigor joining spiritual allies in South
Dakota who recently passed an abortion ban, in Georgia, where the state
will fund Bible classes in public schools, and elsewhere with those who
feel the time is ripe for Christianity to reassert itself in America.
This is a battle in what we call a culture war, Charles LiMandri, a
private attorney and devout Christian who has represented the city
during its fight to maintain the Mount Soledad cross where it stands,
told me. Short term, we're fighting for a cross. Long term, we're
fighting over whose vision of the country we want to prevail.
If this goes to the Supreme Court, the way we count the votes, we think
we have five out of nine, and that's all we need.
Paulson's attorney, James McElroy, regards the case with comparable
passion, ranking it alongside others he has handled, including civil
rights litigation against white supremacists and freedom of choice cases
on behalf of Planned Parenthood.
It's about religious tolerance, McElroy told me. We're becoming more and
more religiously diverse in this country. Our government should be
saying to respect all religions, not, 'We care [so much] more about
Christians that we'll put a 40-foot, 20-ton cross on the most beautiful
land the city owns.'
Government is sending a message to non-Christians that they're
second-class citizens, he added.
Paulson is declining all interviews, McElroy said.
At times during the litigation, defenders of the monument have argued
that the Latin cross associated with Christianity has taken on a measure
of secular symbolism a position that, by my reckoning, would seem a bit
sacrilegious for advocates obviously motivated by the divinity
represented by the cross.
Some say this debate is about the cross. I could not disagree more, San
Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders said in a May 6 press release, in which he
vowed to fight on to preserve the monument intact. This is not about a
Christian symbol. What this boils down to is preserving a nationally
registered war memorial that is an integral part of San Diego history.
Yesterday, Sanders asked President Bush to join in the legal battle over
the cross, using the power of eminent domain to take the city-owned
property on which the memorial and cross sit.
Construction of the war memorial surrounding the cross began a decade
after Paulson filed his lawsuit. The case has featured three referenda
(voters approved one land sale, rejected another, then approved a
transfer to the federal government), two attempts to sell the cross site
to a private local society (one denied by a judge, one approved but
reversed on appeal), a petition drive (that compelled the city to
rescind an approved settlement) and a ruling that the voter-approved
transfer to the federal government was unconstitutional.
It's easy to see how local voters could get fed up with this convoluted,
protracted, expensive litigation over a monument that doesn't likely
offend more than a handful of San Diegans at best. But of what value is
any constitutional provision if a violation can be forgiven simply
because it offends only a small number of citizens? Would we brook a
denial of civil rights just because only a smattering of people were
wrongfully restrained, or the suppression of free speech if only a few
Americans were silenced? Should it matter if one persistent atheist
demands the law be enforced?
That's no longer a rhetorical question. Many Americans have tolerated
the compromise of certain personal freedoms as the cost of security in
the post-Sept. 11 world. Maybe we've unconsciously accepted that some
constitutional principles can be overridden whenever the majority
chooses not to respect them.
---
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060512/news_lz1e12steinba.html
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains? |
15 May 2006 10:34:10 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 May 2006 01:19:23 -0700, johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com>
wrote in alt.atheism
More than a few have complained. Now it looks like they want to get
Dubya into the act. I don't see why it makes a difference whether the
cross is on federal, state, or city owned land. It is on public land and
needs to be removed.
The Constitution is obsolete.
[]
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a plethora of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains? |
13 May 2006 06:14:08 PM |
|
|
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in news:jhachmann-
9CD312.01192313052006@news.giganews.com:
Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains?
Is murder acceptable if only the victim complains? Is rape acceptable if
only the victim complains?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
PGP ID: 0xC4CE8CF0
When one reads Bibles, one is less surprised at what the Deity knows than
at what He doesn't know.
-- Mark Twain
.
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains? |
14 May 2006 01:33:06 AM |
|
|
In article <Xns97C2A536D4F9A255229@130.133.1.4>,
Enkidu <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote:
johac <jhachmann@sbcglobal.com> wrote in news:jhachmann-
9CD312.01192313052006@news.giganews.com:
Is an illegal cross acceptable if only one complains?
Is murder acceptable if only the victim complains? Is rape acceptable if
only the victim complains?
Exactly. Sanders, Hunter, et al. need to take a crash course in civics
ASAP.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
-Voltaire
Contact - Throw a .net over the .com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
