Posted on 07/22/2006 12:30:41 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
Six of the current Supreme Court justices had other jobs when an atheist sued this city for permitting a giant cross in a public park. Ronald Reagan was president, the Christian Coalition was new and "values" had yet to become a buzzword of American politics.
Seventeen years of legal wrangling later, the 29-foot monument still crowns a hill over the Pacific - defended by city ballot measures, federal legislation and even one congressman's appeal for presidential intervention.
Now the Supreme Court has weighed in, and the case of the Mount Soledad cross may set a precedent on whether the government can let religious symbols be maintained in public places.
State and federal judges have ordered the cross removed, saying it represents an unconstitutional endorsement of one religion. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court halted an order that the city take it down by Aug. 1, giving state and federal courts time to hear appeals this fall.
The high court has inched toward allowing religious symbols in public places if they have historic value or nonreligious meaning. A pair of 5-4 rulings on separate cases involving the Ten Commandments in 2005 left hazy guidelines on what is permissible: one display inside a Kentucky courthouse was deemed unconstitutional, a 6-foot granite monument outside the Texas state capitol was fine.
"It's pretty clear you can't display a Latin cross 365 days a year on top of city hall," said Douglas Laycock, a church-state expert at the University of Texas law school. "But this cross isn't at city hall, and it's been there for a long time."
Supporters of the Soledad cross call it the centerpiece of a war memorial that salutes veterans, not religion.
"The cross is the quintessential symbol of fallen soldiers in Western civilization," said Phil Thalheimer, chairman of the private group San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial.
"No one is being coerced to participate in any religious activity," said Thalheimer, who makes a point of saying he is Jewish.
The man who filed suit over the cross in 1989 is a Vietnam veteran who says that, even viewed as a war memorial, the monument excludes veterans who are not Christian.
Philip Paulson has said he would be happy if the 20-ton monument were moved to a churchyard near the hilltop park - or anywhere that is not public land. Paulson declined comment for this story, referring questions to his attorney, James McElroy, a locally prominent civil rights lawyer.
"It's not an obelisk, or just a flag," McElroy said. "It's a Latin cross, the most powerful symbol of one religion in the world, and it's standing in the middle of a public park like a giant neon ad for that religion."
The cross was dedicated in 1954 to commemorate Korean War veterans, though it was only after Paulson filed his lawsuit that the monument came to include signs or plaques indicating it was dedicated to fallen soldiers.
Today, the cross is ringed by concentric brick walls fitted with granite plaques inscribed with the names and pictures of individual veterans - a design with the courts in mind, according to the leader of a private group that maintains the cross and surrounding park.
"We put up a flag and the memorial walls so that we could satisfy the court's concern that a visitor from Kansas could tell it was a war memorial and not the Christian church promoting religion," said William J. Kellogg, president of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association.
San Diego congressman Duncan Hunter, chair of the House Armed Services Committee, has sponsored successful legislation declaring the Soledad site a federal memorial. On Wednesday, the House passed Hunter's bill mandating that the Defense Department acquire the cross and manage it as a national war memorial.
That would take the cross out of the city's hands, perhaps insulating it from further legal challenges.
In May, Hunter asked President Bush to exercise his powers of eminent domain to declare the site federal parkland, noting that last year 76 percent of San Diego voters approved preserving the cross. The White House has not intervened but has supported Hunter's newest bill.
The Supreme Court, on the other hand, has acknowledged congressional efforts to protect the cross. In his July 7 opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that lawmakers' "evident desire" to preserve the cross increased the likelihood that the high court would agree to review the case if appeals courts rule against the city later this year.
It's unclear when the Supreme Court might get the case back - if at all. The appeals courts may not rule until the end of the year, likely pushing any Supreme Court hearing into the 2007-2008 term at the earliest.
With the new appointment of conservative Justice Samuel Alito, court-watchers say the balance of opinion may have shifted in favor of letting existing displays stand.
"They hate these cases because they're emotional, they're controversial and they chew up a lot of political capital," said law professor Laycock. "But if they have five votes that eases the pain significantly."
Jay Sekulow of ACLJ, the org that can kick the ACLU's butt, had a petiton online about this cross to save it. The whole situation is an affront to the veterans and to the people of San Diego, and ACLU's is doing the slapping. Anyway, I signed Sekulow's petition. Anything to stop ACLU.
Given those divisions among self-styled conservatives, it's not hard to see why the liberals are able to tear down the crosses in America, both literally and figuratively.
why did we lose the right of religious expression at some arbitrary point in American history?
---
good question.
Isn't it amazing how the ACLU (Against Christian Liberties Unanimously) said nothing when a CA school forced their students to become Muslims for a whole week, adopting Muslim names, uttering prayers to Allah, and even conducting a Jihad, or saying nothing when an idol of a Mexican pagan god was erected in the middle of a city square in CA, paid for by tax dollars on gov't property?
The ACLU remains our "legalized" version of terrorists in America --- attacking everything that IS AMERICA. While, of course, our despicable Washington government just looks on and keeps supporting the ACLU, and all of its anti-Americanism.
I want to use that photo, or one like it, for the front of a post card after SCOTUS has decided the cross can remain. On the anniversary of the decision each year every year I will send it to the 100 most obnoxious atheist libertarians in America with short note: "Thinking of you on this glorious First Amendment day."
I have sought such relief in several cases, and had it both denied, and granted. The City Attorneys Office had no experience in such steps.
I also wrote sections of appeals briefs in both the state and federal appeals of court orders telling the City that it had to tear down the Cross.
If the Senate follows the lead of the House and passes the bill to have the Cross taken over by the Department of Defense, that should defang the litigation which was directed at the (current) owner, San Diego. If so, the ACLU will probably mount a new legal challenge, suing the federal government this time.
Whatever happens, this issue will eventually wind up in the Supreme Court. And I believe, based on certain decisions of the new Roberts Court, that it will uphold this as a war memorial.
P.S. Interested in a Freeper in Congress? Keep in touch with me.
Congressman Billybob
Latest article: "Stupidity about WW III: 'Here's your Sign' "
Please see a statement on running for Congress, here.
But it wasn't enough. ACLU liberals recoil from the cross like vampires. It's the very sight of the cross that offends them because they hate the one true Lord and His followers.
Since the cross is not a law passed by congress regarding the establishment of a national religion, it is not unconstitutional.
Next the christophobic gay-CLU will be smashing the crosses off the headstones at Arlington cemetery and insist that their vandalism is protected freedom of speech.
------
Would not suprise me -- Communists HATE anything that in any way holds them accountable for their actions, any system of human moral measurement -- that is WHY they hate Christianity. The ACLU, founded by communists, for communistic purposes, pursues just that path -- anti-Christ, anti-Constitution, anti-America -- anti-ANYTHING that in any way reflects upon accountability for ones actions.
If the supreme court decides against religious symbols being maintained in public places then a law should be passed to tear down the supreme court building because it is covered with religious symbols!Let the idiot judges set outside with folding lawn chairs and tables to issue their rulings which always say,"the majority be damned"!
The word "culture" implies that it is grounded in a form of worship. If stare decisis means anything, it is deference to what has been decided in the past.
That may be taken as injustice, but many a fortune presently enjoyed by respectable familes is founde don the misdeeds of their ancestors. That doesn't mean that we should try to take those fortunes from them.
The lengths you people will go to in order to impose your view of morality on others.
YOU PEOPLE??? Christians are now YOU PEOPLE on FReeRepublic, of all places???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.