Posted on 07/30/2008 11:56:12 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
The giant cross atop Mount Soledad can stay, a federal judge ruled yesterday.
The La Jolla landmark has been the subject of nearly 20 years of litigation, public votes and legislative maneuvers as critics complain it's unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land.
But yesterday, U.S. District Judge Larry Burns said the cross – visible for miles – has become a memorial to veterans, and its secular message outweighs any religious meaning.
“The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death, and sacrifice,” Burns wrote.
As a result, the congressional takeover of the cross by eminent domain – an action that followed another federal judge's order that the cross could not stand on city-owned land – is constitutional, Burns ruled.
Charles LiMandri, a lawyer fighting the cross's removal, said he was delighted though not surprised with the ruling.
“The people of San Diego wanted and deserve this result,” LiMandri said. “They're not going to be able to take that cross down, and they should just deal with it.”
The ruling troubled the lawyers who challenged the transfer of the cross and surrounding veterans memorial to the federal government.
“The central fact of the case is it's a 43-foot-tall cross,” said David Blair-Loy, legal director of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “There's nothing more religious than a cross.”
Philip Paulson, the late atheist and Vietnam War veteran, sued over the cross in 1989, and two years later, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson said its presence on city land violated a ban on government preference for religions in the California Constitution.
In 2006, after giving the city years to fight or otherwise deal with his ruling, Thompson gave the city an ultimatum: take down the cross or pay daily fines.
That year, Congress passed a law taking the cross and the land on which it sits by eminent domain and giving it to the U.S. Department of Defense.
Paulson died in 2006. Two lawsuits were filed after the federal takeover, one by a friend of Paulson's, another by the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America and three people.
Unlike Thompson, Burns based yesterday's ruling on his reading of the U.S. Constitution, which has a more lenient standard on how religious symbols might appear on federal property than the state constitution.
Two Supreme Court decisions on which he relied were decided by 5-4 votes in 2005. In one, the court said the Ten Commandments couldn't be displayed in Kentucky courthouses because they were “unmistakably religious,” but their display among other monuments on the Texas Capitol grounds was constitutional.
Steve Hut, an attorney for the Jewish veterans group and other cross critics, said he thinks Burns misunderstood the law.
“We think we will ultimately be able to persuade a higher court our view of the facts and the law are correct and Judge Burns' view is not,” Hut said.
Others expect just such an appeal, even if they don't support it.
Harley-Davidson dealership owner Myke Shelby, who is Jewish, helped spur a local ballot measure calling for the federal takeover.
Reached in Pennsylvania last night, Shelby said, “I'm thrilled to hear it. I think it's a long time coming, and hopefully this is it, and the people who want to destroy that war memorial and want to destroy the cross will realize it's over, let it alone, let it be done, walk away.”
William Kellogg, president of the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, which built and maintains the cross, said the judge echoed what his association has been saying for years – that the memorial is meant for veterans, not Christians.
“That makes me feel terrific because that truly is what it's all about, honoring veterans,” Kellogg said. “Our mission has been to communicate that to the public for so many years, so I think the language there is very appropriate.”
True. But on this one, he is right, and he has done good work preserving our rights.
I guess the 9th Circus is next.
Good news on this one case at this point, but the Anti-Christian Lawyers Union has succeeded, because a cross cannot be displayed on public property unless a court determines it is a secular symbol.
Interesting take on the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for our sins and our redemption. I'll have to read the opinion and see how the judge reasoned his way to this conclusion.
FE ping...
Another reprieve!
These people are not libertarians. They are atheists and Jews who, for whatever reason, get their kicks by tormenting Christians. True libertarians couldn't care less about religious symbols on public lands.
PS. the ACLU is a socialist organization.
PPS. How pathetic are these people who have nothing better to do than file lawsuits trying to get a cross removed? They must be sad, miserable people.
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.