Posted on 08/02/2005 7:53:07 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
...In the election last Tuesday, 76 percent of voters approved the transfer. Despite the vote, the fight isn't over.
City Attorney Michael Aguirre told The San Diego Union Tribune that it would be unconstitutional for the city to transfer the cross to the government because it would be done primarily to preserve a religious symbol.
Lawsuits are still pending after the November vote, alleging the ballot measure was illegal. If a judge agrees, the whole fight could start over.
That could be bad news for the cross display. Some citizens don't want to waste any more resources trying to keep the cross.
In addition, in a town racked by financial problems and suffering a seemingly endless battle to fill the mayor's seat, City Councilman Scott Peters said he worries about the ripple effect on San Diego.
“I just think that as city we can't afford to fight this battle and that’s the position we are going to be in. When we lose these cases, which it appears we will again, the plaintiffs will sue us and recover their attorneys fees from our public money, and I just don't think that we are in a position to do that anymore.”
To make matters worse, it's not just opponents of the cross taking the city to court. The Mount Soledad Memorial Association which owns the cross says it owns the land too, which means voters may have given away property that wasn't theirs.
James McElroy, the attorney for a resident who sued the city over the cross' presence on city land 16 years ago, told The Tribune that if the measure passes it will be challenged again in court.
"This will be resolved in the courtroom where it deserves to be resolved and not in front of the voters," he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Tell them it's a PARTY IN THEIR HONOR. Promise to have some really tall bodega's filled with tequilla. Then, lay on the feast.
The federales can be counted on to arrange the rest.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Actually, I'm thinking the land will be transfered primarily because 76% of the PEOPLE who live there want it to be transfered.
Who cares why? The people have the right to freedom of religion. The government isn't forcing any religious views, it is the GOVERNMENT that is being forced to take action by the people.
Why don't they simply remove the cross, and THEN transfer the land. Then the new owners can buy the cross on e-bay and re-install it.
Of course that is stupid. The whole thing is stupid. This is a collosal waste of money because ONE INCREDIBLY INTOLERANT PERSON and a bevy of lawyers willing to make money off the bigotry and hatred.
"Oh no, it's a cross, it burns, it burns" -- what is it, a vampire?
If a cross hurts you so much, maybe you aught to examine your heart to figure out why the symbol has such a powerful influence on you.
I don't cringe every time I see a mosque, even though I know what is being preached in it. I don't have a seizure when I am confronted with Tom Cruise and his religious beliefs.
Why are the anti-cross people so terribly sensitive and weak?
Pretty much sums up liberal ideology, glad they finally put it into print.
The libs only bastion of power: the courts.
That statement is echoed and believed by libs all around the country: Don't trust the voters if they vote against liberal ideology, take it to court where we have sympathetic 'friends'.
Nice to see a lib admitting that they do not trust the peeples and do trust the courts.
This is the MAIN reason why the appointment of judges to any court is so important.
Sounds like a SCOTUS-type decision: If it was for another reason, the transfer might be OK, but if it will result in a "religious icon" being unharmed, it is not OK.
Just another example of how the left abhors democracy and the democratic choices of a majority of the people. That 76% of San Diego residents who voted to keep the cross should electorally target the district attorney and any elected officials who support him.
You were right; the libs and the ACLU are not going to give up. It would seem that 76% of the voters, who do think freedom of religion is a constitutional right and should be upheld by the courts, do not matter in this battle between the atheists and the rest of us.
Most of the world condemned the Taliban for taking down that Buddhist statue. And somehow people in THIS country want to take down crosses!?! Time to "Just Say NO".
Maybe they should also change the city's name.
San Diego means Saint Diego.
While they are at it, they might also want to change the name of the state capital Sacramento (Sacrament), and Los Angeles (La Ciudad de la Nuestra Mujer, La Regina de Los Angeles + The City of our Lady, the Queen of the Angeles), plus Santa Barbara, etc. Maybe they should rename San Francisco New Sodom.
There is no humor in the fact that the Soviet's were repulsed by the name St. Petersburg and other such cities and had no qualms about changing them. Do we want more Soviet style purges of our Christian roots? Let's fight the good fight and win it. Pray - Vote - Bark, and if necessary Bite!
"Don't tread on me!"
It may be just a cross but isn't just a cross also art? And isn't art covered under freedom of speech, or expression?
And why would the libs, who just had an art exhibit trashing President Bush and calling it freedom of speech or expression, be trying to squelch the freedom of speech or expression?
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.