I thought it meant "whale's vagina".
Posted on 05/03/2006 1:37:30 PM PDT by radar101
federal judge on Wednesday ordered the removal of the Mount Soledad cross from property owned by the city of San Diego within 90 days or he will fine the city $5,000 a day. “It is now time, and perhaps long overdue, for this court to enforce its initial permanent injunction forbidding the presence of the Mount Soledad cross on city property,” said U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson.
Thompson first found the presence of the cross on city property unconstitutional in 1991 because it violated the separation of church and state.
Since then, his order, and the issue of the cross, has been subject to more than a decade of litigation, public debates and, in recent years, two public votes.
The lawyer who fought for the removal of the cross said he expects city officials to comply with the judge's order and have it removed.
“I don't think the city has its heart in taking more action,” attorney James McElroy said.
City officials were not immediately available for comment, but during an hour-long court hearing, a lawyer for the city said that people had voted for transfer of the land under the cross to the federal government.
That transfer, which a Superior Court judge found unconstitutional, is now on appeal, said Deputy City Attorney David Karlin. He said legal papers are due by the end of the month.
Litigation over the cross is probably not over.
A group formed last year to ask voters to approve transferring the property to the federal government is looking at the possibility of appealing Thompson's decision.
Philip Paulson, the man who sued back in 1989 for removal of the cross, declined comment after Wednesday's ruling, saying he would let his lawyer speak for him.
The concrete, 29-foot cross has stood on its La Jolla hill since 1954,though the first cross was built there in 1913.
-PJ
I thought it meant "whale's vagina".
Damned athiest commies...in the most literal sense of the word.
Maybe the city should just remove the horizontal pieces, leaving a large middle digit and a large plague dedicating it to the judge.
I am sure that would not offend the liberal sensitivities.
The website says it's private land.
The City attempted to sell the land to a private group, the nonprofit Mount Soledad Memorial Association, in 1994 and again in 1998.
These sales were later voided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as unconstitutional on grounds of religious preference. The city also accepted, and then later reneged on, an agreement to move the cross to the grounds of a nearby church.
While the cross and land were apparently owned by the group (after the 1998 sale), the group added some memorial plaques (donated by supporters) to bolster the claim that the site was a war memorial.
From Wikipedia
NOWHERE in the constitution or bill of rights is there any law or writ stating that we have a state theology.
Oh, but don't forget to invite the Afghan Taliban guys who blew up the statues of Budda in Afghanistan. They ought to have a stake in this thing too. After all, their bedfellows with the athiests, ACLU activists, Democrats, and Democrat-liberal judges who support destroying this Christian, Veteran landmark. Maybe they could let the same ragheads who blew up the Budda statues push the button on this one too.
But of course, there'd be a hell of a lot of folks in line there to do that. After all, there won't be any liberal media types, American or world wide, lamenting the destruction of a historic landmark by religious zealots in this case, because these zealots are from the new, holy, anointed religion of the USA - atheism.
SFS
http://www.soledadmemorial.com/about.html
Second to last bullet. Interesting.
Yeah, the problem is that there have been court cases upon court cases, voter referendums, sales and aborted sales, and wild and crazy decisions from judges.
If you look at the link you provided, and click on a link on that page marked "Update", you will see that there is ongoing argument about who does own the land. Obviously the Association position is that they own it, however multiple judges seem to have ruled otherwise.
I can't see how the judge could think otherwise when it states, "The Mt. Soledad Memorial Association believes it has always owned the cross and holds the deed to the half acre parcel in question. The City of San Diego has not returned the money paid to it by the Association when the Association purchased the parcel in 1998."
What a mess.
there should be some sort of lawsuit or something that the people can file. After all, this issue was put to a vote and the majority said keep it. By the government not abiding by the majority vote, isn't that unconstitutional?
crosses are a symbol of life after death. The cross does not promote the jewish faith, it does not promote the baptist, presbyterian, lutheran, catholic, etc. facets of christianity. It is a symbol of eternal life. No one is telling anyone that they have to believe in one religion. THAT is what the 1st amendment protects us from - that there will not be the establishment of one religion in this country that all must worship. The cross is a symbol of speech. These liberal weenies would not have a problem burning American flags on this site as "freedom of speech and expression", however, to display a cross is somehow infringing on the rights of those who don't agree with it. Well, I'm offended and my rights are being infringed upon by this type of behavior but no one is standing up for me or the rest of us.
We have to take our country back.
I really don't have a problem with the cross and I don't believe we should run around tearing down things built in the past. Just that if they promote a religion no more should be built on public land. I would disagree with your meaning of the cross. In general it is the symbol of Christianity and in some countries of other religions you can be killed for wearing it. In general religions all promote a theology of state and has throughout history. Very little progress was made until there was a separation of state and religion.
Well the government (in this case, the local government) has been trying to transfer the property to private property or give it to a Federal agency, but the darn out of control judges keep stopping it.
We some how have to get control of the nutso judges in this country.
Here is another view of those plaques, dedicated to those who have served.
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.