AS anyone can see, this is a MEMORIAL TO VETERANS. It is not a church. It is not claimed by any religion. ONE ATHIEST and his ACLU attorney want it gone. Our Judiciary goes along with those two instead of 76% of San Diego City voters.
Posted on 06/20/2006 9:25:38 AM PDT by radar101
There are no words for what I think of the judge in this case.
Is the city precluded from selling the plot of land upon which rests the cross?
AS anyone can see, this is a MEMORIAL TO VETERANS. It is not a church. It is not claimed by any religion. ONE ATHIEST and his ACLU attorney want it gone. Our Judiciary goes along with those two instead of 76% of San Diego City voters.
IF the issue is the cross being on federal land...then what could be the objection to transferring the land to a non government owner? Federal property is routinely sold and transferred.
This surely sounds like judicial hostility to religion, and a spiteful judge for sure...similar to the judges' personal animus against Terry Schindler's family.
Has the self-same atheist vet sued to have crosses removed from Arlington and other Veteran's cemeteries? Also maintained at federal/state expense.
I can think of a few words.
This will sound pretty vindictive but I like the image.
A lot of money is being spent on this case and, while there is a slight, very slight, chance that the judge will be reversed on appeal, the more likely outcome is that the cross will come down.
Why not let the cross come down, buy the house directly across the street from the judge's house (make the present owners an offer they simply can't refuse), tear it down, create an appropriate park, and put it up there? If necessary, get a special use zoning ruling to permit it's installation. Now certainly neither the judge or the athiests could object. It would, after all, be on private land. And it would be a fitting memorial to one of the judge's most important cases.
Not likely to happen but fun (for me anyway) to imagine.
Can't Arnold do anything?
On a hill far away stood an old rugged cross,
the emblem of suffering and shame;
and I love that old cross where the dearest and best
for a world of lost sinners was slain.
So I'll cherish the old rugged cross,
till my trophies at last I lay down;
I will cling to the old rugged cross,
and exchange it some day for a crown.
Can't the President?
It's been tried. The courts ruled the sales illegal.
The city needs to rule the court illegal.
I've heard that various groups are going to get a human chain going, in case they try to remove the cross. I've heard some quoted as saying that they will have to go through a large group of people if one day they send guys up to that mountain in a truck with tools to dismantle the cross.
This case shows how twisted the legal system and the interpretation of the establishment clause in the 1st amendment has become. As pointed out, this monument isn't an establishment of religion. Also, even if we accept the premise that a religious symbol doesn't belong on public land, the city has tried at least 3 land sales or donations that I know of, and the courts have overruled every single one. The courts have overruled every attempt of the city to dispose of the land so it wouldn't be on public property. Then recently this judge comes along and says the cross has to come down, though there are other appeals pending elsewhere in the legal system.
If there were a monument or statue up there in praise of the "Gay and Lesbian" community, do you think we would be having lawsuits to remove it?
Grow a pair Sanders, and tell this judge to stick it.
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.