well then...just...go.
buh-bye
Posted on 09/01/2006 4:42:48 AM PDT by radar101
Philip Paulson, who sued the city of San Diego 17 years ago to force the removal of the Mount Soledad cross from public property, has been diagnosed with terminal liver cancer.
Paulson, 59, and his lawyer, James McElroy, said yesterday they plan to add another plaintiff to the case so that it may continue. Like Paulson, the new plaintiff, Steve Trunk, is a Vietnam war veteran, an atheist and the product of a religious upbringing.
“I'm deeply saddened to hear about Phil's health,” McElroy said. “He's been a very courageous man in my eyes to stand up against such difficult odds and fight so long and so hard, and my big hope is that he will survive to see this important constitutional battle won for all religious minorities and people of conscience.”
City Attorney Michael Aguirre said yesterday he was sorry to hear about Paulson's diagnosis. He said the city would not oppose the addition of Trunk to the case because it's the right thing to do, and the court would probably allow it anyway.
“It's an important issue and it needs to be resolved,” Aguirre said. “We seek justice based on the merits. Seeking to take a cheap procedural advantage due to someone's health would not likely be viewed favorably by the court.”
Paulson said doctors discovered he has a fast-growing tumor on his liver and estimated he has four to 12 months to live if chemotherapy is unsuccessful. He was told July 31.
The adjunct college professor who teaches technology courses said he would of course like to live longer, but has accepted his fate and is not pondering the question of life after death.
“I want people to understand how an atheist dies,” he said. “I don't have any problem with death. When it's time to go, it's time to go. When you die, you're in a total unconscious state. I'm not into that wishful thinking. There's no by-and-by in the sky when you die.”
Breaking his silence Paulson, who has a history of letting his lawyer do the talking, broke his long public silence to discuss his illness. With humor and candor, he said he isn't worried about how cross supporters will react to the news. “However the public responds to it will be an interesting thing for me,” Paulson said. “I fully expect someone to say it's God's revenge. I anticipate that. I expect it. I wonder who will be the first to say it.”
One of Paulson's legal foes said he was surprised and saddened to hear of the prognosis.
“We're sorry to hear it,” said Charles LiMandri of San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial. “We'll certainly keep him in our prayers. We don't have any ill will toward anyone. We wish he would spend his time more productively than pursuing this lawsuit. We feel his time could have been better spent.”
The long battle over the cross began in 1989 when Paulson filed a lawsuit against the city, without a lawyer, and won in 1991. Since then, the cross has remained while appeals continued.
The city has argued that while the cross has religious significance, it also has a secular purpose – to honor war veterans. Paulson has contended the memorial was built only after he filed suit and is a ruse to cover its intent to promote Christianity. The cross is a religious symbol that should be moved from public land, Paulson contends.
The cross case gained national notoriety Aug. 14 when President Bush signed a bill that transferred ownership of the cross and war memorial site to the Department of Defense.
Until then, it appeared the cross was destined for removal. In May, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. moved to enforce the decision he handed down in 1991 that it violated the state constitution's ban on government showing a preference for religion. He gave the city 90 days to comply or be fined $5,000 a day.
The ruling set off a flurry of legal activity that culminated July 7 when U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy blocked Thompson's order, stopping the specter of fines for the city and allowing time for the congressional bill to move forward.
With the land now belonging to the federal government, the legal battle has shifted to how courts interpret the federal – not state – constitutional ban on government support for religion.
Two new lawsuits Consequently, two new lawsuits were filed in federal court in August. The first was filed by attorney McElroy on behalf of Paulson and Trunk to name the federal government as a defendant and to challenge the transfer of land to the Department of Defense. The second suit was filed by the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter last week to force removal of the cross on behalf of a national Jewish war veterans organization and three San Diego residents.
It's possible those two cases may be consolidated.
Although there are two new federal lawsuits with multiple plaintiffs, Paulson's original lawsuit could still be important if the judge in the new cases, U.S. District Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz, voids the transfer of the cross to the Department of Defense, McElroy said. In that scenario, the case would revert back to Judge Thompson.
LiMandri contends that is an unlikely scenario, and said it's also unlikely Paulson's health would have any impact because the old lawsuit is irrelevant, and Trunk is already named as a plaintiff in the new lawsuits.
“It's not going to impact it dramatically in the sense that now it's a national issue getting national attention. Whether it's going to be Mr. Paulson prosecuting the case or the ACLU I don't think it's going to make a difference,” LiMandri said.
Religious upbringing The new plaintiff, Trunk, comes from a Southern Baptist and Catholic background. Despite years of religious education, Trunk became an atheist in his early teens, according to a short biography on the Freedom From Religion Foundation Web site. Trunk is a board member. He has lived in San Diego for more than two decades and works for an electronics company as a network analyst. He used to be a stand-up comedian in his spare time.
Paulson said he chose Trunk to continue his legal fight because of his credentials as a veteran and an atheist and because he could trust that Trunk would have the passion and commitment to see the case through.
Though Paulson is still involved in the legal wrangling, he has a different kind of fight now.
As a veteran, Paulson said he has chosen an atheist symbol, authorized by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, to be etched on his granite grave marker. He said he wants to make it clear he is not interested in outlawing crosses from graves.
“There's a big difference between a government-sponsored Latin cross on Mount Soledad that is supposed to represent all veterans – which it does not, because it does not represent me – and individual veterans selecting among various religious icons to put on their gravestone marker,” Paulson said.
Paulson knows the case that has defined his life could make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court in the years to come, and he may not live to see it.
“I'm not concerned about the end result. I'm more concerned about the trying. It's all in the trying. I measure success based on my own efforts. People who know me know that Philip Paulson has perseverance, persistence, ceaseless determined energy. I never give up.”
Kelly Thornton: (619) 542-4571; kelly.thornton@uniontrib.com
well then...just...go.
buh-bye
Bump.
No, Mr. Paulson, for you, there isn't. But there is still time to repent.
And so do agnostics like myself. I used to militantly atheist like Mr Paulson (I still find Ayn Rand an enjoyable and useful read though). The problem with militant atheism is you have to hang out with other militant atheists and you risk needlessly destroying relationships with religious persons. Agnosticism is not necessarily an intellectual copout.
God forgive me, but He has the last word...
Trials dark on every hand,
and we cannot understand
all the ways of God would lead us
to that blessed promised land;
but he guides us with his eye,
and we'll follow till we die,
for we'll understand it better by and by.
I'm hopeful that this fellows prayers to the ACLU are answered!
Hope he knows the cross and the people who believe in it will live longer than he does.
I'm not sure where atheists' certainty stems from. There are a few diehard atheists here on FR, perhaps they can answer that question.
God doesn't need to take revenge. Man stands condemned already and it is for all men to suffer the first death.
In this respect, Paulsen is no different than any other man. He insists upon separating himself in his incessant thinking that he is able to control all things he puts his mind to control. In a sense, he attempts on one hand, to make himself god and on the other hand, to simply ignore the things he can't control as outside any possible grasp. In a sense, he simply does things that are right in his own mind, but without faith in Christ all his works are simply good for eternal nothingness.
Perhaps the most obvious indicator of his error is his own mortality, but instead, he favors his personal thinking to insist nothing exists after his death, therefore he is immune to the consequences of his error, when he is not aware of them. His thinking demonstrates an incredibly arrogant perspective.
Prayers for his health and his soul.
I don't think this is an example of God's vengence but don't deceive yourself. God is slow to wrath but the Bible is full of stories of his vengence.
We are all condemned and dependent upon Grace, but God has taken vengence against individuals, nations and the world as a whole in the past.
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.