I don't see how the question whether atheism is a religion impacts this case. We already have religions other than Christianity that would object to a cross in the public space on the grounds that it is not their symbol; the obvious response to their concern is that they are free to erect their own monuments on other public hills.
The question is logically impacted by the very flawed Lynch v. Donnelly decision (131). I speak not as a lawyer but as a reasoning human being. That decision, unfortunately, was at the time seen as a victory for the freedom of religion. But it was not that: it established a standard according by which a religious symbol must be watered down by secular themes and embedded in them: the Ten Commandments must be put in the context of justice in general, perhaps with a Greek goddess present blindfolded and holding scales; a creche must be surrounded by elves, flying deer and Santas; a cross must by buried in some, perhaps, patriotic symbols (it is after all honoring the veterans -- the American eagle, maybe). This silliness, of course, destroys the Christian symbol almost entirely, and opens the secular symbol to ridicule.
The unfortunate fact is also that so many Freepers, I'm sure with the best of intentions, responded with suggestions to somehow bury the cross in something else: put a Hanukkah candles next to it, or the Koran, or the Muslim crescent; others pointed out to other embedded symbols in secular context, like "God" on the currency or "San" as part of city names. That is fine as humor, but in seriousness we should fight for the inalienable right to erect any religious symbol on public land so long as the well-defined process of obtaining a permit based on aesthetic, engineering and safety consideration, but not on ideological or sectarian considerations, has been followed. We should not be deterred by the fact that the vast majority of these symbols will end up Christian, reflecting the religious makeup of our country. We should not yield to those who would want us to dilute these symbols by secular aesthetics.
It is, of course, especially insulting to Americans that this cross is also the cenotaph for the fallen for our freedom. However, we should take back the Constitutional freedom as it is, whole: the freedom to erect a cross on a public land for no other reason but of worshiping Jesus Christ.
Direct civil disobedience is of course impossible short of setting up a permanent vigil around the Mt. Soledad Cross. However there is something many property owners in America should be able to do: erect a cross on your property and make it as tall and visible as possible. It may be the most important patriotic act in your life.
Judge needs to get over being a slave. This is simply ridiculous, and who cares what the ninth circuit thinks-they obviously don’t understand the religious freedom we are supposed to have.
The Madelian Murray case was a big infringement on our rights, and marked a big turn toward secularization, and is just a tiny piece of a larger picture, where they continue to chisel away a piece at a time the religious freedom of the majority.
Step by step. Piece by piece. Prayer in school, nativity scenes, ten commandments, etc. Once they get the courts to usurp the legislature and constitution on one issue, they turn to another in a neverending stream of lawsuits designed to infringe on our rights.
Citizens and legislatures/congresscritters should have stopped this long ago, but I don’t believe they understood the threat-it’s the frog in water thing-do it slow with small steps, by the time people wake up - too late.
The judge’s hands weren’t tied except in his own mind. He could have ruled for the principles that were intended by the founders, and stood up to tyranny. Reminds me of Pontius Pilot a bit.
IIRC, the ninth circuit is one of the most reversed courts in the nation. They should have been removed a long time ago. And that’s really all I have to say on the subject.JMHO