Voters to decide on historic cross

The San Diego City Council voted this week to allow voters to decide the fate of the historic Mt. Soledad Cross overlooking the Pacific Ocean in La Jolla.

The vote represented the newest chapter in a long line of legal battles to remove the cross, led by ACLU attorney James McElroy, who represents an atheist seeking to remove the Christian symbol from public lands.

Essentially, the voters will decide whether they want to transfer the property to the National Park System as a war memorial.

For more than 50 years, the site has been recognized by the public as a place where war veterans are honored for their service to the United States.

The Mt. Soledad Association manages the site where plaques recognize war veterans who served in the last century. Most of the veterans recognized are from the greater San Diego area.

Last November, two Republican congressmen from San Diego County, Rep. Duncan Hunter and Rep. Randy Cunningham, added a provision to an appropriations bill to allow the city to designate the site as a national war memorial.

If the citizens of San Diego agree with this proposal, the site will be maintained by the National Park System. The bill was signed into law by President Bush in December.

Representatives from the Mt. Soledad Association and the park system were in Washington last week to discuss a working plan to manage the site.

Opponents of the transfer, including the ACLU, contend it is illegal and unconstitutional. However, a lawyer for the Thomas More Center, Charles LiMandri, contends there is legal precedent for protecting religious symbols that already are on federal land.

While the debate on religious symbols on public land slowly is working its way through the courts, the proposition to transfer city property to the federal government will be decided by San Diego voters July 26.

San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy, who is leaving office in July, says "it may provoke additional litigation, but some things are worth fighting for."

Murphy was a supporter of a referendum that forced the city council to revisit the issue. The referendum sparked a record 89,000 petitions to request that the cross not be dismantled from its present site.

The initiative rescinded an earlier vote by the council that would have removed it.

The referendum, put together in just a month, was widely supported by San Diego radio talk-show hosts Roger Hedgecock, Rick Roberts and Mark Larson and Los Angeles host Paul McGuire.

Slightly more than 33,000 verified signatures were required for the referendum to be successful, based on a registered voter base of approximately 650,000 voters.

Your original post specifically referred to crosses on graves at arlington cemetery. Your new link is to an entirely different subject. Which one do you want to debate?
=================================================

For those who didn't go to the link, the ACLU was trying to have a cross removed from a government-owned cemetery. It was not Arlington, but it was an example of outrageous behavior of the ACLU regarding a government-owned cemetery. In fact, it was the same subject but a different cemetery. A different subject might be how some new people come to FreeRepublic and are unfriendly and obnoxious until they get bitch-slapped around a little bit. I guess I should have begun my response to you by saying -- Although this is not Arlington, here is an example of...... For most FReepers, that was not necessary. I don't want to debate just for the purpose of arguing, which one of your posts said you love to do. Go argue with yourself. From what I have seen so far, you are a time waster. Starting out with posts that call fellow FReepers crazy and question the intelligence of their posts is not a good way to make friends. Change your attitude here or no one will be buying you a beer.

PS Although you might not respect crosses, have enough respect to capitalize Arlington.

It's matters not if the Federal government is atheist or agnostic or even neutral, the Federal Government held no power in such religious issues. Black robe tyrants started to pervert most of the Founders intentions which stated that the Federal Government was inferior to the States. You had the Bill of Rights and at number 10 read: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

To say there was to be a "wall of separation between church and state" is absurd and not found anywhere in the 1st Amendment. Also, where did the Federal government derive it's power from? Notice I said did, anything remotely close to what most of the writers of the Bill of Rights intentions are long gone.

"It was the peculiar union of those who wanted religious freedom and those states, such as Massachusetts, which feared that the federal government would establish a national religion different from the one already established in their state, that led to the religion clauses in the First Amendment. Even after the ratification of the Bill of Rights, official state churches existed in several colonies such as Massachusetts and Connecticut well into the Nineteenth century, but the federal government was barred from interfering in religious matters.

The Fourteenth Amendment changed this balance--although not until the decisions of the mid-twentieth century. The idea that the due process clause prohibited the states from meddling in religious expression was first asserted in Cantwell v. Connecticut, in 1940."-- The Constitution: That Delicate Balance, Fred W. Friendly and Martha J. H. Elliot

I don't know who I can't tolerate more a Federalist or Socialist, seems both have the same goal. A strong central control.

Fortunately there are people still at Free Republic who embrace the ideas of freedom, liberty, separation of powers, States rights, God and what those people who separated from the crown fought for. Sorry you are not with them since you would recognize the Calis. State Constitution and not embrace some potential tyrannical federal government.

"I disagree that the US was founded as a "Christian" country."

"Separation of Church and State" cannot be found in our founding documents.

My pastor was asked to head the Citizen's Committee to have the 10 Commandments installed in a government building in our county. He passed on the offer to care for his ailing mother, however, his brother-in-law headed the committee and this monument was installed on Sept. 11, 2003. Please note that this was after the Roy Moore problem and with the help of conservative legal advise, our monument was installed with dozens of satellite TV crews filming, overflow attendance and not a mention on the national news. You can check the American Heritage Foundation Rock info HERE . Be sure and read all the interesting documents on this monument. One of our local county commissioners asked my pastor to head this up and because these are part of our founding documents, it is legal. I was just in the county building permit office and this monument is in the lobby!

If we plan on defending freedom in this nation, then Christians must get in the fight. I am originally from Muhlenberg County, Kentucky. This county is named after General Peter Muhlenberg and here is an excerpt from how he mixed politics and religion. (Note: Check the link out and you can see his statue in the U.S. Capitol where he is removing his clerical robes to fight for our freedom.)

"In January of 1776, Muhlenberg sent word for his congregation to gather for his farewell sermon. Ascending his familiar pulpit, he preached from Ecclesiastes 3:1-8. The sermon glowed throughout with devoted patriotism as the man of God told his people of his own resolve to fight and, if need be, to die for his country. He closed his message with these words: "In the language of holy writ, there is a time for all things, a time to preach and a time to pray, but the time for me to preach has passed away." Then in a voice that re-echoed through the church like a trumpet blast, he exclaimed, "And there is also a time to fight, and that time has now come." After pronouncing the benediction, Muhlenberg threw off his clerical gown and stood before his people in full military uniform. Stepping down the aisle, he ordered the drums at the door to beat for new recruits. The whole village gathered at the church to learn what strange event had turned a quiet church meeting into a scene of bustle and excitement."

This is a Christian Nation and the opening statement of our first official governing document makes it crystal clear that this nation is founded on Christian beliefs and we have only become a great nation because we mix politics and religion. Why did they call them "Pilgrims"?

The Mayflower Compact,
(November 1620)

IN The Name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith, and the Honor of our King and Country a Voyage to plant the first colony in the northern Parts of Virginia; Do by these Presents, solemnly and mutually in the Presence of God and one another, covenant and combine ourselves together into a civil Body Politick, for our better Ordering and Preservation, and Furtherance of the Ends aforesaid; And by Virtue hereof do enact, constitute, and frame such just and equal Laws, Ordinances, Acts, Constitutions, and Offices, from time to time, as shall be thought most meet and convenient for the general Good of the Colony; unto which we promise all due Submission and Obedience. In WITNESS whereof we have hereunto subscribed our names at Cape Cod the eleventh of November, in the Reign of our Sovereign Lord King James of England, France, and Ireland, the eighteenth and of Scotland, the fifty fourth. Anno Domini, 1620.

Our first law regarding education in this country was to teach kids to read the scripture. Ye ol Deluder Law.

Churches should be interested in winning souls for Christ but also preserving the political environment that many of our forefathers fought and died for so that our religious institutions could flourish.

I assume that you agree that our government should not establish or recognize an official religion and force or even encourage citizens to follow that religion. Do you agree?

The problem is, what actions constitute the establishment or recognition of an official religion? Obviously we will not have a law that says "The official religion is ... " But, hypothetically, what about giving preferential treatment to gov employees of one religion? Is this OK with you? Hypothetically, how about the government providing land and buidings for churches of a religion? Is this OK?

If these are not OK then how about this? Government buildings displaying religious prayers of one religion? Or religious symbols?

Our courts have decided that the best way to deal with these issues and meet the intentions of our founding fathers is to keep completely separate church and state.

As to the monument you linked to: Imagine that radical Islamists wanted to put a large statue of Mohammed holding a Koran at the entrance to Arlington Cemetery. Would that be OK? Not with me. The only difference between that and the memorial with the cross is that you personally approve of the cross. But if you don't want one then you can't have the other.

"The SCOTUS doesn't see it that way and I'd venture a guess that they know more about the constitution...and its history...than you and I put together. :-)"

That is a logically fallacious argument known as "appeal to authority". The Supreme Court might know about U.S. history, but they have clearly chosen to ignore it in favor of their own interpretation. The National Archives and preserved words of our nation's founding fathers (i.e. "the facts") clearly show the truth of what I and others have stated concerning the original meaning of the Constitution. Many Justices of the Supreme Court have chosen to espouse their own personal ideologies rather than abide by the principles upon which this nation was founded. The judicial branch is overstepping its role as originally set forth, creating de facto laws rather than checking the executive and legislative branches of the Federal government of the United States.

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.