Posted on 10/25/2006 6:15:14 PM PDT by radar101
Philip Kevin Paulson, who fought a 17-year legal battle to remove the Mount Soledad cross from public property, died Wednesday of liver cancer. He was 59.
Paulson, a 6-foot-5 Vietnam veteran who lived in City Heights, became so passionate about the separation of church and state that he filed a civil lawsuit against the city of San Diego in 1989 without an attorney. He won the case, and as the appeals dragged on he became one of the county's most reviled and respected characters.
The Cross
Typical Memorial Plaque around base
During interviews with The San Diego Union-Tribune in September and October, a few months after doctors told him he did not have long to live, Paulson said he was unconcerned about death and proud of the stand that defined his life.
“The real message is equal treatment under the law, and religious neutrality. That's the purpose of why I did it,” said Paulson, who turned away from religion early in life. “It has nothing to do with me being an atheist or whether I was a Bible-thumping fundamentalist Baptist preacher.”
Paulson, the grandson of a Lutheran preacher who shunned media attention to protect the case, agreed to exclusive interviews on the condition that his comments remain confidential until his death or the end of the case.
He said he wanted people to understand why he pursued the removal of the cross, and that he was never motivated by a hatred of Christians.
“I don't harbor those kind of feelings,” Paulson said. “My mother's a Christian. I was raised a devout Christian. I'm not anti-Christian. The reason I did it is because it's not fair to the other religions. America is not just the Christian religion.”
Paulson, who grew up in Clayton, Wis., a town of 300 people, taught computer and business classes at National University.
When it became clear last summer that Paulson's condition was terminal, he and his lawyer, James McElroy, made plans to add another plaintiff to the case so that it could continue. The city has agreed to the move, although the change awaits the judge's signature. The new plaintiff, Steve Trunk, is a Vietnam war veteran, an atheist and also the product of a religious upbringing.
The city has argued that while the cross has religious significance, it also has a secular purpose – to honor war veterans. Paulson contended the memorial portion of the hilltop site was built only after he filed suit. The cross is a religious symbol that should be moved from public land, Paulson contended.
President Bush signed a bill this year that transferred ownership of the cross and war memorial site to the Department of Defense.
People who attend church regularly live longer on average than people who do not. Several scientific studies have this to be true. So, one wonders if whether being an agressive atheist doesn't hasten one's journey to death.
This man was as anti-Christian as they come. He lied when he said otherwise.
Does this moot the lawsuit?
The purpose of some people's lives on earth is to show other people what happens when they make certain bad choices.
My instant reaction, too. If his lawyer was queer, maybe Paulson was, too. If true, maybe this is why he hated God.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>>>James McElroy Chair, Center board of directors, Southern Poverty Law Center<<<
The Southern Poverty Law Center is a Hate Group!
This guy was not a terrorist. He was simply a misguided athiest.
I think God would have been most pleased if the man made peace with his creator before he died.
And Christians should hope for the same.
Here is the comment (from Servant of Nine) that started this whole conversation.
I simply think God's people should be on His side, not the "hope you burn in hell" side.
Would it not be more likely that a loving God reluctantly throws into the fire those rejects where they are instantly ended for all time?
So answering a post from you about KARMA, and having also never posted a single comment about this man means "I am dancing on his grave?"
The only difference between the golden rule and karma is that karma implies that your destiny is determined by the totallity of your actions, whereas Christians believe their ultimate destiny rests in the acceptance that Christ died for our sins in our place. Both imply humans that should be morally good in their behavior, if I can use this terminology. The golden rule is the same as Christ 2nd commandment.
In either case, Christ is asking us to behave in a certain manner; which to me is the same behavior that the teaching of karma seeks in Hinduism and Buddhism.
If you cannot see the obvious and blantant parrallel between these teachings, I suggest you follow your own advice and "Go learn about other religions before you toss their concepts around."
Your living a lie. And you are not very literate either.
NO. His Southern Poverty Law Center Attorney signed up another athiest before Paulson died.
Paulson 0.0
God . . . everything.
Ah yes - now you have it. In other religions "good Karma" alone is sufficient to "get you into heaven". In Christianity, "good works" and the golden rule is necessary but not sufficient.
Good works and following the golden rule are NOT necessary in Christianity, just belief in Christ.
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.