You have commented 358 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
High court intervenes in fight over Calif. cross
2006-07-04
WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court intervened Monday to save a large cross on city property in southern California. A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.

Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial said in an appeal that they wanted to avoid the “destruction of this national treasure.” And attorneys for the city said the cross was part of a broader memorial that was important to the community.

The 29-foot cross, on San Diego property, sits atop Mount Soledad. A judge declared it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. The cross, which has been in place for decades, was contested by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist.

Three years ago the Supreme Court refused to consider to consider the long-running dispute between Paulson and the city.
This is part of a war memorial. It was dedicated to honor Korean War veterans. The cross has been there since 1913. It was originally public land but was sold in the mid-90's to a private, non-profit group dedicated to maintaining the memorial. That group has upgraded the memorial substantially to honor the veterans. What earthly reason would anyone have to remove it, except hatred? Isn't that what our veterans fought against?
Posted by:Steve White

#8  The ACLU thinks that freedom of religion means freedom from Christianity.
Posted by: RWV   2006-07-04 12:36  

#7  #4: There they are, all dressed up and nowhere to go

Ummm, well actually they're not the ones who "Dressed them Up" it's the believers who're foolish enough to do so, they're pandering to their own beliefs and not the dead guy's.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-07-04 11:40  

#6  These guys are going to ultimately run into the silver tongue of John Roberts and get a clue that there's a new CJ in town.
Posted by: Nimble Spemble   2006-07-04 10:01  

#5  the City has voted twice to transfer the land the cross site on -- first to the war memorial association and last year to the Dept of Defense (Duncan Hunter's bill). Judge Patricia Yim Cowat arbitrarily ruled the week before the election that a 2/3 majority had to rule in favor to transfer the land. 76% did. She then ruled the vote unconstitutional and Gordon Thompson, the judge who's ruling was stayed yesterday, gave the new deadline., without addressing the efforts to transfer the property (he first ruled in '91, and will NOT look at new facts, evidence). Judicial railroading is what's been happening here. Cowat should be run outta town on a rail. Thompson's almost retired, just trying to do one last bit of damage. Kennedy did a good and smart thing here, but it doesn't make up for his other crap. BTW it's at least the second cross on the same site, replacing he worn-down wooden one in '53, IIRC
Posted by: Frank G   2006-07-04 09:48  

#4  There they are, all dressed up and nowhere to go lol!
Posted by: 2b   2006-07-04 09:32  

#3  I always feel sorry for atheists at their funerals. There they are, all dressed up and nowhere to go. If he's got that much time and money to waste why waste it. Do something constructive, not destructive.
Posted by: Deacon Blues   2006-07-04 09:15  

#2  No the City names predate the United States, they should be Grandfathered and safe.
The whole article says that the Supremes are interveining to save, not destroy the cross, built in 1913.

This whole thing is an Athiest stirring up trouble, he needs to be jailed for "Public Nuisance" and fined double the costs of his meddling.
That should send a clear message to other meddlers loose out there, Cindy Shehan, for example.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-07-04 08:30  

#1  If the cross is a violation, then so is the city's name. And Los Angeles, San Francisco, Santa Cruz, and probably 10% of the place names in the country. If the cross falls, buy stock in Rand-McNally.
Posted by: Glenmore   2006-07-04 07:02  

00:00