The nonpresence of a specific religious symbol is not at all a statement of atheism. A statement of atheism would be the presence of an atheist symbol f some type. For example: suppose the legislation were to remove the cross and replace it with a giant neon sign that flashed the words, 'there is no god' over and over again. That would, in fact, be a symbol of atheism- and would demonstrate a specific preference. Your reasoning isn't flawed, it just isn't reasoning at all. If you try reason, perhaps people will listen. Good luck.

Our leftwing friends pretend to laugh at our claims that there is an outright war against religion in this country. They are quite wrong.

Yes they are, yet they will pooh-pooh this as more extremism from the Christian right. This fear of religion has gotten worse over the last ten years; I can't remember any of this type of opposition when I was younger.

This case should go all the way to the Supreme Court, so we can all see who sits on the top bench. Unfortunately, I fear we already know...

As I understand it the SCOTUS has refused to hear this case due to it being based on the California constitution and the 9th circus has previously affirmed the wacko judges ruling. Just more liberism gone insane.

I always enjoyed going to Mt Soledad and hangin' out, it is a cool and beautiful place to watch the sunrise and sunset. I hope San Diegans band together and block this from happening. Anybody got a home address for the judge?

Mark, you grew up in SD? Me too. I grew up in PB in the 70's and early 80's. Went to Martha Farnum elementry, PB Jr High, and Madison High in Claremont.

Keefer

Religion is a personal choice and should have no business in government. I think this is where the problem exists. Practice your religion, just keep it out of the political arena.

Someone is missing the point here. The recent what you call " a war against religion" is nothing more than those who believe in the separation of church and state taking a stand. Religion is not necessarily christianity. A cross is a Christian symbol. There are many religions. This is why the government should be separate. The government should represpent "ALL" citizens, not just those who are Christian. I am partriotic and I believe I am religious. But, one has nothing to do with the other. I love my country and I do not want to see it torn apart by people fighting to try to prove that their opinion is the only opinion. It's very arrogant and self-centered to believe such a thing. Another thing that seems to be missing in this entire preface is "Love". Even Jimmy Carter, one of the most devout Born-again Christians ever, is concerned about the fundamentalist move toward government. Stop worrying about what others may or may not believe...allow them their opinions as well ----- and start concentrating on what is clearly a threat ...Global Warming. If you have children...start worrying about whether or not they will be able to live on this planet and practice their right to religeous freedom. They may not be able to survive much less worry about whether or not a cross should be on government property. Someone needs to get their head out of the sand. Start caring about "GOD's" plant that we are destroying. Start caring about the things Jesus taught us to care about. I'm ashamed of you all.

Will someone please tell me how the rights of one seem to always outweigh the rights of many! I know that we're a free society, but all the cases where one person objects to something like this always seems to trump the will of the people and compromise is never an option.

It's time the "Complacent Majority" wakes up, sees, and understands what's happening. Eventually, they will wake up and wonder what happened. Who could have let this happen? The answer... the Complacent Majority themselves who have other "more important" things to do! Like the drip, drip, drip of water in a cave, it will eventually erode away an entire mountain and leave nothing but an empty hole in it's place -- perhaps a sink hole that even consumes the structures around it.

It's time we designate "atheism" as a form of religion so their activities fall under the same "rights and protections" as the majority of Americans. It's time the free rein of atheists is stopped.

I'm surprised the atheists haven't tried to get all of the crosses removed from the graves honoring our soldiers in Arlington National Cemetery and other public cemeteries where our war dead are honored and buried. I'm sure some are working on a strategy right now to do just that and will be "judge shopping" to file their case!

If the Complacent Majority won't get energized, then support the efforts of the "fanatical right", and let them take on the anti-religious atheists!!!

AAR

God is not only a Christian, he is a Jew and a Moslem and a Hindu and every other religion or non-religion. It's way past time for the Christian's in the United Staes to mature and truly understand the nature of God. Peace

Liberals disgust me and this is just another.

Wait until they make San Diego (Saint Diego) change the name of the city. I live in Los Angeles, we figure that's next (City of Angels).

ACLU and liberalism...absolutely disgusting.

OK - when this blog states unequivocally that they would support a Vishnu or Ganesh statue in a courtroom I will take you seriously. You clearly aren't interested in equality of religion- you just want the state to officially back the religion YOU prefer. I expect that if anyone adresses this idea, your justifications about why it should be ONLY a cross in the court would nullify your pretense that crosses should just be "included".
What say you?

I'm sorry. I read things like this and it just makes me sad. How can such foolishness go on.

All it would take to change your mind, Mark, is a state sponsored star and crescent moon on public property.

Why do they need to move the monument?

Why can't they sell the land and monument to a private group?

There is no reason a small plot of land in a park cannot be held by a private foundation.

I did hear the courts would not allow that, they have to remove the crosss. If so, that seems bogus to me. They want to follow the letter of the law, but when you try to get around the letter of the law by selling the memorial you are violating the spirit of the law. Pick one.

And Los Cruces (The Crosses) should change their name too, they already were sued to remove crosess from the city emblem.

I lived in SD for years too...and this has been on going for a long time.

I remember all my friends (liberals all) who said to stop being paranoid; that cross was safe there.....

As a proud San Diego native, this story both saddened and sickened me. The Mt. Soledad Cross is such a great landmark. I've been up there for their sunrise Easter service and was literally blown away by the beauty of it.

This is what kills me about the ACLU and atheists like this guy...we're for freedom of thought and speech so long as it is the thoughts and speech that coincides with ours. Dare to speak out against them and you are either a racist, ultra-conservative religious nut, or an oppressor of their right to dissent. As AAR mentioned, Christians are a majority in this country, yet have better things to do than go after historic landmarks claiming they offend.

If you are so flippin offended either don't look at it or move somewhere else, but don't deny the rights of those who want it there.

These friggin' courts would have supported the Taliban blowing up those 2,000 year-old Buddah statues several years ago.

Despicable!

The so-called Christians who support the imposition of their religion on public land are un-American.

"Will someone please tell me how the rights of one seem to always outweigh the rights of many!"?

Sure, Zeke. I want to pass a law that people named "Zeke" are now slaves, who have to work for the public good. Since over 99% of the public is not named Zeke, and will only benefit by your labor, the law passes overwhelmingly, over the "no" votes from Zekes and a few liberals.

But wait, you sue in the court and say, 'this isn't fair treatment'. The ACLU represents you, the minority "Zeke" group against the will of the majority, and wins a decision for you, the one "Zeke" on trial, against the majority of people.

That's why one wins over the majority at times - because sometimes, the majority is disrespectful of the rights of one citizen of a minority group, and part of our national values are to protect *individual* rights.

You are un-American if you oppose this core value of our nation.

"I know that we're a free society, but all the cases where one person objects to something like this always seems to trump the will of the people and compromise is never an option."

What do you expect the enforcement of equal rights, when the majority is voting against the rights of a smaller group to look like? You expect the majority to get its way every time, and still have individual, universal rights that mean anything?

As long as the majority gives itself privilege at the expense of some minority, you can't have both.

Just look at the dishonest, convluted logic used by the post above. He portrays a law saying the government cannot support any specific religion, thereby treating all fairly, as supporting atheism. What a lie. Show me the government putting an atheist symbol in its place, or a sign supprting atheism, and then you will have an argument; until then, you are defining any restriction on special privilege for you as discrimination against you. That's the voice of a tyrranical majority, not an American.

You are free to practice your religion of choice in your homes, in private ceremonies, at churches, and yes, using public resources where it's possible to be fair. Reserve a park spot for a church group? OK. Put a permanent, large religious symbol on public land? Not so ok.

You are always welcome to buy a mountain and put a cross on it.

The fact that you fail to understand the concept of preserving equality for all by the government, though, including the majority of people at times who elect the government, makes you a poor American indded.

From the sound of it, nothing has happened but the courts enforcing an injuction that was already on the books. It is absurd to construe that act as a "war on religion." What you are waging is a war on the rule of law, which is far far more dangerous.

This is an establishment clause issue, not a free exercise issue. This is the state erecting a symbol of a particular religion for its religious purpose as a part of a war memorial. Requiring it to be moved is an uncontroversial enforcement of elstablishment clause jurisprudence that the Rehnquist court crafted.

I understand the historical sentiment and that social norms were once such that public, state-sponsored crosses were overlooked from an establishment clause enforcement perspective, but as society and our country progresses, you conservatives need to learn how to justify your positions without blanket appeals to history and longing for a past you romanticize but which was often unjust.

maiden,

How so? Now, if we were talking about building a Mosque with State funds, that would have as much problem as building a Church...but suppose, for instance, that Moslem military veterans wanted to erect a monument to their fellow Moslems who have fallen in battle in defense of our nation...that I'd have no problem with at all...its simple decency; simple respect for them.

The cross has been there nearly a century, all told...what possible offense can it really be causing? What endorsement of religion does it make? Have the people of San Diego felt like they are living in a theocracy because its there?

Liberals fear Christianity far more than Islamofascists.

Thank you, Mr Noonan, for a point well taken. You go National Cemeteries and you see the Cross as well as the Star of David on many of the head stones. Like you, I'd have no problem with the Star and Crescent Moon or Vishnu or Buddha for that matter if these brave soldiers were of that persuasion and died protecting the freedom of this country. If Atheists had a symbol that identified them, put that on their headstone as well.

It's not Christianity they fear, it's the current round of Christians, who seem to think the Sum and Whore of Christianity is that gays, abortion and contraception suck. That whole charity and tolerance stuff is SO New Testament.

Interesting choice of words, Dying....

pretend to laugh at our claims that there is an outright war against religion in this country.

Oh, I don't pretend to laugh at that claim; I just laugh at it because it's so baseless.

Yeppers. Must check my spelling more carefully. The Sum and Whole of the post is clear nonetheless I think though :-) Christianity is a victim because they don't get their way, like whiny little babies who scream oppression every time someone rules against them. It does take skill to be a majority and a victim at the same time though.

Zeke at 9:54,

It's part of the Constitution and American system.

It's designed to protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

You're welcome.

Why don't we just remove the letter "t" from the alphabet.

We surely don't want atheists and or non-Christians to be offended by "Christian crosses" scattered throughout everything they read. Perhaps the government can substitute another letter for "t" in any and all government documents, correspondence, laws, and any other media intended to be seen!

The first word that has to go is "atheist". It's has not one but two "t's" in it. A double shot of Christianity in just that one word. That must really be an affront to atheists. I don't know why they haven't done something about that already. Are they waiting for someone to file a lawsuit and the courts to remove the "t's". Don't wait. Take the initiative. Those little "crosses" must go... now. Just do it!

I don't know about the letter "C" either, that reminds me of a crescent moon and I want it removed. It offends me!

Oh, you liberals think that is silly and unnecessary, do you?. No more so than all of your anti-religious, anti-cross, anti-Ten-Commandments antics and lawsuits!

Personally, I've had all of the liberal anti-religious nuts I want. I support freedom of religion, but it's time the anti-religions lefties are stopped. The founders of this nation and those who wrote our Constitution meant freedom of religion -- not freedom from religion. Liberals... go back an read your history... it will probably be a new experience... if your professors haven't already stripped all reference to religion from their latest history books!

We DO need a constitutional amendment -- one of many -- to straighten liberals and the courts out once and for all on just what freedom of religion means. It won't hurt a thing. We have the same freedom of religion we have today. It would just clarify what we have today, but "explain" what that means to our left wingers, atheists, and activist judges. If that offends the liberals and atheists, so be it -- I don't care anymore... period! The more the atheists and liberals push their anti-religion agenda on America, the more I would support such an amendment. Now, we just need to get that complacent majority energized.

As for Christianity, this nation was founded as, has been, and still is basically a Christian nation, but I don't know of anyone who has been forced to believe in Christianity, God, or to join any religion. To the contrary, if that were the case, we wouldn't have all of the atheists -- supported by the liberals -- running around trying to make atheism the "official religion".

Christians aren't trying to force their religion on anyone nor is the government forcing religion on anyone. It is the atheists and anti-religious liberals who are attacking religion and making it into an issue... just like they do with all of America's traditions. It isn't enough that liberals and atheists are free to worship or not as they choose... they feel compelled to attack those who do!!!

AAR

GOPisDying,

RE: "...that gays, abortion and contraception suck. That whole charity and tolerance stuff is SO New Testament."

Seems like you are painting with a mighty big brush!

Do you think it is only Christians who oppose gay marriage? Have you checked lately? Some Christian groups do; some don't. I guess those who do are "good" Christians, but those who disagree with your views are "bad" Christians. Right?

Why don't you take a vacation to one of the strongly Muslim countries like Iran or Afghanistan and campaign for "gay marriage"? Take a few banners and posters to wave so you can really get the attention of their religious leaders. See what happens to you in that non-Christian country. While you are there, why don't you demand they remove all of their mosques from government property too. I'm sure they will appreciate and enjoy hearing your opinion!

You do know what happens to Muslims who want to convert to Christianity in some countries (like Afghanistan) don't you? That's a capital offense!

Maybe one day you will get your wish. Get rid of all the Christians and bring in some of the fanatical Muslims. You say it will never happen. Never is a long, long time!

Who are all of these Christians who are threatening you? Do you really feel threatened and oppressed by Christians and their religion? How many times in the last month, make that your lifetime, has anyone tried to force religion on you? I mean really threaten and force you to join a church, not just people preaching to you! Has anyone from any government agency -- federal, state, local -- in their official government capacity demanded, asked, or even suggested that you become a Christian or join any Church? Has anyone tried to stop you from being an atheist?

AAR

Can we hold the rhetoric for a moment and look at the meat of this article?
"Shaun Martin, a law professor at the University of San Diego, said the fines are the judge's way of telling the city to "put up or shut up." He said the city has explored every possible alternative to moving the cross, including transferring the land to a private group or getting the cross designated as a historic memorial."
Has anyone found out why the city cannot transfer the land to a private group, or designate the cross as a historica memorial?
Is this really anti-Christian, or just one judge's way of getting the city off its collective butt?
Oh, and Keefer -
"This case should go all the way to the Supreme Court, so we can all see who sits on the top bench. Unfortunately, I fear we already know..."
So even Scalia, Roberts, and Alito don't give you any confidence in the Supreme Court?

I am a Christian and proud of my faith. But I am also very much in favor of separating church and state. But my goodness, this issue is beyond the pale on so many levels. For one thing, the cross -- the very same one -- had been there for more than 35 years before anyone thought to protest. And as Mark pointed out, a previous cross had been there since 1914. I'm not sure what that cross was about, but the one there now is part of a Korean War memorial. So at best it is only tangentially a religious symbol. Also, the grounds have been maintained at no cost to the city since 1952 by an independent non-profit organization, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, founded by American Legion Post #275. They are the ones that put the cross up, as I understand it. I'm not 100% sure, but the city didn't pay for it. They pretty much gave the group free reign, which in retrospect I guess wasn't the best move. But again, that was 1954.

So anyway, that one person won a court ruling on the grounds that the cross constituted a religious symbol on government land. Okay fine. Maybe he has a point, even though it took 35 freakin' years for him to make it. So what did the citizens of San Diego (I suppose we should call the city just "Diego") do? They put a proposition (Proposition F) on the 1992 ballot allowing sale of the land to said memorial association. The proposition passed with 76% of the vote. 76%! How often do you get 76% of people to agree on anything?

Nonetheless, the courts decided that the sale itself violated the California Constitution because it was tantamount to government support of religion. Perhaps because it stipulated a particular buyer. So then the city put the sale up to competitive bid. The highest bidder was the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association. As far as I'm concerned, that should have been the end of it. The people let it known that they were in favor of selling the site, the city put it up for competitive bid, and they found a buyer. What more do you want? But the courts blocked that sale, too. Jeepers. Then, in a subsequent ballot proposition, the people of Diego voted (again by a 76% majority) in favor of transferring ownership to the federal Dept of the Interior to make it a national war memorial. But the courts blocked the transfer. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it. This is ridiculous. I'm not one to cry "activist courts!" at the turn of a hat. Hardly ever, in fact. Most of the time I think that charge is ridiculous. But as far as I can tell, this one is a little beyond the pale.

Small Town,

RE: "Has anyone found out why the city cannot transfer the land to a private group, or designate the cross as a historical memorial? ... Is this really anti-Christian, or just one judge's way of getting the city off its collective butt?"

Give the ACLU a call and ask them. Ask the anti-religion, anti-Christians kooks who insist on filing all of these lawsuits that irritate the majority of Americans -- who actually go around the country looking for something they can use for a lawsuit. It doesn't matter if the locals or the vast majority want it or not -- the liberals, atheists, and ACLU doesn't! Who knows... maybe some day we will finally get that lawsuit that breaks the back of the camel and causes the Complacent Majority to wake up and act. Just keep pushing!

Haven't you read about the cases where the Ten Commandments were located in a public park and have been for years. Even attempts to sell that little area have been fought by the ACLU. They say it has the "appearance" of government support even though it would no longer be on public property. People might "think" it was on public property, which would "give the appearance" of the government supporting religion. Ridiculous! Preposterous! But that's the liberal way! That's the ACLU way!

Haven't you heard about the ACLU threatening lawsuits and demanding all Christmas trees be removed from schools and public property, and no Christmas songs sung in public schools. They've already got the mangers removed. And just who, besides the ACLU lawyers and a few nuts really believes those things are promoting Christianity. They have been part of this country since it became a nation and do not force Christianity on anyone. Christmas and related traditions may have been more Christian at one time, and still are to some, but Christmas is basically a secular holiday to those who aren't Christians and even to some who are. It's like the atheists, liberals, and ACLU have nothing better to do.

Is it really anti-Christian? Yes! Absolutely!

I don't suggest that we need a constitutional amendment to force religion on anyone. We need one to stop those nuts who believe it is their "calling" to eliminate public display of any form of religion by others... Christian, Jewish, Muslim, etc.

For now though, the Complacent Majority remains complacent and harmless. We can only hope that the liberals, atheists, and ACLU will finally step in it and do something so absurd and ridiculous that even the Complacent Marjory finally reach the breaking point, have had enough, rebel and do something to permanently stop the nonsense!!!

AAR

Ricorun,

Good post. Informative. Interesting facts.

It just confirms the absurdity of the whole issue... to me anyway.

AAR

Ricorun,

I'm with AAR - excellent post: and this is what we on the right mean when we talk about a war on religion; cruel and relentless attempts to expunge any sort of religious symbols from anything remotely related to public property.

It is one thing to say that there should be zero public funds provided to a parochial school - quite another to work so diligently to excise every expression of religion from public property. To do what these fanatics in San Diego did, you have to hate religion, plain and simple.

Religion is a reflection of a culture, not the will of God(s). This means that all faiths are equally true and equally false. The best thing about being a Diest is I don't have to hang my hat on any particular faith.
For the record, most of the founding fathers were Diests, not Christians; but I am sure you know that.

Wow! I can't believe how ignorant many are on this site as to what the establishment clause
ACTUALLY means. Putting a cross, or any other religious symbol on public property, does NOT violate the establishment clause.

Sheesh. Do some homework people.

It seems that the Communists have decided that the way to defeat the West is to defeat Christianity. This is expounded upon at www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/geo/pastanalysis/2006/0407.html. This seems strange to me. It seems strange that Marxists who are one of the most powerful groups on Earth would waste time with such an insignificant group as American Christians but if this is the strategy it would make snese that their front organization of the ACLU would wage war against Christians. Having a cross on public land would likely be supported by the majortiy and it hurts no one. Thomas Jefferson said it best, (rough paraphrase)"Whether my neighbor believes in 20 Gods or no Gods causes me no harm. It neither picks my pocket nor does it break my leg." Christian leaders have made it clear over and over again they do not wish to impose Christianity on anyone. In this case obeying the will of the majority and allowing the cross to stand would hurt no one. Liberals have nothing to fear from Christians. It seems to be only Christians they are targeting. Islam is now required teaching in some California public schools and the ACLU does nothing. The teaching of Islam in public schools may be a fron by which Islamic Extremists will use to gain control of America. Finally backed up by their sympathizers in the main stream media they spew vicious propaganda against anyone who would dare oppose their agenda. The msm may not be aware that they are a communist tool.

Canadian Observer

From reading more of your posts, I think I see where you are coming from.

You wrote: "Religon is a persoanl choice and should have no business in Government." If you believe this, you should support the war against Islamic Extremists that is currently being fought in Iraq and elsewhere. The brand of Islam that these people hold to allow for no separation of church and state. The mosque and the Government would be fully integrated and dissent is not tolerated. In other words they want a world wide theocracy that follows their brand of Islam.

You wrote: "Practice your religon just keep it out of the political arena." If you really want religon out of the political areana you should oppose the Islamic Extremists and their Marxists allies. Christian leaders have made it clear repeatedly they do not wish to impose their religon on anyone. The cross would likely be supported by the majority and it harms no one.

Has anyone ever stopped to think of the absurdity of having a crucifix as a religious symbol?

If I were Jesus, lookin' down from heaven and seein' all of those symbols of my death, I'd think you were all waiting for me to come back so you could crucify me again!

How would YOU react?

Party of life huh? Fool me once...

Wing,

I hope you just don't know...and if you don't, then the reason the crucifix is the Christian symbol is because it was what happened on it that redeemed us...it was the vital, central act.

The Christians who feel people are 'at war' with them are unaware of their own paranoia.

It's the arrogance of power speaking, when they don't get their way on everything.

Consider Mark Noonan's absurd falsehood:

"To do what these fanatics in San Diego did, you have to hate religion, plain and simple."

Simply false. He fails to understand the reason for it, which is for the protection of all to freedom of religion - the freedom to believe, to practice in private places, not to impose, to use public places preferentially for one religion.

It's a *fact* that some people who love religion support the San Diego decision; Noonan is wrong.

But he's a victim of ideology like so many, and so he 'fits the facts' to the ideology.

The laugh of the day, though, can only be awarded to the poster who said how powerful the international Marxists are, attacking the poor little powerless Americna Christians.

It's to boggle. The US spends as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, and given how much the rest of the world is just paying for basic troops, the US spends far more on the advanced weaponry. The US is a *dominant* military power.

The Marxists are overthrown, even in small countries where elected - see, for example, Nicargua under the Sandinistas when the religious right elected Reagan who sponsored terrorists to get them ousted, or the religious right's GW Bush who participated in a coup against Chavez.

I'll identify myself as an atheist who has other things to do with his time than piss and moan about a cross here and there or a chistmas tree in front of city hall or whatever. Perhaps I'm too self-abosrbed. However, I am glad that there are those "watchdog" types out there who will challenge the representation, by governmental entities, of specific religions on public property.

On the surface, when the state, or whatever governmental agency, opts to place a religious symbol on display, it appears to be fairly benign. What it really is, though, when it is made by the state, is a specific endorsement of a specific religion or religious viewpoint. If that is allowed to stand, you effectively establish a precedent for preference of that specific religion's attitude(s). That is what is dangerous to a "free" society, where freedom of religion is valued.

I have no problem with christian organizations or churches using public space to celebrate christianity. After all, christians are part of the general public. Ideally, such displays would be identified as courtesy of (insert name) church or organization. The same right to religious expression (or lack thereof) should be afforded to any other religious or non-religious persons or groups.

There are many references above to Islamist Extremism, to which any real liberal should be opposed. Radical Islamist states are a perfect example of what happens when religions and governments merge, and when governments use religions as conveyors of power.

AAR -

"We DO need a constitutional amendment -- one of many -- to straighten liberals and the courts out once and for all on just what freedom of religion means."

Tell me why you hate the Constitution and religious freedom. Please. How would you "straighten liberals and the courts out?" Re-education camps? Exterminations? Really, how would you remove undesireables from America? Please respond, I'd like to know.

B.Poster -

"The mosque and the Government would be fully integrated and dissent is not tolerated. In other words they want a world wide theocracy that follows their brand of Islam."

- Exactly. That is what some of us are trying to prevent from happening here. The name of the god/religion is a minor detail in the face of power.

Peace.

War is when people die, not when the law of the land is enforced.

AAR wrote, along with other stuff:
You do know what happens to Muslims who want to convert to Christianity in some countries (like Afghanistan) don't you? That's a capital offense!

Maybe one day you will get your wish. Get rid of all the Christians and bring in some of the fanatical Muslims. You say it will never happen. Never is a long, long time!

I care nothing about the cross. There are far more important issues to worry about. But this post is an excellent argument for getting rid of it.

I agree that religious freedom is not to be found in most Muslim countries, and that the death penalty for being a Christian is a bad thing.

One of the things that separates us from the Muslim states is that they are theocracies and we are not. Eternal viligance is the price of freedom and all that. I have no faith that a Christian theocracy would be any nicer than a Muslim one.

Theocracy is a danger no matter what religion it's founded in.

B.Poster

Yes, I agree. Any religion, in any political agenda, is not right. Mixing the two leads to extremism. My beliefs are better than your beliefs, God is fighting on my side, etc., etc., etc.

Robert,

Thanks for the civics lesson on the Constitution and the American System. I realize that our Constitution allows for the protection of the minority, but I don't think the cross is a sign of the 'tyranny of the majority'. It's a symbol of grateful Americans to those who gave their lives to ensure the very freedoms of the minority. Where's the tyranny in that and doesn't that same Constitution allow for the rights of the majority?

Ricorun's entry for the most part accurately states the situation on the Cross... but several important points should also be made.

When the land and Cross were placed up for bid and the highest bidder was announced...the loser (pun intended) Mr. Paulson complained the auction was unfair because he didn't have the money to particiapte in total... The courts agreed and the auction was deemed invalid.

Think about that...essentially it was: I don't have enough money to participate in an auction so I can destroy the Cross if I win.. so it's unfair

Next when the idea arose to give it to the Federal government the city council...led by the usual suspects voted against it going to the Feds despite the fact their own consituents heavily favored the Cross being transfered......

So as Ricorun mentioned it was put to a vote.

The Save the Cross foundation was first led to believe a simple majority was needed to transfer title andf approached the vote with that in mind

But alas just prior to the vote the loser and attorney went to court....

The Judge decided we needed 2/3rds...

The people spoke with 76%..... and a judge despite saying that 2/3rds was the necessary line to be crosses ruled the vote invalid...

Craig

I just saw your post of May 6, 2006 @2:39 pm. I didn't realize that I was a 'poor American' because I questioned why in some cases the rights of the many are always trumped by the rights of the few.

Your case of making all Zekes slaves though a little preposterous, it is a point well taken. As many of the posts here have said, though, this is not the case of government imposing religion on society. It's the heartfelt expression of veterans paying tribute to other veterans. It's no different than having Crosses or the Star of David or any other religious symbol on a veteran's headstone in a National Cemetery. Will those be next to have to go?

I get the separation of Church and State in Constitution and the American System. This isn't even close to that.

By the way, Craig, what is your definition of a 'good American'?

the cross will be removed...so that atheism may be preferred

Why would a lack of government-sponsored religion mean that the government favors atheism? This is the same sort of argument the far left makes when they want the government to push their moral values on people.

Does being opposed to legally mandated affirmative action mean that you favor racism? Or does it just mean that you think there are a lot of areas where the government should stay studiously neutral because to do otherwise would limit our individual freedoms?

Has anyone that reads this blog been prevented from worshipping in their preffered church?

Liberals fear Christianity far more than Islamofascists.

And why not? Which group has killed more people over the past 1500 years?

Unfortunately, a second response I'd written about how absurd the 'war on relision' rhetoric is, how it's simply the voice of the arrogance of power, about the level of delusion it took for a poster to say that the Marxists are one of the most powerul groups on the planet while American Christians have 'insignificant' power in comparison - it went on to discuss how even less than marxist liberal governments, supposedly so powerful, are so often overthrown by the government elected by the right-wing religious here - take the religious right's Reagan sponsoring terrorism to pressure the defeat of the elected Sandanista government in Nicaragua, or the religious right's GW Bush's conspiring to remove the elected president of Venezuela, Chavez, in a coup.

And the post was lost somehow, so I'm cautious about posting again.

But, in case this one is put up:

"just saw your post of May 6, 2006 @2:39 pm. I didn't realize that I was a 'poor American' because I questioned why in some cases the rights of the many are always trumped by the rights of the few."

You beg the question incorrectly with contradictory language about how 'in some cases' the rights of the many are 'always' trumped by the rights of the few. I think it reflects the sort of paranoid thinking for that "always" to sneak in.

The correct phrase was, of cours, 'in some cases'; and isn't that how it should be? Are you advocaating that there shouldnot be some cases when the individual or minority win in defense of their rights against the majority? I don't think you mean to, but you are doing so in this case.

'Your case of making all Zekes slaves though a little preposterous, it is a point well taken.'

Thanks for seeing the point it was making.

'As many of the posts here have said, though, this is not the case of government imposing religion on society. It's the heartfelt expression of veterans paying tribute to other veterans.'

So, if the mjority demanded a huge cross be put over te White House and Arlingotn, it wouldn't be "heartfelt"? The "heartfelt" exception should nullify the establishment clause?

Veterans can pay religious-linked tribute to other veterans on private property.

"It's no different than having Crosses or the Star of David or any other religious symbol on a veteran's headstone in a National Cemetery. Will those be next to have to go?"

Except that it is completely different. That is a personal identifier, not representing Arlington overall, and the fact that it has the variety shows that it's not favoring one. If only the Christian cross were allowed, then you would have a problem again.

And no, there's no danger of the establishment cause changing that. If I had a nickel for every time I saw the right use a slippery slope to replace the actual argument they lack... it's utterly emotion-based argument. They get stirred by the patriotic passions of the sacrifices of soldiers, and then aim the tears at the people drawing them reasonable limits on their power as if they wanted to dig up the bodies and spit on them. It's a mania.

"I get the separation of Church and State in Constitution and the American System. This isn't even close to that."

Advocacy groups are often trying to get a little wedge in against any limiting principles. Laws almost always have some arbitrary, but usually clear, line as a matter of practicality. But if you allow one exception, it goes on to a little more, and then a lot more, then you have no rule.

(That's a slope that actually is slippery). If this were allowed, how would they say no to 10, 100, 1000 crosses, on increasingly visible public land, until the day you could have crosses and Christian religious slogans on every lamp post and in the mayor's office and courtrooms? That would be a slippery slope if it were a prediction; it's not. But it is a point that the principle would be violated, and even trivial, slight violations of the principle need to be blocked.

Consider similar rules: if an adult has relations with someone 17 years and 51 weeks old and the age of consent is 18 years old, is there *really* any harm done compared to waiting a week? Yet, the law must be enforced, because if it were not, you could shave another week, and another, and so on.

What if you could pay just 99% of your tax bill? Buy alchohol a week before you're 21?

There are countless examples where you can say that enforcing a slight violation has little merit on the substance of the issue, and yet defend the enforcement on the grounds of practicality required for the rule of law.

"By the way, Craig, what is your definition of a 'good American'?"

I think the definition of that term is too broad to define, for me now at least. I could define some great Americans and use examples, though you might not agree with all of them (e.g., Daniel Ellsberg, Joseph Wilson), but that's not really the point.

It's great in our nation that being a 'good American' requires little, you have freedom.

But it's a lot easier to identify a bad American.

That's one which violates the basic principles of our nation - our love of liberty - it might be falling victim to the 'corruption of power', supporting harming others for inadequate reasons, it might be various immoral behavior, it might be infringing on others' rights from free speech to the power they deserve of the right to vote. Our nation was founded on respect for the rights of the individual.

Supporting capitalism or marxism does not make you a bad American. Supporting or opposing reparations for African Americans, supporting or opposing welfare programs, supporting or opposing abortion does not make you a bad American.

(I'd argue that supporting the repeal of the woman's right to vote, or a return to slavery, do because they violate the basic values of our nation, which were achieved more broadly over time. There were early proponents for those changes since the founding fathers).

And in this case, choosing to support the 'tyranny of the majority' to give yourself special privileges at the expense of other religions is un-American. You have the freedom to say what you want, to celebrate their sacrifice on private property, to hold events on public property.

You don't need the freedom to put permanent religious symbols on public land for your rights.

That infringes on the rights of others.

Why can't you be happy with your own rights protected, and others' protected too?

Atheism is as much a subject of faith as Christianity. In Christianity one is making the stand "I believe God exists." In Atheism, one makes the claim "I believe God does not exist."

To not make a stand as to whether God exists or not is agnosticism.

-hue.shyuen.
(for the record, I'm a Buddhist...)

Thomas,

Never read a description of the conquest of Constantinople in 1453, have you? How about what happened in Turkey in 1915?

Ash,

Not yet...but already in Sweden and Canada criminal and civil cases are being brought against Christian ministers for simply stating Christian moral teaching...if we don't fight right here, right now, then the fight we'll have to engage in 20 years from now might very well be for the very ability of the Christian church to preach its morality.

Is this what the right is reduced to: whining about religious symbols in public spaces? How does the barring of such symbols impinge upon "the right to enjoy your religion?".

I am growing really tired of this bogus Christian persecution complex. In the same breath that the Christians whine about being persecuted, they also constantly point out that they are the majority. Moreover, Republicans who pander to the Christian Fundies control the White House, Senate, House, Judiciary, Fox News, and large sectors of the media (not to mention that about 50% of all Sunday morning programming is devoted to various Christian proselytizers). And Christians have not been shy to exercise their enormous political clout to ban gay marriages, nullify scientic concensus, foist their mythologies on biology classrooms, deny a woman control over her own body, etc etc. Christian groups receive enormous amounts of fed funding (hey - those are MY tax dollars!) for religious based teachings, etc etc. And yet, it is supposed to be the Christians who are persecuted?? puh-lease!

Fomenting a sense of persecution is an old political tactic that was perfected under Fascism. Nice try - I don't think many people are buying that Christians are persecuted in the US.

On the contrary - Christians throughout history have been the persecuters, not the persecuted. Witch trials, torture, burnings at the stake, forced evangelization of indigenous populations, and on and on.

Thomas...

In last century alone, three noted secularist leaders directly led to the deaths of over 100,000,000 people...

As to displays of religion on government land... Madison wrote..his ONLY opposition to religous displays on government land were "IF" and only if they were paid for solely by government... If the displays, readings or prayers offered on government land were paid for out of the pockets of the citizens there should be no problem. He specifically addressed this issue when preachers were first paid to offer prayer at the beginning of each Congress...

Also Madison believed religion and government were seperated only by a line... a moveable line which was shown to be flexible.

On the "Wall of Seperation":
Justice Thurgood Marshall: "the metaphor of a "wall" or impassable barrier between church and state(as offered by Justice Hugo Black), taken too literally, may mislead constitutional analysis.

Justice Warren Burger: "Judicial caveats against entanglement must recognize that the line of seperation, far from being a "wall", is blurred, indistinct and variable barrier depending on ALL the circumstances of a particular relationship."

**Here it would be important to note Justice's Burger's reference to a "line" is that which was presented, unlike Jeferson, by an actual attendee to the debate on and ratificaion of the First Amendment, President James Madison.

As to Metaphors in Law:

Justice Felix Franfurter: "A phrase begins life as a literary expression: it's felicity leads to it's lazy repetition: and repetition soon establishes it as a legal formula, undiscriminately used to express different and sometimes contradictary ideas"

Lastly..those most noted for their desire to remove religous symbols from public display..

Napolean...Lenin..Stalin...Hitler...Mao....Castro

Craig,

Once again, you make very valid points and you and I can agree to disagree. Since compromise is not an answer, I have nothing else to add.

By the way, I do think that I am a good American. I do have strong opinions about many of the items you outlined (pro and con) and I think that the discourse in resolving them is a good thing.

Thanks

Ash

Let's flip that..."Has anyone that reads this blog been prevented from worshipping in their preffered church?"

Has anyone that drives by a hill with a cross on it been prevented from living a normal and non-intrusive life?

Dear theblksheepwasright -

You write: "..those most noted for their desire to remove religous symbols from public display..

Napolean...Lenin..Stalin...Hitler...Mao....Castro"

I often read this bit circulating around Right leaning blogs, but it is just not correct. Hitler in particular used Christianity and religious symbolism to lend legitamacy to his rule - in a way reminiscent of what is being attempted today here in the US. The Christian Right in Germany in the 1930's enthusiastically supported the Nazis, and their embrace of anti-Semitism. The Nazis, in return, stoked what they called a "Kulturkampf", or "Culture War", which was presented as a popular struggle to efend the nation against "secular humanists", but was really meant to energize and motivate their Christian base (sound familiar?).

A perception was manufactured that opposing the the Nazis was tantamount to an attack on religion. Chief propagandist Joseph Goebbels orchestrated a campaign to ensure the people that Hitler was a deeply religious man and that his motivations were rooted in Christianity. He even proclaimed the need for a revival of the Christian faith across the nation, what he called a "New Christianity."

Moreover, Hitler's speeches were laced with religious imagery, and often implied that God favored the German people. Indeed, Hitler explained that the German people were devinely selected by God to dominate the globe - especially to dominate the "non-believers" (Jews, Gays, Socialists, etc). As part of the standard uniform, the Nazi military all wore belt buckles with the inscription "Gott Mit Uns", which means "God is with Us".

When the modern centurions are marching Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell through the streets at spearpoint to New Golgotha I'll believe in your "war on religion". Until then I will take the evidence of your speech and the deeds of your fellows for showing who you really are. People who use Jesus Christ as a cudgel and sword against your brothers and sisters and worship graven images because serving Christ requires too much sacrifice and is antithetical to your political beliefs. I forgive you in advance.

Thanks for the civil response Zeke. Sorry you chose not to respond more to the substance.

Mark Noonan: Power can have an arrogance. It's the root of the 'power tends to corrupt' maxim from Lord Acton. And it also has its propagandists, of which Noonan is one.

I see him skip the 'hard to answer' posts and only aim for the low hanging fruit, and I see him post disengenuously there. How about he posts some solid links to the stories of the ministers who are in legal trouble *only* for expressing religious views, and then we can point out to him the parts of the story he left out because it didn't support his false position of persecution.

The religious right is being *used* by evil forces who are acting against their real values.

Sheesh.

There's an easy test for whether you're arguing finer points of constitutional law, or just pushing your own religion on other people. Substitute "a giant statue of Satan" for "a cross" in your argument. If you still agree with your own argument, you are logically arguing a legalistic point. If reading your own argument with the substitution causes you to change whether you accept the argument or not, then you are pushing your own religion.

And what would you think of a country that has a racial purity test to join a certain religion, and bars that religion (and only that religion) from prosthelytizing (probably spelled that wrong) and recruiting from anyone not racially acceptable? Anyone not of sufficient ancestrage who participates in the rites of that religion is subject to arrest and jail for doing so?

Think I'm talking about the Middle East? Think again, and research the American Indian Church (they may have changed their name, probably Native American Church by now...) right here in the good old USA. The reason? They use peyote. So much for freedom to worship as you see fit...

Aaron..

Firstly you avoided my direct comment..that being those names listed sought and did destroy "symbols" of religion in the public domain.. That is indisputable and irrefutable..

Next... your reliant on one individuals take with regards to Hitler etc..that person's take is Richard Steigman Gall and webistes such as the turning.org... The first is selling a book the other is selling a site and anti christian message.

Whereas my data comes directly from people who LIVED in Nazi Germany...were raised in Nazi German.. survived in Nazi Germany.. one was my mother in law...others are family friends. In one case the father never cam home from the russian front......

Fact is Hitler et al were in fact secularists.. who saw organized religion as a threat to their society........

I think what bothers Christians (if they are that) about the situation under discussion is not the removal of the cross itself. Rather, the removal is a sign that Christianity is losing its privileged position. Christianity is no longer presumed to be the default religion. It's symbols are no longer automatically welcome. It's moral positions are no longer automatically presumed to be true.

Instead, Christianity is seen as one of a number of religions, none of which has an automatic lock on the truth. Christianity now has to compete in the world of ideas, the same as any other religion or ideology.

This is understood by some as an "attack" on religion; it isn't. It is a leveling of the religious and intellectual playing field. If Christians feel that they can't compete with other worldviews on that field, what does that say about the religion?

I just don't think my tax dollars should be spent on other people's religions. Churches collect money tax-free and the cost of religion should fall on them. Besides, the founding fathers were Deists in any case.

As for the sincerity of the Christian movement over this perceived persecution, I got all the information I needed when my fundamental Christian aunt supported a boycott of the Eid stamp put out the US Postal System. I never heard her complain about Christmas stamps.

Things that make you go hmm... I guess some of us are more equal than others.

Just wondering - where does it say he was an "atheist"?

blksheepwasright -

You write "those names listed sought and did destroy "symbols" of religion in the public domain.. That is indisputable and irrefutable.. Fact is Hitler et al were in fact secularists who saw organized religion as a threat to their society........"

Irrefutable fact? Secularists? Well, take a look at these photos: http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

You might not like the source of these photos since they are from an organization that advocates the separation of church and state, but the photos themselves belie your insistence that the Nazi state banned religious symbols.

Speaking of sources, I find it interesting that when the Right is confronted with opinions which differ from their own, they immediately proceed to malign the source of the opinion rather than debate the issue itself. One common form this takes is to say "oh, he's peddling a book" - as if that instantly discredits the opposing point of view. For instance, all 8 of the retired generals who have criticized the prosecution of the Iraq war were instantly dismissed by the Right as book peddlers, without debating the points they made. In any case, not all were writing books, and it is not at all uncommon for generals to publish memoirs anyway.

Similarly, you attempt to brush aside historian Richard Steigman-Gall's conclusions by merely asserting that he is "selling a book". First, I would point out that Steigman-Gall is hardly alone among historians who acknowledge a close relationship between the Nazi State and Christianity. Secondly, you fail to mention that Steigman-Gall is a professor and that he chairs the Jewish Studies Program at Kent State University. So, Prof Steigman-Gall is a scholar, and that's what scholars do: they write books about what they study!

But we needn't get caught up here in a debate about historical revisionism, since there is ample direct visual and textual evidence that is unfiltered by any scholar's interpretations. I leave you with a few transcripts from Adolph Hitler's own speeches, interviews, and writings. You may draw your own conclusions:

"We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out."- 1933 speech at the Reichstag

"I am convinced that I am acting as the agent of our Creator. By fighting off the Jews. I am doing the Lord's work."- from Mein Kampf

"Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without religious foundation is built on air; consequently all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . ." - from Hitler's speech at the signing of the Nazi-Vatican concordat, 1933

"My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.

In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison.

Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross.

As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice . . .

And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery.

When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exploited." - Hitler in 1922 interview.

Finally, blksheep, if you are so in favor of the ample display of religious symbolism, I would suggest that you might be more at home in Iran than in the USA.

It's always amusing to hear Christians getting all huffy when they home-court advantage has been taken away (220 years late, but still). If any of you would really like to feel that there is a war against your religion, I suggest putting on a kippah (that's a yamaka or a skullcap, depending on your cultural reference point) and spending a month as a Jew. Then we'll talk about your feelings of persecution.

It's always amusing to hear Christians getting all huffy when their home-court advantage has been taken away (220 years late, but still). If any of you would really like to feel that there is a war against your religion, I suggest putting on a kippah (that's a yamaka or a skullcap, depending on your cultural reference point) and spending a month as a Jew. Then we'll talk about your feelings of persecution.

Jim,

More accurately, what you've got is a nation which was founded by and is still mostly sustained by Christians...in this nation, an Amendment to the Constitution was made with the epress purpose of prohibiting government from stopping the free exercise of religion...somehow, and only liberalism could have done this, this prohibition against government interference in religion has been turned on its head and now is taken to me - by those liberals - that religion can have nothing at all to do with government.

Sorry, but the 1st Amendment doesn't say that - and as most Americans are Christian, it is a natural that most religious symbols in this country will be Christian in nature.

Maimonides,

Whatever.

Mark,

That sentiment is completely contrary to the concept of protecting the minority from the tyranny of the majority. You know, one of the basic concepts that our government was founded on? That bullying, "Well, there's more of us! We can force whatever we want on the rest of you!" is something our founding fathers worked to remedy.

Seems like you're saying democracy is only for Christians, or that Christians should get special privileges 'cause we got their first. Both ideas are morally bankrupt. BTW, the founding fathers were mostly Deists.

Craig, I thought your 02:39 PM post was great. You make a point that I think everyone should seriously ponder. I agree with yours, too, lazerlou. But this isn't essentially a religious issue to me. It's more a case of splitting hairs gone too far.

In my first post I essentially agreed with the original court ruling: the presence of the cross on governmental land was a violation of the constitution. Okay, fine. But there is another issue in play here: a broad spectrum of San Diegans like it and want to keep it. I'm sure some value it for its religious symbolism, but many others value it as an historical landmark. There are many sites with religious significance which are also officially designated as historical sites. Many of the California missions fall into that category, as is Old Town San Diego.

Anyway, out of consideration for the double significance of the cross, the city sought to remedy the situation by selling the land. It seems to me they should be able to do that -- after putting it up to a vote, of course. And 76% of voters approved. I think that's very meaningful in this case. For one thing, even the constitution could be changed with 67% of the vote. For another, according to this map, only somewhere between 35 and 50% of the people of San Diego consider themselves adherents of any religion. Third, a cross had been on that site since 1914, the current one had been there since 1954. And until 1989 or so, no one complained.

Finally, it should be mentioned that San Francisco was confronted with a strikingly similar situation around the same time. There is a 103-foot cross on Mount Davidson, the city's highest peak. It also had been there for decades before someone came along to protest it. So the city sold the land and the courts allowed it in that case. The 103-foot cross on Mount Davidson still stands, but it's no longer government property.

jim said: "This is understood by some as an "attack" on religion; it isn't. It is a leveling of the religious and intellectual playing field. If Christians feel that they can't compete with other worldviews on that field, what does that say about the religion?"

That's an interesting argument. I suppose it's true that if you feel threatened by, or can't accept others of other religions, it doesn't say much for your own. Personally, had it been a minaret up there all these years, or a star of David, I don't think I would have a problem with that, either. Granted, that's pure speculation on my part, but I'm pretty sure. For example, as you're going down the I-5 freeway -- right about the same point where you can see the Mt Soledad memorial, as a matter of fact -- there is a Mormon temple. It is an absolutely breathtaking structure. Sure, it's not on public land or anything, but even if it was I would hate to see it removed because someone has a bug up their butt.

And by the way, Maimonides, the chairman of San Diegans for a Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, and leader of the fight to save it, is Jewish.

I have nothing against atheists (and by the way, since the question was asked -- as indicated in the Signs on San Diego article I referenced above, both the lawsuits against the Mt Soledad and Mt Davidson monuments were brought by atheists, and supported by the ACLU). And I have nothing against the ACLU either. In fact, I think the ACLU is an effective force in favor of the rights of individuals against the power of the state. Sometimes the battles they take on could be considered liberal -- in fact, one could argue that most of them at the present time are. But even at the present time that is not always the case. Keep in mind that the ACLU went to bat for Rush Limbaugh in his battle to keep his medical records private. At other times they have defended the Aryan Nation, as well as many other kinds of unpopular causes throughout the years. At times I agree with their cause "du jour" and at times I don't. But I'm glad they exist, and I hope they continue their fight, whatever it is. I consider the ACLU as a welcome voice in the cacaphony of public opinion. To paraphrase Voltaire, "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." That, to me, is the American way. It may make things uncomfortable at times, but I champion it.

But in this particular case I think they're wrong.

Ah...another victory in the War On Christians, and it feels so good! It's nowhere near over, by the way. Today we're getting crosses removed from hills, but eventually we'll be able to get away with the REALLY fun stuff.

Soon we'll get that law passed that allows us to crucify evangelists! If you're whining now, just wait until we nail your ass to the nearest utility pole! This is only the beginning...soon we will be able to turn America back on the path of sin and fun, in the name of our Dark Lord.

Hail Satan!

We're a Christian nation, not a capitalist nation?

Are you sure?

Ever heard of the Almighty dollar?

How does that jibe with the first Commandment (I am the Lord God, you shall put no other God's before me.)?

...and that's the FIRST Commandment.

Jeezus... you extreme-right lunatics are such pussies. You have a monopoly on political power in the US and yet you are always whining and claiming to be persecuted. "Thou makest Jesus vomit."

This post may show up again at some point, but I've been waiting for the first instance to show up more than three hours now. So forgive me if I eventually repeat myself...

Craig, I thought your 02:39 PM post was great. You make a point that I think everyone should seriously ponder. I agree with yours, too, lazerlou. But this isn't essentially a religious issue to me. It's more a case of splitting hairs gone too far.

In my first post I essentially agreed with the original court ruling: the presence of the cross on governmental land was a violation of the constitution. Okay, fine. But there is another issue in play here: a broad spectrum of San Diegans like it and want to keep it. I'm sure some value it for its religious symbolism, but many others value it as an historical landmark. There are many sites with religious significance which are also officially designated as historical sites. Many of the California missions fall into that category, as is Old Town San Diego.

Anyway, out of consideration for the double significance of the cross, the city sought to remedy the situation by selling the land. It seems to me they should be able to do that -- after putting it up to a vote, of course. And 76% of voters approved. I think that's very meaningful in this case. For one thing, even the constitution could be changed with 67% of the vote. For another, according to this map, only somewhere between 35 and 50% of the people of San Diego consider themselves adherents of any religion. Third, a cross had been on that site since 1914, the current one had been there since 1954. And until 1989 or so, no one complained.

Finally, it should be mentioned that San Francisco was confronted with a strikingly similar situation around the same time. There is a 103-foot cross on Mount Davidson, the city's highest peak. It also had been there for decades before someone came along to protest it. So the city sold the land and the courts allowed it in that case. The 103-foot cross on Mount Davidson still stands, but it's no longer government property.

jim said: "This is understood by some as an "attack" on religion; it isn't. It is a leveling of the religious and intellectual playing field. If Christians feel that they can't compete with other worldviews on that field, what