[...] appeals court rules war memorial cross in San Diego public park unconstitutional – CBS Breaking news This entry was posted in Breaking News and tagged appeals, Circuit, court, Cross, Diego, [...]

FFS. This is completely spitting on the men who lost their lives so that idiot judges could make these stupid pronouncements.

These judges should go and fight in a war and see how unconstitutional they feel.

Do you really think that Washington, Jefferson and the Founding Fathers really ment this? Where is the respect for human sacrifice?

Absolutely with the court on this one.

Don’t know why people think a Christian Cross can stand for all dead soldiers? How arrogant. That spits on the men and women who either were not Christian or who were non-believers.

I am dumbfounded and saddened that intelligent people in positions of power think they are making our country better by removing religious symbols from public view.

Um, no one said you can’t have religious symbols in public view. In fact, go ahead an put a big ol’ cross, Star of David, etc., on your front door if you like it. This cross in on public property. Public view and public property are two different things.

Of course you are. Because you’re a fool.

This decision respects the non-Christian men and women who have died for their country, and acknowledges the rights of other non-Christians who should be treated as equal partners in the sovereignty of this nation. Let Christians who want to honor the Christ, the Christian dead, or themselves use their own property, appropriately acquired, for their monuments.

Do you want your religion judged by such argument? by such hate?

True, but the effect is the same. We are so concerned about making sure everyone knows that the govt does not support any one religion, that the real message conveyed is that the govt doesn’t tolerate any public expression of religion. Try interviewing people on what’s legal and what’s not and you’ll see how confused they are.

Anne, I’d like to remind you that person that brought this case originally was a veteran.

With only occasional stupid exceptions, the law is clear and consistent on this matter. On public grounds (on in a public context generally), a religious symbol must be accompanied by other symbols (religious or secular) to avoid the unlawful endorsement of that religion. In other words, the cross by itself is a problem, but if there are other religions represented (non-religion is a religion in this context), then the cross is not a problem. This seems to be consistent with the spirit of both the Free Exercise Clause (you can believe what you want) and the Establishment Clause (but the government can’t show preferential treatment).

Now, if you don’t like the law for one reason or another, or think that the case law doesn’t really embody the intent of the Founders (which would be wrong), feel free to complain about it. However, note that your complaints (or insults for that matter) will not change a thing. If you don’t like the law, start a movement to amend the Constitution (in one direction or the other) to overrule prior case law. Otherwise, you’re spinning your wheels.

No, Rick, houses of worship and religious symbols are found on private property through-out almost every city, and are protected by law.

Everywhere in this world, we find majority religions demanding special privileges, and claiming oppression when these are taken from then. Hindus do this in India, Muslims do this in nations like Pakistan. Buddhists do this in nations such as Thailand. In any of these nations, Christians are sometimes the target, and you could recognize the injustice.

So recognize it here too.

I hope they place a historical placard noting the original site of the cross, and who sued to remove it

“The original wooden cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens living in La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923; later that year it was affixed back in the ground in Mt. Soledad Natural Park only to be burned down by the Ku Klux Klan.”

The Ninth Circuit. Doing the work of the Klan.

See…

iamthewitness. c o m

“Establishment Clause (but the government can’t show preferential treatment)”

That’s not what the Establishment Clause says. Don’t need to amend nothin’ just because people lie about it.

Besides, look at the Walpin ruling and the Alaska election ruling. You can pass a plain-language law and the judges can say, “meh, we don’t like what it says.”

I guess literacy isn’t a requirement for law school. Ah, well, no math, no dissertation, no intellectual standards and no competition from foreign students — you cann’t expect lawyers to be very bright, can you?

The flood of comments is just beginning, isn’t it? This won’t be pretty.

Would all the Christians railing about this tell me your opinion if it were a star-and-crescent war memorial on public land? Your HONEST opinion? Or do you plan to revise history and say we’re a “Christian nation”?

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” — and specifically allowing one religion’s symbology on land owned by the government, with upkeep paid for by the government, seems pretty clear-cut to me.

Human sacrifice? That’s what those wars was about? Because I’m pretty sure it was about defending the Constitution, which is the oath the armed forces takes – not to defend a cross or a religious mantra.

But yes, the founders specifically meant this. The two you mentioned specifically wrote against it, Washington even penning a letter to Tripoli saying that we were not a Christian nation, that we fight no religious wars.

Its a zionist jew judge named Hellerstein doing this.
So how about removing all the giant menorahs from the White House grounds?

Didn’t think so.

Actually, the cross that the Ku Klux Klan (a fringe Christian group) burned in 1923 was one that they erected themselves, for the purpose of burning.

(The Wikipedia entry which you quote was deliberately spun. Wikipedia is a grossly unreliable source whenever policy implications are expected to follow from the content.)

google White House menorahs…hit images…then buy a vowel and get back
with us.

The cross is the SYMBOL of Christianity. The Star of David is the symbol of Judaism.

The menorah is a traditional DECORATION of one Jewish holiday. Much like the Christmas tree is a traditional decoration for a Christian holiday. And there is a massive Christmas tree every year at the White House.

Did you do a Google search for “white house menorah” and NOT hit “images”? It’s … interesting the sites it seems you’re getting your rhetoric from.

Why? To remind visitors that the people who erected it broke the laws they were supposed to be defending? Toby, is Irony your middle name?

Thomas, you didn’t answer the question.

They put up a Christmas tree to, right? Those are also temporary decorations for a certain season, not permanent memorials. Try comparing it to a huge permanent crescent moon and star on public property.

Uh, Arlington and other military cemeteries are going to look kind of barren soon except for the braves souls whose bodies are entombed there….

Yes, @PL, they do. I tried to respond to @Thomas before, bringing up the Christmas tree, but either I erred or my browser is not handling threading in topics correctly (that happens with certain forum software.) I guess I’ll find out in a moment, if this reply ends up in this thread, or appended as its own post as the last one did. (My previous response is right under this thread.)

The same court that denies the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution…Hippocrates!

Daniel,
I don’t think anyone is saying here that the Christian religion should be the only one allowed to place symbols on public property. In this case, Christians were the first, and the court’s solution is to have it forcibly removed. That to me is an erosion of the First Amendment, not a defense of it. I can’t prove it to you, and I am not going to get on here and insult people who believe differently than I do. I just think that in another generation or so, if these decisions are upheld, freedom of religion in this country won’t really be what it is today, and that’s what saddens me.

Rick, the best way to protect freedom of religion for one group is to protect it for all groups. Previously oppressed groups rarely resist the temptation to become oppressors when they come into power.

In any case, forcing religious symbols onto the property of those who don’t want them is wrong. That includes forcing it onto property that one shares with someone else, even if one is first to put up a religious symbol on that shared property.

Those who oppose having this cross on public property have previously suggested privatizing the land in an open auction. If Christians were the high bidders, then they could keep or restore the cross. But you’d have to accept the possibility that some other group would be the high bidders, and would place a very different symbol there. That’s what a lack of privilege for any one group would mean.

Hippocrates, the Greek physician? What has he to do with this?

Oh, maybe you mean “hypocrites”. Well, yes, the 9th Circuit Court can be pretty hypocritical, as can the ACLU. I wish that the whole Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were properly respected.

But I cheer when at least the First Amendment gets respected.

If you don’t like it, don’t look at it, simple as that ! I myself have seen this monument and it is so beautiful. And to see the San Diego Valley way down below & the Coronado Bridge. Breath taking.

Relax, if you don’t like it don’t look at it. There are many things gong on in a public park that I would not prefer but for me to decide it’s inappropriate and ske for it’s removal is just…..inapropriate.

Daniel,
You seem to be saying that the best way to defend freedom of religious expression is to make sure that no one can actually do it on public property. Forgive me, but that is precisely what saddens me–the growing semtiment among intelligent people in this country that freedom of religion should not include free expression in public places. And I think a lot of countries that do not share our Constitution have that exact view, and we are on our way to becoming just like them.

[...] Appeals Court Rules California Public Park Cross Unconstitutional [...]

I have to wonder about who these people are that are so “offended” by these things. “Oh no it’s a cross! Even worse: I just noticed it’s on government property so let’s forget about the original intent or respect for the memorial, it must mean that the government is saying I have to be Christian or something.” Take your offense, and lack of tolerance and stay indoors. Find something really important to focus on besides yourselves.

for the same reasons that if there was a jewish star there noone would even have the guts to discuss this issue.

I I agree with you Rick.

Agree

No, Rick, that’s not what I’m saying. And allowing public property to be seized on a first-come basis for religious advocacy preserves only the freedom of one group at each site, and only the freedom of the most numerous or most active at sites in general. You’d not find crosses in many public places in India or in Saudi Arabia if such rules were used there, and you recognize the basis. Again, recognize it here.

If the cross is removed, you’ll still be as able to drive, cycle, or walk up to the top of Mr Soledad and talk about the Christ to those interested or hand-out Bibles to those who will take them. But no one will be in the shadow of that cross if he or she wants to present a very different view about religious topics.

The 9th issued that ruling? Shocker – not!

Dear Daniel,
You are offering an form of Christian proselytizing as a substitute for having the cross on Mt. Soledad, as if the purpose of the cross there is to convert people to Christianity, but I don’t think that’s true at all. I think it’s there to honor war dead, and for the war dead not served by that symbol, I would welcome the addition of a symbol to appropriately honor them. Removing the cross says that people of faith in America must find a secular way to honor the dead, so as not to offend those with a different view. It restricts sincere, respectful religious expression.
The First Amendment is so beautifully worded, and it makes possible the kind of religious expression in public that’s not possible in other countries. But people for whom public religious expression is not precious are spending millions of dollars to strangle, little by little, the special freedom that our Constitution makes possible. You’re winning, and I’m sad.

I cant wait untill He comes -

Rick, I responded the concern that you had expressed, which was that, somehow, not letting people erect exclusive religious symbols on public property on a first-come basis was an abridgement of the right to freely express religious views.

Whether your intention is conversion is not at issue; not even very important. (My hypothetical scenario of your engaging in discussion of handing-out Bibles said nothing of whether you’d be handing them out to non-believers or to fellow Christians.) Regardless of intention, the effect of giving preferential treatment to the symbols of one religion is to promote that religion.

In Japan, the Christian wife of a Christian soldier wanted her husband’s funeral conducted in a Christian manner. But the courts there ruled that this would abridge the freedom of religion of the other members of his company, and so a Shinto funeral service was conducted. Their perverse notion of freedom was exactly like yours is.

It isn’t appropriate to use the public land of Mr Soledad exclusively to honor lost Christian soldiers, nor is appropriate to use it to honor non-Christian soldiers with Christian symbols.

Your idea of freedom is not freedom at all. It strips the meaning from the words of Locke, of Mason, of Jefferson, and of Madison, and turns those words into empty chanting. Right now, you deserve to be sad.

Daniel,
I was following you until this last post. You say the example of the military funeral in Japan is exactly like my “perverse” view. But it seems to me much more like the decision of the 9th Circuit judge (and like your view). That is, a government saying to a person of faith, “Your desire to honor your deceased family member in a way that expresses your religious beliefs is not appropriate because it could offend someone who does not share your religion. Therefore we will not allow it.”
If I can’t follow your argument, I have to respectfully bow out. I have no allusions that my comments will change your view in any way, but maybe they will resonate with someone else reading this.
I don’t know you, Daniel, and I can’t presume to know your intentions, but I will say that I would not choose to say to you or anyone else that you “deserve to be sad.” I believe that would be judgmental, insensitive, and condescending.
For anyone else who might choose to consider my opinion on the issue here, I would just like to say that my view of freedom, which Daniel says is “not freedom at all,” is that our courts should not interpret the First Amendment as if it begins with the unspoken proviso, “Unless any of this happens to offend someone…”
And to Daniel I will say that I honestly wish you well. I would like to say “God bless you,” but I’m afraid, based on your comments, that you would consider that inappropriate.

Rick, as Swift said, there are none who are so blind as those who choose not to see. As I said:

It isn’t appropriate to use the public land of Mt Soledad exclusively to honor lost Christian soldiers, nor is appropriate to use it to honor non-Christian soldiers with Christian symbols.

The theft of public land, to use a symbol objectionable to some of its owners, is just like the theft of that funeral. To effect that theft, the other soldiers and the judge convinced themselves that they somehow had a special claim to the funeral; you’ve persuaded yourself that being first or most made that property yours.

For you to judgementally object that someone is judgemental is at best silly. As to my being judgemental, it is “with what judgement ye judge” and “with what measure ye mete”. If your own judgements were symmetrical, you’d have no need to fear judgement.

(Meanwhile, I also have no problem judgementally condemning whomever is responsible for the inane refreshing of this page while a comment it entered.)

I said I was bowing out, and I stated why. Therefore, only the courtesy of this acknowledgment that I read your last post. I wish you well, Daniel.

That’s what my wife always says.

Scrutinizing the photograph of the cross in question, I was unable to see where it was threatening anyone’s safety, health, or right to believe whatever they want to believe.
The ruling wouldn’t have been made, of course, unless someone else saw some kind of danger posed by the structure…and took it upon themselves to take the matter to court. Nothing else to spend time on, I suppose.
I also looked through my copy of the US Constitution and found no mention off crosses or such as being dangerous to the well-being of the citizenry. Same holds true for the star of david or any other such totems.
It’s really like saying that the appearance of Santa Claus on public property means the government is promoting the fact that the old boy exists.
It’s high time folks who hate things….get a life.

The government cannot endorse, or appear to endorse, one religion over another religion or religion over non-religion. That is the principal behind the 1st Amendment and has been repeated declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. The exact words aren’t there, but that is the meaning behind the words that are there. That’s what “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” means.
So the only question left is whether something violates that principle. The principle is not in question. A cross on public land as a memorial for war dead is a memorial for Christian war dead only and ignores the sacrifices made by non-Christians in the same war.
A church, or other private organization, is well within its rights to have a cross as a war memorial but the state, the government, cannot construct an exclusionary monument because that would be endorsing the contributions of the members of one religion over all others. As soon as it does that it divides the population into two groups. An included group and an excluded group and that violates the 14th Amendment as well.
I continue to be amazed that people cannot understand this simple fact.

[...] Appeals Court Rules Calif. Public Park Cross Unconstitutional … Jan 4, 2011 … A war memorial cross in a San Diego public park is unconstitutional … Sacramento Business Listings … [...]