Blue Crab Boulevard

This Is Wrong On So Many Levels

A Federal judge has ordered the city of San Diego to remove a 29-foot tall cross that marks a war memorial on top of Mount Soledad. The cross has stood since 1954. The first cross was erected on the sight in 1913. The city transferred the land the cross stands on to a private war memorial group once. The courts ruled the transfer unconstitutional and forced the city to take it back. Federal legislation was passed to take over the memorial, and voters approved the transfer overwhelmingly. That was again blocked by the courts.

The entire sequence of events was started by one atheist. Supported by the ACLU.

The refusal of the courts to allow the property to be transferred begins to smell a lot like a judicial vendetta, doesn't it? The fact that the court is also ignoring a majority of voters to enforce the beliefs of one person also grants uneven protection to that one person's beliefs. Essentially declaring that the cross violates the establishment clause appears to instead establish atheism. Isn't that just as wrong?

It's a memorial. Leave it alone.

Legal | Gaius Thursday, 4 May , 2006

By Tano, Thursday, 4 May , 2006 @ 3:07 pm

Its not enforcing the “beliefs of one person”. It is enforcing the Constitution.

The votes of a majority of the voters has no power to override the Constituion unless those votes are cast (through representatives) in a Constitution-amending process.

It is absurd to claim this is “establishing” athiesm. Unless you are trying to make the equation that “no established religion” equals “established no-religion” in which case you should take it up with James Madison’s ghost.
By Gauis Arbo, Thursday, 4 May , 2006 @ 3:20 pm

No, it’s not Tano. In no way could the use of a cross for a war memorial be construed as establishing a religion. That’s a huge reach.

Atheism, as some people use it, is no less a religion than any other.
By Robert, Friday, 5 May , 2006 @ 12:36 am

Put it on private land.

The Constitution protects religion from the government, and vice-versa.
By Gauis Arbo, Friday, 5 May , 2006 @ 5:49 am

They tried to, the court blocked them.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Friday, 5 May , 2006 @ 10:30 pm

The sale was rigged to favor the Memorial Association that wanted to keep the cross. Not standard city procedure when selling land. This case has been litigated for 17 years in the courts. Favoring a religious group is putting the government in a position of de facto establishing a favored religion.

Meanwhile, the city of San Diego continues to hurt from its financial problems, all because grandstanding politicians prefer a cheap publicity stunt than actually doing hard work.

And if the cross there is not a religious symbol, what are all these religious groups doing trying to keep it there?