Judge Orders San Diego to Remove Cross

[GroundedSailor]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...rticle/2006/05/04/AR2006050400442.html

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/site/app....asp?c=euLTJbMUKvH&b=312465&ct=2371827

This case has been going on for 15 years. The 29-foot-high cross was dedicated as a memorial to Korean War veterans in 1954.

Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran, challenged its placement on city owned land since 1989. In 1991 the court ordered the statue removed. The Supreme court refused to hear the City's appeal so they are running out of options. Even the city attorney says the case in un-winnable but the Mayor wants to keep challenging.

The city can ill afford any financial burden from the reports.

Is the Mayor nuts? What is the point of having a monument which costs so much frivolous money? Much better to replace it with something non contentious which can be an asset to the city.

Judge Orders San Diego to Remove Cross

By ALLISON HOFFMAN
The Associated Press
Thursday, May 4, 2006; 8:17 AM

SAN DIEGO -- After a 17-year legal battle between the city and a self-described atheist, a judge has ordered San Diego officials to remove a giant cross from a hilltop park or start paying $5,000 a day in fines.

Defying the order is something cash-strapped San Diego can ill afford. Its pension fund is more than $1 billion in debt, the federal government is investigating, and there's been talk of bankruptcy.

Still, Mayor Jerry Sanders said he would ask the city attorney to appeal.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. on Wednesday gave the city 90 days to comply with a 1991 injunction forbidding the cross on public property.

"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue," the judge wrote.

The 29-foot-high cross was dedicated as a memorial to Korean War veterans in 1954 on a hilltop that towers over seaside La Jolla.

Philip Paulson, an atheist and Vietnam veteran, has been challenging its placement on city-owned parkland since 1989. He declined comment on the ruling Wednesday, but his attorney, James McElroy, said he hoped city officials would finally back down.

The city has tried to sell the half-acre beneath the cross to a nonprofit association that maintains the surrounding memorial walls. But federal judges have repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would keep the cross in place. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal in 2003.

A city-sponsored referendum asking permission from residents to sell the property failed in 2004. The next year, 75 percent of the voters approved a referendum to transfer the land to the federal government, but a Superior Court judge ruled that measure to be an "unconstitutional aid to religion." The ruling has been appealed.

City Attorney Mike Aguirre acknowledged Wednesday that continuing the court battle would likely be futile, but Mayor Jerry Sanders said he would the city attorney to aggressively pursue a stay of the injunction.
© 2006 The Associated Press

 

[Theb]

ego FTL

I hope the taxpayers don't mind shelling out $5,000 a day.

 

[Dissipate]

I live on the mountain that has that cross. In fact, I drive by that cross all the time on the weekend. I'm not a Christian but who gives a flying hoot if it's there? Just another case of other people pissing on other people's interests just because they can.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

So it was fine for 37 years until ONE person complained? Why would anyone wage a war to remove a cross from a war memorial? If I were the mayor of SD I'd say FU and just not pay the fine. How do you collect on a city that won't pay...

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I live on the mountain that has that cross. In fact, I drive by that cross all the time on the weekend. I'm not a Christian but who gives a flying hoot if it's there? Just another case of other people pissing on other people's interests just because they can.

Exactly, and even thought I do not believe in religion or God this is a perfect example of why I have even less use for most athiests.

 

[shadow9d9]

Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

There are no people forced to go down and bow before that cross. You're merely telling us that its existence is wrong, where as I'm fairly sure the constitution wasn't intended to outlaw religion so much as prevent a Church of England scenario. A religious symbol which is part of our historic foundation does NOT in any way apply to forcing people into a specific religion.

To say that we should destroy historic monuments because we must purge religion from this country is an outright crime in my view. You're taking the protection of the constitution and abusing it to try to forcibly remove religion from this country.

And I've never set foot inside a church. I have no organized religion, I keep my own faith. Yet I am not so cowardly as to be offended by the faith of others.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I live on the mountain that has that cross. In fact, I drive by that cross all the time on the weekend. I'm not a Christian but who gives a flying hoot if it's there? Just another case of other people pissing on other people's interests just because they can.

Exactly, and even thought I do not believe in religion or God this is a perfect example of why I have even less use for most athiests.

FYI, most Athiest don't give a sh!t about crosses and the like on public property. As long as we don't have to kneel before it we couldn't care less.

 

[XMan]

I wonder if this Paulson guy has a problem with the crosses that people put up beside the road where people have died in car accidents . . . this is just a bigger version of that, IMO.

 

[DealMonkey]

Separation of church and state anyone? Anyone? Meh ... nevermind.

 

[smack Down]

Originally posted by: XMan
I wonder if this Paulson guy has a problem with the crosses that people put up beside the road where people have died in car accidents . . . this is just a bigger version of that, IMO.

Which are also illegal.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: XMan
I wonder if this Paulson guy has a problem with the crosses that people put up beside the road where people have died in car accidents . . . this is just a bigger version of that, IMO.

Which are also illegal.

if you don't like, you guys are free to leave the Country.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: smack Down

Originally posted by: XMan
I wonder if this Paulson guy has a problem with the crosses that people put up beside the road where people have died in car accidents . . . this is just a bigger version of that, IMO.

Which are also illegal.

if you don't like, you guys are free to leave the Country.

And they would have to give up the chance to knock it. Give up free speech?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

There are no people forced to go down and bow before that cross. You're merely telling us that its existence is wrong, where as I'm fairly sure the constitution wasn't intended to outlaw religion so much as prevent a Church of England scenario. A religious symbol which is part of our historic foundation does NOT in any way apply to forcing people into a specific religion.

To say that we should destroy historic monuments because we must purge religion from this country is an outright crime in my view. You're taking the protection of the constitution and abusing it to try to forcibly remove religion from this country.

And I've never set foot inside a church. I have no organized religion, I keep my own faith. Yet I am not so cowardly as to be offended by the faith of others.

Has nothing to do with cowardice.. it has to do with state endorsed religious symbols, which is simply not appropriate. End of story.

 

[morkinva]

Isn't this the cross where Dirty Harry stabbed Scorpio in the leg? 😛

 

[trenchfoot]

more crosses taken down in hawaii

i remember when both crosses from hawaii military bases were taken down. public opinion ranged from apathetic to vociferous. e.g. - "it's just a cross, fer cry'in out loud" to "christians are arrogant elitists; why not put up the star of david instead".

some said it was a religious symbol only if looked at in that context. others said the historical significance that the crosses represented was justification for having them remain. still others felt that the crosses violated their constitutional right to be free from religious oppression and exclusivism. some satanists and athiests said they felt violated and intimidated by the crosses and the satanists wanted equal representation in some form. an indiginous hawaiian group wanting to restore the hawaiian monarchy that was overtrhown by american secessionist businessmen and supported by a US naval detachment saw the crosses as a symbol of foreign imperialist expansionist agression .

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I live on the mountain that has that cross. In fact, I drive by that cross all the time on the weekend. I'm not a Christian but who gives a flying hoot if it's there? Just another case of other people pissing on other people's interests just because they can.

Exactly, and even thought I do not believe in religion or God this is a perfect example of why I have even less use for most athiests.

FYI, most Athiest don't give a sh!t about crosses and the like on public property. As long as we don't have to kneel before it we couldn't care less.

Which is reasonable, unlike the Anti Christian Legal Unit fanatics.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I live on the mountain that has that cross. In fact, I drive by that cross all the time on the weekend. I'm not a Christian but who gives a flying hoot if it's there? Just another case of other people pissing on other people's interests just because they can.

Exactly, and even thought I do not believe in religion or God this is a perfect example of why I have even less use for most athiests.

FYI, most Athiest don't give a sh!t about crosses and the like on public property. As long as we don't have to kneel before it we couldn't care less.

Which is reasonable, unlike the Anti Christian Legal Unit fanatics.

I don't see jewish stars anywhere.. I don't see muslim, Buddhist, etc insignias everywhere.. It is not reasonable for states to use one religious symbol everywhere.

The ACLU defends constitutional rights. Deal with it. I am not an "atheist"... I do not want to see states using religious symbols. Simple.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I live on the mountain that has that cross. In fact, I drive by that cross all the time on the weekend. I'm not a Christian but who gives a flying hoot if it's there? Just another case of other people pissing on other people's interests just because they can.

Exactly, and even thought I do not believe in religion or God this is a perfect example of why I have even less use for most athiests.

FYI, most Athiest don't give a sh!t about crosses and the like on public property. As long as we don't have to kneel before it we couldn't care less.

Which is reasonable, unlike the Anti Christian Legal Unit fanatics.

Maybe the Christians are just anti-American...ever think of it that way? Not saying that's the case, but your awfully quick to jump all over the ACLU for a position that has nothing to do with their like or dislike of religion.

Just trying to get you to think things through, maybe even from the other side. I realize the earth will probably be engulfed by the sun first...but it's worth a shot.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

There are no people forced to go down and bow before that cross. You're merely telling us that its existence is wrong, where as I'm fairly sure the constitution wasn't intended to outlaw religion so much as prevent a Church of England scenario. A religious symbol which is part of our historic foundation does NOT in any way apply to forcing people into a specific religion.

To say that we should destroy historic monuments because we must purge religion from this country is an outright crime in my view. You're taking the protection of the constitution and abusing it to try to forcibly remove religion from this country.

And I've never set foot inside a church. I have no organized religion, I keep my own faith. Yet I am not so cowardly as to be offended by the faith of others.

Has nothing to do with cowardice.. it has to do with state endorsed religious symbols, which is simply not appropriate. End of story.

So by your logic we should remove all the head stones at every military cemetery in the US. We should replace all the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery with something less offensive. No more star of David head stones... No more crosses...

Gimmie a break. :disgust:

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: Dissipate
I live on the mountain that has that cross. In fact, I drive by that cross all the time on the weekend. I'm not a Christian but who gives a flying hoot if it's there? Just another case of other people pissing on other people's interests just because they can.

Exactly, and even thought I do not believe in religion or God this is a perfect example of why I have even less use for most athiests.

FYI, most Athiest don't give a sh!t about crosses and the like on public property. As long as we don't have to kneel before it we couldn't care less.

Which is reasonable, unlike the Anti Christian Legal Unit fanatics.

I don't see jewish stars anywhere.. I don't see muslim, Buddhist, etc insignias everywhere.. It is not reasonable for states to use one religious symbol everywhere.

The ACLU defends constitutional rights. Deal with it. I am not an "atheist"... I do not want to see states using religious symbols. Simple.

Exactly, if some judge in Alabama, for example, decided what his courthouse really needed was a huge honking statuate of Buddha in the entryway, I don't think the ACLU would be any more in favor of it. The only difference is that people like Zendari would be cheering them on instead of calling them truly childish names. It's all about perspective, and I don't think most Christians, even the nice ones, have it. You just don't understand the situation when you are in the vast, VAST majority.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

There are no people forced to go down and bow before that cross. You're merely telling us that its existence is wrong, where as I'm fairly sure the constitution wasn't intended to outlaw religion so much as prevent a Church of England scenario. A religious symbol which is part of our historic foundation does NOT in any way apply to forcing people into a specific religion.

To say that we should destroy historic monuments because we must purge religion from this country is an outright crime in my view. You're taking the protection of the constitution and abusing it to try to forcibly remove religion from this country.

And I've never set foot inside a church. I have no organized religion, I keep my own faith. Yet I am not so cowardly as to be offended by the faith of others.

Has nothing to do with cowardice.. it has to do with state endorsed religious symbols, which is simply not appropriate. End of story.

So by your logic we should remove all the head stones at every military cemetery in the US. We should replace all the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery with something less offensive. No more star of David head stones... No more crosses...

Gimmie a break. :disgust:

That seems a little bit different, after all, Arlignton is first a place of rest for the dead, it is THEIR memory and life we are placing to rest, so it seems reasonable to pick a symbol they would want, and they probably would have appreciated a cross. It's not really our place to decide that for the dead...

Let's be realistic here, our country is literally covered in Christian, and ONLY Christian, religious symbols. Private property, public property, whatever, they are all over the place. All most "anti-Christian" people really want is a little bit of common sense applied to their placement. There is a happy middle ground between banning all religious symbols on public property and feeling like an outsider in your own country.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

There are no people forced to go down and bow before that cross. You're merely telling us that its existence is wrong, where as I'm fairly sure the constitution wasn't intended to outlaw religion so much as prevent a Church of England scenario. A religious symbol which is part of our historic foundation does NOT in any way apply to forcing people into a specific religion.

To say that we should destroy historic monuments because we must purge religion from this country is an outright crime in my view. You're taking the protection of the constitution and abusing it to try to forcibly remove religion from this country.

And I've never set foot inside a church. I have no organized religion, I keep my own faith. Yet I am not so cowardly as to be offended by the faith of others.

Has nothing to do with cowardice.. it has to do with state endorsed religious symbols, which is simply not appropriate. End of story.

So by your logic we should remove all the head stones at every military cemetery in the US. We should replace all the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery with something less offensive. No more star of David head stones... No more crosses...

Gimmie a break. :disgust:

That seems a little bit different, after all, Arlignton is first a place of rest for the dead, it is THEIR memory and life we are placing to rest, so it seems reasonable to pick a symbol they would want, and they probably would have appreciated a cross. It's not really our place to decide that for the dead...

Let's be realistic here, our country is literally covered in Christian, and ONLY Christian, religious symbols. Private property, public property, whatever, they are all over the place. All most "anti-Christian" people really want is a little bit of common sense applied to their placement. There is a happy middle ground between banning all religious symbols on public property and feeling like an outsider in your own country.

You have issues if this cross makes you feel like an "outsider". I guess it's only a few thin skinned whiners blowing smoke.

It's been around long enough that its part of the city's history.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

There are no people forced to go down and bow before that cross. You're merely telling us that its existence is wrong, where as I'm fairly sure the constitution wasn't intended to outlaw religion so much as prevent a Church of England scenario. A religious symbol which is part of our historic foundation does NOT in any way apply to forcing people into a specific religion.

To say that we should destroy historic monuments because we must purge religion from this country is an outright crime in my view. You're taking the protection of the constitution and abusing it to try to forcibly remove religion from this country.

And I've never set foot inside a church. I have no organized religion, I keep my own faith. Yet I am not so cowardly as to be offended by the faith of others.

Has nothing to do with cowardice.. it has to do with state endorsed religious symbols, which is simply not appropriate. End of story.

So by your logic we should remove all the head stones at every military cemetery in the US. We should replace all the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery with something less offensive. No more star of David head stones... No more crosses...

Gimmie a break. :disgust:

THis is a monument using tax dollars.. tombstones are not... next!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Yell all you want, but a cross is religious.. so why is it state sanctioned? No reason... so it should be removed...

There are no people forced to go down and bow before that cross. You're merely telling us that its existence is wrong, where as I'm fairly sure the constitution wasn't intended to outlaw religion so much as prevent a Church of England scenario. A religious symbol which is part of our historic foundation does NOT in any way apply to forcing people into a specific religion.

To say that we should destroy historic monuments because we must purge religion from this country is an outright crime in my view. You're taking the protection of the constitution and abusing it to try to forcibly remove religion from this country.

And I've never set foot inside a church. I have no organized religion, I keep my own faith. Yet I am not so cowardly as to be offended by the faith of others.

Has nothing to do with cowardice.. it has to do with state endorsed religious symbols, which is simply not appropriate. End of story.

So by your logic we should remove all the head stones at every military cemetery in the US. We should replace all the headstones at Arlington National Cemetery with something less offensive. No more star of David head stones... No more crosses...

Gimmie a break. :disgust:

That seems a little bit different, after all, Arlignton is first a place of rest for the dead, it is THEIR memory and life we are placing to rest, so it seems reasonable to pick a symbol they would want, and they probably would have appreciated a cross. It's not really our place to decide that for the dead...

Let's be realistic here, our country is literally covered in Christian, and ONLY Christian, religious symbols. Private property, public property, whatever, they are all over the place. All most "anti-Christian" people really want is a little bit of common sense applied to their placement. There is a happy middle ground between banning all religious symbols on public property and feeling like an outsider in your own country.

You have issues if this cross makes you feel like an "outsider". I guess it's only a few thin skinned whiners blowing smoke.

It's been around long enough that its part of the city's history.

I never explained my personal opinion here. I am simply going by the law and trying to explain things to you. It doesn't matter if it is endorsed or not endorsed by the public.. Laws and the constitution are needed for a reason. People like you (and Bush for that matter) seem to want to ignore laws as you see fit.... As long as you can justify it some way. That is not how things are supposed to work.

You see, a judge here analyzed the case and determined that it was inappropriate with due consideration of the law... there was a judge here instead of a "representative of zendari and other people's random opinions" deciding the case... All you have posted here, as in almost all threads you post in, is use your personal opinion as judge, jury, and executioner... What sickens me is how , if you happen to have a PERSONAL OPINION to the contrary of law and courts' decisions, you just use generalizations and blanket terms and insults to try to justify it.

I would LOVE to see the reactions of people like Zendari if huge jewish stars or buddhist statues or mentions of Allah were all over our public buildings and monuments... of course, since HE happens to follow christianity, christian symbols are perfectly ok! Inability to see outside of one's own view is called closemindedness.