Options are narrowing in the 17-year legal battle to protect the historic monument from atheist attack.
San Diego, CA — A three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on June 21, 2006, that the majestic 30-foot cross atop Mt. Soledad in San Diego must be removed by August 1, or the city will face $5,000 per day fines.
Atheists began a crusade to remove the cross when they filed a lawsuit against the city 17 years ago. The cross, located in a city-owned park in the Pacific Beach area with a breathtaking 360° view of the California coastline, was built in 1953 as a Korean War Veteran Memorial. Christian groups found it a popular site for Easter sunrise services and other events.
Operation Rescue has held pro-life memorial rallies there attended by U.S. Congressmen and other dignitaries.
The attorney fighting to remove the cross is James McElroy, a Planned Parenthood attorney who spent over a decade suing pro-lifers, and has stated in private conversations with Operation Rescue staff members that he believes it is his mission in life to get pro-life Christians off the street.
While supporters of the cross monument were disappointed in the three-member panel ruling, they were mystified that the 9th Circuit scheduled oral arguments for an appeal before the full panel of judges for the week of October 12th, two months after the deadline set for the removal of the cross.
In November, 2005, San Diegans approved Proposition A with an overwhelming 76% of the vote, which would have allowed the cross to remain by transferring the title to the land. A District Court judge ruled that Prop A was unconstitutional, but in an ironic twist, the 4th District Court of Appeals ruled moments after the 9th Circuit that the city could appeal the Prop A ruling.
Mayor Jerry Sanders has vowed to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the likelihood of the nation’s highest court hearing the case seemed slim, since it refused to hear an appeal earlier in the litigation process.
“Our nation’s landmarks that give assent to our Christian Heritage are rapidly facing extinction,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman, who grew up not far from the historic cross. “The fact that the cross has survived 17 years of aggressive litigation is a testament to the popularity of the monument and the determination of the people of San Diego not to allow a couple of atheist bullies to deprive them of a beloved memorial that has graced the skies over San Diego for over 50 years.”
It is believed that an executive order from President George W. Bush could save the historic monument. If you would like to express your opinion to the President concerning the Mt. Soledad Cross war memorial, here is the contact information:
Mailing Address
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
E-Mail
comments@whitehouse.gov
Shall atheists dare insult the cross
Of our Redeemer, God?
Shall infidels reproach His laws,
Or trample on His blood?
What if He choose mysterious ways
To cleanse us from our faults?
May not the works of sovereign grace
Transcend our feeble thoughts?
What if His Gospel bids us fight
With flesh, and self, and sin,
The prize is most divinely bright
That we are called to win.
What if the foolish and the poor
His glorious grace partake,
This but confirms His truth the more,
For so the prophets spake.
Do some that own His sacred Name
Indulge their souls in sin?
Jesus should never bear the blame,
His laws are pure and clean.
Then let our faith grow firm and strong,
Our lips profess His Word;
Nor blush nor fear to walk among
The men that love the Lord.
What does this have to do with the prolife movement? If the cross stays or goes, will more babies be saved? I think not.
Oh, there’s most likely a connection in that this is just another installment of the atheist/satanist effort to criminalize expressions of Christian faith…which comprise most prolife efforts.
Hitler also had all remnants of Judaic, Christian expression systematically removed from the public square…and the efforts at saving members of his victim classes were systematically, ruthlessly, punished as well.
Incidentally, Hitler’s Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, once stated, “WE NAZIS DEMAND A SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IN THE ENTIRE PUBLIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY. What is the sense in still having Catholic associations of civil servants? We do not want Protestant or Catholic civil servants, we want German civil servants…We do not need a Catholic or a Protestant but only a German press. (NPR, PBS, etc.) The Catholic professional organizations and the Catholic youth organizations no longer fit into our age. They are often active in areas which the Nazi State claims for itself in the fulfillment of tasks. All these things are designed to disturb the unity of the German people, which Adolf Hitler created after fifteen years of struggle for the SOUL of Germany.”
An interesting historical footnote to Frick’s remark; he was condemned to death at Nuremberg because he knew of the atrocities committed in the Nazi deathcamps and did nothing to stop them…but I daresay that he and the Nazi party in general did all they could to stop those who did try to end the atrocities…think about it.
I hope that anyone who can reverse this perversity does so before it’s too late. History has proven over and over again that the tyranny of the thousands of commandments is not an acceptable replacement for the comparative liberty and justice of the ten commandments; yet the same people who want the cross removed want the ten commandments removed.
They are such hypocrites. I have asked a number of them whether they would like to live in a neighborhood where lying, perfidy, infidelity, stealing, murder, etc. were considered acceptable behavior. Aside from the obvious difficulty, that such a neighborhood would not last long, the God-bashers invariably state that they would not like to live in such a place…yet their efforts to remove the ten commandments, the cross, nativity scenes, etc. — all of which are historically proven to have a civilizing, ennobling, humbling, positive effect on society where they have been properly embraced– are deliberately calculated to make the entire world just such a place.
The further outrage is that they have nothing comparable to replace Christianity with, which makes their efforts at robbing society of it’s beneficent influence the more egregious.
Sam & jt:
I think jt has it right in saying, “The further outrage is that they have nothing comparable to replace Christianity with, which makes their efforts at robbing society of it’s beneficent influence the more egregious.”
Yep, that about says it all. There are lots of goals (axes to grind?) espoused by many folks, some worthy, some not. But at the end of the day, there’s nothing as worthy as Christianity and its message. “Defending the Constitution,” (as the ACLU claims) and other seemingly worthy goals, are all ultimately misplaced if they are not undergirded by a basic belief in God, a desire to do His work, and a recognition of the importance of God’s ongoing presence in our daily lives. Trying to find a substitute for God is like needing a full meal but trying to fill up on iced tea instead.
I also think jt answered Sam. As to what the cross has to do with the prolife movement, the prolife movement is founded in large part on the belief in God, and the moral repugnancy of abortion. Christians are a large part of that movement. A public Cross is a reminder of God’s existance and His ongoing presence in our daily lives, and the anti-life forces (who often appear anti-God) would like to do away with those. Such a Cross is a reminder (which some can’t bear) that there is a God, that He sees what we do, and that he has continued relevance in our increasingly sick world. These are underpinnings of the prolife movement. So the attack on this Cross is an attack on the underpinnings of the prolife cause: an indirect attack perhaps, but an attack nonetheless.
The cross… what a beautiful reminder of Jesus’ sacrifice for ALL of us.
There is a thing called Separation of Church and State. Foisting one’s beliefs upon the rest of the world is at the very least, rude – at the most – dangerous.
Gee, Jenni, let’s look at the “separation of Church and State” you champion.
Where does it derive from? Most say, “the Constitution.” The problem is, as usual, the Constitution does not say the 2 must be absolutely separate (just as it does not say people have a right to privacy, or a right to abortion, or a host of other rights…).
Instead, the doctrine derives from the so-called ” Establishment Clause” of the Constitution, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof….” It does NOT say Church and State must be separate.
The interpretation of that clause is subject to disagreement. The problem is that some — the ACLU, for example — always seem to adopt positions in line with “official atheism,” i.e. remove ALL references to God, and particularly mainstream Christianity, from the country. That position always seems to include, for example, banning creches at Christmas, banning singing Christmas carols in Schools at Christmas, banning displaying the 10 commandments from courtrooms (and basically assassinating the charater of judges like Roy Moore, who disagree…) and essentially doing away with all references to God. Of course, that theory ignores the fact that, for example, restricting religious speech in public school classrooms was apparently NOT the original intent of the first amendment, and that, for example, ending government-funded or government-endorsed religious activities for students constitutes censorship of religion.
Moreover, “separation” does not extend to all elements of civil religion. Congress begins its sessions with a prayer, and since 1954 the Pledge of Allegiance contains the phrase, “one nation, under God.” By law, the country’s currency now carries the motto “In God We Trust”. Court rulings have upheld these apparently religious references. The problem is, taxpayer dollars are continually wasted as the ACLU and other groups keep filing lawsuit upon lawsuit, revisiting ad infinitum these same issues.
So as usual, just blabbering about “separation of church and state!” displays no real analysis or understanding of the issues. It’s a sound byte, brought to you by people who have sound bytes and little more. Moreover, a cross on public land doesn’t exactly “foist” beliefs on anyone. But try to talk about Jesus in a public school in some parts of this county? That’ll get you sued. How about mentioning Jesus in your valedictorian high school speech? Again, that’ll get your speech edited and, if you give it anyway, will get your speech stopped in the middle by the “separation of church and state crowd” — who love to “foist” their beliefs on others.
So be careful what insults you throw around. Insulting others is…uhhh…”at the very least, rude – at the most – dangerous.”
If anyone’s ‘foisting’ their beliefs on anyone, its the ACLU and their dopey client who are trying to have the cross forcibly removed. It certainly wasn’t hurting anyone, and it was put there voluntarily with noone raising a stink for years.
Frank,
Concerning the separation of church and state, you asked the question, “Where does it derive from?”. I would like to provide an explanation.
You made an academic error with your use of the phrase “The establishment clause”. You applied this phrase to the entire statement, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. This statement, legally speaking, is broken down into two distinct clauses. The establishment clause consists of, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”. The second portion, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”, is known as the free excercise clause.
I point this out because these two distinct clauses provide the ammunition for people on both sides of the issue to make an argument for what they believe to be the truth.
But, what is the truth? The 1st Amendment, in
it’s vagueness, has allowed for a consistent disagreement over what the Fathers intended.
Thomas Jefferson, however, in his Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explained to the world in no uncertain terms, what the 1st Amendment does. Although Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists is not law, it
would be foolish of any Supreme Court Justice to ignore what he said. Jefferson stated, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.”
As I stated earlier, I fully understand that this letter is not, in and of itself, part of the constitution. Further, I recognize that it is the written viewpoint of only one of the framers. However, when engaged in this discussion, we must always realize that our judicial system is constantly trying to interpret and understand not only what the law says, but the true spirit and intent of the law. What tool could be more valuable in this endeavor that the written declaration of one of the primary framers of our nation’s laws? (Please don’t say the Bible) Why would any rational person seeking the truth fail to EVEN CONSIDER the viewpoint of one of the authors?
The doctrine for a spearation of church and state is also, to a degree, found in the Treaty of Tripoli and in Article VI, Section II of the constitution.
As Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli points out, “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen…….”
Additionally, the Constitution states in Article VI, Section II, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; AND ALL TREATIES MADE, OR WHICH SHAL BE MADE, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE UNITED STATES, SHALL BE THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND;…”
What does this mean? It means that in 1797, when this treaty was read aloud and ratified in Congress, the United States of America proclaimed to the world that our country was, if not completely secular, at least not founded upon the Christian religion.
I hope this answers, at least in part, your question of where the separtion comes from. But, more importantly, What was Jenni trying to say before you confused the issue and ran off on a misguided tangent about the legitamacy of the separation doctrine?
It appears she was merely pointing out that a cross, displayed prominently on government land, is essentially a government sanction of the particular religion the cross symbolizes, which is Christianity. If this display is indeed a sanction of Christianity, which I believe it is, there is a valid argument to be made that this is a violation of the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Obviously, we could argue all day about whether or not simply displaying a cross on government land amounts to a sanction of Christianity. Clearly, I feel it is. I will even use your own words to illustrate why. In your post dated June 29th, you stated, “A public Cross is a reminder of God’s existance….” You also stated, “Such a Cross is a reminder (which some can’t bear) that there is a God, that He sees what we do, and that he has continued relevance in our increasingly sick world.”
You consistently use the word “remider”. A reminder is nothing more than a communication. You clearly pointed out that the communication was a religious message, about the specific God of a specific religion.
This brings me to the most essential point of the issue. Since this cross represents a religious (Christian) communication, who is doing the communicating? One might argue that the veterans are communicating this message, and he might be correct, to a certain extent. However, the cross sits on government land. The communication emanates from government land. As such, the government, if not specifically communicating the message itself, is guilty of at least fostering and promoting the message. This is, in my opinion and the opinion of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, enough to violate the establishment clause of the 1st Amendment.
For the record, I am an atheist. But, more importantly, I am a patriot, a military combat veteran who fought not for flag, God, or country, but rather for the priciples of liberty our country was founded on.
I am opposed to simply transfering tiltle. No one in real estate would ever simply give land away. If the city did that, they would be shouting to everyone, “Look, here’s how we, the government, got around the Constitution.” However, I am not opposed to a private group putting together a purchase deal, and paying full appraisal value for the land. That is fair and does not present significant governmental entanglement issues. At that point, anyone seeking to dismantle the cross would be seeking to prohibit the right of private individuals to legally and freely express their religious beliefs.
Although I disagree vehemently with religious dogma and Christian doctrine, I would never seek to officially prohibit the right of the PEOPLE to freely express religious belief. To do so would make me no better, maybe even worse, than the very people intent on using public land as a forum to indoctrinate the rest of us into their superstition.
I hope, Frank, you see this commentary as more than, as you stated in your July 11 post, “blabbering”, more substantial than a “sound byte”, and not lacking “real analysis or understanding of the situation.”