Some of my readers may be aware of the ongoing legal controversy over a 29 foot cross in San Diego that was erected as a memorial to Korean War veterans in 1954. The legal battle has raged for 17 years, when Phillip Paulson first filed an establishment clause suit to have the cross removed. A Federal judge originally ordered the cross removed in 1991, but the case has dragged on through multiple phases. The city has tried to sell the property on which the cross sits to a private buyer to get around the ruling, but the courts blocked that attempt. Now the original judge has finally had enough and has ordered the city to remove the cross within 90 days or face a fine of $5000 a day until it is removed.
The city is now asking President Bush to use eminent domain authority to declare the land Federal property and take over the fight, which won't change the legal issue or the substance of the ruling. I expect the White House to jump on the issue. In an election year, a hot button emotional issue like this is exactly what they will look to exploit to motivate the base to get out and vote. But the truth is that it's an empty issue for both sides, not just for the other side. This is one of those terminally silly issues that was never worth the fight in the first place. The cross is there as a memorial, not as a symbol of oppression. There are no theocratic overtones to it. Unlike the situation with Ten Commandments monuments or the pledge of allegiance, the placing of the cross has no specific meaning at all other than memorial. Frankly, the case never should have been brought in the first place. All it does is hand the other side an emotional issue to exploit and bring them more votes, while achieving nothing of importance at all.
- Log in to post comments
qooqlecom Hello! Great site keep it up! Thank you!
Truthful, Accurate Online Psychic Readings Birkenstock shoes: Birkenstock [url]http://mdecoratetodayhttp://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=25475HTwt0&i=948764[/url] [url=http://stickhttp://www.pix8.net/pro/pic.php?u=25475HTwt0&i=948338]Simple stain: The simple stain[/url] http://oscopeshttp://rds
Your website is appealing. Be encouraged to do the work of the Lord. cutoutså Cloth diaper [url]http://www.vegas-webspace.com/gourmand/gourmand-touche.html[/url] [url]http://www.vegas-webspace.com/nightshirt/cotton-nightshirt.html[/url] [url=http://andthecookedadventureofarovinggourmandhttp://blogshot.nl/americanstandardtoilet]American standard toilet: American standard[/url] http://my.experienceflagstaff.com/soma http://concrete.co.funpic.de/concretemap.html
Keep it going, thanks. I found exactly the information.
Advertising Kidney transplant [url]http://efmaonline.com/new/blog/index.php?blogId=54[/url] [url]http://efmaonline.com/new/blog/index.php?blogId=57[/url] [url=http://efmaonline.com/new/blog/index.php?blogId=55]Fix it jesus lyric[/url] [url=http://advertisingagency.monforum.com/index.php]Advertising agency[/url] http:// http://www.go2poll.com/cgi-bin/pwmember.pl?name=madesoap&password=13993…
It's my first visit to your website. After just a quick browse, I'm really impressed!
borazqz home equity loan rate [url]http://bloggerblast.com/1mgxanax/[/url] [url]http://solidationhttp://sites.blockstar.com/quickloans/blogs/loan/badcredit.html]bad credit auto loan[/url] [url=http://bbsfioricet.blog.co.uk/]bbs fioricet followup message post[/url] http://fioricetjanuary.blog.co.uk/ http://myblogma.com/delawarein/
Thank you. I have been distressed by that case and a couple others that just make us humanists look bad. We have real, substantive issues to contend with and need to pick our battles more carefully.
Expect to see this one on Bill O-Really? very soon.
While I agree that this could be used as another "smoke and mirrors" issue, the cross is the main symbol of xanity. I'm not sure I follow you that it is just a memorial, why not a symbol to the men and women who participated instead of a cross? I'm not sure that all those who gave their lives would think a cross would be symbolic of their sacrifice.
I do agree that these issues stir up the base, but maybe if enough of these issues are brought to the attention of average Americians, they will be more exposed the extreams of the religious right. One can only hope that the exposure they receive will help voters to understand just how far they are out of the mainstream and engerize those who don't want a theocracy as our form of government.
This might sound silly, but I think the sheer size of the cross makes it worse. Twenty-nine feet? I've never seen it and it already SOUNDS intimidating/oppressive. Then there's the (obvious) issue of non-Christians who fought in the Korean War. That's probably why the city lost.
You're right about the silliness of the suit. Similar to church nativity scenes, I don't give much of a crap about public displays of religion. It's more or less harmless to all but those who choose to take offense.
REBoho wrote:
To hope for that in the face of reality would be quite naive. The exposure of such pointless symbolic issues to the public energizes the other side, while achieving nothing for our side.
Ed,
Not trying to be naive, though I suppose in retrospect hoping to expose the fundies may be asking too much. I think these people will keep chipping away, doing what they can and drawing back only when forced. If they do keep chipping away, what will be left? I don't want to wake up to a an even more extreame government than what currently exists. I disagree this is a battle not worth fighting, especially since it sounds as if it is already won and now the fundies are looking for another "Presidential" intervention.
I will try to reel in my wishful thinking.
Here it is:
http://www.examiner.com/images/ap/ae281529-1250-49b8-9b82-331cbe0ed3cb…
It might mean nothing to you Ed, but it certainly does to me. I don't like the government spending my money to honor members of sectarian religious groups. Nor would I want a symbol that I despise sitting over my grave if I had been the one who died.
I don't have much of a problem with the government selling the property to a private citizen, though. As long as it doesn't selectively choose a buyer they know will keep the cross and if the buyer chooses to do so he pays full cost for the monument including the originally installation cost.
I agree with Ed in this case. Christian fundamentalists relish battles like this. Whether they win or lose, it doesn't matter to them. The real enemy of religious fundamentalism is apathy and hot button issues like this keeps it at bay.
My home country, Great Britain, is littered with religious symbols and memorials, and majority of famous buildings in cities, towns, and villages all over the country are cathedrals, abbeys, and churches. But the key thing is... nobody cares. Most people simply walk on by, and if they do stop and take notice, it's to regard the monument or building with curiosity, as a historic memorial commemerating a time gone by.
Those few battles that do break out from time to time are more to do with preserving something of historic or architectural value and nothing to do with religion.
Matthew wrote:
I don't like lots of things the government does, but that doesn't mean it's worth filing Federal lawsuits over them all. I'm sure you don't mean the second sentence as it's written - the government has surely given medals to members of "sectarian religious groups" (as opposed to non-sectarian ones? A religious group is, by definition, sectarian). As for the third sentence, you of course have a right to control where you are buried, what goes on your gravestone, and so forth, so that's not really relevant to this situation.
The issue isn't what one would prefer, but whether it's worth fighting about - and I'm saying that to those on both sides of the battle. The issue is purely symbolic - absolutely nothing will change, for those on either side, if the cross is moved (one of the proposals is to move the cross to a church less than 1000 feet away, and that's what would likely happen). The net effect on reality will be nil, for those on both sides - we will be no more or less free than before it was removed or before it was there. The lawsuit has done only two things - cost lots and lots of money and time and provided additional motivation to the kind of people who are already motivated almost solely by such empty emotional issues.
They cannot sell the property to a private buyer, the courts have already ruled on that, nor can they transfer it to the Federal government. The city is now asking the Federal government to invoke eminent domain and take it over, which may well happen, but that will only prolong the lawsuits over this irrelevant issue. Ultimately, it may well be that they take the cross down and give it to a church nearby so they can put it up on private property. And the world will go on spinning, with absolutely nothing changed except that Phillip Paulson will think, "Yeah, I stuck it to those ignorant fundies!" Unfortunately, he may also have insured that they had yet another empty emotional issue to run on and driven more people to the polls to vote for them. In the long run, it may actually make things worse. That's why I think it's important that we pick our battles more wisely.
Actually, I have to differ with you on this point, Ed. There has been a cross on this site since 1913, and no one ever suggested its purpose was to memorialize veterans until after Paulson had filed his lawsuit. (Interestingly, one of the congressmen who led the charge to have the cross declared a national veterans' memorial was Duke Cunningham.)
And clearly it is a memorial to Jesus Christ. San Diegans who truly want a war memorial should be fighting to have that eyesore removed from the top of Mt. Soledad.
If I gave my life for my country, and my country created a memorial to a middle eastern man who died 2000 years ago, and then they said this cross was also going to be recycled as their tribute to my fallen mates and me....then I would be incredibly offended.
I grew up less than five miles from the Cross, and now live about ten miles from it.
When I read in the paper a few months ago that it was a war memorial, it was news to me.
When I was growing up, it was just a huge cross on top of a big hill. Old people would go there during the day to check out the view, and teens would park there at night to make out. (When my seventh-grade class took a field trip there, we spotted a used condom on top of the fence surrounding the cross. I had no clue what it was except in retrospect.)
There was certainly nothing remotely indicating that it was a memorial. Just a big cross on a big hill. That's it.
I haven't been by there in a while, but from what I understand, there is now some kind memorial-style wall or plaque. Maybe I'll swing by tomorrow and provide an update.
People, somebody puts a cross at the head of your grave, you aint around to bitch about it. Whether you don't exist anymore, or you're somewhere else, you're not there. So you'd be doing fuck all about it.
The Mt. Soledad Cross is there because a private party wanted a cross there. Later it was gifted to the city of San Diego, who made it part of a city park. The whole mess over it these days is thanks to a small-minded bigot who'd turn Christian fundie after an hour with Jerry Falwell. Aint nothin' but a common fanatic with penis envy.
I once went by the thing on a city bus. Do you know what it's made of? Cinder block. Somebody had a crap load of cinder block after a construction project, and the city had a crumbling cross up on Mt. Soledad. As an added bonus they built a concrete platform for the new cross to stand on. The Mt. Soledad Cross is cinder block, reinforcement, and white paint. You could take the whole thing down with a pound of commercial explosive.
So why is San Diego being so stubborn about the whole issue? Pride. It's a symbol of this town, part of our history, our heritage. It's a way of identifying ourselves to the world. Mr. Doctrinal Purity may think he's protecting the Constitution of the United States, but he's really attacking the city of San Diego, and I doubt he has the wit to understand that.
I'm sorry, Ed, I just cannot agree that a 29-foot cross is unimportant. The fact that Xians are willing to resort to lies ("It's a war memorial!") to keep an enormous cross on public land doesn't make it better.
As for worrying about what's going to piss off the religious right - I'd rather not act like an intimidated wimp, thank you very much. The law is on our side.
I don't see how the Federal government could "exercise eminent domain" in any fashion other than as a legal farce. Is the Federal government planning to build a railroad there? "Changing the venue of a lawsuit" hardly seems like a justified use of eminent domain.
RickD: this is not about "acting like an intimidated wimp;" it's about choosing our battles wisely, so that we're more likely to actually WIN something important. Advocates of religious freedom only hurt our own cause by letting ourselves get dragged into every "establishment clause" lawsuit any fool anywhere gets it in his head to file. This is a political struggle, and it needs to be fought with clarity and discipline. The battles we choose must highlight REAL religious repression and bigotry that causes REAL harm to innocent people. Lawsuits like this only tend to take attention away from the real victims, which suits the far right nicely, thankyouverymuch.
On the other hand, the allegations that this cross was only retroactively called a "war memorial" (in addition to being tastelessly huge, a la the high cross at Knock), does shed a different light on things: when was it first called a "war memorial," and is there some sort of plaque at the site saying that's what it is?
It makes no sense to me. All religious momuments are purely symbolic. Sticking a ten commandments monument in a court house doesn't mean the judge is no longer tied to constitutional precedent. Of course it's symbolic. It symbolically says that I am a second class citizen. I don't care if the case fires up their emotions. I have emotions too, and being robbed of my money to support religious proselytization that I disagree with fires me up. And I have the law/right on my side.
According to everything I have read, the cross was indeed put up as a memorial to Korean War vets. The San Diego tribune says that the cross was built by the Mount Soledad Memorial Association in 1954 for exactly that purpose and they still maintain the site today (which seems to indicate that, while it's on public property, it was paid for by a private organization). But if anyone has specific information to the contrary, I'd like to see it. This is not a case I've done any specific research on, just media reports.
I have to disagree that this is a non-issue or only a symbolic one. The problem is this, the religious right tries regularly to insert their brand of religion into our government institutions (or preserve it where it already has a foothold). When called on it, they claim it's just a symbol, that it doesn't mean anything, or that it's something "else," IE a war memorial, etc. It's a constant shell game with them, those aren't the 10 Commandments, they're a "law library," ... followed by inarticulate babble when you ask them why the only "laws" honored are biblical. It's not a cross, it's a war memorial ... BS, it's a cross on public land.
They've claimed that the phrase "under God," isn't a violation of the establishment clause, completely ignoring that it was ADDED to the pledge by a piece of legislation sponsored by the Knights of Columbus to show that the US was a Christian nation.
It's this mindset that makes it an issue. When called on their efforts to establish a theocracy, they lie about it, stutter and stammer, and then pose as a victim. If you don't call them on things like this, they point to it as "proof" that this is a "Christian nation," and argue that these elements of "proof" support their claims. IE, give them an inch, they'll take a mile, and demand another hundred miles.
Here's an excerpt from a New York Times article from last October about the cross:
Okay, if it wasn't originally a "war memorial," it's been made into one at a later date. If there's a fixed plaque or other structure calling it one, then for all practical purposes, it is one. And apparently all that war memorial stuff was paid for by a private organization.
As long as a private Pagan group can set up a memorial to Pagan war dead under similar circumstances, the "establishment clause" case against this cross is a bit weak. (Has anyone tried to do this?) Not to mention a bit silly, as it would mean getting all sniffy about something that's been part of the landscape since 1913, and is now a "war memorial."
It's this mindset that makes it an issue... If you don't call them on things like this, they point to it as "proof" that this is a "Christian nation," and argue that these elements of "proof" support their claims. IE, give them an inch, they'll take a mile, and demand another hundred miles.
OUR mindset is an important factor too. First, just because we expect our enemies to call some policy action a "victory," does not, in itself, make it necessary for us to fight them tooth and nail on that particular action. And second, part of our enemies' strategy is to goad us into fighting one meaningless battle after another until our strength and resources are exhausted, and we look like directionless, undisciplined, nitpicky whiners and are widely seen as irrelevant.
We're not going to defeat our enemies unless, and until, we can form a clear set of goals and strategies, stop letting our enemies choose our battles for us, and take and hold the initiative.
That argument is approximately on par with creationists claiming that creationism is science because they say it is.
Then they could have erected it on private property. Instead they decided to erect a sectarian tribute to Christianity on public property, which is the basis for the lawsuit.
That argument is approximately on par with creationists claiming that creationism is science because they say it is.
Um...no, actually, it isn't: it's a war memorial because some people made it into one, not because they dug up something and arbitrarily labelled it a "war memorial." War memorials really are designed objects.