Court Rules Mount Soledad Cross Unconstitutional

[Skwim]

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals today ruled La Jolla's famous Mount Soledad cross to be in violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution.

According to its opinion, the 9th Circuit found that "in adopting the First Amendment, the Founders were prescient in recognizing that, without eschewing religion, neither can the government be seen as favoring one religion over another. The balance is subtle but fundamental to our freedom of religion."

The ruling overturned a 2008 ruling by U.S. Federal Judge Larry Alan Burns, which said the cross could remain standing because "the memorial at Mount Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," Burns wrote. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is Constitutional."

The current cross, which is the third to be erected since the first was constructed in 1913, is touted by free-speech supporters to be a war memorial. Others, including the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, several local residents, and the American Civil Liberties Union, say the cross is an unmistakable representation of the Christian religion.
source

​

A "nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," my fat behind! That a way to go 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

[Falvlun]

A "nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," my fat behind! That a way to go 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

I agree with that.

But, is there something to be said about the historical value? I'm thinking if we tear down religious monuments on public land, are we losing an historical and cultural part of who Americans were and are?

 

[Revoltingest]

Given the prominence & history of this cross, it appears to be a clear violation of law.

Mount Soledad cross controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Duck]

I agree with that.

But, is there something to be said about the historical value? I'm thinking if we tear down religious monuments on public land, are we losing an historical and cultural part of who Americans were and are?

I agree. Like it or not, the vast majority of Americans purport to be christians, and I don't have much problem with religious symbolism of that nature. A longstanding memorial like this I don't have a problem remaining, even on public land. I would object to further public funding (e.g. maintenance, erection of a new blatantly christian symbol as a "war memorial", etc.) of this monument, particularly in light of the ridiculous budgetary problems that California is experiencing at the moment (if one's government cannot fund programs that support actual living people in their efforts to live then perhaps one should demand that one's government reduce or defund programs dedicated to dead people).

 

[Man of Faith]

An angel is crying in heaven.

 

[Revoltingest]

An angel is crying in heaven.

That explains the snow.

 

[Father Heathen]

An angel is crying in heaven.

Perhaps that angel could refund the tax payers who don't want their money funding and promoting a religion they don't believe in?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

An angel is crying in heaven.

Forced sodomy often has that effect.

 

[Revoltingest]

Perhaps that angel could refund the tax payers who don't want their money funding and promoting a religion they don't believe in?

I heard a proposal that a Crescent & Star of David should be added so that all beliefs would be represented.
Would that satisfy you, God-hater?

 

[Skwim]

I agree with that.

But, is there something to be said about the historical value? I'm thinking if we tear down religious monuments on public land, are we losing an historical and cultural part of who Americans were and are?

You mean overreaching religious bigots who elect to represent all people with their specific symbol of faith? Hopefully so. If any religion is to be represented on public property than ALL religions---all 4,200 of them*---deserve equal representation. However, I see no need to do so. I see nothing inherent in religion that necessitates its representation or mention on public property.


* source

 

[McBell]

I heard a proposal that a Crescent & Star of David should be added so that all beliefs would be represented.
Would that satisfy you, God-hater?

There are only three religions in the world?

 

[Revoltingest]

There are only three religions in the world?

Apparently.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

There are only three religions in the world?

That's three too many.

 

[Falvlun]

You mean overreaching religious bigots who elect to represent all people with their specific symbol of faith? Hopefully so. If any religion is to be represented on public property than ALL religions---all 4,200 of them*---deserve equal representation. However, I see no need to do so. I see nothing inherent in religion that necessitates its representation or mention on public property.


* source

While I do object to new religious objects being placed on public land and maintained with public money, I do think we should consider a historical aspect to some of these old monuments.

(Pretending the great pyramids were in America): Should we tear down the pyramids because they are symbols of the religion of the ancient Egyptians? Or should we demand that Giza be cluttered by 4,199 other religious symbols?

Now, I don't think this particular cross has that much value, but I do think we should keep in mind the historical value to certain things before we tear them down in a blind rage against inequality.

 

[Revoltingest]

While I do object to new religious objects being placed on public land and maintained with public money, I do think we should consider a historical aspect to some of these old monuments.

That seems reasonable.

(Pretending the great pyramids were in America): Should we tear down the pyramids because they are symbols of the religion of the ancient Egyptians? Or should we demand that Giza be cluttered by 4,199 other religious symbols?

I don't think those violate the Constitution's 1st Amendment....especially since they're in Egypt.

Now, I don't think this particular cross has that much value, but I do think we should keep in mind the historical value to certain things before we tear them down in a blind rage against inequality.

The history of this particular cross was originally to promote Xtianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_...y#Mt._Soledad_Easter_Cross_or_War_Memorial.3F

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Now, I don't think this particular cross has that much value, but I do think we should keep in mind the historical value to certain things before we tear them down in a blind rage against inequality.

My town's historic train station, which is much older than this cross and arguably has much more historical value, was picked up and moved to make room for more parking at the new train station. It's now an art gallery.

Apparently, one of the suggestions from the ACLU to deal with the situation was to have it removed and relocated to private property somewhere. A local church has offered to take it.

 

[Skwim]

While I do object to new religious objects being placed on public land and maintained with public money, I do think we should consider a historical aspect to some of these old monuments.

And what is the historical value of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross (as Revoltingest's link explains it's original religious function)

(Pretending the great pyramids were in America): Should we tear down the pyramids because they are symbols of the religion of the ancient Egyptians? Or should we demand that Giza be cluttered by 4,199 other religious symbols?

Pretending that the great pyramids were in America, I would say keep them because, 1) Their removal would be far too costly, and more importantly 2) they no longer represent a present-day religion---the possible few pretenders not withstanding.

Now, I don't think this particular cross has that much value, but I do think we should keep in mind the historical value to certain things before we tear them down in a blind rage against inequality.

I agree, and as for blind rage, this is obviously not a factor here. The objection to its presence is firmly based on the law of the land, which is why the court ruled as it did. Both the objection and the ruling were very sober and considered decisions.

 

[outhouse]

I dont mind the cross, its there leave it be

I do despise the fighting and lawsuits to deal with all this.

it there is was put up a long time ago, let it sit there. just dont waist money fighting about it

 

[Twilight Hue]

I dont mind the cross, its there leave it be

I do despise the fighting and lawsuits to deal with all this.

it there is was put up a long time ago, let it sit there. just dont waist money fighting about it

That what I say. Don't bother going retro-active and expensively fight over what has been around for years without a hitch or murmur. Just refrain from using religious symbolism in future endeavors.

 

[YmirGF]

I think the cross should stay exactly where it is. It serves as a reminder of reasonable thinking from a bygone era. Are we so utterly insecure in our new perspectives that we have to rip down crosses that have stood for years because we no longer believe in why it was chosen as a monuments? If we are going down this road, then we really have no reason to be offended if others deem it reasonable to blow up ancients statues of Buddha.

I see this as yet another example of political correctness gone insane.