Philip Paulson, Athiest, Dead

[retrorich]

Philip Paulson
SAN DIEGO (AP) _ Philip Paulson, an atheist who waged a 17-year legal battle to have a giant cross removed from public land, died Wednesday. He was 59.
Paulson died of liver cancer. The disease was diagnosed in July, and Paulson was hospitalized on Oct. 20 after complaining of abdominal pain, remaining in critical condition until his death, said Lorelei Lindsey, his companion of 17 years.
He resident sued the city of San Diego in 1989, claiming that the 29-foot cross on city property violated the constitutional separation of church and state.
Paulson won the original case but appeals continue, with the city arguing that the cross is a secular symbol because it is part of a war memorial.
His stand made him friends among civil libertarians but earned him the enmity of some believers. He would joke about the death threats he received, said his attorney, James McElroy.
McElroy has said a new plaintiff will be added to the suit to keep the case alive.
In August, President Bush signed legislation placing the cross in the hands of the Department of Defense as a national memorial. A new lawsuit is challenging that transfer.
Born in Clayton, Wis., Paulson was the grandson of a Lutheran minister but said he lost his faith during two tours of duty in Vietnam.
Paulson, who moved to San Diego in the 1970s, taught computer and business classes at National University.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed

 

[Majikthise]

I'm aware of Mr.Paulsons suit against the city of San Diego and I see this as just another case of civil libertarians wasting the courts time with frivolous lawsuits.
The cross is a memorial meant to provoke reflection. To percieve such offense from it's exsistance (to the point of filing legal action) only showcases your own hangups and problems. And maybe a little too much extra time to waste.

 

[dawny0826]

I'm not familiar with this man. From what's been posted, I kind of agree that his case complaints wasted the courts time but you know...

It's kind of sad that he passed on at 59 and I wish the best for his family.

 

[Flappycat]

Well, the thing is really ugly and obnoxious. I'd want it removed, too. There are worse ages to die than 59; he probably just drank too much coffee.

 

[Random]

I am not familiar with the man. Did Paulson have any non-theistic spiritual beliefs, such as Karma or Reincarnation? It's hard to think of a dead Atheist and care if he's gone to a nihilistic end. Sorry, unsympathetic perhaps, but...

 

[Mary Blackchurch]

The sleep of death sounds wonderful to me. It's like going back to where I was before I was born--nowhere land. Like general anesthesia, etc. No more pain or thought of anything. No more tension. It's not a bad thought. I believe religion came about because of these thoughts of it being hard to let go of our existence here on earth. Thomas Edison said something to that effect, too.

 

[retrorich]

I'm aware of Mr.Paulsons suit against the city of San Diego and I see this as just another case of civil libertarians wasting the courts time with frivolous lawsuits.
The cross is a memorial meant to provoke reflection. To percieve such offense from it's exsistance (to the point of filing legal action) only showcases your own hangups and problems. And maybe a little too much extra time to waste.

The cross is first and foremost a symbol of Christianity, and as such, does not belong on public property. But it's no surprise that George W. Bush approved of it.

 

[logician]

Religious fanaticism is always dangerous in any form.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

Religious fanaticism is always dangerous in any form.

So is the fanatcism to attack religion in any form.

The cross is a memorial meant to provoke reflection. To percieve such offense from it's exsistance (to the point of filing legal action) only showcases your own hangups and problems.

Well stated and I concur!

 

[logician]

"So is the fanatcism to attack religion in any form."

Who's attacking religion? I'm just attacking religious fanaticism.

 

[retrorich]

Quote:Originally Posted by Majikthise The cross is a memorial meant to provoke reflection. To percieve such offense from it's exsistance (to the point of filing legal action) only showcases your own hangups and problems.[End quote]
Well stated and I concur!

Captain: Why is a giant cross required to provoke reflection?

 

[Majikthise]

The cross isn't giving you cancer, effecting your legal rights or polluting the environment so who cares. Some people derive comfort from seeing it, it's a memorial to people who are gone from people who cared about them, loved them and miss them.
What do these individuals hope to achieve by having it removed? I'm an atheist , but that doesn't mean I have to be a full on, callous nit wit. What do we call this, atheist fundementalism? Debate and arguement are cool but legal action, in this case, crosses the line.

 

[Mathematician]

The cross isn't giving you cancer, effecting your legal rights or polluting the environment so who cares. Some people derive comfort from seeing it, it's a memorial to people who are gone from people who cared about them, loved them and miss them.
What do these individuals hope to achieve by having it removed? I'm an atheist , but that doesn't mean I have to be a full on, callous nit wit. What do we call this, atheist fundementalism? Debate and arguement are cool but legal action, in this case, crosses the line.

I disagree with everyone who says it was a waste of time, respectfully.

This was a symbolic fight that challenged the position of our government after it has showed itself to be biased towards Judo-Christian institutions. Let us refer to the recent fiasco with the 10 Commandments. In the case of having the creed displayed on government property, the judicial, legislative, and executive branches were up in arms in defence of something that clearly favors Abrahamic monotheism. The first two commandments even put down most faith systems, yet how do most politicians approach the subject? They declare them "good rules for everyone to follow". That statement needs to be exposed as ridiculous. Not only do most of the commandments never appear in law (it's now illegal to hate your father?), but a lot of the commandments are strictly anti-(Hindu, atheist, Shinto, Satanist, Pagan, agnostic).

This government has done minorities injustice by claiming to respect each system of faith equally, while practicing something completely different. In the case of Mister Paulson, he questioned our government where it needs to be questioned. What exactly is our country's predisposition towards religion? It clearly isn't for every system of faith (And lack-there of) to be treated as equals. We have politicians using their religious beliefs to govern our country on matters of same-sex marriage and evolution just because they see it as traditional for their religion.

Don't get me wrong. In some cases atheists have gone too far. I will be the first to admit the ACLU blotched it's name in certain instances, but thank god we have organizations that have the wealth to keep things from getting worse.

Another case that comes to mind: the fallen Pagan soldier who couldn't get a pentagram put on his grave, the president and military showed that the wall of separation between state and church is a picket fence. How dare President Bush claim this cross was a matter of respect, and then turn his back on a fallen soldier because he thinks "witchraft isn't a real religion". At least in that soldier's case the pentagram wasn't going to be made to represent every individual in the cemetary.

Philip Paulson, in my opinion, did a good thing. He served our country in Vietnam, fighting for what he believed in -- and up until his death that was the principle he lived by. The saddest thing about this story is that now he'll be dismissed as an anti-American, anti-veteran (ironic that he is a veteran) atheist.

I think cases like this represent the growing reality in this country -- For two-hundred years it has been assumed being American means being Christian, namely Protestant. Our history is ridden with hostility towards the Natives, Mormons, Catholics, Jews, and most recently Moslims. I see this as just another cycle of history. Either we completely recognize one religion, or we completely realize all religious and theological beliefs are equal. There can no longer be an in-between. Luckily, Christians themselves are becoming our biggest allies in the fight.

RIP Philip Paulson.

 

[Majikthise]

I agree with you, I just don't see any merit in this particular case.:sorry1:

 

[Mathematician]

I agree with you, I just don't see any merit in this particular case.:sorry1:

Oh, did I come off strong? Sorry, Majik. en:

 

[Majikthise]

Oh, did I come off strong? Sorry, Majik. en:

Not at all, bad choice of smilies on my part.