Attacking Jesus? Mt. Soledad Cross Unconstituional
Posted on October 7, 2005
Hat tip: California Conservative
Time Hath Found Us.
“We need to attack Jesus…”
- atheist Philip Paulson, who filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989.
A California judge has ruled that San Diego’s Proposition A, a voter initiative to preserve the Mt. Soledad War Memorial by transferring the property to the National Parks Service, is “unconstitutional.”
The proposition, which was approved in July by over 75 percent of San Diego voters has now been invalidated by the opinion of one judge.
AP/10News reports:
Judge Patricia Cowett found Friday that maintenance of the cross is an “unconstitutional preference of religion.”
Cowett also said transferring ownership of the 43-foot cross and surrounding property to the federal government is an “unconstitutional aid to religion.”
“The court hereby finds the ordinance placing Proposition A on the ballot and Proposition A unconstitutional, and therefore invalid and unenforceable. Maintenance of this Latin Cross as it is on the property in question, is found to be an unconstitutional preference of religion in violation of Artical I, Section 4, of the California Constitution, and the transfer of the memorial with the cross as its centerpiece to the federal government to save the cross as it is, where it is, is an unconstitutional aid to religion in violation of Artical XVI, Section 5, of the California Constitution.” read the entire ruling.
The city has been embroiled in a 15-year legal battle over whether the cross’ presence atop city-owned parkland violates the separation of church and state.The city has attempted twice to sell the property to the Mount Soledad Association, but federal courts have overturned the sales because they said the transactions favored a buyer who would preserve the cross.
San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, sponsors of Proposition A, offer swift reaction to the ruling. Soledad National Chairman Phil Thalheimer was appalled by the decision:
“We completely disagree with Judge Cowett’s ruling. Like so many of our most treasured national monuments that employ faith emblems, Mount Soledad is a secular memorial dedicated to those who sacrificed in the cause of freedom.
This ruling is a slap in the face to both veterans and voters-seventy-five percent of whom voted to keep Mount Soledad as it is, where it is. This smacks of the worst kind of judicial activism. Judge Cowett already attempted to undermine the preservation of this sacred symbol by forcing a minimum 2/3 supermajority for passage just a few days before the July 26 election.
As we predicted, the people rose to the occasion and overwhelmingly approved Proposition A. Now, Judge Cowett wants to change the rules after the game has already been played. It is this very kind of radical activism from the bench that risks turning democracies into dictatorships.”
And this isn’t the first time. More examples abound. From Prop. F to Prop. K to Prop. A, the history of Mt. Soledad illustrates the influence of atheists and judicial activists to railroad with majority will of the people.
In 1954, a cross was erected on Mount Soledad to honor veterans of the Korean War. In 1991, a federal court ruled the presence of the cross on City property violated the California Constitution. To correct the violation, the City sold a portion of parkland surrounding the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The San Diego City Charter requires the sale of parkland be authorized by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. The citizens of San Diego provided this authority in 1992 when 76% of voters approved Proposition F, thereby authorizing the City to sell a portion of Mount Soledad to preserve this historic veteran’s memorial.
A federal court subsequently found the sale of the property to the Association violated provisions of the California Constitution prohibiting government support of religion. As a result, the City conducted a second sale of the parkland around the cross, this time through a competitive bid process. The Association was the highest bidder, and, after taking possession of the property, constructed a memorial comprised of granite plaques in honor of our nation’s veterans. In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the conduct of the second sale to the Association also violated the California Constitution. The decision voided the second sale, and indicated that constitutional issues associated the previous passage of Proposition F in 1992 may actually invalidate the proposition.
Last November’s Proposition K was supposed to settle the matter. However, arguably misleading ballot statements resulted in mass voter confusion. Consequently, Proposition K failed to muster a two-thirds majority, thus leaving the integrity of the memorial in jeopardy.
On March 8, the City Council voted 5-3 to reject the offer of the federal government. In direct response to that vote, “San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial” conducted the most successful petition drive in San Diego history and submitted a record-shattering 89,000 signatures demanding that City Council rescind and reverse its March 8th decision. On May 17, the Council agreed to let the people decide the fate of the Mount Soledad Memorial by placing the issue on the July 26 special mayoral election ballot.
See the Official site
When did our nation come under the power of judges? Isn’t it supposed to be of the people and for the people? When will the perverting of Constitution come to a stop? The people spoke, and the people were overruled. Is that really a democracy? Is this what our founding fathers intended. Is this truly the land of the free? Its sad that our perverted and secularized nation wants us to reject crosses in public, but accept cross dressers.
California Conservative has more
Michelle Malkin
Indepundit
Daily Pundit
Linked at The Political Teen, Mudville Gazette
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL
Comments
34 Responses to “Attacking Jesus? Mt. Soledad Cross Unconstituional”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
my mom would say : I these preversion is only the work of the devil himself , parading around like an atheist ,
I hates these thugs , dont they have anything better to do with themselves …
MT. SOLEDAD CROSS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
The assault on Christianity via court fiat continues: Judge Patricia Cowett found Friday that maintenance of the cross is an ?unconstitutional preference of religion.? Cowett also said transferring ownership of the 43-foot cross and surrounding prope…
When Christians turn away from God and do nothing, all hell will break loose. Just WHAT are Christians doing about the devil removing this cross? Talking, writing and complaining won’t get it done. The devil knows Christians are peacemakers and will DO nothing. So, what can we expect the devil would do? Just what he is doing - through his servants. Faith without action is dead. What are YOU doing about this godless assult?
What do you suggest Bobbi?
We found one revolution brought on my religion, why can we fight another one?
There are very few memorials for Korean War Veterans already. Considering some of the “dorky” National Parks (husband works at one) this “so called” judge was nominated by “Cracker Jack”. Citizens have had their say. Is there a record of anyone forcing this man to bow down before the memorial?!? It may help to build a case stating mental harm, destruction of monument to men who may not have returned home (making this the only place relatives of those men can go) and destruction of freedom of religion by this memorial’s removal.
NO THANKS ACLU
<img src=”http://onewingbird.com/pettifog/pic/acluboot.jpg” height=”200″ width=”180″ align=”right” hspace=10 vspace=10>Received information that there was a good <a href=”posthttp://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/10/07/attacking-jesus-…
MT. SOLEDAD CROSS RULED UNCONSTITUTIONAL
A CALIFORNIA JUDGE has ruled that San Diego’s Proposition A, a voter initiative to preserve the Mt. Soledad War Memorial by transferring the property to the National Parks Service, is unconstitutional. The proposition, which was approved in July by over
A Dark Day for Liberty
It was voted on by the We The People to keep this cross by 75%. So much for voting.
Saturday Brunch: 10/8/2005
Try one of these specials with your supper: The Therapist applauds Delay fighting back The Nose On Your Face says Doogie, we hardly knew ye. Confederate Yankee says the Vietnam War is still being fought. Stop the ACLU! looks at
Mt Soledad Cross
Cowett must really hate Christians and Christian symbols. It is one thing to say that the city should not maintain a monument containing a religious symbol, but if 76% of the people want to transfer the property to the U.S. Interior Department as a n…
This just burns me up. Let’s establish a nation on a Judiac-Christian foundation, which affords all basic respect, protection, equality and happiness, then after those have been established, destroy the foundation so a new type of anti-Christian dictatorship can reign in America. The ACLU is like a guy who marries a woman and after he’s had his way with her on the honeymoon (ie., she served his purpose) he claims all bets are off, gets a divorce and hires a hit man to leave no trace of her existence.
The ACLU wouldn’t make it a DAY in any middle eastern country if they attacked and tried to tear down Islam in those countries. They’d be hung.
You guys keep up the great work of exposing the ACLU. All you have to do is report what they actually do and it’s so appalling it strengthens the movement against them.
Vote To Save Mt. Soledad Cross Struck Down
In a previous article I reported that after 15 years of adverse court rulings, the citizens of San Diego voted to save the city’s historic Mt. Soledad cross. According to an unofficial count, 75 percent of voters decided they want to transfer the ci…
Jay,..I’ve posted this and my own response.
Click on my name for the link.
[...] After reading Jay’s post at Stop the ACLU about a federal judge ruling the Mt Soledad Cross unconstitutional despite the will of the people stating that it should stay, even “changing the rules midgame” in order to thwart the will of the people. The judiciary has gone from interpreting the law and become defacto law makers. Alexander Hamilton wrote about this in the Federalist Paper No. 81 : The very men who object to the Senate as a court of impeachments, on the ground of an improper intermixture of powers, advocate, by implication at least, the propriety of vesting the ultimate decision of all causes, in the whole or in a part of the legislative body. [...]
[...] After reading Jay’s post at Stop the ACLU about a federal judge ruling the Mt Soledad Cross unconstitutional despite the will of the people stating that it should stay, even “changing the rules midgame” in order to thwart the will of the people, I began to scratch my head. Something just doesn’t seem right about the ability of appointed judges to wield so much power. They were once thought to be the weakest of the three branches. That is no more.. The judiciary has gone from interpreting the law and become defacto law makers. Alexander Hamilton wrote about this in the Federalist Paper No. 81 : The very men who object to the Senate as a court of impeachments, on the ground of an improper intermixture of powers, advocate, by implication at least, the propriety of vesting the ultimate decision of all causes, in the whole or in a part of the legislative body. [...]
“We need to attack Jesus…”
- atheist Philip Paulson, who filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989.
We need more of this here in america. The christians are putting up a pretty good fight but, ultimately, they will fail. (seeing as thier religion is falling apart in favor of Islam)
Wow, you know, last time I checked, being a Christian, and having faith in Christ as the Son of God and the one true Messiah had nothing to do with a symbol . . . Or, if you will, an IDOL! Yah, that’s right, you guys are freaking out because you want to commit freaking idolitry . . . At least, that’s my take.
And aren’t you worried in the least that Christ might NOT want to be associated with the device he was TORTURED and KILLED on?
Bah, I doubt you’ll even understand what I’m getting at . . . But it boils down to this . . .
Let em take down the cross. It’s an item, something that can be replaced. So, take a page from Christ’s own teachings, turn the other cheek, and move on.
AND STOP TRYING TO FORCE YOUR WAY OF LIFE ON OTHERS, while we’re at it! He didn’t teach that!
I can see your point about idols, but that isn’t the point here. You speak of forcing your way of life on others, that is exactly what the ACLU is doing here. The people spoke, and voted to keep this memorial to our veterans, and groups like the ACLU, and radical judges “forced their view” on these people.
Tough drougnor. Don’t like it go to some other nation.
Back in the Saddle
Today’s dose of NIF - News, Interesting & Funny … Finally blogging again Monday
[...] The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R . 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.” [...]
[...] The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.” [...]
[...] The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R . 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.” [...]
[...] The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R . 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.” [...]
[...] The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R. 2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.” [...]
[...] The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 (H.R.2679) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.” [...]
[...] The Public Expression of Religion Act of 2005 ( H.R . 2679 ) would prevent secular organizations from collecting attorney fees after suing communities to remove memorial crosses, Ten Commandments displays, or any other vestige of the Christian faith. The legislation reads, “The remedies with respect to a claim under this section where the deprivation consists of a violation of a prohibition in the Constitution against the establishment of religion shall be limited to injunctive relief.” [...]
[...] 5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution? In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: “I placed my faith in the courts…” What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU’s agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it.” [...]
Stop The ACLU’s Interview With Alan Sears
Crossposted from Stop The ACLU First of all, I want to thank you on behalf of Stop The ACLU, all of our contributors, and supporters. It is an honor to have this interview with you. We appreciate the Alliance Defense…
[...] 5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution? In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: “I placed my faith in the courts…” What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU’s agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it.” [...]
[...] 5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution? In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: “I placed my faith in the courts…” What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU’s agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it.” [...]
[...] 5. Recently a judge in California ruled that the Mt. Soledad cross was unconstitutional despite the majority of San Diego voters supported keeping the cross. What are your thoughts on judicial activism in America today? Should judges be using international law in interpreting the Constitution? In his biography by Peggy Lamson, Roger Baldwin said: “I placed my faith in the courts…” What he meant by that was that he knew the ACLU could not achieve its aims through state and federal legislatures or by taking their case to the people. He knew that the courts would be the most useful method of imposing the ACLU’s agenda on the people. The outgrowth of that strategy is the judicial activism we see today, where the ACLU and its allies are using the courts to deny the expressed will of the people and to impose new laws via judicial fiat. In the Mt. Soledad case, the ACLU attorney James McElroy expressed his disdain for the majority when he said after the vote: “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing. Voters should have never voted on it.” [...]
Putting Atheism In Its Place
Atheists, backed by the ACLU, are running up quite a track record against Christian symbols these days. A left-leaning judiciary helps them along. See the video below for my complete commentary.
The following stories are referenced in the video:
I…