Senate Passes Legislation To Protect Mt. Soledad Cross
Posted on August 1, 2006
Go Pundit Go sends me the good news! via Sign On San Diego
With a speed and decisiveness that surprised some, the Senate on Tuesday approved a plan to transfer the land beneath the Mount Soledad war memorial to federal control in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the cross that stands there.
The Senate’s unanimous vote sent the cross-transfer plan to President Bush for his expected signature. It creates what some consider an entirely new dynamic in the 17-year effort to save the cross, but which others say is a hopeless attempt to preserve a symbol on city land that courts have said unconstitutionally favors one religion over others.
“Obviously we’re delighted,” said Charles LiMandri, an attorney advising a group of Soledad cross supporters. “I think even the more liberal side of the Democratic party has to recognize that there is widespread, grassroots support for preserving veterans memorials in general, and the Soledad cross in particular.”
Once this is signed by the President, which will no doubt happen, it will moot all current court battles by making it a Federal issue instead of a State one. Do not doubt the ACLU will challenge this legislation as unconstitutional. They don’t know when to stop. They will find a way to waste more tax dollars to push their agenda of destroying this veteran’s memorial despite the fact that 76% of San Diego voters want to keep the cross. It is a very significant victory for the First Amendment. Got to let out a good celebration on this news! Woo hoo!
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL
Comments
16 Responses to “Senate Passes Legislation To Protect Mt. Soledad Cross”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
The Federal Bill of Rights was originally put in place to control the federal government but the federal courts are quicker to apply it to the state and local governments. I am glad for Mt. Soledad but this issue should never have come up in a Federal Court nor in Congress in the first place. It is a state issue and should have been handled by the state of California.
I’m with you, Kerwin, but unfortunately the city of San Diego is so beaten up by the ACLU over this that they had no choice but to get the feds involved. It’s really lame that it came to that, but the ACLU has no respect for the wishes of the citizens of San Diego, only for the anti-Christian agenda of one angry atheist.
Kerwin… I’m with you on this. The ACLU’s desire to put the wishes of 1 person over the will of 285 million Americans is the true issue. They claim to be defenders of the Bill of Rights yet, they will fight until the end of the world to trump one of the Amendments of the Bill of Rights for the sake of 1 individual. When they are permitted to do that, they have removed the rights of 285 million of us. And once a right is gone, it never comes back.
The ACLU argument is foolish as they are basically saying that the Cross is a method of Christian evangelizing. The only way to evangelize is to spread the message of coming of the kingdom of heaven and a cross by itself does not do that.
One question: How would you guys feel about a veterans memorial that consisted of a giant star and crescent on federal property? Something tells me you wouldn’t be so supportive.
I wouldn’t have a problem with it. I’m not that easily offended.
Did you notice the vote was unanimous? Make sure you let your Senator know how disappointed you are.
If you believe this monument is truly a non-religious symbol of people’s sacrifice, as supporters claim, I challenge you to visit any local Jewish cemetery and count the number of crosses you find.
camanintx will you tell us how many christians are buried in a jewish cemetery.
I don’t think it’s a matter of whether or not a particular religious symbol offends you. I’m personally not offended by religious symbols, but I’m still opposed to the government displaying them. I’d be equally bothered by the star and crescent as I am by the cross. It seems a rather blatant endorsement of one religion when the government sponsors such symbols.
Whatever.
“It seems a rather blatant endorsement of one religion when the government sponsors such symbols.”
First off, the Mt. Soledad Cross was erected by private citizens. Secondly, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which maintains the memorial is a private non-profit. Third, who do you think the Founders would agree with MR? Do you really think that the intent of the Est. Clause was to ensure that there were no religous symbols anywhere for any reason on public property?
So now that you’ve been educated that the Mt. Soledad was sponsored by and is now maintained by a private groups and that you darn well that the Founders did not intend the ESTABLISHMENT Clause (there’s no such thing as the “Endorsement Clause” despite distortions of the court the last few decades), do you still have a problem with this long-standing, historic symbol of the sacrifice of our fallen heroes?
Mr. Rational we as Americans adopt a huge statue of the goddess of liberty as a national monument and you ask if we would be offended by the star of David or even a Muslim Holy Symbol. I think a Wicca symbol may infuriate a minority but so does the blue devil as a school mascot.
I see Mr. Rational wants us to tear down the statue of liberty. Should we tear down the statues of lady justice in our courthouses for she is another goddess and we would not want to encourage idol worship.
GF: Yes, I still do have a problem with it. When the federal government acquires land with the express intent of circumventing a court ruling to keep a religious symbol on public land, that’s a strong endorsement. To me, endorsement is establishment. Sure, it’s a much looser interpretation of the EC, but I think any endorsement is unconstitutional. I don’t think the government should be able to endorse any religion so long as it doesn’t declare it the official religion of the country.
KB: I said that? I certainly don’t remember saying that, but if you could quote me on it, that’d be great. Anyway, the statue of liberty and the like are devoid of religious meaning at this point in time, so that argument is moot. If you’d like to argue that the cross holds no religious meaning now, I’d be interested to hear it.
Mr. Rational,
Does a cross hold any religious meaning to an atheist?
There are Christians that use the fish instead of the cross. There are Christians that see any symbol as idolatry. There are Muslims who see any picture depicting a human being or animal as idolatry. There are probably people who see the statue of Liberty and lady justice as pagan idols. Do you pick and choose whose opinion you enforce or do we just get rid of all artwork or anything else that can be construed to be a religious symbol.
Then we better get rid of the music to as you know rock and roll is the devil’s music.
I saw a statue of Mary in someone’s yard and figured it was idolitry. Do I get to destroy that because of my opinion?
In short the cross has the meaning that you personally put to it just like the statue of liberty.