Log in or Sign up

Federal Judge Orders Removal of San Diego Hilltop Vets' Cross

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by saltyone, May 5, 2006.

Page 1 of 2

saltyone So Mote It Be

Joined:

Dec 21, 2004

Messages:

7,647

Likes Received:

483

SAN DIEGO — After a 17-year legal battle between the city and a self-described atheist, a judge has ordered San Diego officials to remove a giant cross from a hilltop park.

The 29-foot-high cross was dedicated as a memorial to Korean War veterans in 1954 on a hilltop that towers over seaside La Jolla.

Philip Paulson, an atheist and Vietnam veteran, has been challenging its placement on city-owned parkland since 1989. He declined comment on the ruling Wednesday, but his attorney, James McElroy, said he hoped city officials would finally back down.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. gave the city 90 days to comply with a 1991 injunction forbidding the cross on public property or start paying $5,000 a day in fines.

"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue," the judge wrote.

Defying the order is something cash-strapped San Diego can ill afford. Its pension fund is more than $1 billion in debt, the federal government is investigating, and there has been talk of bankruptcy.

Still, Mayor Jerry Sanders said he would ask the city attorney to appeal.

The city has tried to sell the half-acre beneath the cross to a nonprofit association that maintains the surrounding memorial walls. But federal judges have repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would keep the cross in place. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal in 2003.

A city-sponsored referendum asking permission from residents to sell the property failed in 2004. The next year, 75 percent of the voters approved a referendum to transfer the land to the federal government, but a Superior Court judge ruled that measure to be an "unconstitutional aid to religion." The ruling has been appealed.
Click to expand...

A few thouhgts....

Where is Paulson getting the money to keep up his fight? How the hell did one person beat an entire city?

Why, not once but twice, was the sale of the land stopped? Paulson's argument was that the cross was on city property, and that the city was promoting Christianity. If the city wanted to sell the land to a private individual, or group, they should have been allowed to do so. The problem would have been solved.

This whole thing stinks.

saltyone, May 5, 2006

#1
saltyone So Mote It Be

Joined:

Dec 21, 2004

Messages:

7,647

Likes Received:

483

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.
Click to expand...

http://www.indepundit.com/archive2/2005/10/cruciphobia_rev.html

saltyone, May 5, 2006

#2
saltyone So Mote It Be

Joined:

Dec 21, 2004

Messages:

7,647

Likes Received:

483

I found the answer to one question..

After 15 years of adverse court rulings, the citizens of San Diego voted to save the city's historic Mt. Soledad cross.

The conflict arises from an ACLU lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the 29-foot concrete structure, which has been the center of a war memorial on city land since 1954.
Click to expand...

But ACLU attorney James McElroy insists the vote is meaningless.
"It still doesn't mean a damn thing," he said, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Voters should have never voted on it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money."

The battle began in 1989 when Phillip Paulsen, an atheist, filed suit, and a court ordered the city to remove the cross. San Diego responded by placing the property up for sale, with the approval of 76 percent of voters. But the subsequent sale was ruled unconstitutional after Paulsen objected, arguing the sale had the effect of preserving the cross.

Paulsen argues that the cross is a violation of the First Amendment's ban on government establishment of a religion

In 1998, the city sold the property to the Mt. Soledad War Memorial Association, which again was challenged in court. The sale originally was upheld but later ruled unconstitutional by the full panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and remanded back to district court to work out a remedy.
During its brief period of ownership, the Memorial Association made significant improvements, including extensive landscaping and the addition of more than 3,000 plaques honoring military veterans.
Click to expand...

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45472

saltyone, May 5, 2006

#3
LSUsupaFan Founding Member

Joined:

Feb 20, 2003

Messages:

8,787

Likes Received:

1,207

ACLU woulda been my first guess.

LSUsupaFan, May 5, 2006

#4
Robidoux87 You call that a double?

Joined:

Mar 4, 2005

Messages:

1,635

Likes Received:

1,505

I'm offended by this. Brazil should get rid of it. The ACLU would if it could.

Robidoux87, May 5, 2006

#5
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

There are plenty of crosses on government property. What is the problem?

red55, May 5, 2006

#6
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

the cross definitely shouldnt be there, but i dont get why they didnt allow the sale of the land. i guess becaue they wanted to sell it to another federal agency, the parks service.

crosses are fine on individual graves, indicating the dead person was christian, but not as a large singular thing. why not put a muslim crescent thing there or a spaghetti monster statue?

edit, i guess i understand the blocking of the sale, it is clearly religious discrimination to sell land only to christians. if public land is to be sold, it should go to the highest bidder, even if that bidder is a nazi.

martin, May 5, 2006

#7
marcmc99 Founding Member

Joined:

Aug 21, 2003

Messages:

1,923

Likes Received:

31

martin said:

if public land is to be sold, it should go to the highest bidder, even if that bidder is a nazi.
Click to expand...

It did. The group was the high bidder out of five and paid $106,000.00 for the 1/2 acre. The full court of appeals reversed its own earlier ruling that the sale was ok. They reversed based on the grounds that the sale gave the winning bidder an unfair ecomomic advantage since, being they supported the use of the cross, the sale allowed them to keep the cross to use for the memorial. I think the court reached as far as they could to pull this one out their butts, but, when you go to trial in San Francisco, what can you expect?

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/1F76C4C8CC74788588256AB000019355/$file/0055406.pdf?openelement

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/C7CBFC80E3D385D188256BE300803DBE/$file/0055406eb.pdf?openelement

marcmc99, May 5, 2006

#8
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

i understand that reasoning, because the government shouldnt be improving land in such a way that only has value for christians and then selling it to them. but still, in this case it seems like the smart thing to do would be to just sell to the highest bidder and forget the whole thing ever happened.

the stupid thing was building the cross in the first place.

martin, May 5, 2006

#9
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

oh, that is much worse than i thought. that document you linked show that initially they wanted to sell the small amount of land with the cross on it, which is ridiculous. and they attached other factors to the sale, including what the buyer intended to do with the property, and those factors would be considered by the government seller, who clearly intended to sell it top the christians.

they shouldnt be breaking up the property into smaller parts to preserve the cross. they should either tear the cross down, or sell the entire propery to a bidder, and not consider if the buyer plans to maintin the cross.

martin, May 5, 2006

#10

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 1 of 2

Share This Page