Thanks ACLU: War Memorial To Be Torn Down

This is just disgusting. Can a battle over the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery be far behind?

SAN DIEGO - A federal judge on Wednesday ordered cash-strapped San Diego to remove a 29-foot cross from city-owned property within 90 days or face $5,000 in daily fines.

[snip]

The 20-ton cross was dedicated as a memorial on Easter Sunday in 1954 atop Mount Soledad to the veterans of the Korean War.
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/14492878.htm


San Diego atheist Philip Paulson has waged a 17-year legal battle against the cross. City officials have tried to sell the land underneath the cross to a local veterans' memorial association, but federal judges have repeatedly blocked the sale. The Supreme Court refused to hear the city's case in 2003.
http://www.kesq.com/Global/story.asp?S=4856893&nav=9qrx

-Kiamat Dusk
...disgusted, but not suprised...

If they wanted a war memorial, make it a dedication to the war. NOT THE RELIGION. I applaud this.

Arlingtons crosses should not be challenged. What -will- be challenged is the tombstones of those not of judeochristian faith be replaced with those of their faith, and for ALL religions and faiths to be memorialized by displays of qual amount and size there.

you do know that not all soldiers are christian right?

wow, you're so smart kendra!

Perhaps you can tell us why the memorial needs to be removed?

Why should there be an equal amount, Jonas? There isn't an equal amount of, say, christians to shinto soldiers, so...

Because the government is bound by the constitution to not endorse any one religion over another, simply. They can't put more christian displays up than satanist or wiccan, constitutionally. The number of adherents does not matter.

Champie: because they only use the one religious symbol. They have to endorse all equally, or none. Let sput an upside down cross beside it, for the satanists, shall we?

This is the point I criticise. It seems much less about debating points of the constitution, if the city is willing to comply with the "not on city land" bit.

Perhaps this crusading athiest could, instead, pressure these judges to allow the sale - problem solved. No no, of course, the ONLY solution is "get rid of the cross!!!!!!!111"

Further, and I realize this is an old debate, I'm still not sold on the interpertation of the freedom of religion clause that is being used in cases like this.

The memorial was placed in 1954. It was not symbolic of Christianity but served as a marker of the deaths of the fallen soldiers. I can't see where forcing the removal served any purpose except to further divide people.

If my Grandfather had been one of those fallen soldiers (and you all know my family is NOT Christian), I would be livid over it's removal. It would seem like someone had disturbed his grave.


.

To clarify: I would rather have seen 'equal' time given to other faiths instead of removal. Sale to a private institution (given that the veterans association should receive NO government funds if they host this memorial) would be allowable..


BOTH sides are wrong here, but if equal time isn't given, it should be removed.

The number of adherents does matter, if the displays are memorials for said adherents. The government is only prevented from making a law that establishes one religion in a position of dominence over another, if you actually care enough to go by the constiution, or from using legal methods to silence an opposing religion. Not from recognizing the prominence of an already existing religion.

Then whats the problem with giving the wiccan and other nonchristian soldiers tombstones of their faith and not the cross? Ill go with the big displays with you, I'm not unreasonable.

Edit: the korean memorial was single piece, so number of adherents would apply there, rather than at Arlington

One piece , if thats all there is, should represent all.

On the other hand, 52 years of precedence apparently means nothing. Mount Soledad at sunset is one of the most ethereal and spiritually uplifting experiences one can find (at least in Southern Cal).


So, what's next? The removal of the cross-shaped headstones at Lorraine and other military cemetaries?

Depends Paolo, are wiccan and nonchristian headstones offered to soldiers as well, to represent their faiths? I wouldn't want to be buried under a cross. Its actually in my living will that a nonchristian clergyman do my funeral.

The whole thing is disgusting.

Quite frankly, it's attitudes like this that make me think Sl is full of deviants and assholes.

I would say the 'asshole' act is defending using ONE religious symbol to memorialize ALL veterans no matter their religious beliefs.

It was erected in 19-frikkin-54, fergodsakes. That was before Political Correctness. I didn't think PC could work retroactively, but it seems the ACLU is taking care of that.

And for the record, the Constitution of the U.S. only says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.... It says not a thing about the City of San Diego.

Instead of destroying something that is 52 years old, why not erect an additional memorial to those who feel left out?

Clearly you've never actually been to Arlington. Here are some pictures. Note that not all tombstones are emblazoned with crosses. Some have the Star of David. Some have no religious markings at all. I'm fairly certain there are some crescents in there for fallen Muslims. All military personnel list their religious affiliation if any and I'm sure that's what determines what goes on the tombstone if they choose to be interred at Arlington.
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/photo_gallery/index_surroundings.html

And from the Funeral Information section:
"Grave Markers/Niche Covers

Government Headstone/Niche Cover — The government will provide at no cost to the estate of the deceased an upright, white marble headstone or white niche cover. The cemetery staff at Arlington will place the order, which goes to the National Cemetery Administration, part of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The order for the headstone or niche cover will include the appropriate inscription and choice of faith emblems. "
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/guide.atneed.html#headstones

And here are the list of authorized emblems:
http://www.arlingtoncemetery.org/funeral_information/authorized_emblems.html

-Kiamat Dusk

I think your interpretation of the "No Preference Clause" in the California Constitution and the Establishment Clause in the US Constitution is misguided. I think this lawsuit is disingenuous and the Supreme Court decisions on the matter are poor judgements.

I see no evidence that the City of San Diego is showing preferential treatment for one religion over others. Your notion of "EQUALITY" is part of the problem. No Jew, Muslim, Atheist, Satanist, etc is being denied rights by the presence of the Cross on Mt. Soledad, nor are Christians being offered and special treatment, rights, or priviledges.

Your requirement of ALL religions or NONE is unreasonable. What you mean when you say that is: No symbols of religion are tolorated. I think that perverts the intention of the "No preference Clause" and "Establishment Clause"

I think your view is narrow, overly restrictive and intolorant.

By Jonas logic the state (governemnt) is required to present equal size and frequency of ALL religious symbols or they must present NONE.

I'd really hate to be Jonas and try to support such an argument.

As I sit here typing, I'm hearing on the radio that our Congressman, Duncan Hunter, is writing a letter to President Bush requesting that the Federal Governemnt take control of the park.

This move would frame the constitutional question within the more reasonably interpreted "Establishment Clause" of the US Constitution and out of the context of the narrowly defined (like Jonas' view) "No Preference Clause" of the California Constitution.

This country is going to hell. I mean that non-literally btw.

Jonas - I understand your feelings about the cross as a symbol. My family is NA, I would not put a cross on my grave, heck, I would not even have a grave.

Nevertheless, I do not view a memorial, either the Washington Memorial, or the Vietnam Wall, or this Cross, as Christian, Jewish or any other symbol as religious but more as reminders of those who have fallen in battle for this country. I think that petty disputes like this sadly dishonor them.

.

I'm not a really religious person, and I have no problem with this monument. In my opinion, it's athiests like this that give all athiests a bad name.




Isn't keeping the memorial the goal? If they sold the land there would not be a problem, would there?

The fact that this is a VietNam vet who is spearheading this, really disappoints me.

And if my Grandfather, a World War II veteran, and deeply religious Jewish man was being memorialized by a huge cross --I would be outraged.

and that's what makes you unreasonable. It's not YOUR grandfather being memorialized, but a whole group of people. Additionally, this is one of many different memorials that honor fallen soldiers. Get some perspective