Judge: Mt Soledad Cross is OK

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Veterans of The American Legion and others are hailing what they call a major victory with national ramifications in the legal battle over the Mount Soledad National Veterans Memorial in San Diego.

U.S. District Court Judge Larry A. Burns issued a long-awaited decision Tuesday (July 29, 2008) ruling that the Mt. Soledad National Veterans Memorial is constitutionally sound, meets all the guidelines set out by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Ten Commandments case of Van Orden vs. Perry, and does not violate the Establishment of Religion Clause as contended by The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which has backed eighteen years of litigation by atheist plaintiffs to destroy the memorial because it contains a cross.
Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.

15 thoughts on “Judge: Mt Soledad Cross is OK

  1. Don’t expect the Atheist Communist Lovers Union to stop the fight now. If they can’t appeal it more, they will simply start all over until the destroy anything sacred to the American Patriots.

  2. It is, Mintaka. But there’s a difference between your garden-variety rationalist-type atheist (some of whom are rather fun people) and the ACLU-type atheists. The first ones espouse a particular belief and pretty much ask that it be respected and religious types omit any “you’re going to hell” rhetoric. The second type believe that society MUST be remade into an atheistic image in which religious beliefs are either discredited or barred from the public square and anything that may allude to religion and may possibly be associated with a public entity is torn down. Holding a set of beliefs and essentially engaging in live-and-let-live is entirely American; using the power of the courts and laws to exclude all beliefs that conflict with your own is neither patriotic nor American. It is popularly accepted that religious beliefs should not be imposed upon people with the force of the law so why should irreligious beliefs be imposed upon people with the force of the law?

    Look at this case, for example. The typical rationalist-atheist would probably either ignore the cross or simply acknowledge it as a legitimate expression of belief that they may not share. The ACLU-type atheist notices that the cross is on public land and decides that, despite the fact that it is a memorial edifice, it must be hidden from view or destroyed… and then goes to ask the courts to do it. ACLU-type atheists are the people who give the classification of “atheist” a bad name and fuel the mistaken belief that atheists in general support the quashing of morals and religion wholesale. It is unfortunate but it is the case.

  3. The ACLU of Oregon (2007) defended the right of students at a private religious school not to be pressured to violate their Sabbath day by playing in a state basketball tournament. The Oregon School Activities Association scheduled state tournament games on Saturdays, the recognized Sabbath of students and faculty of the Portland Adventist Academy. The ACLU argued that the school’s team, having successfully made it to the tournament, should not be required to violate their religious beliefs in order to participate.

  4. First of all, not all the ACLU does is wrong, I will grant you you sometimes they choose the wrong battle as well as take it too far. I can’t not say I support or do not support them with out talking specific cases.

    The problem I have is the not so subtle linking of the lack of religious beliefs with communism. Take Ayn Rand for instant, definitely anti-communist and definitely an atheist.

    For Atheist like my self (actually agnostic, but fairly certain it is not a Christian God). I often see the statements like Lew made as condemnation of those who don’t not believe in what they he does. I find this belief could and would lead to a religious based government. That to me would be the worst thing that could happen to my country. So I can not let that statement slide.

    As far as your point about atheist trying to squash religious expression I give you this test. If the religious expression was not Christian but another religion, what would the reaction be? Just because we are usually talking about Christianity and this is an majority Christan nation doesn’t mean that it is correct to inject religion in government controlled areas (schools, money, courtrooms, etc.). Personally myself, I am not offended by any religions as long as I am not forced to do it or if my tax dollars are not used.

    So in this case, the cross was not erected by the Government…I have no problem with it.

  5. Of course. Occassionally, they feel charitable and defend civil liberties. But their usual work involves threatening a town for an improper reindeer-to-manger ratio or for singing any Christmas carol that even vaguely alludes to something that might possibly be understood as religious. As a general matter, the ACLU is a bully.

    Unfortunately, the association is a correct one. It’s distasteful but the fact of the matter is that communism is known to be hostile towards religion to varying degress. Thus, it’s not totally unfair to see the word atheist (a disbelief in God) and immediatley associate it with a governmental-economic system that was both extremely brutal and avowedly atheistic. It’s a silly assumption to make about a person without knowing them but it’s not as if the person making the assumption is tying together two completely unrelated ideas.

    I can sympathize with your reaction, Mintaka, but your perception reckons without reality. Even while there was much general sympathy towards religion, there has never been any sympathy towards the idea of an American theocracy. Nor has anyone suggested it save for some loons from right field (and the people from left field engaging in silly hyperbole). It’s a totally unwarrented concern given the circumstances in which we find ourselves.

    It’d be similar, I imagine. If that was a Star of David instead of a cross, I could easily see people being furious to see the ACLU and others trying to bully the government into removing it. I would expect the same reaction to a crescent. The thing is, an elementary school can have a Muslim Week where all of the lessons center around the beliefs of Islam and the little children are required to playact like faithful Muslims for a week and not a squeak from the “seperation of church and state!” crowd. Can you imagine a public school having a Catholic Week where the little children are required to learn Catholicism and playact as good faithful Catholics for a week? The ACLU or some other group would be screaming bloody murder; the difference is only which brand of monotheism is being used but it apparently doesn’t bother the ACLU unless it’s CHRISTIANS who might be stepping over the line.

    Frankly, the injection you’re concerned about in no way resembles the creation of a law which is the specific offense targeted by the Constitution. Interestingly enough, there’s also a clause forbidding the government from interferring in religious expression but it’s virtually ignored. If our money says “In God We Trust”, who is oppressed? If a courthouse has a display of the Ten Commandments in the lobby, who is harmed? If a little girl passes out valentines that say “Jesus Loves You”, what even remotely sane person would see that as establishing religion? The problem with many legitimate concerns about religious infiltration is that they’ve been coverted into a joke because of the extreme and absurd ways in which they’re used. Students spontaneously say a prayer over the loudspeaker at a football game. “Unconstitutional!” screams the Supreme Court although the government’s only involvement was paying for the event; only certain brands of atheists could see Congress making a law establishing a religion in a prayer from a private citizen, unsolicited by the government.

  6. Well, Iago, the ACLU taking up the case of a gent named Korematsu during WW2 (suing the government for dragging Japanese-Americans from their homes and imprisoning them) was not a reflection on the ACLU in general but was rather an action by a small chapter without the approval of central command. With Japanese-Americans being hauled away in the dead of night by executive order, the larger body of the ACLU sat and watched without comment. So yes, the ACLU occassionally does a good turn but it’s like an armed robber who stops for a moment to help someone pick up a coin they dropped: a tiny drop of good in the midst of a sea of wrongdoing.

  7. mintaka, your being an atheist doesn’t bother me at all. Nor does it automatically make you a Communist or a Marxist.

    I made teh statement more an individual comment, not a broad brush as the ACLU was founded by a Communist, Roger Baldwin who once said of his objectives, “I am for socialism, disarmament, and ultimately, for abolishing the state itself as an instrument of violence and compulsion. I seek social ownership of property, the abolition of the properties class, and sole control of those who produce wealth. Communism is the goal. It all sums up into one single purpose — the abolition of dog-eat-dog under which we live. I don’t regret being part of the communist tactic. I knew what I was doing. I was not an innocent liberal. I wanted what the communists wanted and I traveled the United Front road to get it.”

    Atheism, like other beliefs (or non-beliefs) ia comprised of all sorts of people.

    My own Christian Beliefs are not 100% in accord with many religions, with some of them actually accusing me of being an atheist because my view of a higher power differs from theirs.

    Baldwin was said to withdraw from the Communists later on, but that I find, his original objective never changed.

    While it is said he “sought to purge communists from the ACLU” with the signing of the Soviet/Nazi Pact, how would you eleminate all from a group predeominantly comprised of them?

    Todays ACLU engages in many cases that appear to support Bladwin’s stated objectives, although not all.

  8. Lew, Thanks for the clarification.

    I am a little touchy about the bias against other religious beliefs. Let me just say I grew up in the rural South where Baptist and football rule the world, and there is very little room for anything else.

  9. mintaka, I was born and raised in South Florida attending my grandmother’s Assembly of God Church. (back when you could still hear Southern Accents Downtown Miami) 😉

    I try to respect others beliefs, exception being the radical Jihadists.

  10. Odd thing about this Memorial to American Veterans, I always thought the left were the “tolerant” ones?

    How can it possible harm a few people that thousands enjoy a Memorial to those who fought for their freedom with a cross on it?

    Where is the tolerance when thousands must be denied to appease only a handful? Especially a standing Memorial that has been there in use for 54 years?

    If they succeed with this on appeal, will they eventually file suit against all the crosses on the graves in Arlington?

    When do we really begin seeing this “tolerance” the left brags about having?

  11. The left aren’t tolerant, lew.

    Of course, you knew that.

    The left are THE MAJOR point source of hate, bigotry, and intolerance in this great nation today.

    Like Hitler’s Nazis, though, they use TURNSPEAK to accuse their enemies of the very thing of which they are guilty. (As do Palestinians, as they absurdly call Israel “terrorists.”)

  12. I find it telling that the memorial would not be on the left’s radar – except possibly as an icon to spit on – except for the presence of the cross which they hate so much.

    Their knowledge of the place is not that it is hallowed ground to honor the fallen brave souls who protected this nation, but that it is a place of teeth-grinding hatred of Christianity.

Comments are closed.