Thursday, May 04, 2006
San Diego Decides to Respect the Constitution
After a 17-year battle, a Federal judge forces the San Diego city government to actually respect the Constitution. For years a large, imposing cross has sat atop Mount Soledad on city property, overlooking the Pacific Ocean. 2 years after citizens brought legal charges claiming it is unconstitutional for the city to maintain a religious monument on public ground, a Federal appellate court confirmed the cross' unconstitutionality. Now, 17 years later, that same court gave San Diego 90 days to remove the cross and imposed a $5,000 per day fine if it isn't removed. Finally, San Diego will be forced to comply.
Citizens and city councilors in San Diego have pulled out every last trick in the book and every last obstructionist tactic to keep that cross on top of Mount Soledad, and although Mayor Sanders wants to appeal the decision (again), it's uncertain whether or not the city council will approve the appeal. They really have tried everything though - selling the site to a private owner for $1, designating it a historical monument, passing referenda with subversive language, land transfer schemes - but none of this negates the fact that "law[s] respecting an establishment of religion" are unconstitutional.
The Framers respected religion. Indeed, many of them were devoutly religious; but they believed emphatically that government should never have the power to impose any one religion on any of its people. Freedom of religion does not require that politicians relinquish their faith. But government cannot legislate religion.
A cross sitting on public property is hardly government prostheletizing, but it is certainly evidence of government-endorsed religious symbolism. And it is not acceptable. San Diegans who beleive that the separation of church and state is important haven't given up their struggle for constitutional vindication.
Comments:
<< Home
First of all, the thing is privately owned. I realize it is on public land, but the people who are throwing this fit aren't doing so because they actually are offended by the cross being there. For years Soledad Mountain park is a place where people have gone on holidays.
Anyway, I don't think it's a genuine complaint, I think people are complaining for the sake of complaining, and few people who see it on a regular basis actually care.
Anyway, I don't think it's a genuine complaint, I think people are complaining for the sake of complaining, and few people who see it on a regular basis actually care.
# posted by 
: 1:39 PM
: 1:39 PM
As you said, "it is on public land" - that makes it unconstitutional.
As for people not caring, I live in La Jolla. My house has a clear view of Mount Soledad and the cross. Growing up, I saw it every day when I went to school and every day coming home from school. I have been offended by such an ostentatious and publicly-sanctioned display of one particular religion since I was very young.
Those of us who support the seperation of church and state are not just complaining to complain. We are complaining because we beleive in the the ideology of the framers that church and state should be seperate and because a gigantic, ostentatious cross on public land offends that notion.
The only thing more offensive are the City Council and Mayor's attempts to subvert the Constitution by selling the cross for $1 to private owners or holding referendum votes with leading language or any of the other techniques they have come up with.
As for people not caring, I live in La Jolla. My house has a clear view of Mount Soledad and the cross. Growing up, I saw it every day when I went to school and every day coming home from school. I have been offended by such an ostentatious and publicly-sanctioned display of one particular religion since I was very young.
Those of us who support the seperation of church and state are not just complaining to complain. We are complaining because we beleive in the the ideology of the framers that church and state should be seperate and because a gigantic, ostentatious cross on public land offends that notion.
The only thing more offensive are the City Council and Mayor's attempts to subvert the Constitution by selling the cross for $1 to private owners or holding referendum votes with leading language or any of the other techniques they have come up with.
I cannot possibly imagine that the founding fathers had this case in mind when they decided to separate church and state. I'll grant you that argument on school prayer, things having to do with the judicial branch, and on the prayers at the beginning of a session of congress, but there is no way the framers would have wanted a sculpture taken down.
That monument is a part of San Diego's history, just like the Cabrillo national monument and the flowers in Carlsbad. The cross is not indicative of any position the state has. It is not a sign of any prejudice against non-Christians. It is simply a part of the city and has been and should continue to be.
That monument is a part of San Diego's history, just like the Cabrillo national monument and the flowers in Carlsbad. The cross is not indicative of any position the state has. It is not a sign of any prejudice against non-Christians. It is simply a part of the city and has been and should continue to be.
# posted by : 9:15 PM
: 9:15 PM
That cross is more than a piece of San Diego history. It is a monument to all those people who fought and died in the Korean War. It was paid for with public money and it sits on public land to comemorate those soldiers who died fighting for the public good.
Were there any Jews in the Army then? Any Athiests in the Navy? Do you think there might have been a Muslim or two serving in our air force? Not all of our soldiers are Christian and to erect or maintain a plainly religious symbol over the symbolic grave of those who died defending our country, but who would morally object to the symbol of the cross is outrageous.
The men and women who died fighting in the Korean War deserve our utmost respect. A veterans memorial should never be offensive to anyone it commemorates. And this is one of the ideas the Framers certainly had in mind when they founded this country.
Were there any Jews in the Army then? Any Athiests in the Navy? Do you think there might have been a Muslim or two serving in our air force? Not all of our soldiers are Christian and to erect or maintain a plainly religious symbol over the symbolic grave of those who died defending our country, but who would morally object to the symbol of the cross is outrageous.
The men and women who died fighting in the Korean War deserve our utmost respect. A veterans memorial should never be offensive to anyone it commemorates. And this is one of the ideas the Framers certainly had in mind when they founded this country.
The tomb of the unknown soldier reads, "Here rests in honored glory an American soldier known only to God"
This statement also contains an overt, as you would say "ostentatious" declaration of religion on the side of one of the most moving and symbolic war memorials this country has.
Because we do not know the identity the two soldiers burried beneath the tomb, we also cannot know whether or not they would have been offended by this statement. The point is that the monument provides some closure to the families of soldiers who died, and it likely represents the sentiments of the soldiers burried there.
Unless otherwise requested, the image placed at the top of each tombstone in Arlington National Cemetary is the image of a cross, not because the government is out to offend people, but because it is what the majority of soldiers would want on their tombstones.
Whether or not you like it, the majority of this country is Christian, as is the majority of the people who fight in wars, as is the majority of people who live in San Diego. I am not Christian, but I do believe that the cross atop Mt. Soledad deserves to stay there as a piece of San Diego's history, and as a monument to those who have died. Religion cannot be so easily taken out of our country's history. The back of each coin and each dollar bill to this day says "In God We Trust," as do many courthouses. Our pledge of allegiance says "one nation under God."
Do not tell me that these statements offend fewer people than the cross atop Mt. Soledad because Jews and Muslims also believe in God. If you say that the size of the group offended matters and that these statements only offend atheists, you have lost sight of your argument altogether.
If you truely believe that the cross on Mt. Soledad should be removed, you should also be actively in favor of the removal of all government sponsored printings of the word God and the cross on tombstones.
This statement also contains an overt, as you would say "ostentatious" declaration of religion on the side of one of the most moving and symbolic war memorials this country has.
Because we do not know the identity the two soldiers burried beneath the tomb, we also cannot know whether or not they would have been offended by this statement. The point is that the monument provides some closure to the families of soldiers who died, and it likely represents the sentiments of the soldiers burried there.
Unless otherwise requested, the image placed at the top of each tombstone in Arlington National Cemetary is the image of a cross, not because the government is out to offend people, but because it is what the majority of soldiers would want on their tombstones.
Whether or not you like it, the majority of this country is Christian, as is the majority of the people who fight in wars, as is the majority of people who live in San Diego. I am not Christian, but I do believe that the cross atop Mt. Soledad deserves to stay there as a piece of San Diego's history, and as a monument to those who have died. Religion cannot be so easily taken out of our country's history. The back of each coin and each dollar bill to this day says "In God We Trust," as do many courthouses. Our pledge of allegiance says "one nation under God."
Do not tell me that these statements offend fewer people than the cross atop Mt. Soledad because Jews and Muslims also believe in God. If you say that the size of the group offended matters and that these statements only offend atheists, you have lost sight of your argument altogether.
If you truely believe that the cross on Mt. Soledad should be removed, you should also be actively in favor of the removal of all government sponsored printings of the word God and the cross on tombstones.
# posted by : 9:13 AM
: 9:13 AM
The majority of this country may be christian, but that is not an excuse to offend the minority. Your contention is exactly the kind of tyranny of the majority that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton feared and that they tried to protect against by framing the constitution the way they did - including the 'establishment of religion' clause.
ok, 1. As far as the pledge goes - I think choice is what matters most. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that it is Unconstitutional to force people to say the pledge of allegiance. Contrarily, the dead soldiers whom the memorial commemorates do not currently have the choice as to whether the cross is there or not. If they had a choice - such as in the headstones of your example, that would be different.
2. As far as money goes - don't put words in my mouth. I havent lost sight of my argument and i would never have made the argument you attributed to me. The difference is in the religious rites. Spending money is not a religious or spiritual activity (unless there are some out there who literally pray to the god of capitalism). Therefore it is easy to ignore the word God on our money. It is also less offensive because spending money with the word God on it does not imply that one is religious of any one denomination or another. Dead is for many people, a profoundly religious occurrence. Therefore, it is impossible to divorce religious symbolism from the act for many people. And atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs would likely all be offended that the Christian religion is being imposed on their lives at a profoundly religious (or a-religious for atheists) time.
Also, all of the other examples you mentioned gave the person the choice about whether the Word "God" or a cross appears on their headstone etc. There is no choice for those mount soledad commemorates.
ok, 1. As far as the pledge goes - I think choice is what matters most. The Supreme Court of the United States has said that it is Unconstitutional to force people to say the pledge of allegiance. Contrarily, the dead soldiers whom the memorial commemorates do not currently have the choice as to whether the cross is there or not. If they had a choice - such as in the headstones of your example, that would be different.
2. As far as money goes - don't put words in my mouth. I havent lost sight of my argument and i would never have made the argument you attributed to me. The difference is in the religious rites. Spending money is not a religious or spiritual activity (unless there are some out there who literally pray to the god of capitalism). Therefore it is easy to ignore the word God on our money. It is also less offensive because spending money with the word God on it does not imply that one is religious of any one denomination or another. Dead is for many people, a profoundly religious occurrence. Therefore, it is impossible to divorce religious symbolism from the act for many people. And atheists, Buddhists and Sikhs would likely all be offended that the Christian religion is being imposed on their lives at a profoundly religious (or a-religious for atheists) time.
Also, all of the other examples you mentioned gave the person the choice about whether the Word "God" or a cross appears on their headstone etc. There is no choice for those mount soledad commemorates.
Truthfully the answer to that question is not simple. This reference to God is by no means clear. For instance, many insurance policies refer to "acts of God," meaning hurricanes, earthquakes etc. This is clearly not a religious reference, but rather a figure of speech adopted as legal jargon. Answer number one is that "known only to God" on the tomb of the unknown soldier could be considered a figure of speech meaning nothing other than 'we dont know who the people buried here are.'
On the other hand, this does not account for the possibility that the person burried there would be offended by the use of the word God no matter how innocuously intended it was.
I personally think that governemnt should err on the side of caution, trying to offend as few people as possible. Therefore, the inscription might be innapropriate since the soldiers are unknown, and therefore their wishes would be as well.
If, for some reason, we don't know the two soldier's identities, but we know they were christian, jewish, or Muslim and beleivers in God, then perhaps it wouldn't be innappropriate. The doctrine of 'seperation of church and state" certainly was not intended to rob religious men and women of their rights to free expression also contained in the first ammendment. This is why i am comfortable with "God" or crosses on publicly funded graves so long as we can be sure of the deseased soldier's wishes.
To be honest i don't know enough about the history of the Tomb of the Unknown soldier to make a final judgement on this issue. Outlined above are my thoughts on teh issue, from the facts i do know. But i know much more about the cross on mount soledad. And i can say with certainty that everyone it represents would not be comfortable with it. That is why I stand where i do on this particular issue.
Post a Comment
On the other hand, this does not account for the possibility that the person burried there would be offended by the use of the word God no matter how innocuously intended it was.
I personally think that governemnt should err on the side of caution, trying to offend as few people as possible. Therefore, the inscription might be innapropriate since the soldiers are unknown, and therefore their wishes would be as well.
If, for some reason, we don't know the two soldier's identities, but we know they were christian, jewish, or Muslim and beleivers in God, then perhaps it wouldn't be innappropriate. The doctrine of 'seperation of church and state" certainly was not intended to rob religious men and women of their rights to free expression also contained in the first ammendment. This is why i am comfortable with "God" or crosses on publicly funded graves so long as we can be sure of the deseased soldier's wishes.
To be honest i don't know enough about the history of the Tomb of the Unknown soldier to make a final judgement on this issue. Outlined above are my thoughts on teh issue, from the facts i do know. But i know much more about the cross on mount soledad. And i can say with certainty that everyone it represents would not be comfortable with it. That is why I stand where i do on this particular issue.
<< Home
