U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

[Eugene]

Source: Reuters

U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

BY DAN WHITCOMB
LOS ANGELES Thu Dec 12, 2013 8:28pm EST

(Reuters) - A massive cross that serves as part of a war memorial on a San Diego hilltop must be dismantled because it has been found to violate a constitutional ban on government endorsement of religion, a federal judge grudgingly ruled on Thursday.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns marks the latest development in a long-running legal battle over the 43-foot-tall cross, a local landmark that has stood on top of Mount Soledad since 1954 and is visible for miles.

Burns stayed his order to give the Obama administration and the association that erected the cross, which have fought its removal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, a chance to file another appeal. Otherwise, he said, the monument must be taken down within 90 days.

"This is a victory for religious liberty," said Daniel Mach, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's program on freedom of religion and belief who argued the matter for the plaintiffs in a hearing before Burns on Thursday.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/13/us-usa-california-cross-idUSBRE9BC02Q20131213

[Goblinmonger]

1. Good

About time.

[Niceguy1]

2. That's too bad..

A cross has been there for a 100 years...hope they win their appeal

[Goblinmonger]

4. You do realize that the ruling of the court is

that a cross has violated the Constitution "for a 100 years," right?

How often do you find your self landing completely opposite of the ACLU?

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. No, it isn't.

The cross is illegal according to California State Law. End of story.

That doesn't mean the cross needs to come down. All it means is the City of La Jolla needs to auction off the property to a private buyer. Then the cross would no longer be displayed on government-owned property and would no longer be an official endorsement of a specific religion, and it would no longer be illegal.

[edhopper]

8. What part of "federal"

and unconstitutional don't you understand.
And I have a big problem with privatizing something to circumvent the courts.
Don't like the rules about federal lands, just sell them off to someone. Who needs protected areas.

[Act_of_Reparation]

13. You might want to check your tone, hoss

I agree the cross is illegal. I agree, as things stand, it should be removed. I was merely pointing out to those waxing nostalgically about the historicity of the whole thing that the ruling does not mean, ipso facto, the cross will be removed.

As for protected lands, I'm going to step out on a limb here and assume you've never been to Soledad. This isn't Palomar we're talking about; the whole thing is a fucking upper class suburb stuffed to the gills with Maseratis and McMansions. And if the city were to auction the land, they could not, by law, show preference to parties intending to keep the cross up. The loophole is no sure bet.

[edhopper]

14. Probably too curt in my reply

Last edited Fri Dec 13, 2013, 02:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Sorry. Stand by what I said, but not how I said it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

17. Fair enough, no hard feelings n/t

[edhopper]

20. thanks

[edhopper]

7. Too bad

we haven't let gays marry for 100 years. We haven't integrated the schools for 100 years....
Tradition doesn't make it right.

[cleanhippie]

9. It's too bad that the law is being followed?

Really?

[Heddi]

10. 100 years? Eh, you're only off by 41 years

From the article that is quoted in the OP::

the 43-foot-tall cross, a local landmark that has stood on top of Mount Soledad since 1954 and is visible for miles

[Act_of_Reparation]

19. There was another cross at the site before the present cross went up

The first cross was erected in 1913.

I don't think that really makes a difference where the law is concerned... just some historical background for ya.

[nikto]

3. If the cross can be up there...

So can a 100-foot tall minaret.

Or a giant Buddha statue.


IMO, they should all be up there,
or none of 'em should be up there.


Take your pick.


Personally, I'd prefer a giant, glowing statue of a Fender Stratocaster.

[Act_of_Reparation]

6. Blasphemy!

We all know the Gibson Les Paul is the one true guitar.

Though, perhaps to avoid an official government endorsement of a specific guitar, we could compromise and have the city erect a massive Moog Modular instead.

[nikto]

29. Sounds like Religious War...

The Church Of Fender
vs
The Church of Gibson

[cbayer]

11. I don't understand why they don't just sell the land to the veteran's group.

After all they have spent on attorneys, it seems that would be a pittance.

[trotsky]

12. Because that's an underhanded trick designed to circumvent the Constitution.

Other localities have tried that - selling off the parcel of land with the religious icon - and it hasn't typically been allowed.

What part of "separation of church and state" do you not understand, cbayer?

[edhopper]

15. If a Judge blocks logging on Federal land

and most of the people in the area favor logging, why don't they just sell it off to a lumber company.

[cbayer]

16. I think logging and a cross are entirely different things.

There are many things to consider with logging, like environmental impacts.

The judge's ruling is based entirely on first amendment issues. The cross is on public land. The 1st amendment prohibits religious symbols such as this on such land. It also protects religious expression by individuals and groups. The cross being there isn't the issue. The fact that it is on public land is the issue.

No one can claim that they should be "protected" from seeing a cross. They only only claim they can make is that public land/funds can not be used for such a purpose.

Anyway, the problem has been resolved in other cases by merely selling the land and that seemed to satisfy all parties, IIRC.

[edhopper]

21. So why should the people who want the cross be favored

sounds like a violation of the anti-establishment clause.

[cbayer]

22. They shouldn't be favored, but if they own a piece of land and

want to put a cross up on it, they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so.

To do otherwise would also violate the anti-establishment clause.

[Goblinmonger]

23. So if they put it up for auction

and the FFRF put in the high bid to buy it and tore down the cross, people on DU wouldn't talk about how dumb and hurtful and whatever? (go to LBN and read that thread if you want to see what I'm talking about)

[edhopper]

24. But you specifically

said they should sell it to a group to keep the cross there.
That is just a backdoor work around the constitutional violation.

[cbayer]

25. Apparently they are willing to sell it.

I'm not sure of why the veteran's group has not bought it, but they haven't.

If they have to put it on the open market, so be it.

If there is another group that wants it down for reasons other than the constitutional violation, let them bid on it.

I guess whoever is most passionate about the issue will win.

But, as far as I am concerned, the only issue here is that it is on public land. Should the land be sold to someone else, it's not longer an issue, imo.

I don't think that's an end run, it's just a fact.

As I said, these issues have been resolved in this manner in other locations and all parties were apparently satisfied with the outcome.

[edhopper]

26. thanks

For clarifying

[cbayer]

27. Sorry that I was unclear.

It's been a pleasure talking to you, ed.

Have a great evening and an even better weekend.

[edhopper]

28. same to you

[Goblinmonger]

18. They would have to put the land up for general sale.

Then nasty, evil atheists could buy it and take the cross down. They can't just wink and nod and sell it to the people they want. They have to follow the rules the same as they sell anything else.