Mt. Soledad Cross
From Bwtm
The Mt. Soledad Memorial Association claims that the site for the Veterans' Memorial on Mt. Soledad Natural Park was dedicated on Easter holiday to commemorate and memorialize those who died during the Korean War era. However, groups who oppose them claim that the cross shows preference for only Christian veterans, and discrimination against non-Christian veterans. The Mt. Soledad Easter Cross is not a sacred symbol for non-Christian veterans, and it has been argued that the presence of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross demeans non-Christians with second-class citizenship status in their own country.
The minimum price to be included in the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross Korean War Memorial is $600, limited plaque locations. Prices subject to increase without notice, some restrictions may apply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad
ACLU sues federal government in battle over San Diego cross
25 August, 2006 SAN DIEGO — The American Civil Liberties Union rejoined a long-running battle over a 29-foot Latin cross standing on public parkland, suing the federal government yesterday, just ten days after President Bush signed legislation designed to shield the monument from legal challenges.
The bill, H.R. 5683, transferred ownership of the hilltop monument from the city of San Diego to the Department of Defense.
The ACLU complaint, filed in San Diego federal court on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans and individual Jewish and Muslim plaintiffs, charges Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with violating the First Amendment.
“The federal acquisition of the Latin cross … does nothing to cure the ongoing constitutional violation,” the lawsuit states. “When any government entity — federal, state, or local — uses taxpayer funds to acquire and prominently display a religious symbol that is sacred to some, but not all, religious believers, it disregards the religious diversity in our society and violates the fundamental right to religious liberty guaranteed by the First Amendment.”
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=17320
Federal Appeals Court Rules Against Bible Display At Texas Courthouse
16 August, 2006 A federal appeals court has held that a Bible display outside a Texas county courthouse violates the separation of church and state.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that a religious memorial outside the Harris County Civil Courthouse violates the First Amendment principle of church-state separation.
The ruling in Staley v. Harris County upholds a 2004 district court decision that the display, which prominently features an open Bible illuminated by neon lighting, runs afoul of the Constitution.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State argued before the 5th Circuit that the district judge’s ruling should be upheld against an appeal by Harris County officials.
“A courthouse should welcome citizens of all religious perspectives and none,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “This display sent the clear message that Christianity was the government-preferred faith and other Americans are second-class citizens. In a diverse country, that’s unacceptable.”
The display was erected in 1956 by a Christian charity to honor William S. Mosher, a Houston businessman and philanthropist. The memorial includes a glass-topped case housing an open Bible. The monument, as the 5th Circuit noted, faces the main entrance to the Harris County courthouse and is therefore visible to “attorneys, litigants, jurors, witnesses and other visitors to the Courthouse.”
In its 2-1 ruling, the 5th Circuit concluded that the memorial, because of the actions of Harris County officials, such as Judge Devine, is a government endorsement of Christianity instead of a memorial.
The “reasonable observer would conclude,” the Circuit majority wrote, “that the monument, with the Bible outlined in red neon lighting, had evolved into a predominantly religious symbol.”
Senate votes to make catsup a vegtable
Senate votes to put Mount Soledad cross in federal hands
01 August, 2006 With a speed and decisiveness that surprised some, the Senate on Tuesday approved a plan to transfer the land beneath the Mount Soledad war memorial to federal control in an effort to avoid a court-ordered removal of the cross that stands there.
The Senate's unanimous vote sent the cross-transfer plan to President Bush for his expected signature. It creates what some consider an entirely new dynamic in the 17-year effort to save the cross, but which others say is a hopeless attempt to preserve a symbol on city land that courts have said unconstitutionally favors one religion over others.
James McElroy, the attorney representing atheist Philip Paulson – who first sued to remove the cross on the grounds it amounts to an unconstitutional preference of the Christian religion over others – said the bill is “still unconstitutional.”
“I guess the Senate has a short memory,” he said. “You've got a local issue here. What business does the federal government have getting involved?”
Cross Hugger's spin
Hint to Mt. Soledad cross's fate lies in desert
Friends, foes of memorial await result of Mojave case
27 July, 2006 WASHINGTON – It's a war memorial. It includes a cross. It is on public land. And while politicians use congressional maneuvers to keep the cross there, others say it's unconstitutional and should be removed.
This sounds a lot like the cross atop Mount Soledad in La Jolla, but it's not.
About 275 miles away in the Mojave Desert stands a far less prominent but nonetheless controversial cross that, like the Mount Soledad cross, has been the subject of lawsuits and court-ordered removals. Unlike Mount Soledad, however, the battle surrounding the desert cross at a place called Sunrise Rock has focused on the U.S. Constitution's provisions guaranteeing separation of church and state.
Should the Mount Soledad cross end up in federal hands, as many in Congress would like, its future likely will rest on interpretations of the Constitution. And that, cross foes say, means the history of the Mojave cross may provide clues to the fate of the Mount Soledad cross.
“There are many significant similarities between the two cases,” said Alex Luchenister, an attorney for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which argues that placing religious symbols on public land violates the Constitution.
“In both cases, the government maintained the crosses were war memorials, and in both cases, the courts ruled that displaying the crosses was unconstitutional,” he said.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060727/news_1n27crosses.html
San Diego cross may provide national legal test
The man who filed suit over the cross in 1989 is a Vietnam veteran who says that, even viewed as a war memorial, the monument excludes veterans who are not Christian.
Philip Paulson has said he would be happy if the 20-ton monument were moved to a churchyard near the hilltop park – or anywhere that is not public land. Paulson declined comment for this story, referring questions to his attorney, James McElroy, a locally prominent civil rights lawyer.
“It's not an obelisk, or just a flag,” McElroy said. “It's a Latin cross, the most powerful symbol of one religion in the world, and it's standing in the middle of a public park like a giant neon ad for that religion.”
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/state/20060722-0842-ca-crossdispute.html
House backs transfer of land under cross
In a move that eventually could trigger a test of church-state separation provisions in the Constitution, the House agreed Wednesday to transfer the land beneath San Diego's Mount Soledad cross to the federal government.
After a brief debate, House members voted 349-74 to seize the land and give it to the Defense Department to try to avoid a court-ordered removal of the 43-foot-tall cross.
“The memorial cross serves a legitimate secular purpose of commemorating our nation's war dead and veterans,” said Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine. “Therefore, the display of the Mount Soledad cross on federal property ... is constitutional.”
Hunter was one of three San Diego-area Republican congressmen who co-wrote the legislation to preserve the cross, which was dedicated in 1954 as a Korean War veterans memorial.
Under federal law, which is more flexible on the issue than California law, religious displays have sometimes been allowed to stand on public property if they have historic or cultural significance.
The House vote, which sent the issue to the Senate, paved the way for what could be a new legal dynamic in the long-running battle over the cross that stands atop 800-foot Mount Soledad. Should the Senate approve the legislation and President Bush sign it, foes of the cross have vowed to challenge the action in court.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060723-9999-lz1m23week.html
Justice's decision suggests high court would hear case
08 July, 2006 U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy extended his temporary stay protecting the Mount Soledad cross yesterday until state and federal courts can hear appeals this fall by the city of San Diego to preserve the landmark.
In blocking a federal judge's order that the city remove the cross by Aug. 1 or face a $5,000 daily fine, Kennedy indicated that the full court would review the case if it were to come before the court.
Kennedy said the court, which refused three years ago to get involved in the dispute, may consider it because of two new factors favorable to cross proponents.
He cited legislation to designate the city-owned land a national veterans memorial and a ballot initiative in which San Diegans overwhelmingly voted to transfer the land to the federal government.
Kennedy's move is a big boost for cross supporters and the city in their efforts to preserve the La Jolla landmark, which is part of a veterans memorial.
The cross was ordered removed in 1991 by U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. in San Diego federal court. Thompson said the cross was a religious symbol whose presence violated the state Constitution's ban on a government showing a preference for religion.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20060708-9999-lz1n8cross.html
Supreme Court Gives Cross in San Diego a Reprieve
04 July, 2006 A long-running legal battle over a 29-foot-tall cross atop one of the highest hills in San Diego took a new twist on Monday when the United States Supreme Court issued a stay temporarily blocking a lower court order forcing the city to remove it.
Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, without comment, issued the stay pending a further order from the court. The action blocked a ruling by a district court that would have imposed daily fines of $5,000 beginning on Aug. 1 if the city had not taken down the cross.
The stay gave a flicker of hope to supporters of the 20-ton white cross who have been on the losing side of most federal and state court rulings since an atheist, Philip K. Paulson, sued in 1989. Mr. Paulson argued that the cross, in a city property park in the La Jolla district, was an unconstitutional preference of one religion over another.
Mr. Paulson's lawyer, James E. McElroy, said it was not unusual for a justice to issue such an order and called it more a technicality than any reading of the merits.
"All it says," Mr. McElroy said, "is 'Hold on, I'll get back to you with my decision.' "
The first cross was built on the spot in 1913 and figured prominently in Easter sunrise services. The latest was built in 1954 to replace one that had fallen in a windstorm. It was dedicated on Easter Sunday that year as a Korean War veterans' memorial.
After Mr. Paulson sued, the group that built and maintains the cross surrounded it with commemorations of the war dead, including concentric walls with plaques. Mr. Paulson argued that the additions served just to camouflage the true purpose of the cross, to promote Christianity.
Defenders of the cross and city lawyers argue that the cross, with or without the memorial plaques, was intended as a tribute to war dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/us/04cross.html
Congressman asks President Bush to help save San Diego cross
The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee asked President Bush to help save a 29-foot cross standing on San Diego city property from being removed by court order.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Alpine, joined Thursday by Mayor Jerry Sanders, asked the president to exercise his power of eminent domain and take over the half-acre cross site atop Mount Soledad.
Hunter, who has backed legislation to protect the cross, sent a letter to the White House requesting "urgent assistance" to keep it intact.
"The federal government has lots of memorials with crosses on it," he said. "According to the court decisions, you'd have to dismantle Arlington (National) Cemetery."
- There are very few crosses visible at Arlington National Cemetery, the grave markers are not cross shaped. Each marker has a small religious symbol on it. There are several crosses, up to ten feet high, as part of displays. On Mt. Soledad the cross is 29 feet tall and is the central symbol; untill recently the cross was the only religious symbol on Mt. Soledad.
read Hunters letter. Mr. Hunter again attacks liberals, blaming "liberal judges".
Supporters of the cross hope to transfer the legal responsibility of defending the cross to the US taxpayer.
Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial
- Honorary Brick Paver: $100
Individual Recognition Plaque, Honors a veteran on one of three plaque sizes distinctly designed for each veteran.
- Name and photo of veteran
- Rank or rating and branch of service
- War or campaign, such as WWII, Vietnam, Southwest Asia
- Medals and ribbons
- Key tribute to veteran - service statement up to 25 words that 'tells the story' of military service
- Family appreciation statement up to six words
- Military patches and one non-military symbol, such as a religious symbol, veterans' or other organization
$600 to $1,500
