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
1947 PHILIP PAULSON 2006, Chief opponent of Mount Soledad cross
Vietnam veteran dies of liver cancer
Mount Soledad cross foe Philip Paulson (left) attended a luncheon in his honor Sept. 3.
October 26, 2006 Philip Kevin Paulson, a Lutheran preacher's grandson who lost his religion and waged a 17-year legal battle to remove the Mount Soledad cross from public property, died yesterday of liver cancer. He was 59.
Mr. Paulson, a 6-foot-5 Vietnam War veteran who lived in City Heights, became one of the county's most reviled residents when he prevailed in a lawsuit against the city of San Diego and continued with years of appeals that still are pending.
On July 31, doctors told Mr. Paulson, a Wisconsin native, that he had four months to a year to live. Despite the diagnosis, supporters were surprised to learn Mr. Paulson had died because doctors said recently the cancer appeared to be in remission. After traveling to San Francisco two weeks ago to receive an award, Mr. Paulson experienced flulike symptoms and was bedridden.
On Friday, he went to a hospital complaining of abdominal pain and remained in critical condition until his death at 2 p.m. yesterday, said his live-in companion of 17 years, Lorelei Lindsey.
During hours of interviews with The San Diego Union-Tribune in the past two months, Mr. Paulson said he was unconcerned about death and proud of the stand that he knew would define his life.
“I fought in Vietnam and I thought I fought to maintain freedom and yet the cross savers in this city would have us believe all of the veterans' sacrifices are in vain, that the Constitution is something to be spit on,” Mr. Paulson said.
“The real message is equal treatment under the law, and religious neutrality. That's the purpose of why I did it. It has nothing to do with me being an atheist. The fact is, the Constitution calls for no preference and that's why every judge ruled for me.” Mr. Paulson, who shunned media attention to protect the case, agreed to an exclusive interview on condition that his comments remain confidential until his death or the end of the case. Mr. Paulson said he wanted people to understand why he pursued the removal of the cross, and that he was never motivated by a hatred for Christians.
“I don't harbor those kind of feelings,” he said. “My mother's a Christian. I was raised a devout Christian. I'm not anti-Christian. The reason I did it is because it's not fair to the other religions. America is not just the Christian religion.”
His lawyer, James McElroy, said Mr. Paulson maintained a passion for justice and a sense of humor despite years of death threats, hate mail and legal wrangling.
“For his efforts, Phil was ostracized and treated with scorn and disrespect by many powerful people in our community and across the country as well,” McElroy said. “I suspect many of these same people, especially those that were quick to demean him, lack half of the courage that Phil had. We all owe him a debt of gratitude for fighting this lonely battle for religious tolerance and freedom of conscience.”
San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders said he was sorry to hear of Mr. Paulson's death.
“I've alway respected people who stick up for what they believe, and I think he did that, and even though I didn't agree with him on the issue of the cross, I still respect him for sticking to his beliefs,” Sanders said.
Steve Trunk, who was chosen by Mr. Paulson to take over as plaintiff in the case, said he was proud of his friend's convictions.
“Whether walking point in a Vietnamese jungle, defending a woman's right to choose, or exercising his duty as a citizen forcing the government to honor the Constitution, Phil personified what it means to be an American,” Trunk said. “I am honored and humbled to have known him.”
Phil Thalheimer, the chairman of San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial, which has battled against removing the cross, said that while he disagreed with Mr. Paulson's position, he respected his right to make it.
“Listen, he believed in what he was doing, and I certainly respect him for that,” Thalheimer said. “But I think he was wrong.”
Thalheimer said that recent developments in the long-running case show that Mr. Paulson was beginning to lose his long legal battle.
Though the federal government took possession of the land where the cross stands, the legal fight Mr. Paulson spawned is far from over.
Two lawsuits – one filed by Mr. Paulson and Trunk and a second filed by the ACLU – are working their way jointly through federal court. They challenge the presence of the cross on government property.
Appeals of two other cross-related cases were heard in federal and state appellate courts last week. The San Diego-based 4th District Court of Appeal heard arguments about Proposition A, a measure that city voters passed in November 2005 to willingly give up the land to the federal government.
The city has argued that while the cross has religious significance, it also has a secular purpose – to honor war veterans. Mr. Paulson contended the memorial portion of the hilltop site was built only after he filed suit.
Mr. Paulson said he started to doubt Christianity at a young age.
He grew up in Clayton, Wis., a village of about 300 known then as the blue cheese capital of the world. There was a cheese factory, which employed most of the men, plus a couple of taverns, two Lutheran churches, two general stores and a post office.
His grandfather, the preacher, founded one of the Lutheran churches in town, which almost everyone attended. Mr. Paulson's mother had hoped that he also would become a minister.
“Oh, boy, did I disappoint her,” Mr. Paulson said with a laugh.
He said there were three events that caused him to embrace atheism – being punished as a child for questioning the tenets of Christianity, his experience in Vietnam and a university class about religion.
“I changed when I was kid. I was skeptical of the claims of the Bible. I never could get past the talking snake. I could never get past Jonah getting swallowed by a whale, never get past the idea that Abraham was going to kill Isaac and he was ready to kill his own son because of some illusion of a deity. It was too far-fetched.”
He felt more doubt on Hill 875 during the Battle of Dak To, one of the bloodiest battles of the Vietnam War. Mr. Paulson had enlisted in the Army in 1966 at age 18 and became a paratrooper. On the hill in 1967, gunfire and explosions were all around as he frantically carried the wounded and dead. Then his platoon was ambushed at the bottom of the hill. He and another soldier were the only survivors.
“If there was a God, why would God allow for this to happen?” he said. “Where was God to intervene if God was so powerful? I saw people praying. I wasn't praying because I didn't want to waste my precious time when I could be shooting.”
The third part in the process of becoming an atheist was an exercise during a sociology of religion class at the University of Wisconsin, which he attended after his second tour in Vietnam.
“That opened up my mind. That reconfirmed everything in an intellectual way of how I came to my atheist belief . . . .”
He dabbled in many professions after his military service, working briefly as a journalist, in shipyards, in oil fields and apple orchards around the country, and he hopped freight trains to get there. He had romances along the way and a brief marriage, but no children. He taught English to immigrants.
He moved to San Diego in the late 1970s and taught in community colleges and, until becoming ill, he was a professor at National University, teaching computer and business classes.
Mr. Paulson, a storyteller with a deep, booming voice and a tendency to digress, was able to quote scripture and name the Ten Commandments without pause. He was unemotional when discussing traumatic events of combat in Vietnam, his conversion from Christianity to atheism and even his own death, but he raised his voice with passion when talking about the cross case.
After the Union-Tribune published a story last month about Mr. Paulson's diagnosis, the newspaper received e-mails from readers that were both supportive and critical.
Mr. Paulson wanted to know what they said. One reader wrote: “Cremate him and then put his ashes under the cross.” Mr. Paulson thought it was hilarious. Laughing, he said, “I love that one! That's a good one! That made my day!”
Mr. Paulson said he received many calls from well-wishers after the story ran. “It's like having a little memorial service before I die.”
Besides his companion, Mr. Paulson is survived by three older brothers and two younger sisters who live in Wisconsin and Minnesota. Services had not yet been planned.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20061026/news_7m26paulson.html
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
