Target: Mt. Soledad Memorial — ACLU keeps the wrecking ball on call
The ACLU today filed a federal lawsuit in its latest attempt to drive all reference to faith from the public square. In what is a smart PR move on the ACLU’s part, they’ve brought a group called the Jewish War Veterans on as a plaintiff along with “local residents.” So what was once a case that pitted a lone rabid atheist gadfly against an entire city and the largest veterans organization in the country…and oh, yeah the fallen heroes that the memorial was erected to honor…the ACLU has done what it does best and turned it into inter-faith strife, as if only Christians support the Mt. Soledad memorial cross. They’ve also decided to ask that it be moved, instead of turned into rubble. The new strategy though is still the same old story cloaked in what the ACLU thinks a bit less rancid to the taste buds. A passive display that has stood for decades, that doesn’t to my knowledge possess super-secret conversion lasers that force people to worship and certainly doesn’t qualify as a law passed by Congress to establish a state religion…no matter, it needs to go and the ACLU will fight from the dawn of the first Bush Administration until Bush II is back on the ranch. This case is one of the more infuriating examples of the ACLU’s pathological hostility to anything that references Christianity.
From the ACLU: ACLU Represents Jewish War Veterans and San Diego Residents in Effort to Relocate Mt. Soledad Memorial
SAN DIEGO – The American Civil Liberties Union, the Jewish War Veterans and local residents announced today that they are suing the U.S. government and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, charging that the continued display of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross on federally owned land unlawfully entangles government with religion.
“The ACLU believes that religious symbols, even prominently displayed, are an important and constitutionally protected form of religious expression in the public sphere,” said David Blair-Loy, Legal Director of the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties. “There is a huge difference between families and religious communities expressing their religious beliefs and the U.S. government—using all of its power, authority, financing, and property—to promote the beliefs of one faith over all others.”
BS. The ACLU has sued to remove even completely privately-funded and maintained monuments all across the country (they just got smoked in Green v. Haskell last week). The ACLU has sued to remove privately placed crèches from public grounds where an open forum existed (Cranston, RI), appealing the case all the way to the 1st Circuit. The ACLU is currently threatening to sue a Louisiana Parish should a volunteer group go ahead and erect a privately-funded memorial to Katrina victims on private land because it will include a cross (Joe Cook says that because some people whose day job is public employment and that the memorial will be NEAR public land that it is “unconstitutional). The list goes on folks. It’s important to note that there have been several attempts to turn the land on which the memorial sits over to the private organization that already maintains it, but all have been blocked by the ACLU’s legal actions. More importantly, the city originally granted a private organization permission to erect this cross on behalf of families of troops killed in Korea. So the only “entanglement” is the fact that this cross stands on ground the ACLU has refused to allow to be transferred to private hands.
“The federal acquisition of the Latin cross does nothing to cure the ongoing constitutional violation,” said Daniel Mach, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief. “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 rich religious diversity in our society.”
The only taxpayer funds being drained presently are being used to fight this suit!
“Veterans of all faiths have served and died, and continue to serve and die in the war against terrorism, to uphold the tenets of our Constitution and keep our communities of faith safe from government interference. It is an affront to non-Christian veterans for their service to be commemorated by a cross,” said Norman Rosenshein, National Commander of the JWV. “We condemn this property transfer as an election-year attempt to circumvent previous rulings and feel confident that future judicial rulings will deem the cross to be unconstitutional.”
Nice ACLU talking points. Not one family whose fallen family member is commemorated by this memorial has come forward to say that this is an “affront.” “Election-year attempt????” The judge in May ordered that the cross be torn down Aug. 1st! So the supporters of the memorial (probably 80% of the country) should have rolled over just because an election is coming in Nov.? Idiotic.
The group’s members include individuals based in the San Diego area who regularly view the Latin cross on Mt. Soledad and who are offended by the government’s communication of favoritism and endorsement of the majority faith at the expense of citizens and veterans of other faiths who died in the service of their country.
More idiocy. This memorial was not erected with the intent to dishonor certain service members, but to honor them all. There’s been nothing done at anyone’s “expense.” The dishonorable part of this whole thing is that there are bigots trying to tear this symbol down for what? It “offends” them? Tiny, tiny violin.
The Mount Soledad cross has long served as the site for Christian religious observances. When the current cross was formally installed on Easter Sunday, 1954, it was dedicated to “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” No plaques recognizing veterans were installed until decades later, in 1992, several years after a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the cross was filed. Subsequent granite walls with individual veterans’ plaques, and an American flag, were not added until the year 2000.
I don’t have a shovel big enough to clear this steaming pile. Photos of the dedication ceremony CLEARLY show that this cross was dedicated in honor of fallen troops. Families of those who were being honored were present, a Marine Color guard is present and one Marine is playing “Taps,” which is played why? Anyone? Yeah, to honor fallen brethren. So what if the cross was the only element of the monument at one time? The intent was always clear — not to establish Christianity as a national religion, but to honor the kind of sacrifice that the ACLU would never make, but certainly takes advantage of.
No matter what the ACLU says, the US Constitution doesn’t demand that all religious symbols, even if they are associated with a particular faith, be removed from public land.
Email This
Posted by G. Fortunato on August 24, 2006 8:54 pm
» Filed Under ACLU, Church And State, News
Trackback URL:
Comments
11 Responses to “Target: Mt. Soledad Memorial — ACLU keeps the wrecking ball on call”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Thanks for writing this Glib. I was reading over the ACLU’s press release and several things stuck out to me. The first absurdity was that they made a deal out of it being a Latin cross. I found it quite humorous that they are saying not only is the government endorsing a particular religion, but a certain sect of that religion. I got quite a chuckle out of that one.
The second one was just an oddity. Dr. Smith is joined in the case by his wife, Mina Sagheb. Smith is Jewish and Sagheb is Muslim. I had to do a double take on that one. Nothing wrong with this at all, but a married couple with one being Jewish and the other Muslim has got to be a rare thing. Where did the ACLU find these people? Again, nothing wrong with this…it just stuck out to me.
Third, THEY WANT TO MOVE THE CROSS SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET???? This makes no sense whatsoever! Millions have been spent in these lawsuits and the ACLU would be satisfied to move the cross several hundred feet to a church? How is this going to change anything? Won’t these poor offended people who have to suffer by seeing the cross still have the cross within sight? I just didn’t get this logic at all.
Of course I knew they wouldn’t give up this fight when Bush signed the legislation to transfer the land to the Feds.
It’s a United Nations set up. Both the ACLU and the Jewish War Veterans of the USA, Inc. are non government organizations (NGO’s) that are in partnership with the United Nations. The American Bar Association which the judge and probably the attorneys on both sides also is an NGO partner of the U.N. It will probably be a hard case to win. The members are somewhat independent of the ABA but they are exposed its propaganda so the ACLU could loose it but if I were an gambler I would give them favorable odds.
The history of the cross on Mount Soledad actually began back in 1913 when it was originally erected as an Easter Cross to be used for Christian Easter services. It has since been repaired and replaced over the years.
For those of us who have grown up in San Diego this is a glaring symbol of Christianity that is broadcast from public land and sponsored by the City of San Diego. No clearer case of violation of the separation clause could be asked for. This is a clear advertisemnt for the Christian Church to the exclusion of all other beliefs, and visible for miles in all directions. The true trappings of a “war memorial” were only added a few years ago in an attempt to get around those church state separation violations. This has been brought to court multiple times and the decision to take the cross down has been unanimously upheld. The US Supreme Court even remanded it back to the State of California twice indicating they did not feel there were sufficient grounds to change the decision of the California courts. This latest move will only drag out the issue at great public expense.
Perhaps if there was a giant minaret on top of Mount Soledad instead of a cross the Christian community would understand more what the true issue at hand is,and realize that our government should not be in the business of erecting huge religious symbols on public lands for whatever reason. The ACLU is merely trying to protect the minority view in this case.
“separation clause”
The what? Recent product of the government education gulag I see.
Anyway SS, I am well aware of the history of the Mt. Soledad cross as an 11-year resident of San Diego myself. The current memorial was dedicated in 1954 as a memorial to war dead — case closed. I explain that in the above post, but apparently you are only interested in reflexive rhetoric instead of an analysis of all the facts, since you obviously didn’t read what I wrote.
Finally, the cross was erected and is maintained by a private entity. So your issue is…oh, I know, it hurts your feelings.
Why should we care if it offends the minority? I guarantee if a porn shop opened up with a huge glaring sign on public land with flashing lights that looked like boobs that the ACLU would fight to protect it!
I bet that if some artist put up a monument that looked like a giant penis in a public park that shot water out the top the ACLU would say it was art.
So tell me, what is so offensive about a cross? Oh, because it is religious? The First Amendment doesn’t protect religious expression in a public venue? You have to keep your religion locked up at home or in Church lest it offend someone? The First Amendment is only there to protect filth?
The government “allows” religious expression on public lands that is maintained by a private entity. The First Amendment prohibits the government from censoring religious expression no matter where it is. “Allowing” it and “endorsing” it are two different things.
Very nice for legal matters, claiming the site was used for a war memorial. I suppose it works for the moment.
I will not be satisfied until the TRUE constitutional issue is settled, and religious symbols are permitted on public ground even for religious observance. The presence of a cross on public ground does not in any way violate the US Constitution as envisioned by its authors, nor is there any valid Constitutional doctrine that guarantees people of various faiths will never see anything that offends their beliefs. That the ACLU can even bring a suit about some public monument (10 commandments, cross, whatever) that isn’t immediatley laughed out of court is proof that the anti-religious bigots have established a beachhead on our liberties.
So long as Congress does not establish any particular religion as the official religion of the state, the Constitution is satisfied. Until this fact is recognized, we still have a lot of work to do.
SailnSouth writes: “Perhaps if there was a giant minaret on top of Mount Soledad instead of a cross the Christian community would understand more what the true issue at hand is…”
You have a bizarre and twisted sense of offense, sir.
If I lived in Turkey, say, and saw an minarette on the top of a hill, I would not feel offended and manipulate their legal system to make them take down their religious symbol. Instead, I would get to know my neighbors, try to understand their religion, trade notes with them, and in other ways attempt to fit into the community as the Christian I am.
The very notion that a display of religious faith different from my own should “offend” me is, itself, offensive. I was raised Jewish in a largely Protestant community, and nothing the Christians did offended me; they were my neighbors, they had their beliefs.
The Constitution guarantees us freedom of religious expression. It does not guarantee that we’ll never see an expression of anybody else’s faith.
DO NOT try to defend my “right” to be free from seeing others practice their faith. I don’t want your “help.” No such “right” exists.
Phil–
I agree with you 100% about the REAL Constitutional issue, as I wrote in the last line of this post. It is not faithful Jews and Christians who want to limit liberty and freedom of expression, it is the secularists and the nominally faithful (the “religious Left”, you know, Marxists who cloak their radicalism in seductive “social justice” “theology”). I don’t know of any Christian who is “offended” at the sight of a Menorah next to a creche, or even standing alone for that matter. I know of many “separationists”, however (a suit in NY right now demonstrates this http://www.thomasmore.org/news.html?NewsID=445) who are perfectly comfortable with the “irony” that they allow Muslim symbols and Jewish symbols while maintaining a ban on Christian symbols. In the name of “tolerance” and “diversity” any level of bigotry is permitted.
Not to seem off the wall but has anyone ever really seen any other type of “religious” symbol being used to mark memorials and the like? I agree with Phil. I guess you could say I am Christian, but I don’t throw rocks at people who aren’t. You can exercise your religion all around me. As long as I’m not up to be sacrificed, I should not be offended. I can swing my fist all day…until I hit someone then I’m in the wrong. Does it not seem funny that the same people who fight so hard for unrestricted freedom of speech and expression can be so down on , what seems to me, an expression made by individuals. Had Pres. Bush flown in and laid the first stone for the thing and said a little prayer or two there might be a story here.
E of M,
You need to put proof to your point. Please present evidence where the ACLU supports religion in the public square. I can point to many cases including Mt Soledad where the ACLU strives to drive religion out of the public squares.
According to my point of view your statement makes you ignorant, incompetent, or corrupt. Still I could be wrong, so the evidence I asked you to present would be welcome.
The ACLU violates the U.N. charter when they strive to remove religion from the public square. They have agreed to uphold that same charter when they entered partnership with the U.N. I don’t see the United Nations terminating their agreement for breech of contract. I do see another U.N. Non Government Organization (NGO) jumping on board. I wonder why the U.N. is so concerned with a symbol in some California town.
Sailnsouth,
You do not want the government to endorse Christianity and I do not want them to endorse Atheism.
That of coarse puts us at odds as you support the government establishment of Atheism I tend to support the government establishment of a general Christianity(the code of ethics) as a civilization. I happen to disagree with other Christians on the specifics of our joint religion.
I happen to know the founders agreed with me as they clearly stated they did. I did not find any founder that agreed with you that the government should establish atheism.
You do not care since all you want to do is force your religion on others.
That is understandable as Catholics have used the government in that way and so have Muslims when given the opportunity.
I will of course fight you.
I am willing to let the majority decide even if they contradict the ideas of our founders but you are an oppressor and have no wish to follow any rule of law but instead follow the rule you make yourself. You are free to present evidence to show that the government established Atheism in the 18th Century instead of in the 1947 Supreme Court case of Everson v. The Board of Education.
As far as I know many of the general tenets of Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other religions agree with Christianity. I am not adverse to the government endorsing those general tenets.
I am adverse to Atheism and it’s dehumanization of human beings. There are a few “good” Atheist but they seem to be in the minority. I also criticize a lot of Christians because they do not adhere to the Christian code of ethics. I respect the Atheists that do more than the Christians that do not because actions speak louder than words.
The government also endorses the goddess of liberty should we tear her idol down in New York Harbor. What about the goddess Justice. Should we tear her idol down in every courthouse. We keep those statues because justice and liberty are Christian concepts even if the actual symbols are pagan idolatry.
The Christian Cross is a endorsement of sacrifice for those you love. I wonder why Atheist are opposed to that idea.