The ACLU’s hatred of the Mt. Soledad Cross is boundless, borderline psychotic
San Francisco Chronicle: Opponents to San Diego cross subpoena members of Congress
Opponents of a 29-foot-tall cross that stands on public parkland in San Diego have subpoenaed three local members of Congress who supported federal legislation designed to shield the monument from legal challenges.
The subpoenas were served on GOP Reps. Darrell Issa, Brian Bilbray and Duncan Hunter last month in connection with a lawsuit over the cross filed by the Jewish War Veterans and individual Jewish and Muslim plaintiffs. Issa and Hunter were subpoenaed for documents. Bilbray was subpoenaed for testimony.
The lawsuit against the Defense Department and the city of San Diego contends that the cross, dedicated in 1954 in honor of Korean War soldiers, excludes veterans who are not Christian.
The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys with the American Civil Liberties Union, sued last August shortly after President Bush signed the legislation transferring the cross and a war memorial of which it is a part to the federal government.
The subpoenas were made public this week in the Congressional Record. They seek the lawmakers’ communications with the executive branch and public interest groups about the cross, and other documents.
The House counsel’s office is reviewing the subpoenas and negotiating with the plaintiffs’ attorneys, officials said.
Issa’s spokesman, Frederick Hill, called the subpoena a “nuisance subpoena” and said that Issa “has no intention of voluntarily assisting this attack on freedom of religion.”
“The big point I’d want to make is this lawsuit is part of a meritless assault on a religious symbol,” said Hill.
“The cross is on federal property, it violates the church-state separation issue, and therefore it’s unconstitutional,” Bob Zweiman, an official with the Jewish War Veterans group, said through a spokeswoman.
The subpoenas are the latest chapter in a legal fight that began in 1989, when Philip Paulson, an atheist and a Vietnam War veteran, sued the city of San Diego over the cross.
A series of court decisions deemed that the cross violated the California Constitution because it unfairly favored a single religion. San Diego voters approved a measure to preserve the cross by donating it to the federal government, but a judge declared that measure unconstitutional.
Last year, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to block an order that the city take down the cross, and in August Bush signed the legislation transferring the memorial to the federal government.
Whose “freedoms” are the ACLU “protecting” in this whole two decade Bogus Journey? No one’s.
This is pure hostility and serves as a reminder of what the ACLU is really about — the elimination of all religious symbols from public grounds. The Founders could never have envisioned this ugly secularist crusade. The First Amendment certainly does not require that a cross maintained by a private organization, having existed in some form on that spot since 1913 and erected to honor those who gave the ultimate sacrifice (a principle gutless ACLU attorneys can never understand) would have to be torn down simply because an ultra-sensitive person or two finds it “offensive.”
A passive display like this does not coerce anyone into worshiping or believing in anything. That is what the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause is meant to protect against. The EC was never intended to be a sword wielded by a perpetually outraged minority to cleanse the public square of a Public Religion the Founders so cherished. (Read Jon Meachem’s “American Gospel” for a discussion on Public Religion)
Actually, I kind of like the ACLU’s buffoonery in this case. Their PR machine, the one that has put out a weak list of a dozen or so cases — out of more than 6,000 per year they file — from the last decade in which they’ve “defended Christians” in order to “prove their critics wrong,” rarely allows this kind of sustained, bumbling extremism on the national stage. It’s nice to watch them continually step in it — they have not even begun to feel the backlash.
Email This
Posted by Greg Scott on April 21, 2007 9:10 am
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, ACLU, Church And State, Communism, News
Trackback URL:
- Pirate's Cove: Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup
Comments
13 Responses to “The ACLU’s hatred of the Mt. Soledad Cross is boundless, borderline psychotic”
-
-
-
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
87% of the Jewish vote went to the Democrats in our 2006 Federal election.
The liberal Jews have always been one of the bases of the Democratic party. The membership of the ACLU is also heavily Jewish. How does this site feel about these things ?
“The Chatterbox is temporarily read only until I can install a spam filter to stop the jacka**** attacking the site. Sorry.”
Hey jimmy,
I know what you mean. We have 2 filters and they still manage to get through!
Lobo
The website is a technical construct; it doesn’t FEEL ANYTHING!
Re: John Ryan:
I’m not sure how this site feels about your Jewish numbers but I know how I feel about the Jews supporting Democrats and the removal of a cross from a war memorial. I feel it’s just another slap in the face of American Christians that died on the battlefield to free the Jews from the concentration camps during WWII and the support that we give Israel so it can survive the continued attacks by Muslims. Go away John Ryan, I used to look as Jews as friends and Allies against
the Islamist extemists.
Re Kevin A.
You seem to assuming that all the soliders who fought and died in WWII were christian, but there were numerous jewish soliders who gave their lives as well. In addition this monument is for the Korean War, not WWII. Isn’t a cross a slap in the face to all the Jewish (and non-christian) soliders who fought and died to preserve freedom for all? This monument chooses to only honor the christian soliders and none others, it is shameful to say to the numerous non-christian soliders who died to say their sacrifice doesn’t count.
“They have not even begun to feel the backlash.”
Oh puh-leeze. What sort of “backlash” do you think can be mustered?
Matt–
Sorry to burst your bubble…I would not oppose a monument to fallen troops that featured a Star of David. I would not sue as an “offended observer,” rather I would bow my head in honor of those brave servicemen. The people attacking the Mt. Soledad Cross should put their hatred aside and do the same.
In case you didn’t know, these are brand-new plaintiffs in this 17-year senseless saga.
Again–this monument was erected with private funds, was not objected to by ANYONE when it was officially dedicated in 1954 (in a ceremony attended by many families of the fallen and graced by a Marine Corps color guard) and is maintained by a private organization.
Glib -
I would bow my head and honor those fallen soliders at this monument as well, if it were on private land. The fact that it rests on public land is problem. In addition, in 1954 it was dedicated as the “Mt. Soledad Easter Cross” and it wasn’t until 1989 that it was turned into a Veterans memorial. The memorial was dedicated on Easter Sunday. This is clearly a religious symbol. The fact that the Monument Association did some improvments to the area, and attempted to remedy the situation by buying the land is admirable. But that does not change the fact that the Federal Government owns the land, and thus is in violation of the Establishment Clause, and possibly the Equal Protection Clause.
Also just because no one said anything then does not make it right. Silence is not acceptance.
What would be so bad about allowing the land to be sold to a private group or moving the cross to private land? Doesn’t that just make everyone happy? Christians get their cross and monument, everyone else gets to have their Memorial be religiously neutral and equally honor all of those who fought and died, without the Government showing preference for one group over another. Seems reasonable.
To add to what Matt mentions. I live in San Diego and have endured this endless battle. There is a church just a few blocks away from where the cross now stands that has already agreed to accept the cross. It would remain very prominently displayed but on private church lands. That solution was offered years ago. To those who only know the arguement this is a huge cross that can be seen over the entire city of San Diego. Although it was originally dedicated as a war memorial not a single trapping to indicate it was a war memorial appeared until after the lawsuit first appeared.
How can anyone see a cross as a slap in the face to Jews and Muslims? This is absolutely pure anti-Christian prejudice. I am certain that the people that put the cross there were sincere and the cross was for all who died for our country. I keep hearing more and more about Christian symbols being offensive. There were public schools in New York City that had displays of religious symbols and these displays excluded Christian symbols because they thought that was offensive. The Star of David is not offensive and neither is the cross. If such a symbol is on public land so be it. It is public land is it not? Christians and Jews are part of the public. This so-called separation of church and state myth is getting really old and tired.
Brujo-
I agree there is nothing inherently offensive about a cross or star of david or crescent moon. But there is something offensive in the way this one is used.
What this monument says is “we honor these dead soliders for their sacrifice” But the selection of the cross is saying that we are only honoring those soliders who are associated with this symbol. All of our monuments honor those associated with the symbols present (Vietnam wall = solem; WWII = sacrifice of those from all states and territories to free the world; Iwo Jima = the heroism in raising the flag, etc.) This monument shows a purely christian symbol honoring only those christian soliders who died, and saying to the rest that they are not as important.
I would agree with you about NYC schools if they are going to showcase religious symbols all should be included.
As you said Jews and Christians are part of the public, shouldn’t a public monument to their sacrifice be neutral in which group it favors?
Where did the other post go? The one that had the bible verses saying that real christians shouldn’t care whether or not the cross is displayed? Was it your filter? If so its kind of ironic that your current lead story is about filter a site yet your filters do the same thing.
Matt, thanks for noticing that they deleted my comment. Not only the comment on this thread, but every comment I had made on the entire site.
I think that tells me all I need to know about this site. I don’t mind trying to help people get over their bigotry, but obviously this site prefers their slant on things regardless of where the truth is. I’m going to see if I can find other sites that are actually willing to engage in real exchanges of ideas.