ACLU condemned for attacking veterans memorials during time of war
The ACLU is still at it…
From One News Now:
A constitutional attorney says instead of thanking American veterans for their service, the American Civil Liberties Union is “dishonoring” them by attacking their memorials across the United States.The American Legion has announced that it is teaming up with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) and Liberty Legal Institute in a campaign to fight ACLU efforts to remove religious symbols from war memorials. The ACLU has already filed suit to remove crosses at veterans’ memorials, like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego and the Sunrise Rock cross in the Mojave Desert, which is now covered by a box.
At a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, Liberty Legal attorney Hiram Sasser accused the ACLU of engaging in “a war against honor and valor.” He said it is “inconceivable in a time of war such as now that the ACLU and others would be attacking the memorials, the very symbols of honor and sacrifice of our national heritage.
“These symbols and these memorials serve as reminders to all of us of the great sacrifice and courage and valor of our veterans,” Sasser observed. The ACLU and its allies “have no respect, decency or shame,” he added.
At that same news conference, ADF senior vice president Joe Infranco noted that it has never been unconstitutional for a memorial to have a religious symbol. “The will of the public expressed so clearly by voters and Congress is being attacked by a few individuals whose legal theory is based on a claim that they are offended,” he pointed out.[snip]
ADF and Liberty Legal are offering pro-bono representation to any municipality that is sued for displaying a veterans memorial that contains religious symbols. Infranco said his group is on a “search and protect mission” to defend America’s veterans memorials from the “misguided fanaticism” of the ACLU.
Thank goodness that they are teaming up to fight the ACLU for free. The ACLU bullies local municipalities into pulling Crosses from memorials and seals. If you are offended by the cross tough! The constitution does not guarantee you freedom FROM religion or from being offended; suck it up. Atheism is, in itself a religion. you must BELIEVE there is no God without any proof.
Email This
Posted by Snow Hawk on May 25, 2007 3:06 pm
» Filed Under ACLU
Trackback URL:
Comments
28 Responses to “ACLU condemned for attacking veterans memorials during time of war”
-
-
-
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
Wrong. Atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of belief in any gods. Saying that atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
It takes an atheist reduce the most important question about the universe into something as mundane as stamp collecting.
Anyway, to qualify as a religion, a belief system need not include God or gods. Atheists are as zealously evangelistic and dogmatic about their narrow, systematic and origins-focused worldview as anyone. Atheism is certainly a religion.
You’re right, religions need not include gods. There are atheistic religions. However, atheism qua atheism is not a religion. You are simply mistaken.
My problem with the ACLU is that they see constitional restriction where there is none. I would not be surprised if they wanted to take hammer and chisel to remove grave markers to remove religious symbols.
Antheism _MUST_ is a religion. Even if they believe there isn’t a God they must believe there isn’t one which is a god. It is a contradiction of terms and totally negates each other.
If there is no God, according to them, then why fight to remove all existence of God?
Another example of missing the point. The two ACLU California issues ie the Mount Soledad Cross and cross displayed in the Mojave desert(not a war memorial) on government land are purely to remove the crosses themselves. These crosses have repeatedly been judged in the courts to be singular religious symbols that represent the government’s preferentially sponsoring one religion over ohers. No one, including the ACLU, is trying to eliminate any of the memorials themselves. They will remain once the crosses are eventually removed, to honor ALL Americans who fought and died defending our country, not just the Christians.
Also Atheism is NOT a religion. Yet even so it is protected by the same church state separation laws that help to protect the diversity of our country.
Bruce–
Honoring war heroes with a religious symbol has always been and remains perfectly constitutional.
Because the ACLU locates a single thin-skinned “offended” passer-by does not render unconstitutional veterans’ memorials that include religious symbols.
You obviously do not know the history of the Mojave cross, otherwise you would not have added the parenthetical. It is and always has been a memorial to WWI KIAs, placed in 1934 by members of the VFW (on what was private land up until the time Clinton pulled his grand land grab toward the end of his pathetic administration.).
A cross on a memorial does not dishonor ANYONE, but ripping these monuments down dishonors the sacrifice of every man and woman who’s died to keep our nation free. Your opinion is outside not only the mainstream of American opinion, but wildly divergent from what our Founders intended, outside what a unanimous US Senate concluded on the Soledad issue and completely divorced from where the jurisprudence stands on this issue. In short, you’re just making it up buddy.
I guess you advocate the removal of the Argonne Cross, the Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, the inscriptions on the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier and on several other monuments at Arlington National Cemetery, right? In order to be consistent you must.
You must also advocate the removal of all crosses and Stars of David on individual graves because, after, all, these are federally-funded, publicly-maintained and, well, show “preference” (another invented constitutional construct, of course) to those religions. By your constitutional “analysis,” there is no differecne between these memorials and the graves. The mere presence of a body underneath a cross wouldn’t change the legal analysis if we are going to go down this road. But of course, you don’t have the guts to dig that PR hole for yourself do you?
In case you don’t know, the vast majority of war memorials that include crosses and other religious themes were placed by and/or with the blessing of friends, families, individuals and brothers-in-arms. Why would you want to take away the right of these people who choose to honor the fallen in the manner they choose? How are your rights compromised by somebody else honoring people you don’t even know in the manner they choose. I would not object to a war monument with Islamic imagery on federal ground if those who decied to erect it chose to include those symbols. Why is it that radical secularists can’t just leave this alone and let the families, friends, communities and combat units honor sacrifice in the way they see fit? Who and what are YOU honoring by wanting to tear these crosses down?
Bad analogy. There are many significant differences. The rest of your rant is just a strawman.
Huh? A cross is not “the existence of God”. Atheists don’t fight against “the existence of God”, they fight against the constant preaching of those who believe in God. There is absolutely no contradiction in saying, “Some people believe in a diety and I do not.”
“Bad analogy. There are many significant differences. The rest of your rant is just a strawman.”
It’s not an “analogy” JM, it’s the logical end of the constitutional claims of those bringing the suits.
Show me the “many differences.” You can’t. What I wrote is true. Show me a “strawman.” You can’t Jeff. The definition of “strawman” to you seems to be any position you would love to defend, but know in your gut is just too distasteful to go to the mat for.
What is the difference between Mt. Soledad and the Argonne Cross, Jeff? You think your buddies won’t go after individual memorials? Wrong again. Check out the American Atheists’ suit against the Utah Highway Patrolmans’ Association crosses — individually-dedicated, privately-funded, privately-maintained crosses, approved by the families of fallen officers…yet because a couple rabid atheists just can’t take a whiz at truck stops where these “offensive” crosses are in view, we’ve got a big lawsuit.
You have failed to demonstrate anything except a need to write SOMETHING. Don’t challenge me if you come to the fight armed with nothing more than a booger in a rubber band slingshot.
If, and only if, you believe the Argonne Cross shares the relevant qualities.
The definition of “strawman†to you
…is a position you ascribe to your opponent when he has not taken said position. In this case, the Argonne Cross (and others) to Bruce.
You sound very stupid when you pretend to understand my motives. Just thought you should know.
The Argonne Cross is located in a military cemetary and has military imagery embossed on it, both of which make its claim to being a war memorial unassailable. Yes, I know you can argue and explain how and why Mt. Soledad has always been a war memorial, but if it were any sort of memorial, it wouldn’t need much explaining, would it?
AA != ACLU. If I remember rightly, the ACLU recently won the right for Wiccan servicemembers to have pentagrams on their gravemarkers. That doesn’t sound like they’re going after individual memorials. Sure, other organizations may have and may continue to go after individual memorials, but let’s not paint with broad strokes. Besides, nothing about Mt. Soledad could possibly serve as a precedent relating to individual memorials.
Ok, watch as I go back to ignoring you. How’s Jay doing?
Again Jeff, you have not answered one of my points.
The main claims being made against Soledad and Mojave are NOT that they are not war memorials. YOU have set up the strawman here Jeff. The main claim is that these memorials are an “establishment cluase violation” because the memorials are predominated by a cross and reside on public land. The constitutional claim made against these tow would be IDENTICAL to any made against the Argonne Cross or the Canadian Cross. Thus comparing identically legally situated monuments is completely, unassailably valid.
My call-out of the other commenter did not need a “strawman” as, again so you understand, elementary logic demands the position I outline. If the the guy opposes the existence of the Mt. Soledad Memorial, he MUST also oppose the existence of the Argonne Cross and by extension (I’ve already explained why this is, read my other comment again) probably has to oppose grave markers as well as there is little difference using the same legal arguments against Soledad and Mojave.
“AA != ACLU.”
You just don’t think or read too much do you Jeff? Let me say first that the lead plaintiff in the AA case in Utah is the former executive director of the ACLU’s Salt Lake City office and the lead counsel is an ACLU-affilliated attorney who happens to be representing AA. See, right there your little attempt at some sort of victory is up in smoke. But there is something else that indicates that you either can’t read or fail to understand simple words and concepts:
“ACLU and others,” “The ACLU and its allies,” (from this post) “American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and similar groups,” (from my previous post on this).
The ACLU is the prime offender as it has already filed suits, with AA and FFRF salivating like hyenas in hopes that the ACLU somehow prevails (see my previous post on this complete with smoking-gun quotes from FFRF) promising to “address them all.” Again Jeff, it is not that these memorials “are not really war memorials” that they are being attacked. That “debate” has been completely manufactured by people like you who, again are trying to defend the indefensible (nothing to do with guessing at your motives Jeff, just taking the facts in front of me, facts you just don’t have the guts to address). That they have always been war memorials was NEVER even a debate. Nice try.
“Besides, nothing about Mt. Soledad could possibly serve as a precedent relating to individual memorials.”
Jeff, this really demonstrates how little you know about Constitutional Law and the historic use of precedent. I can imagine you writing:
“Nothing about this decision on birth control could ever serve as a precedent relating to striking down all state abortion laws.”
“Nothing about this decision on male-on-male sodomy could ever be used in a legal argument relating to redefining marriage.”
Besides, read my previous post from earlier in the week. FFRF has admitted publicly that they are waiting on these cases to be concluded in order to draw up their battle plans to attack more memorials. Remember Jeff, we are talking about defending these memorials from EVERYONE who wants to rip them down and that there is ALREADY that lawsuit in Utah using many of the same federal constitutional claims as in Soledad and Mojave. Jeff, you really need to face FACTS here.
No, I said “The Argonne Cross is located in a military cemetary and has military imagery embossed on it, both of which make its claim to being a war memorial unassailable.”
In even simpler terms, the claim is that these memorials are an “establishment clause violation” because they are on public land and they are religious objects first, and “war memorials” a distant second.
The Argonne Cross’ role as a war memorial is obvious to anyone who gets within 100 yards of it. That’s the difference that renders the rest of your “elementary logic” false.
My position is only indefensible if you assume you’re right. An assumption that large makes your statement pretty meaningless.
That is exactly the debate. Tell me… prior to running away from his “mother”, was The Ugly Duckling a swan or a duck?
The only significant precedent that could come out of Soledad is a test for determining whether or not an object is actually a war memorial. That’s unlikely to be very useful in an individual memorial case. Even if it were useful in a subset of the cases, it would be appropriate.
You mean there are lots of these things? Gee, why would anyone think giant crosses on government land all across the country violates the establishment clause?
I’ve waste enough of my weekend already. The last word is yours.
As far as the Mount Soledad Cross is concerned, when initially installed it was a single giant cross, free-standing on public land without even a plaque indicating it as a memorial to anyone. So as constructed (yes, it was dedicated as a memorial), it was not a war memorial at all and is commonly known to San Diegans as “the Easter Cross”. Only AFTER legal proceedings to remove it began were ANY markings designating it as a memorial placed. It has subsequently undergone several sham legal procedings to transfer ownership after the fact, and inappropriate local elections as it is clearly not an issue of popularity but of constitutionality and best handled by the courts.
So any idea that ACLU (or those who want singular religious symbols removed from official or prominent public locations) is somehow attacking war memorials themselves is ridiculous and false. It is also falsely patriotic and confusing to the general public and politicians who are not well-versed in the specific details of these cases. The latest transfer was superfically supported by the likes of Governor Scwarzenegger as a bill to save American War Memorials. If these displays were minarets or stars of David I seriously doubt the Christian community would be so opposed to their removal.
Remember the ACLU has the HQ in SAN FRANCISCO or HANOI ON THE BAY the ACLU is a communist bunch of subversives we should boycott them
The ACLU is VERY selective about what “rights” it supports. They also have their collective hands deep in the pockets of the public treasury. It seems that most of what they do is about their pockets rather than our “rights”.
I am a Korean War veteran and I support what the American Legion is doing to stop the ACLU. I only wish more people would wake up to the damage that the ACLU has done to this country.
Jeff/Bruce–
There was never ANY doubt that Mt. Soledad was dedicated as monument honoring those killed in the Korean War. In 1954 (you know, 35 years before Paulson filed), a PRIVATE group known as the MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION was granted permission by the city TO CONSTRUCT THE CURRENT CROSS AS A MEMORIAL TO WWII AND KOREAN WAR DEAD. (two previous crosses existed on that plot dating back to 1913). Only recently have people who don’t have the guts to argue this honestly invented the fiction that there is some doubt as to whether this memorial, originally in the form of a single cross, is a memorial to fallen troops or not. There need not have been any other inscriptions or other designations because EVERYONE has always known what the cross represents. This line of argument is simply a smokescreen to obscure the ugly truth. The inconvenient fact smokes your argument completely Jeff because you have been arguing that there is a difference whether or not something is actually a war memorial or not in order for there to be a constitutional challenge.
Notice the photos of the 1954 Easter Sunday dedication (side note: the reason it was called the “Eater Cross” was because it was dedicated on Easter Sunday…not because of some “nefarious” plot to blanket San Diego with Jesus radiation). Marine color guard, families of Korean War vets, vets themselves. No mistake.
http://www.soledadmemorial.com/web/pages/about_the_memorial.htm
Yes, the individual plaques were added later, but so what? The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, with its God inscription and the two earlier mentioned crosses were added long after Arlington opened. As was the Bible deposited in the cornerstone of the Memorial Amphitheater. Are these additions unconstitutional or were the presence of other religious allusions in the cemetery enough to make the additions constitutional? Nope. Religious symbols on OR serving as war memorials are and have always been constitutionally permissable.
In the cases of the Soledad, Mojave, Argonne and Canadadian Crosses — they ARE the memorials, Bruce. Tearing them down IS tearing down the memorials, just as your false distinction has been torn down. The ACLU is attacking memorials. To deny this places you in the category of the insincere and unserious.
And Jeff — the ACLU’s legal argument has never been about whether or not the crosses (Soledad and Mojave) are war memorials or not (although Paulson did begin the fictional argument in his original filing in order avoid an even worse PR hit). Its primary argument is that these crosses are impermissable EVEN THOUGH they are and have always been war memorials. Your thin-air re-invention of the history of these memorials being religious symbols first and war memroials second is laughably far removed from the truth. I’ve already enlightened you on the Soledad cross – so consider the Mojave cross, placed on what was until the Big Clinton Land Grab, private land in 1934 by a group of VFW guys IN ORDER TO HONOR WWI KIAS. That was the reason they placed the cross, case closed, no dispute. Still, the lawsuits. Hence, there is no difference between these crosses and the Argonne and Canadian Crosses. Their argument is that these memorials “favor one religion over another.” A bogus argument to be sure because, as I mentioned earlier, nearly all memorials at risk have been placed by, or with the blessing of, people directly connected to the men and women being honored. No one is dishonored when the ultimate symbol of sacrifice is chosen by the people who know and care the most about those being commemorated. All are dishonored by the attempts to rip down these passive displays of remembrance.
BTW Bruce, as I have already made clear, I would not be opposed to the erection on public ground of a Muslim veterans’ memorial and would VEHEMENTLY oppose any efforts to tear one down. If I happened to be in the unit being honored by a group who decided to honor that particular unit, I would not be “offended” if a Muslim or Jewish symbol were chosen.
Again, you misunderstand me. I don’t care what the ACLU’s position is. They’re big boys; they can take care of themselves. I’m telling you what my position is.
My position is that an object whose actual role, regardless of its stated role, is that of a religious icon represents a constitutional violation if it is or was, in any way, supported by the government. From what I know about Soledad, it’s questionable at best.
If the courts rule that it actually served as a memorial since the beginning, go ahead and keep it. I don’t care. A cross doesn’t offend me. I see a dozen of them every day. I just don’t want a constitutional loophole that allows a wealthy parish to fill each park with crosses as long as they give it a memorial-sounding name.
Having described my position as such, I hope you can now understand why it is not a contradiction for me to support the Argonne Cross and not the Mt. Soledad Cross. If any of my “buddies” ever cross the distinction I have drawn, you will find me on your side in those cases.
“Again, you misunderstand me. I don’t care what the ACLU’s position is. They’re big boys; they can take care of themselves. I’m telling you what my position is.”
That’s fine Jeff, but the problem is, the topic of this post is the ACLU’s lawsuits.
The purpose of Soledad, again, was NEVER in doubt until Paulson invented the convenient fiction that has become an unfortunate part of the debate.
Yes, but you made several assertions that if one opposes the Soledad Cross, one must also oppose other crosses. I was demonstrating cases that make that statement false.
As a side note, it seems you’re also misrepresenting the ACLU’s position.
How exactly did you determine that?
How did I determine what? That Soledad has always been a veterans’ memorial? I’ve explained it time and again Jeff. It was always a veterans’ memorial and was dedicated as such, end of story.
How exactly am I “misrepresenting” the ACLU’s position? There were several efforts over the years to privatize the land around the memorial, all met with fierce ACLU opposition.
Anyway, you are falling for ACLU doubletalk — again, it has never been unconstitutional to honor veterans with a religious symbol on public land, so the ACLU’s “compromise” (remove the cross from where it has always been) is simply based on the lie that the ACLU has constructed about the constitutionality of the memorial. As mentioned above, the ACLU has OPPOSED compromises that would have (unnecessarily in my view) transfered the land to private hands in BOTH the Soledad and Mojave (which WAS on private land for 65 years until the Clinton land grab) cases. What is ACTUALLY going on is that the ACLU is misrepreseting it OWN position in order to save some PR face. I am providing the more accurate picture.
I understand your first point to a degree about why you chose to argue the point in the manner you chose, but it still doesn’t make your position constitutionally consistent. If a cross, which “favors one religion” is “unconstitutional,” under any legal construct, it would not matter whether or not that cross was on a veterans’ memorial. What O’Connorian standard of reasoning are you using here to reach a different conclusion? It sounds like the distinction you’ve adopted is based on the fact that you just know in your heart that it is wrong, jurisprudential consistency aside. I definitely don’t fault you for that, because I agree with your instinct. The big problem, Jeff, is that your position can’t be defended the way you’d like it to stand.
You said its purpose was never in doubt. You didn’t specify “by whom”, but I’m assuming you meant that its purpose was never in doubt by San Diegans. If I’m wrong on that please correct me.
So my question, sans pronouns this time, was how did you determine what the San Diegans did or did not doubt prior to the original lawsuit?
Yes, they oppose privatizing that land. However, you’ve gone further to say the ACLU wants to “tear it down.” I originally took “tear it down” to mean “destroy”, which is not their position. I do see that you could have meant “tear it down” as in “tear it down and erect elsewhere”, so if that’s the case, I’ll retract my statement.
I have not yet decided if I support the ACLU’s position.
Unless there’s a precedent I’m unaware of, that statement is not quite correct. The status quo is not necessarily constitutional just because it hasn’t been challenged previously.
Again, you’re simply assuming your position is correct, a pretty meaningless exercise.
After about three minutes worth of reading their FAQ, I understood their position to be “They oppose the cross staying on public land. They oppose transferring the public land to private ownership. They support moving the cross to private land. They support individual symbols on public land if the symbol is chosen by individual (or, presumably, his next of kin)” Is that not accurate?
It’s basically the same logic the ACLU uses to support individual markers and oppose group markers, except I draw the line at a different point. I don’t care if a group chooses a Christian marker, as long as it’s representative of the group honored by the marker. What I cannot support is someone erecting religious markers and calling them “memorials” just to circumvent the constitution.
“You said its purpose was never in doubt. You didn’t specify “by whomâ€, but I’m assuming you meant that its purpose was never in doubt by San Diegans. If I’m wrong on that please correct me.”
It was erected AS a memorial to war dead. When it was erected, there was no question about why. To go back to something I wrote earlier: In 1954 (you know, 35 years before Paulson filed), a PRIVATE group known as the MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION was granted permission by the city TO CONSTRUCT THE CURRENT CROSS AS A MEMORIAL TO WWII AND KOREAN WAR DEAD. Not sure how this is still unclear Jeff. As I understand your argument Jeff, it sounds as if you should be supporting the retention of the cross as it stands.
“Yes, they oppose privatizing that land. However, you’ve gone further to say the ACLU wants to “tear it down.†I originally took “tear it down†to mean “destroyâ€, which is not their position. I do see that you could have meant “tear it down†as in “tear it down and erect elsewhereâ€, so if that’s the case, I’ll retract my statement. ”
By “tear it down,” yes, I mean “tear it down from where it now stands.” Moving it would be to concede that the ACLU has a legitimate constitutional claim and it does not.
And Jeff, if the issue is ONLY that it is on public land, why, oh why, wouldn’t the transfer of that land to the private organization that has ALWAYS maintained the memorial be an acceptable compromise? I’ll answer. Because the ACLU doesn’t give a rip about honoring veterans, it only wants its unpalatable position vindicated and its precedent on the books so it can strengthen its ridiculous position that the Est. Clause requires public lands be cleansed of all religious symbols regradless of what they represent. The defense of the Wiccan (is that an ACLU case…I thought that was AUSCS case…anyway) just shows the hypocrisy of these groups — they fight for a marginal belief system on behalf of one person (for the record I do agree with the position that a Wiccan has just as much right to have his/her symbol on a head stone as a Christian does…duh, who would disagree with that?) yet, continues such a dishonorable and callous campaign to rip down memorials that honor thousands.
“Unless there’s a precedent I’m unaware of, that statement is not quite correct. The status quo is not necessarily constitutional just because it hasn’t been challenged previously.”
Van Orden, McCreary and Green v. Haskell County would be directly applicable and support the memorials . Though these are both Ten Commandments cases, they deal with the intent of those who placed the displays and what the displays represent. Additionally, both memorials (Soledad and Mojave) satisfy the ridiculous Lemon test as they undoubtedly have a “secular purpose.”
“I understood their position to be “They oppose the cross staying on public land. They oppose transferring the public land to private ownership. They support moving the cross to private land. They support individual symbols on public land if the symbol is chosen by individual (or, presumably, his next of kin)†Is that not accurate?”
Yeah, pretty much, but go back up to what I wrote earlier about opposition to a deal that would have made the land private in the case of Soledad and would have RETURNED it to private hands in the case of Mojave. This is what I meant by you falling for the ACLU’s doubletalk. You’re trying to rationalize a completely irrational and deceptive position, despite the fact that you say you haven’t decided at what conclusion you’ll ultimately arrive.
“I don’t care if a group chooses a Christian marker, as long as it’s representative of the group honored by the marker. What I cannot support is someone erecting religious markers and calling them “memorials†just to circumvent the constitution.”
Again Jeff, as I have explained, the vast majority of veterans’ memorials are placed in this manner by freinds, family, comrades-in-arms from the very same unit(s) being honored or others with close connections. That is how Soledad and Mojave were dedicated. These being the facts, what is your position?
Again, I ask to whom? Yes, they were consistent in declaring its stated purpose, but you’re cynical enough to know that “stated purposes” are not always the whole story. A gigantic cross, without so much as a plaque nearby? There would have my mind and that doubt would have grown during every year I watched it used more as a religious icon than a memorial. Seriously, now… weddings? How many war memorials actually host weddings?? You can call it a duck til the end of time, but if it has the genes of a swan, it’s a swan.
Because that compromise would open a gaping loophole. A determined organization could erect crosses on public land across the country skirt the constitution by buying the land 100 square feet at a time.
http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/26970prs20060929.html
I disagree with your conclusion. In each of those cases, the item in question was in a context gave it credibility as a secular item. Soledad was a cross on a hill. Nothing more, nothing less.
BTW, I’m sure you’ve noticed by now that I haven’t commented on Mojave. I know very little about that case and I don’t care to learn at this point, so I’m confining my discussion to the case on which I can talk intelligently.
If you say so.
See the first paragraph of this comment. Soledad seems to serve more as a religious icon that as a memorial. That’s why I question it.
“Again, I ask to whom?”
Jeff, this is tiresome. To those killed in Korea primarily. Once more:
To go back to something I wrote earlier: In 1954 (you know, 35 years before Paulson filed), a PRIVATE group known as the MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION was granted permission by the city TO CONSTRUCT THE CURRENT CROSS AS A MEMORIAL TO WWII AND KOREAN WAR DEAD. Not sure how this is still unclear Jeff.
No, not the Mt. Soledad Southern Baptist Worldwide Evangelistic Missionary Society, but the MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION. Jeff, once more, no one who erected the monument, no one in the city of San Diego, not the color guard who graced the dedication ceremony, not the families of those honored, NO ONE until Paulson filed his suit questioned the purpose of the cross. The only people distorting the constitution in this case are those pretending that the cross was something other than a war memorial.
“I disagree with your conclusion. In each of those cases, the item in question was in a context gave it credibility as a secular item. Soledad was a cross on a hill. Nothing more, nothing less.”
You are half right, but you veer off. Just because Soledad is a singular symbol doesn’t mean that there is no secualr purpose. The fact that people have had weddings up there means NOTHING except that Mt. Soledad offers one of the most beautiful vistas in the world. I was stationed in the San Diego area for several years and have been up there. There are also regular military ceremonies there and there have been for many years. By your wedding logic (that if weddings are performed or photographed there, it makes it a purely religious site), then if military-related ceremonies are performed there, it can’t be denied that it is a military memorial. What was that about the duck and the swan Jeff?
Anyway, back to the precedents — in McCreary, a negative decision regarding public display of the Decalogue, the opinion says that the court must avoid a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts” andaviod the practice of of deciphering the “veiled psyche of government officers.” This puts your mindreading standard on shakier ground than it already is being that the facts about the history of Soledad put you on the other side of the truth.
Jeff, do you oppose the inclusion of a Bible in the cornerstone of the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington?
I don’t dispute that.
I don’t dispute that.
I’m awfully curious about these statements. How exactly did you determine state of mind of a city of a million people over a span of decades?
I don’t spout superlatives like “purely”, and you know it. I said “more as a religious icon than a memorial”.
What mind reading have I done? My understanding is that the “memorial” , until all the brouhaha, consisted of nothing more than a single religious symbol and that it attracted significantly more activities of a religious nature than than of a military nature.
Now, if that vista is truly so beautiful that the site would host wedding activity even if it consisted of nothing more than a bench and a garbage can, that should certainly be taken into account along with a myriad of other factors. I have not researched the matter to that depth, so I don’t pretend have the final word on the subject.
I’m just saying that from what I do know, it is questionable.
I would need a better understanding of its context (are other historical or religious items sprinkled throughout the area?), but it’s doubtful that I would oppose it. The graves and the 24/7 honor guard makes the site’s status as a memorial pretty airtight.
“I’m awfully curious about these statements. How exactly did you determine state of mind of a city of a million people over a span of decades?”
Oh come on Jeff. OK, I’m sure there have been some people in San Diego who didn’t know what the cross was and even some people who didn’t even know it existed. I’ll grant you that, but it doesn’t really matter that someone somewhere may have been confused or unaware. Paulson knew full well that it was a memorial and that it was dedicated as such. The 76% of San Diegans who voted in 1992 to protect the memorial know what it is. And the fact that you acknowledge those who dedicated it knew what they were dedicating it for (the intent was clear and this is what is covered by the precedents I cited earlier concerning religious symbols serving a legitimate secular purpose) shatters your other arguments anyway.
“I don’t spout superlatives like “purelyâ€, and you know it. I said “more as a religious icon than a memorialâ€. ”
But Jeff, you’ve been arguing the entire time that you believe (facts be damned) that this cross was intended primarily as a religious symbol and used the weddining argument in an attempt to bolster your argumnet. I think you see that your hair-splitting about the word “purely” is an attempt to deflect the fact that you’ve realized it was a bad example because I would bet that not only are there ALSO military-related ceremonies at Soledad, I would be willing to bet that there have been far more military events than weddings there over the years. Not only that, every time I have gone, the vast majority of other visitors there were vets or familes of vets who’ve made the trip BECAUSE it is well-known as a must-see landmark for those who want to honor veterans, not for those who wish to pray (although I have prayed there…for my brothers-in-arms who fought and dies of course becauseTHAT is what the cross is there for and always has been there for). Additionally, representatives of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association (est. in 1952 not as the Mt. Soledad Mass Forced Conversion Cult, but as the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association) are regularly present to provide history lessons for Boy/Girl Scout troops and school field trips about the memorial and guess what the history of the memorial is Jeff?
“What mind reading have I done?”
Here you go:
“the claim is that these memorials are an “establishment clause violation†because they are on public land and they are religious objects first, and “war memorials†a distant second.”
What you did here in defending the ACLU’s argument is assume that the motives of those placing the memorial were different from the stated purpose. This is exactly what was being addressed in McCreary as an invalid appraoch. The fact remains that the stated intent of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association was to honor primarily those killed in service on the Korean peninsula.
“…consisted of nothing more than a single religious symbol.”
But that in of itself does not make the memorial unconstitutional any more than it makes the Argonne and Canadian Crosses, both single religious symbols, unconstitutional. The absence of a plaque (as if a the affixation of a plaque from the 1954 military dedication ceremony would have prevented Paulson’s suit) does not erase the true history and intent of the memorial, again erected with permission from the city by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, with no complaints from anyone connected to those who are honored by the memorial .
“I’m just saying that from what I do know, it is questionable.”
…and in this lengthy exachange I have told you far more than you already knew, facts that you cannot seriously dispute without demanding that I prove that every single person that has ever lived in San Diego since 1954 was aware of the purpose of the memorial, which of you know is a ridculous demand and serves only to obscure a crumbling argument.
“The graves and the 24/7 honor guard makes the site’s status as a memorial pretty airtight.”
But still Jeff, it’s a BIBLE. There’s no Koran or Bhagavad-Gita and I’m sure that there have been Muslims and Hindus who’ve died in battle and are buried at Arlington…doesn;t the presence of a Bible “favor” troops over on faith over the other. Wouldn’t its presence as the single Holy text included in the cornerstone vilate the Establishment Clause? I know you see my point.
1) “voting to protect it” tells us nothing about why they want to keep it. It could just be that the majority of San Diegans want a religious icon overlooking the city.
2) My understanding is that the turnout of that vote was rather on the low side and the nature of such votes does qualify it as a scientific poll. Yes, this is how we elect people and pass legislation, but it is not how we settle constitutional matters.
I have not made a single mention of “motive” or “intent”. My argument rests entirely on the actual use of the site.
As I’ve said, if it is true that the site has played a greater role as a secular item than as a religious item, I would withdraw my objection. However, my understanding is that that is not the case.
Sorry, I was vague. I was referring to the fact that the entire site consisted of a cross, a field, and maybe some benches. Your other examples are indisputably part of a much larger (the largest in the country?) memorial.
The absence of a plaque is by no means a deciding factor, but it is conspicuous and those little things add up.
BTW, I don’t care in the least about Paulson’s motives or under what circumstances he may or may not have acted differently. All that matters is that the site is under review.
You mentioned very little that I didn’t already know, but that isn’t really relevant anyways. Our disagreement comes down to the very subjective question “Has the site served primarily in a secular or religious manner?”
You brought it up. I just asked you to back up your claim that “no one in the city of San Diego [questioned the purpose of the cross]“.
Using the ACLU’s position, yes, it would also be a violation. Using my position, no, it wouldn’t be.
Nice exchange Jeff. Thanks.