View Full Version : A federal judge in San Diego says Cross Stays on Mountain .

08-01-2008, 01:12 AM
A federal judge in San Diego says cross stays where it is.

- A federal judge in San Diego says a giant cross that looks over the city from Mount Soledad may stay where it is.

The cross, part of a national veterans’ memorial, has been at the center of a legal battle for 20 years. The cross itself is 29 feet tall, but including the base, it towers 43 above the ground.

“The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice,” Judge Larry Alan Burns wrote. “As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is Constitutional.”

The ruling noted that unlike Ten Commandments memorials -- which begin with the phrase, ‘I am the Lord thy God’ -- an unadorned cross “issues no commands, instructions, or teachings, nor does it express acknowledgement of anything.”

The court noted that the only verbal elements contained in the memorial are those found in the plaques, bollards and paving stones under the cross -- and no one has challenged those.

“Any exhortation emanating from this passive monument pertains to remembering the veterans who are recognized there,” the ruling said.

According to the Thomas More Law Center, a conservative public interest law firm, the memorial contains more than 2,000 plaques honoring individuals or groups of veterans. Some of the plaques honor Jewish veterans.


08-01-2008, 01:29 PM
Good man, that judge. The ACLU will probably appeal to the 9th Circus and this will probably go to SCOTUS.

08-01-2008, 01:46 PM
Is this the one you can see from the freeway? If so, it’s truly beautiful. Shouldn’t disturbed in any way, shape or form.

08-01-2008, 03:39 PM
Is this the one you can see from the freeway? If so, it’s truly beautiful. Shouldn’t disturbed in any way, shape or form.

Whoever filed the suit would love the lighted, musical fountain in Grand Haven, MI-it plays hymns.

When this case first came out, I posted at DU that whoever filed the suit may have a legal point, but is really just being pissy to take the time and money to litigate over it. More people agreed with me than you might think, but the ones who disagreed were so obnoxious. The were very clear that this was more an issue of their hatred for all things christian, than any kind of legitimate legal objection.

08-01-2008, 04:20 PM
Now, I could be wrong, but I think the guy who filed the suit against the Mt. Soledad cross died a while back. How could the ACLU continue a case without a plaintiff?

Edit: Yep. Six feet under: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_K._Paulson

08-01-2008, 04:24 PM
And of course the most recent news has not made it on Wikipedia. Imagine that!


Edit: Until I added it, of course.