Mt Soledad Cross (Buddhist, grace, America, myth)

[Dusty Rhodes]

A U.S. Appeals court has ruled that the cross atop Mt. Soledad is an intrusion upon those veterans who are not christian, and, the cross must come down, as it is on federal land. As a veteran who is not a christian, I am absolutely elated that the court is using common sense. The constitution says that the government can not advocate for any religion (separation of church and state), It's about time!!!

[catman]

Good! The Appeals Court ruled correctly.

[Mercury Cougar]

A cross at a war memorial on top of Mt. Soledad in San Diego has been ruled unconstitutional. It's in violation of the establishment clause since it sits on land owned by the Pentagon.

Cross atop San Diego mountain ruled unconstitutional -

[PCincorrect]

Even now as an Agnostic I do not see the need for our government to restrict religion, we have the freedom "OF" religion not "FROM" religion. (We the people...)

Just my thoughts

[Boxcar Overkill]

While I agree that this was probably the right decision, I am pretty apathetic about it and probably would have been just as happy if the cross had remained.

[Mercury Cougar]

Originally Posted by PCincorrect

Even now as an Agnostic I do not see the need for our government to restrict religion, we have the freedom "OF" religion not "FROM" religion. (We the people...)
(Just my thoughts)

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't apply in this situation. If it was on private land, by all means go ahead and put whatever mythical symbol you like there. But, it's not. The cross was ruled unconstitutional because it stands on land owned by the Pentagon, and as such is a violation of the establishment clause. There is no reason that a war memorial must have a christian cross upon it. It shouldn't have any religious symbol upon it, because that wouldn't represent all of the soldiers it is memorializing. It's not fair to their memory or to their families. Better to have a monument that represents all of them, than just a portion of them.

[Voyageur]

Actually, the Ninth Circuit has sent the case back to the District Court -- there is no order to remove the cross at this point. And the decision states that the memorial can perhaps be modified so that it passes constitutional muster. It does not say how this might be done.

[JetJockey]

I just don't get how an ancient torture device is supposed to 'memorialize' those fought in wars...

[PCincorrect]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't apply in this situation. If it was on private land, by all means go ahead and put whatever mythical symbol you like there. But, it's not. The cross was ruled unconstitutional because it stands on land owned by the Pentagon, and as such is a violation of the establishment clause. There is no reason that a war memorial must have a christian cross upon it. It shouldn't have any religious symbol upon it, because that wouldn't represent all of the soldiers it is memorializing. It's not fair to their memory or to their families. Better to have a monument that represents all of them, than just a portion of them.

It’s not a big deal to me, the mixing of government and church is a huge grey area anyway.
The cross is there to represent the Christians. If others feel this doesn’t represent their beliefs then hang a symbol of choice. I see your point about the cross being a "HUGE" symbol for Christians (29' tall) but IMO it’s been there for quite some time, it’s a land mark. To me the solution is to refrain from new large religious icons instead of removing all the ones that offend. No matter who says what about America for a large portion of its existence it’s been mostly Christian and its history is of such.
This is a topic that can bleed into so many different logical and moral tangents that I think we will have to agree to disagree. I respect your opinion and if the cross comes down, oh well, I'll still sleep.

If a Buddhist, Jewish, Christian, Wiccan or Pagan wants to fly his symbol over his dead body it’s all good to me.

Originally Posted by Voyageur

"restrict religion"?

Originally Posted by Voyageur

So ... the fact that the National Park Service won't allow a megachurch to be built in the meadow next to Old Faithful is a 'restriction on religion'?

We're talking about a cross in a cemetery not a church in a park. But to give you the answer you were probably looking for, no. To tell me I cannot wear an upside-down pentagram in the library, say grace at school, and recite the Pledge of Allegiance is a restriction of religion.
If the family of the deceased would like to display a religious sign at the resting place of their loved one why would anyone except the family care? Talk about intolerance!

[Visvaldis]

Originally Posted by Mercury Cougar

A cross at a war memorial on top of Mt. Soledad in San Diego has been ruled unconstitutional. It's in violation of the establishment clause since it sits on land owned by the Pentagon.

Cross atop San Diego mountain ruled unconstitutional -

Oh my god, will the persecution of christians never stop?