April 19, 2021

A Cross We Want to Bear

Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San DiegoThis cross has quite the history:

The cross was erected on city property in the 1950s as a tribute to veterans from both world wars and the Korean War. It was uncontroversial until 1989, when Mr. Paulson and his supporters sued to have it removed from public land. In 1991, U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson ruled in their favor. So the city decided to sell the land to a private organization. In 1992 more than two-thirds of voters approved of the sale, and in 1998 it went to the highest bidder–a group that planned to keep the memorial intact.

Mr. Paulson, indicating that his beef is with the cross and not just its presence on public property, went back to court to block the sale. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals obligingly ruled that selling the memorial violated the state constitutional prohibition on state-sponsored religion because it unfairly discriminated against any potential buyers who would have had to bear the burden of pulling the cross down.

Frustrated local voters fought back, and last year 76% of them approved Proposition A, authorizing the city to donate the memorial to the federal government. They were shot down again, this time by Superior Court Judge Patricia Yim Crowley, who invalidated the vote on the ground that it violated state law by showing preference for a particular religion.

The one judicial reprieve in this case came from Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who last month stayed a U.S. district court order fining San Diego $5,000 for each day that the cross remained standing–giving Congress time to pass the eminent-domain transfer. Mr. Paulson is now trying to block that transfer. If the case reaches the Supreme Court again, we hope that Justice Kennedy’s colleagues share the democratic view that the people of San Diego should be allowed to keep their cross.

Every time this issue has come before the voters, they overwhelmingly vote to keep it– and our challenged at the court level. The latest move by Congress to use eminent domain to buy the land and make it a federal memorial should be the final say– but we do not know what the courts will do. And that is the problem. We have become a nation that has a vote and a voice that is continually told that they are wrong by non-elected individuals.

If you’re long time readers, you will know that I’m definitely in the camp that we are a republic, not a democracy, but even a republic means that the people have representatives of their chosing– and the judges declare what our representatives pass. In this case, Mr. Paulson should be told to stop wasting his time and to find another route to wherever he is going that is causing him to see this cross and be offended.

(Visited 22 times, 1 visits today)

9 thoughts on “A Cross We Want to Bear

  1. Our founding fathers are rolling over in their graves at stuff like this. Out country was never intended to be run by liberal judges. Say what you want about the house, congress, governor, etc., but at least they are our elected officials. If they make a bad decision in our opinion then we have only ourselves to blame for voted said individual into office. However, we cannot say the same thing about these judges that overturn rulings out of their Constitutional authority.

  2. *deep pensive sigh*… It is coming… the world is choosing sides, and the sides are becoming clearer and clearer… People are going to publicly tear down Christ and Christians more and more… I shudder at the thought. I am sure Jesus is up in Heaven frowning down on some of these humans on this earth He created! It must tear His heart to shreds to see so many people refuse Him and hate Him. I know it hurts me.

    Mrs Meg Logan

  3. A cross is an offensive thing– but for a different reason. The cross represents a total death of self. The cross always won against the human– it ended the human’s life.

    However, the offense that these people take is that they have to be reminded that there are people that do not believe like they do. I don’t see these people so exercised about Holloween, Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny– they find Christianity offensive.

    Whether they believe they are doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or whether they believe they are irradicating irrationality, the point is they are absurd– and I hope that we right the ship of Church-State relations soon.

  4. I have this feeling it isnt going to get righted this side of Glory. It looks to me that we are in a down spiral, toward the end… and things are likely just going to get worse and worse until the glorious coming!… on the one hand that is scary, on the other it is exciting…

    I am not saying we should stop fighting immorality, but that it is probably a losing battle until Christ’s final Victory…

    Mrs Meg Logan

  5. Well, all authority was given to Him, and He has overcome the world. The question is, should we be fighting the symptoms or the cause? If we were seeing lives changed by the Gospel, these things wouldn’t be happening.

  6. This reminds me of the battle we had in Alabama awhile back about the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. My view with these atheists that want to take God out of everything is, if they don’t want to see a cross or the Ten Commandments, don’t look at them. I don’t see what hurt that cross is causing them that they feel such a need to tear it down. If they are so against God, why not take their money from them? After all, it does say “In God We Trust”. And I agree with flashnolan, our founding fathers are rolling hard in their graves.

  7. In a way, it’s kind of ironic. They have a problem viewing thngs that man has created to recognize God, but don’t have a problem with the things that God has created to glorify Himself (ie. the world, trees, plants, etc.)

  8. Most of what the judges are doing today in the name of the “constitution” is actually unconstitutional. The judicial body was never designed to be a legislating body, yet they are doing interpretations that are completely outside the scope of the law. Not only are many of these interpretations completely absurd, many of them are the complete opposite of the original intentions.

    E.G. The separation of church and state. This was added to our constitution in order to insure that anyone could worship God in any way they chose to without being persecuted. It was put in place to make sure that we didn’t end up with “The Church of the United States Government”. It was never designed to limit prayer in school or any other of the applications. The new interpretations are having the exact effect the founding fathers were trying to avoid; they are persecuting individuals and preventing them from worshiping God in the manor that they choose.

  9. You’re absolutely correct there, DLOGAN. There is a reason behind three branches of government, and a reason for their terms and the checks and balances. The judicial branch was never meant to be a legislative branch.

    When things are askew, it takes some radical measures to fix it. We’ll have to see if our government is up to fixing it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge