should bush do it?

[briannell]

Bush Asked to Help Save San Diego Cross By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 12, 1:53 AM ET



The House Armed Services Committee chairman asked President Bush to help save a 29-foot cross standing on city property from being removed by a court order.

Rep. Duncan Hunter (news, bio, voting record), along with Mayor Jerry Sanders, on Thursday asked the president to exercise his power of eminent domain and take over the half-acre cross site atop Mount Soledad.

Hunter, a Republican who has backed legislation to protect the cross, sent a letter to the White House requesting "urgent assistance" to keep it intact.

"The federal government has lots of memorials with crosses on it," he said. "According to the court decisions, you'd have to dismantle Arlington (National) Cemetery."

Hunter said he had not yet heard back from Bush. A White House spokesman did not return a message left seeking comment.

Last week, a federal judge in San Diego ordered the city to take down the cross within 90 days or face $5,000 in daily fines. It was the latest twist in a 17-year battle waged by a self-described atheist against the cross, which was raised in 1954 in memorial of Korean War veterans.

"It would be nice to see the federal government maintaining it and handling the lawsuits," Sanders said.

U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. first issued an injunction against the Soledad cross in 1991, forbidding the city to leave it standing on public land because it violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

"It is now time, and perhaps long overdue," Thompson wrote in his May 3 ruling, for the court to enforce that decision.

Atheist Philip Paulson first filed suit against the cross's possessive placement in 1989. The city has tried to sell the property to a private buyer. But federal courts have repeatedly blocked the sale, saying the transactions were designed to favor a buyer who would keep the cross. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the city's appeal in 2003.

A city-sponsored referendum asking permission from residents to sell the property failed in 2004, but voters approved a second referendum the following year to transfer the land to the federal government.

A Superior Court judge ruled that the 2005 measure was an "unconstitutional aid to religion." That decision is being appealed by the city.




Copyright ©

[SonomaCat]

I don't think that Bush should use the power of eminent domain to take over the site, simply because I am against the use of that power except in the most extreme and necessary cases.

At the same time, I have no problem with the cross itself. If it was constructed with private money as a memorial to people (as opposed to being an explicit religious symbol meant to impose a specific religion on people by the government), then it seems perfectly fine to me. As long as the city has a policy that allows for other groups to erect similar memorials if they so desire (with their own money), it seems like a perfectly appropriate use of city land to me.

I honestly don't know the whole story behind this issue, so I am basing what I am saying only on what is included in the story as posted.

Mount Davidson in San Francisco (very close to where I now live) has a huge cross on it that is a city icon ... and I would be very sad to see it removed. And to my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that it be moved. It is on city property and is a memorial to the Armenian massacre at the hands of the Turks.

[Hell's Bells]

I don't think that Bush should use the power of eminent domain to take over the site, simply because I am against the use of that power except in the most extreme and necessary cases.

At the same time, I have no problem with the cross itself. If it was constructed with private money as a memorial to people (as opposed to being an explicit religious symbol meant to impose a specific religion on people by the government), then it seems perfectly fine to me. As long as the city has a policy that allows for other groups to erect similar memorials if they so desire (with their own money), it seems like a perfectly appropriate use of city land to me.

I honestly don't know the whole story behind this issue, so I am basing what I am saying only on what is included in the story as posted.

Mount Davidson in San Francisco (very close to where I now live) has a huge cross on it that is a city icon ... and I would be very sad to see it removed. And to my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that it be moved. It is on city property and is a memorial to the Armenian massacre at the hands of the Turks.

if it was made with private money what is the issue with it?

[SonomaCat]

I don't think that Bush should use the power of eminent domain to take over the site, simply because I am against the use of that power except in the most extreme and necessary cases.

At the same time, I have no problem with the cross itself. If it was constructed with private money as a memorial to people (as opposed to being an explicit religious symbol meant to impose a specific religion on people by the government), then it seems perfectly fine to me. As long as the city has a policy that allows for other groups to erect similar memorials if they so desire (with their own money), it seems like a perfectly appropriate use of city land to me.

I honestly don't know the whole story behind this issue, so I am basing what I am saying only on what is included in the story as posted.

Mount Davidson in San Francisco (very close to where I now live) has a huge cross on it that is a city icon ... and I would be very sad to see it removed. And to my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that it be moved. It is on city property and is a memorial to the Armenian massacre at the hands of the Turks.

if it was made with private money what is the issue with it?

Well, the courts have ruled in various cases that if a display, even if it is privately funded, is done in a way (and keep in mind this isn't the proper legal description -- just my attempt at saying it) that makes it appear that the government is actively promoting a(ny) religion, it can be deemed to be an unconstitutional display. The case law is still really gray on this, though, and the tests are far from being bright-line in nature. That must be what is at play in this one.

But in my personal opinion, I think it should be left as-is. If somebody tried to remove the Mount Davidson cross, I would actively fight against it.

[Hell's Bells]

I don't think that Bush should use the power of eminent domain to take over the site, simply because I am against the use of that power except in the most extreme and necessary cases.

At the same time, I have no problem with the cross itself. If it was constructed with private money as a memorial to people (as opposed to being an explicit religious symbol meant to impose a specific religion on people by the government), then it seems perfectly fine to me. As long as the city has a policy that allows for other groups to erect similar memorials if they so desire (with their own money), it seems like a perfectly appropriate use of city land to me.

I honestly don't know the whole story behind this issue, so I am basing what I am saying only on what is included in the story as posted.

Mount Davidson in San Francisco (very close to where I now live) has a huge cross on it that is a city icon ... and I would be very sad to see it removed. And to my knowledge, nobody has ever suggested that it be moved. It is on city property and is a memorial to the Armenian massacre at the hands of the Turks.

if it was made with private money what is the issue with it?

Well, the courts have ruled in various cases that if a display, even if it is privately funded, is done in a way (and keep in mind this isn't the proper legal description -- just my attempt at saying it) that makes it appear that the government is actively promoting a(ny) religion, it can be deemed to be an unconstitutional display. The case law is still really gray on this, though, and the tests are far from being bright-line in nature. That must be what is at play in this one.

But in my personal opinion, I think it should be left as-is. If somebody tried to remove the Mount Davidson cross, I would actively fight against it.

sounds like california courts at their best, move back to mt when you can BAC!!

oh well, reasonable people do need to live in california...

[raincat]

BAC...wish I had a camera on face when I read the cross is a "memorial to the Armenian massacre at the hands of the Turks."
Between the Washington Memorial on the east coast and the Armenian-Turk memorial on the west coast it seems like we must have everything covered!!??!! Maybe not. Does anyone know of what may be deemed "unusal" foreign historical memorials we might find surprising?
I've seen that cross many times and really never gave it a second thought. Thanks for the history lesson