Soledad Cross ordered removed.

[Eusis]

News  story

[Tomara]

So it has to be removed afterall? It's shame they have to remove it, I can't really see how it could offend anyone. Why does it matter it is one city property? Seperation of church and state, okay, but that is a bit extreme. It is not like that cross is propaganda or has voting rights. Unless it topples over and crushes several tourists, that thing is harmless.

[Morwan]

That ruling will be overturned, the Supreme Court expressly stated that religious objects with historical significance were exempt from their ruling (link).

In a separate concurring opinion in the Texas case, Breyer found it "determinative" that the Texas monument, donated by the Fraternal Order of Eagles, had stood for 40 years without anyone's complaining, whereas the Kentucky displays sparked litigation almost as soon as they were put up in 1999.

"This [Texas] display has stood apparently uncontested for nearly two generations. That experience helps us understand that as a practical matter of degree this display is unlikely to prove divisive," Breyer wrote.

[Dios GX]

Took them a long time to realize they were offended. It couldn't be that big an issue if it takes this long to have some "action" taken over it.

Here's an idea: Don't fucking look at it.

There's probably a hundred pagan and satan-worshiping icons, statues, monuments and other such nonsense in this country but I'm not around it nor am I looking at it.

Boo hoo

[CastNuri]

Makes no difference, whatever they do. I agree with Tony.

If it's offensive, don't look at it, don't care about it. Seriously-- if a certain symbol doesn't have meaning or large significance in your religion, just leave it be.

I mean, it should be meaningless to most. Whenever I enter a Convent [School] and see a cross nailed to the wall, I barely notice.

[Ashtrot]

I often wonder what goes through the minds of these people.

What is it, do they wake up each morning and go, "Okay, burshed my teeth, combed my hair, about to set off for work... what did I miss? Oh right, I need something to whine about."

What a joke.

[John]

This is all caused by Xenu!



HAIL XENU!

-John

[Angelo]

I often wonder what goes through the minds of these people.

It's all in the article...some fool got the idea that there's supposed to be a separation of church and state, and like most foolishness, the idea spread.

Here's a fun exercise: find me a section of the US Constitution that prohibits the Executive Branch from wielding the powers of the federal government in the name of religion, let alone endorse it publicly.

[Parn]

There isn't one of course, but social studies textbooks spoonfeed this seperation of church and state bullshit to students as early as 2nd grade, and so people will continue to misinterpret the first amendment.

[Hidoshi]

[Dincrest]

I'm with Morwan.  This'll probably get overturned due to the Soledad Cross being a historically significant San Diego landmark.  I'm not Christian or anything, but I'd love to see it.  It's so beautiful.  Same way, I loved the architecture of churches in NYC that when I was living there, I would just walk around the streets to marvel at the corner churches.  

Are people that pessimistic that they need to find something to be offended about in everything and not take the time out to find something positive and/or aesthetically pleasing about things?  Sure X, Y, or Z [ insert random stimuli here ] may have things you may find distasteful, but I'm sure it will also have something that you'll dig as well.

[Daggerstrike]

 Same way, I loved the architecture of churches in NYC that when I was living there, I would just walk around the streets to marvel at the corner churches.  

I am with you on that one, man. I am not a religious person at all, but I love the way old churches look, especially old gothic churches. There are some around where I live that look as if their design was based on castles. They are amazing.

I have seen the Soledad Cross and as I said before I am not religious. I personally don't care that it is sitting on town property. It would be different if some alderman or town selectman randomly decided to put up a giant Jesus tomorrow, but that cross has been there for awhile.

[Angelo]

I was kind of hoping somebody would actually look, because this is interesting, damnit.  :P

The United States Constitution doesn't place limits on the Executive or Judicial regarding endorsement of religion or taking action in the name of a religion, but there are practical and political limitations on how much one can do so.  For instance, judges are fully aware not only that their decisions must be a direct result of applying law (and the First Amendment governs what laws can't say), but they also know that a higher court will likely strike down any reading of law that tries to broaden its scope.

The Executive branch is bound by funding.  Only an act of Congress can appropriate funds to the federal government, and Congress cannot pass any law that grants funding favoring efforts in the name of a specific religion.  There's also verbiage that a state can't do what Congress can't do, which of course has the implication that a local government certainly can't do what the state can't do.

Pretty much what we're left with is the right of individual government employees to act in favor of their religion, provided that there aren't any bucks from the treasury involved.  The problem with the crosses on public land seems to be that public funds were maintaining them.  But I don't like the notion that a judge thinks he can declare a sale of public land unconstitutional, because such a thing is not within the document's scope.  Unless the government is breaking the laws passed by the state or national legislatures, the judge isn't playing fairly.