Comments on: Kennedy delays cross removal

By: mjsolomon

mjsolomon — Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:24:59 +0000

I’m wondering how many folks here have seen this cross and, for those who haven’t, what you imagine the scene looks like when you think about this case. This cross isn’t just a discrete private cross at a grave site (which I don’t think anyone would object to), or a modest cross on a pedestal at the entrance to a public cemetery (which I have trouble with, though I can see the other side). This cross is 43 feet tall, weighs 20 tons, is on the top of a mountain, and can be seen for well over 10 miles around. It’s very in-your-face wherever you go, not nestled in among the trees. (It’s also a very impressive sight on a clear night.) A major concern with the ten commandments cases was integration into a broader context. It’s much harder to integrate 20 tons than a knee-high cross.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:44:45 +0000

I’d add that Breyer’s concurrence in Van Orden also comes to mind. Some dismissed it as confused, but bottom line was “this is too trivial to be upset about as compared to the recent/still active companion case.”

Many people take such an appropriate on these issues, even if it might be deemed too messy as doctrine.

By: Joe

Joe — Sun, 09 Jul 2006 15:42:07 +0000

On equitable grounds, this sounds like a smart decision.

As to triviality, I reckonize there are more compelling religious freedom cases (not knowing CA law, I don’t know if there is a stronger case there), but I don’t think it totally so. A cross on an individual grave is appropriate, but a big cross for something honoring veterans in general is somewhat different. It has a favoritism taint to it. I personally am not as concerned with symbols and such, but many are.

Anyway, this makes me think of Kennedy’s Allegheny dissent where he suggests a permanent cross on top of a government building might be a step too far.

By: federalist

federalist — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 22:33:17 +0000

My post was a bit tongue in cheek. Personally, I think that this Paulson guy’s suit should be dismissed because “de minimis non curat lex”. Gimme a break. I am an atheist too, and I could not care less about a cross on public property. Basically, the federal courts have created a right of people not to be offended, which has resulted in all sorts of idiotic suits–this being one of them.

And, by the way, what these nonsense suits do is divide us. People of faith feel threatened and that their ideas are not welcome in the public square, which could have the effect of reducing tolerance, not increasing it.

The only thing trivial here is Paulson’s “injury”.

By: logicnazi

logicnazi — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 19:12:36 +0000

Litl Bits,

I don’t know if you have looked at the constitution lately but we aren’t a democracy but rather a constitutional republic and the majority is not supposed to rule.

Yes the constitution respects the right of the people to be represented in governmental affairs but then it goes to great lengths to make sure that the majority can’t do whatever it wants. The presence of a senate with 2 senators per state regardless of size, the electoral college and other forms of indirect election are all clear examples of attempts to avoid the tyranny of the majority. Still, not convinced that majorities might not still be able to inappropriately impose their will they then added the bill of rights to specifically curtail what any majority no matter how large could do without ammending the constitution. Sure originally these didn’t apply to the states but, your precious majority (at least of the states not in rebellion) voted in the 14th (I think) which applied these restrictions to the states.

Besides, it is totally irrelevant what ‘THEY’ have as their ultimate goal. If I sue to stop some sort of governmental abuse it doesn’t matter if my ultimate goal is world domination or the forcible conversion of everyone to satanism. If in fact I establish a violation of law or the constitution my side should prevail.

I realize that you are probably just a troll but I do hear people say things like this and it blows my mind. There are reasonable (though I think invalid) grounds to think it is in error for a judge to prevent this sort of symbol. However, they have nothing to do with the majority being always right nor the ultimate aims of the plantiffs.

By: SouthernConservative

SouthernConservative — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 16:55:38 +0000

Trivial, perhaps. The idea that a cross as part of a monument to veterans is an establishment of religion is certainly nonsensical, if not trivial.

By: Litl Bits

Litl Bits — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 15:13:33 +0000

federalist wrote:”"What mighty Contests rise from trivial Things” This is hardly trivial! The people of San Diego voted overwhelmingly to save this cross! This is supposed to rule, according to our Constitution!
Also, my friend, the Mt. Soledad Cross is NOT their only target! Try to picture ALL Federal cemeteries without crosses! Because THAT is their ultimate goal! Though the overwhelming majority of Americans believe in God, whether Christian or Jewish, the small atheist population (and then only a small activist group of them!) are trying to rule the rest of us! THAT is NOT DEMOCRACY!

By: federalist

federalist — Sat, 08 Jul 2006 00:51:12 +0000

I am reminded of Alexander Pope:

“What mighty Contests rise from trivial Things”