Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Mt. Soledad Cross Ruled Unconstitutional

For San Diego residents, article here; H/T Debbie Skomer. Important caveat: explicitly in the ruling, it says that this doesn't mean the cross can't stay up. This is confusing to my non-legal mind. What does "unconstitutional" mean then?

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

In order to properly characterize the issue, one needs to understand one, our form of civil government, the constitution, and, two the tactics of so-called "Progressives".

The Framers of our Constitution & Declaration of Independence accurately recognized that our government in particular was established in principle for the peace and security of "we the people".

Implicit therein was the necessary protection & promotion of all that was elemental for freedom and prosperity (in any civilization for that matter). This included among other essentials, religion (i.e. public virtue).

The notion that the "State" equates with the public in general and is neutral is not only false, but irrational. Any vacuum resulting from the absence of "natural law" and the biblical theology upon which it is based will certainly be assumed by some ideology as history has shown (all have been utter failures of course!)

Progressives, not having the benefit of transcendent proscription to their consciences (much to the disadvantage of culture), nor historical advocacy, nor coherency in their worldviews, choose rather revolutionary means to their ends.

This always included, among other things, emotional appeals in the abstract and redefining language. Being utilitarian rather than wise they find it advantageous, ironically being so "enlightened", to exploit the ignorant masses. Hence, pop culture (i.e. generation of foolish and self-absorbed) have come to believe such nonsense as the following: We are a "secular" country; Governments are morally neutral; Support and encouragement of public religion in America is equivalent to "establishment of Religion". If you really want to see an establishment of religion look no further than the public school system.

Government cannot subsidize anything without supporting or approving whatever ideas provided the grounds for such endeavors. Therefore, all attempts to "cleanse" the public square of religion whatever the form or symbol is nothing short of discrimination of the worst kind. Supporting the Christian religion for America, for example, is infinitely superior to supporting such superficial attributes such as race or sexual orientation!

The arrogance (viz a viz immature notion that what one knows not is relatively unimportant) of the left to believe, for instance, that some Appellate Court Judge can unilaterally overrule millennia of civilization's greatest wisdom and redefine marriage.

In conclusion, any genuine student of the Constitution would have to conclude that any effort to remove the Cross on Mount Soledad would be unconstitutional in the purest sense. I would even move that in the spirit of the constitution the abolition of progressivism would be very patriotic indeed!

Anonymous said...

Any genuine student of the Constitution would have to conclude that any effort to remove the Cross on Mount Soledad would be unconstitutional in the purest sense. I would even move that in the spirit of the constitution the abolition of Progressivism would be very patriotic indeed!

TGP said...

It looks like the vandals had this handled in 1923...

And then "strong winds" took care of it in 1952.

If 'an act of god' takes out your holy object, take a friggin' hint.

Michael Caton said...

Anonymous, I'm having a little trouble parsing your argument. Does it boil down to essentially that there's no foundation for morality or civilization without theology, and/or that government secularism is amounts to an endorsement of atheism?
Here's a litmus test: say on another hill in San Diego County, there's a monument (erected by a government) to the Koran. Would you have the same problem with removing that?

I think also you're overgeneralizing about the people on the "remove the cross" side. I'm a pretty hardcore capitalist type and I'm certainly not a progressive, in any American political understanding of that term. This is true of many Southern California atheists who I know personally.