California Conservative

“We need to attack Jesus!”
– atheist Philip Paulson, who filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989.

A California judge has ruled that San Diego’s Proposition A, a voter initiative to preserve the Mt. Soledad War Memorial by transferring the property to the National Parks Service, is “unconstitutional.”

The proposition, which was approved in July by over 75 percent of San Diego voters, has now been invalidated by the opinion of one judge.

AP/10News reports:

Judge Patricia Cowett found Friday that maintenance of the cross is an “unconstitutional preference of religion.”

Cowett also said transferring ownership of the 43-foot cross and surrounding property to the federal government is an “unconstitutional aid to religion.”

“The court hereby finds the ordinance placing Proposition A on the ballot and Proposition A unconstitutional, and therefore invalid and unenforceable. Maintenance of this Latin Cross as it is on the property in question, is found to be an unconstitutional preference of religion in violation of Artical I, Section 4, of the California Constitution, and the transfer of the memorial with the cross as its centerpiece to the federal government to save the cross as it is, where it is, is an unconstitutional aid to religion in violation of Artical XVI, Section 5, of the California Constitution.”

Click here to read the entire ruling. (The ruling is posted under the subtitle - COURT RULINGS)

The city has been embroiled in a 15-year legal battle over whether the cross’ presence atop city-owned parkland violates the separation of church and state.

The city has attempted twice to sell the property to the Mount Soledad Association, but federal courts have overturned the sales because they said the transactions favored a buyer who would preserve the cross.

San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial, sponsors of Proposition A, offer swift reaction to the ruling. Soledad National Chairman Phil Thalheimer was appalled by the decision:

“We completely disagree with Judge Cowett’s ruling. Like so many of our most treasured national monuments that employ faith emblems, Mount Soledad is a secular memorial dedicated to those who sacrificed in the cause of freedom.

This ruling is a slap in the face to both veterans and voters — seventy-five percent of whom voted to keep Mount Soledad as it is, where it is. This smacks of the worst kind of judicial activism. Judge Cowett already attempted to undermine the preservation of this sacred symbol by forcing a minimum 2/3 supermajority for passage just a few days before the July 26 election.

As we predicted, the people rose to the occasion and overwhelmingly approved Proposition A. Now, Judge Cowett wants to change the rules after the game has already been played. It is this very kind of radical activism from the bench that risks turning democracies into dictatorships.”

And this isn’t the first time. More examples abound. From Prop. F to Prop. K to Prop. A, the history of Mt. Soledad illustrates the influence of atheists and judicial activists to railroad with majority will of the people.

In 1954, a cross was erected on Mount Soledad to honor veterans of the Korean War. In 1991, a federal court ruled the presence of the cross on City property violated the California Constitution. To correct the violation, the City sold a portion of parkland surrounding the cross to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. The San Diego City Charter requires the sale of parkland be authorized by a two-thirds vote of the electorate. The citizens of San Diego provided this authority in 1992 when 76% of voters approved Proposition F, thereby authorizing the City to sell a portion of Mount Soledad to preserve this historic veteran’s memorial.

A federal court subsequently found the sale of the property to the Association violated provisions of the California Constitution prohibiting government support of religion. As a result, the City conducted a second sale of the parkland around the cross, this time through a competitive bid process. The Association was the highest bidder, and, after taking possession of the property, constructed a memorial comprised of granite plaques in honor of our nation’s veterans. In a recent decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the conduct of the second sale to the Association also violated the California Constitution. The decision voided the second sale, and indicated that constitutional issues associated the previous passage of Proposition F in 1992 may actually invalidate the proposition.

Last November’s Proposition K was supposed to settle the matter. However, arguably misleading ballot statements resulted in mass voter confusion. Consequently, Proposition K failed to muster a two-thirds majority, thus leaving the integrity of the memorial in jeopardy.

On March 8, the City Council voted 5-3 to reject the offer of the federal government. In direct response to that vote, “San Diegans for the Mount Soledad National War Memorial” conducted the most successful petition drive in San Diego history and submitted a record-shattering 89,000 signatures demanding that City Council rescind and reverse its March 8th decision. On May 17, the Council agreed to let the people decide the fate of the Mount Soledad Memorial by placing the issue on the July 26 special mayoral election ballot.

But what happens when the will of the majority ( “the people” ) doesn’t fall in line with a liberal activist agenda?

Tom Spence writes:

“The day after the election, attorney James McElroy, whose client, atheist Philip Paulson, filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989, called the vote meaningless. “It still doesn’t mean a damn thing,” he said. “Voters should have never voted on it. It’s a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

And what about the atheist instigating all the problems, Mr. Paulson? Last month, the Thomas More Law Center reported: “Paulson’s comments on the website of the Atheist Coalition of San Diego reveals his true motivation is hatred for Christianity.”

Paulson goes so far as to state; “We need to attack Jesus…” Those comments, followed by vulgar remarks about Christ, God and the Virgin Mary are so crude and offensive that the Thomas More Law Center will not repeat them.”

Both Paulson and his lawyer McElroy are on the same page. Both are driven by the ambition not to separate church from state, but to destroy church and the historical underpinnings of state. And they’re not going to let voters get in their way.

Bill Quick concludes, “It’s not a matter of elections”

Smash asks ruefully, “What’s next?”

He offers a collection of photos featuring historical San Diego landmarks which include the holy cross. We can only fear it’ll be a roadmap for atheists and the ACLU to follow for future lawsuits.

Heaven help us.

UPDATE:
JunkyardBlog observes, “As long as judges continue to hand down rulings such as these that stomp on the majority’s rights, the phrase ‘government of the people, by the peolpe and for the people’ will mean very little.”

Indeed.

RELATED:
Michelle Malkin has background on the Mt. Soledad struggle
The Claremont Institute

Open Post at Mudville Gazette, Wizbang!

This entry was posted on Friday, October 7th, 2005 at 5:34 pm and is filed under ACLU, Activism, California, Law, Liberals, Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.