Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Cross has been Saved
Bush Saves the Cross by Eminent Domain
That was the headline in the August 21, 2006, National Weekly Edition of the Washington Times p.10. Recently I have expressed concern about the ACLU’s effort to force San Diego to remove the Mount Soledad cross, a well known monument in the city since 1954. I said that I had heard nothing about it lately, so I did not know the outcome of the lawsuit.
Today I was informed that on August 14, 2006, President Bush signed a bill transferring ownership of the property from the city to the federal government. This was based on a bill voted in the House by a 349—74 majority on July 19, and unanimously approved by the Senate on August 1, 2006. This action invalidated the law suits. This was not a hostile take over. The city had voted last year by a 76% majority to allow the city to donate the cross and the property on which it sits to the Federal Government in order to preserve it as a Korean War memorial. Superior Court Justice Patricia Yim Cowett right away ruled the election invalid (can’t let a vote of the people tell the Court what to do) and her ruling was under appeal.
U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson, in 1991, had ordered the city to remove the cross. The suit apparently had been filed by atheist Philip Paulson. He was claiming that the cross discriminated against non-Christian veterans.
President Bush clearly was not only within his rights to do this, but it was right to do this. Fred Edwards of the American Humanist Association called it an “end run” on the Constitution. That wasn’t surprising, but I really did not expect to see Barry Lynn (of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) jumping in here (maybe I should not be so naive). He was reported as saying that the President’s action was “an unwarranted, heavy-handed maneuver that undercuts the separation of church and state and the integrity of the judicial system.” May I paraphrase Lynn: I don’t like it that both House and Senate, with only token opposition, voted to authorize this action, and I really don’t like it that Bush signed the bill, and I think that Courts should be allowed to rule anyway they wish, even against the vast majority of informed citizens on an issue such as this, because the Courts ruled according to my peculiar way of understanding Church—State issues, and I wanted the ruling to stand so that we could show everyone who it is that is in charge around here and disabuse all the religious people of our nation of any notion that this is a government of the people and for the people that guarantees free religious expression.
It’s like Israel and Hezbolla. There does not seem to be much common ground on these Church—State issues.
For background, see my previous blog “American Christianity under Attack.”
L. Russ Bush
Wake Forest, NC
That was the headline in the August 21, 2006, National Weekly Edition of the Washington Times p.10. Recently I have expressed concern about the ACLU’s effort to force San Diego to remove the Mount Soledad cross, a well known monument in the city since 1954. I said that I had heard nothing about it lately, so I did not know the outcome of the lawsuit.
Today I was informed that on August 14, 2006, President Bush signed a bill transferring ownership of the property from the city to the federal government. This was based on a bill voted in the House by a 349—74 majority on July 19, and unanimously approved by the Senate on August 1, 2006. This action invalidated the law suits. This was not a hostile take over. The city had voted last year by a 76% majority to allow the city to donate the cross and the property on which it sits to the Federal Government in order to preserve it as a Korean War memorial. Superior Court Justice Patricia Yim Cowett right away ruled the election invalid (can’t let a vote of the people tell the Court what to do) and her ruling was under appeal.
U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson, in 1991, had ordered the city to remove the cross. The suit apparently had been filed by atheist Philip Paulson. He was claiming that the cross discriminated against non-Christian veterans.
President Bush clearly was not only within his rights to do this, but it was right to do this. Fred Edwards of the American Humanist Association called it an “end run” on the Constitution. That wasn’t surprising, but I really did not expect to see Barry Lynn (of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) jumping in here (maybe I should not be so naive). He was reported as saying that the President’s action was “an unwarranted, heavy-handed maneuver that undercuts the separation of church and state and the integrity of the judicial system.” May I paraphrase Lynn: I don’t like it that both House and Senate, with only token opposition, voted to authorize this action, and I really don’t like it that Bush signed the bill, and I think that Courts should be allowed to rule anyway they wish, even against the vast majority of informed citizens on an issue such as this, because the Courts ruled according to my peculiar way of understanding Church—State issues, and I wanted the ruling to stand so that we could show everyone who it is that is in charge around here and disabuse all the religious people of our nation of any notion that this is a government of the people and for the people that guarantees free religious expression.
It’s like Israel and Hezbolla. There does not seem to be much common ground on these Church—State issues.
For background, see my previous blog “American Christianity under Attack.”
L. Russ Bush
Wake Forest, NC
# posted by burningbush @ 2:15 PM 
