I agree generally that references to religion on public property is problematic. I see two problems, however, with removing it. First, war memorials seem to be one area where references to religion are at least accepted, if not exactly appropriate, since the memorials are honoring the dead…witness the crosses at Arlington Cemetary (of course, the crosses in this situation are a little different, because they are erected for individuals…but it IS public property, all the same). Second, many of these religious symbols on public lands were erected in times when the symbol was meaningful to literally the entire population of the area at that time, so they become historical in that sense, just as the name of the city itself is named after a saint, because the city was established by Spanish Catholics. San Diego is so Hispanic in its history and culture, it seems almost insulting to take it down (although I realize the cross is not that old), because it is like trying to erase that culture. I think that in cases like these, the establishment clause is not exactly relevant…it is representative of the general culture in the area, and not meant to be an establishment of religion for those who aren’t part of that culture.
All that being said, my preference in a case like this would be to have it moved to private land, although that would not solve the discomfort of some who simply don’t want to look at expressions of religion. Not sure anything can or should be done about that.
Fine. The problem is, that’s not how constitutional interpretation works. The justices may start with the wording of the constutition, but there is a whole bunch of precedent that is taken into account, too. After all, if we all know what “establishment of religion” was, then we wouldn’t need the Supremes to interpret things. Frankly, I don’t think it is establishment of religion-- certainly not in the strictest sense-- although it comes pretty close. So here we have two pretty bright people reading the same document and coming to a different conclusion. That’s the whole problem!
I pointed out one of the most recent cases in establishment clause jurisprudence in my earlier post. I really think you need to read it before claiming to know what is and what is not an “establishment” of religion.
Further… if you want to throw away judicial precedent, and just look at the constitution from scratch, we can do that. But I think you’ll clearly lose that argument, since erecting the cross did not involve Congress passing a law respecting the the establishment of religion. All we did was raise a cross. No religion was established-- that is, made the official religion of the land, with all the fun stuff that goes along with it.
The analogy is inapplicable. There is no standard, other than getting the most electoral votes in accordance with the honest application each state’s procedures for allocating them, for deciding who “should” (in a legal sense) win a Presidential election. However, there is a standard (the text of the Constitution) for deciding whether X is or is not unconstitutional.
Pointing to the existence of gray areas, even gray areas which cover most of the landscape, does not rebut the existence of black and white.
You can leave the plaques and shit and still take down the GINORMOUS ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION TOWERING OVER SAN DIEGO.
Would you feel the same way about taking down the Saddam statue or (Godwin alert) a 100-foot-high swastika, because they symbolize a bygone culture that we’ll otherwise forget? (I’m not saying that Catholicism, Christianity or the US political flavor are at all like Nazism or dictatorship, BTW; those are the only examples I can come up with off the top of my head.) They’re symbols which are no longer considered appropriate for public display in the society they reside in. Nobody will forget Catholicism or Hispanic culture in San Diego for a long time.
My arse. I’m part of the San Diego culture, I speak Spanish, I’ve dated an illegal immigrant and I’ve been to Mass and I feel personally insulted by the very symbolic cross towering over my city.
:rolleyes: OK, fine, not every human on earth agrees with one another and, no, our opinions on the SDMB don’t amount to a hill of beans compared to a Supreme Court opinion. Happy?
Uhm, every religion has the notion that it’s the true one. If what your statement actually means, as opposed to what it says, is that Christianity is the only religion to take that point of view or that it’s intent on erradicating every other religion by any means available, you need to be more careful with your pills.
You do know that not every religion is monotheistic ? Of course all religions consider themselves true, or no one would bother; that doesn’t mean they consider all others false and evil; that’s mainly the Christians/Muslims obsession.
The Christian religion became as widespread as it is not by being nice, but by being systematically murderous and brutal and destructive; by murder and massacre, by torture and terror, by bookburning and tearing down rival temples. It is vile.
Actually, that IS what you just said. If you think it is not the comparison you want to use (because, you are right, it is not comparable), maybe you should stop to think up one that is a little more appropriate before you post.
I am not saying anyone will forget it, I am just saying that it is part of the local culture. Like it or not, every region of the country has a history, and that history is flavored by the religion and nationality of the people who settled the area If I didn’t like that the culture of the Upper Midwest, where I live, reflects the Scandanavian & German culture of the people who settled the area, does that mean I get to erase all evidence of it?
Despite this impressive resume of qualities that are sort of associated with being Hispanic, I can’t necessarily assume that you are representative of ALL San Diegoans.
There’s lots of evidence of our region’s Catholic history here that doesn’t involve a religious symbol, well, symbolically towering over the region.
I didn’t intend to say that I am representative of all San Diegans, nor Hispanic; IMO it doesn’t matter anyway because the immediate will of the majority is irrelevant on Constitutional matters.
Anyway, this may or may not be news to all of you, but I read in the U-T today that the city has a federally mandated deadline to remove the cross by Aug. 1 or pay a daily fine after that date. Mayor Sanders and Pres. Bush both want to declare the land federal and start the fight all over again, although to Bush’s credit he’s acknowledged that it’s not going to be accomplished with a swift wave of the hand. We’ll see what happens in the next week.