Mt. Soledad bill would end fed ownership

[Sarah Sarah]

H.R. 3810: Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Preservation Act

113th Congress, 2013–2015. Text as of Jan 03, 2014 (Introduced).
Status & Summary | PDF | Source: GPO and Cato Institute Deepbills





U.T San Diego Article



Mt. Soledad bill would end fed ownership

Duncan Hunter legislation would transfer control of cross and site to Mount Soledad Memorial Association

By Mark Walker Jan. 3, 2014


A bill directing the Pentagon to transfer the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial and its controversial cross out of the hands of the federal government was introduced in the House of Representatives Friday by Rep. Duncan Hunter.


The Alpine Republican's bill would place the nation’s oldest Korean War memorial under the sole control of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association and keep the cross in place.


The Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial Preservation Act specifically orders the Secretary of Defense to cede all rights, title and interest in the memorial site to the association at no cost.
Hunter said the bill preserves an icon of regional significance. ~Continues~



Thank you Lord! Let this bill preserve the cross and insure religious liberty rings as a symbol that still stands on the mountain in La Jolla California. Amen.

Stand for the preservation of the cross and the freedom of religious expression. US.Gov - Contact Elected Officials Call, e-mail, or mail U.S. state and federal elected officials and government agencies.




Related

Judge: Mt. Soledad cross must come down




Mount Soledad cross timeline

 

[keith99]

This dodge has been tried before and found unconstitutional before.

 

[Sarah Sarah]

No. But thanks for your input.

 

[cow451]

No. But thanks for your input.

The flaw is that it is being done solely to support (promote) a religion. I don't see how it can pass Constitutional muster. But it's a nice campaign ploy and will help him raise funds.

Maybe, the government could put up Mt. Soledad for sale. Then, the new owners (highest bidders) could do what they wish with the cross.

 

[WanderingBloom]

If I remember right the cross use to belong to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. And when the threat against it started it was transferred to government hands?
Something like that.

Anyway, I don't see how this can't go through. The government is giving this cross to a private entity that is charged with it's upkeep. It's not a violation of the constitution in any way as far as the separation clause, which has no relevancy here.

I hope this bill works. The cross is a symbol that is intrinsic to the Mt.Soledad memorial. The religious right to its display should be upheld via any legal means.

 

[cow451]

If I remember right the cross use to belong to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. And when the threat against it started it was transferred to government hands?
Something like that.

Anyway, I don't see how this can't go through. The government is giving this cross to a private entity that is charged with it's upkeep. It's not a violation of the constitution in any way as far as the separation clause, which has no relevancy here.

I hope this bill works. The cross is a symbol that is intrinsic to the Mt.Soledad memorial. The religious right to its display should be upheld via any legal means.

So, it was transferred to the government. Look how well that worked. Now they want the government to transfer it to a private entity for sectarian reasons. Doh!

There are some potential options. In addition to selling the land, the cross could be moved to private property nearby. Reportedly a nearby Episcopalian Church has said it would allow the cross on that church's property.

 

[GondwanaLand]

This dodge has been tried before and found unconstitutional before.

Actually this sort of dodge has been done before AND FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL.

For example, we can look at the Mojave Cross. Here is the Wiki Summary of the goings-on with that (my bolding):

The Mojave Memorial Cross is a cross formerly on public land in the Mojave desert that was at the center of the Salazar v. Buono legal case before the U.S. Supreme Court.[1][2][3] The original cross was erected in 1934 to honor those killed in war.[4] The cross has been maintained by volunteers[5] and was reconstructed after being destroyed.[5] It was boarded up after lower court rulings declared it illegal because of separation of church and state constitutional concerns.


On April 28, 2010, the US Supreme Court ruled on Salazar v. Buono in a 5-4 decision sent the case back to a lower court.[6] The high court ruled there was no violation of the separation of church and state when Congress transferred the land surrounding the cross to a veteran's group.[6] Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".[7]


On the night of May 9–10, 2010, the cross was cut down and stolen from its place on Sunrise Rock.[8][9][10] National Park Service spokeswoman Linda Slater said a $125,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the thieves. The VFW promised that the memorial would be rebuilt. "This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," said National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell.
In April 2012, a land exchange to remove Sunrise Rock from the Mojave National Preserve was approved by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.[11]

 

[cow451]

Actually this sort of dodge has been done before AND FOUND CONSTITUTIONAL.

For example, we can look at the Mojave Cross. Here is the Wiki Summary of the goings-on with that (my bolding):

The land was exchanged, not transferred outright as the bill referenced in the OP would do.. And, the cross was to be moved to the new location. So, the bottom line is that a solution for the cross to be moved resolved the issue.

But Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California took a step toward making that possible by approving a land exchange that would remove Sunrise Rock from the Mojave National Preserve.
The Sandozes played a role in that arrangement by offering five acres they own in the preserve for the Sunrise Rock parcel, according to Linda Slater, resource interpreter for the preserve. With the rock in private hands, a cross can be displayed there.
Upon receiving the deed, the Sandozes will donate the property to the state office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Sacramento, said Wanda, 68.

 

[keith99]

If I remember right the cross use to belong to the Mount Soledad Memorial Association. And when the threat against it started it was transferred to government hands?
Something like that.

Anyway, I don't see how this can't go through. The government is giving this cross to a private entity that is charged with it's upkeep. It's not a violation of the constitution in any way as far as the separation clause, which has no relevancy here.

I hope this bill works. The cross is a symbol that is intrinsic to the Mt.Soledad memorial. The religious right to its display should be upheld via any legal means.

The key is giving as free or well below market price for the land occupied.

Direct support of one and only one religion.

In this case it was offered long ago for the cross and land ot be sold to the highest bidder, that was rejected by the Christians wanting a freebie.

 

[keith99]

The land was exchanged, not transferred outright as the bill referenced in the OP would do.. And, the cross was to be moved to the new location. So, the bottom line is that a solution for the cross to be moved resolved the issue.

But Monday, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California took a step toward making that possible by approving a land exchange that would remove Sunrise Rock from the Mojave National Preserve.
The Sandozes played a role in that arrangement by offering five acres they own in the preserve for the Sunrise Rock parcel, according to Linda Slater, resource interpreter for the preserve. With the rock in private hands, a cross can be displayed there.
Upon receiving the deed, the Sandozes will donate the property to the state office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Sacramento, said Wanda, 68.

Actually no. The cross there stayed. There was a land swap at 4 to 1, the government got 4 acres for one acre.

Also in that case there is clear history that the cross was originally erected as a war memorial. That is no the case for the La Jolla Cross.

 

[Sistrin]

No truer words were ever spoken, quote:

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

But that is the goal of Atheist R Us in general, the removal of all Christian images from the public realm, largely on the grounds when they see one they might get their feelings hurt.

 

[MachZer0]

The flaw is that it is being done solely to support (promote) a religion. I don't see how it can pass Constitutional muster. But it's a nice campaign ploy and will help him raise funds.

Maybe, the government could put up Mt. Soledad for sale. Then, the new owners (highest bidders) could do what they wish with the cross.

It's being done to demonstrate that the government is not promoting a religion

 

[Vylo]

I would love to propose a bill which simply says no future endorsements of religion like this, but leave ones up that are already there for historical reasons. Seems the best compromise to me, and the cheapest.

 

[Sistrin]

I would love to propose a bill which simply says no future endorsements of religion like this, but leave ones up that are already there for historical reasons. Seems the best compromise to me, and the cheapest.

Yeah, I could agree with that.

 

[keith99]

No truer words were ever spoken, quote:

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

But that is the goal of Atheist R Us in general, the removal of all Christian images from the public realm, largely on the grounds when they see one they might get their feelings hurt.

You are aware that the lawsuit in this case was started by Jews because of the history of this specific monument, right?

 

[kevinmaynard]

I would love to propose a bill which simply says no future endorsements of religion like this, but leave ones up that are already there for historical reasons. Seems the best compromise to me, and the cheapest.

Well than Christians get to keep theirs, and everyone else doesn't get any. That promotes one religion. That won't work. Why don't they just erect a Giant Jewish symbol, a Giant Hindu Symbol, Muslim symbol and Buddhist symbol. That seems like the best compromise.

 

[Vylo]

Well than Christians get to keep theirs, and everyone else doesn't get any. That promotes one religion. That won't work. Why don't they just erect a Giant Jewish symbol, a Giant Hindu Symbol, Muslim symbol and Buddhist symbol. That seems like the best compromise.

Because there are so many religions and sects that it becomes insane. It creates a nasty environment where people are putting up monuments just to try and one up or mock others (see the satanist statue controversy).

Our country has a lot of Christian roots. The majority of people were and are Christian. It makes sense that there are symbols associated with this that made their way into the public arena. I'm pretty sure we can cope with that.

 

[Grizzly]

The problem is that Christians are commanded to create images in the worship of their God. I think they should be allowed to put their icons on government property.

 

[Lovely Jar]

No truer words were ever spoken, quote:

"The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

But that is the goal of Atheist R Us in general, the removal of all Christian images from the public realm, largely on the grounds when they see one they might get their feelings hurt.

I love that quote from the Mojave cross court decision.
So true!
As was this at one time as relates to Mt.Soledad.
"The court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily nonreligious messages of military service, death and sacrifice," wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns in his decision filed Tuesday. "As such, despite its location on public land, the memorial is constitutional."

It's being done to demonstrate that the government is not promoting a religion

True. That's why I think this has a chance and due to the former observation by District Judge Burns.

I hope so at least.

 

[Lovely Jar]

The problem is that Christians are commanded to create images in the worship of their God. I think they should be allowed to put their icons on government property.

What scripture would you be referring to please?