Christians pull cross out of ass with Bush’s help

Well, imagine that. After 17 years of legal fighting and losing, religious conservatives and their vassals within the US Congress finally “won”. President Bush signed a law that allows the Federal government to acquire the Mt. Soledad cross.

I suspected that they might finally pull one out of their ass but I wasn’t surprised when the law was approved in the Senate and went to Bush for his scribble. Come on, it is an election year and the GOP is real danger of being thrown out of the majority in Congress. Members of Congress can now go around and tell their “constituents” that they “saved” the cross.

I’m sure it will look real good on the postage free mailings they will send out. Good for them.

It really isn’t any different than when the GOP went ape over President Clinton “protecting” 1.7 million acres of land in Utah back in 1996. They claimed he did it for politics not the environment. See this article: Federal land grab called ‘political’

It is just more proof that the GOP lies when they claim they are for less government. They are for less government unless it is to protect the special status of a particular religious sect.

I am reminded of an article I posted last year that likened this need for religious symbols on public property as a show of power to the non-believer or anyone not of the same faith. I quoted Marvin E. Frankel, a retired U S Federal District Court judge, and do so again here:

The symbols make a statement-not of religious faith. They are not needed for that. They assert simply and starkly, as I’ve said, POWER OVER the nonbelievers…. In the course of that proceeding, one of the sponsors of the creche was asked about his interest in viewing it while it stood on Scarsdale’s Boniface Circle during the Christmas season. To my surprise as the questioner, it turned out that he never bothered to go look at the creche at all, let alone to admire or draw inspiration from it. But on reflection that should not have been so surprising. The creche was not there for him to see or appreciate for its intrinsic spiritual value in his religious universe. It was there for others, who professed other religions or none, so that the clout of his religious group should be made manifest-above all to any in the sharply divided village who would have preferred that it not be there: This is the low road., followed by at least a good number of those who seek for. their religion and its symbols the imprimatur of government. If it is religious at all, this stance betokens a weak and self-doubting species of faith.

Faith and Freedom, Religiosity in America (quote can be found here:

The only thing that is keeping me from putting my head in an oven is knowing that lawyer for the plaintiff in the cross case, Jim McElroy, said they would file suit in Federal court to block the new law.

But the legal fight that began in 1989 when an atheist veteran sued San Diego over the cross is not over. Philip Paulson’s attorney, Jim McElroy, said he filed papers in federal court in San Diego last week to void the transfer and declare it unconstitutional.

“I don’t think anybody really thinks the cross is going to remain on Mount Soledad. It’s been 17 years of litigation, and every court, every judge who’s ever looked at it has ruled it’s unconstitutional,” McElroy said.

Federal Government Takes Control of a Huge Cross


This blog transitioned to a podcast in April 2020.

Even after the transition there maybe an occassional blog post that isn’t a podcast like this post.

Listen to our podcast for free HERE or on your favorite podcast app.

Secular Left Podcast is available on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts,

Doug Written by:

Founder, editor and host of Secular Left - please be gentle For media inquiries see our "About" page.


  1. Wolfgang DelaSangre
    August 17, 2006

    Okay, now this is just plain degrading and insulting. If this site supports neutrality of government in religious matters, why have you made a post that so clearly insults both Christianity and the government by hinting at accusations of corruption in both Christians and the United States of America?

    And again, support and allowance are not the same thing. Christians allow people to make their own decisions (that’s a major part of coming to Christ; because you chose to, not because you have to). That doesn’t mean we support them. It just means that we allow them.

    I just don’t see the connection between “support” and “allow.” And allowing something doesn’t mean you support it. It just means you allow it. If support were actually in there, I’m sure they would say so. Instead, the only case against it is, “Allowance means support!” which is about as true as hen’s teeth.

  2. August 17, 2006

    I wasn’t claiming there was corruption – pandering yes – but I never claimed there was corruption.

    The support for the cross has been based on false statements and actions since the lawsuit was filed 17 years ago. The city and religious conservatives have tried one sham after another to justify an illegal action. They even rejected a compromise to move the cross across the street onto the grounds of a real church – all in their zeal to force their beliefs on everyone. The courts saw through the shams – even the Republican appointed ones – so the zealots pulled the trump card – getting their buddies in Congress to bail them out.

    The cross symbolizes one sect and all the shenanigans the cross supporters pulled was an abridgement of the 1st amendment – as all the judges who heard the case ruled.

    If you don’t feel the line was stepped over then that is your problem. The facts in the case say otherwise.

    The one thing I was going to mention in my original post, but didn’t because it was too easy, was to point out that many oppressive regimes passed laws to legalize their oppression. That still didn’t make them right. It just kept them from having to answer for their crimes until after they were deposed.

  3. Wolfgang DelaSangre
    August 17, 2006

    Well, the fact of the matter is that it is done. The only thing left to do now is go home and grumble about how much you don’t like a cross being on public ground. And for the last dang time, you can rest assured in that if someone else asks they cannot legally be refused. As such, I don’t know why you’re pitching a fit about it. Go out to wherever and ask a Muslim group if they want to erect a crescent moon on the mountain and if they do, tell them they have ever legal right to since the city allowed a cross. Same goes with Jews and every other religious group that you can think of with a symbol.

    Furthermore, on the tyrant thing… passing laws to destroy all references to religion and silence faith isn’t exactly appealing to me or anyone else who believes in the supernatural and whatnot.

Comments are closed.