Friday, June 09, 2006

Removal of Mt Soledad Cross Will Increase Vampire Attacks Warn Experts



San Diego-Local vampire slayers are going public this week to warn that the removal of the controversial cross monument on top of Mt. Soledad will drastically increase vampire attacks and could unleash an entire vampire army that will lay waste to the surrounding urban area.

"People think the cross is just a symbol but they don't realize that it is a mystical barrier against the underworld." explained professor Rupert Giles who works as a librarian at the San Diego high school. "Tearing down the cross will unleash hordes of evil minions from the Hellmouth which is located directly below the cross."

Local activist fighting against religious symbols on public land scoffed at Giles claims. "That is just hocus pocus nonsense." said Charles Naday of La Jolla. "Even if the cross really does possess special binding energy power that keeps Morgor the Mighty from rising up and reclaiming his rightful throne it's not constitutional."



Buffy Summers a local teen volunteer and vampire slayer lashed out against the removal of the cross calling anti-cross activist "dweebs who are under the spell of dark forces." Summers complained that she would be the one to "do the dirty work and kill the vampire monsters just like when I had to fight the Puss Demon when they opened Petco park."

39 comments:

  1. Lets move it to the Hall Property or better yet put it on top of the new library!

    ReplyDelete
  2. No matter how badly people want that cross to remain on public land, no matter how many times the question of its constitutionality is presented to a court, no matter how many times the citizens of San Diego vote to keep the cross on Mount Solidad - it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
    One of the things the drafters of the Constitution were most afraid of was a tyranny of the majority. Such tyranny occurs when seventy-five percent of the people want to impose their religious beliefs on the other twenty-five percent of the people. The Constitution is meant to protect that minority, not the majority. The majority does just fine on its own. It does not matter that most people in San Diego want the cross to stay. What matters is that it is a Christian symbol on public land. There is no way around the fact that our Constitution and all the caselaw on the Establishment Clause of the Consitution support its removal. There is no way that any court in the land will EVER allow it to stay.
    People argue that it is a war memorial. If that is the case, then remove the cross and keep the memorial. Now, our mayor has gone to Washington to ask President Bush to eminent domain the land in order to keep the cross there. That would make it even more unconsitutional. But if we want to do something unconstitutional, I guess Bush is our guy - he's an expert on navigating around the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Personally I think the cross should be grandfathered in and stay. No new religious symbols on public land. Maybe put in a plaque with the history of the controversy.

    A good piece of public art would be great there but that would be a whole other can of worms and I'm sure the art would end up being hokey and generic.

    I'd like to see a giant Easter Island head there but that is just me.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Cross IS a new religious symbol, the Constitution was written LONG before the Cross was erected. The constitutional scholar Jaime Raskin, among others, said it perfectly at a hearing on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (He was speaking to a Republican Senator.): "When you were elected, you placed your hand on a bible and swore to uphold the Constitution. You did not place your hand on the Constitution and swear to uphold the bible." I wish the Mayor of San Diego had been listening.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think JP makes a good point about it being grandfathered in. We don’t have a slippery slope here, otherwise we would have newer sites of contention. Scratch that, I forgot about the City of Encinitas’ Christian parade, which historically was not organized by the government and instead the merchants did it.

    As for providing the history of the memorial, I think that would be insightful. It is clear that from the beginning it the cross was meant to be a symbol of Christianity (on government land.) Thus it is a big fat cross like all the other crosses at the top of mountains that are symbols of Christ. That’s cool if the government doesn’t do it.

    I think JP should recall that there was a smart solution offered. That was making the property not owned by the government. I think the voters in San Diego got obnoxious and voted that option down (and many just failed to have a clue). Some were OFFENDED by the constitution of the USA and snubbed their noses at it.

    I think it is totally bizarre how many of the same activists are trying to preserve the cross at its current location. They get offended and turn around and call constitutionalists whiners. It is also very scary how many of those activists interpret (or say they do) the action to remove the cross as synonymous with attempts to remove Christianity from “the public square.” In other word this is Christian persecution. That rhetoric just confuses the issue.

    Public displays are not equal to government displays and lucky for them/us the constitution protects their right to bring Christ into the public square. It is also very bizarre how many of the same activists rail against “activist judges,” but now that the constitution gets in the way of keeping the cross in government hands they want judges to become activists and override the will of the people to live under the constitution.

    Check out http://www.voiceofsandiego.com for all sorts of dialogue on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. The cross is a religious symbol and it is a small group of Christians that have turned this into a religious fight. That only makes the Cross more of a symbol of a specific religion being sanctioned by the goverment. That is neither good nor constitutional.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Encinitas Community Center was/is used for a church on Sundays. It's used during the hours the center is listed as closed to the public. Put the cross on the community center.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Didn't you guys read the story? Vampires will attack us if we tear down the cross.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Encinitas community center is being used as a church. Put a cross on the city's community center to serve a dual purpose; the church can have the cross, and the community center will be protected from vampire attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  10. How would you feel if the Star of David or the symbol of Islam were on top of Mt. Soledad? This is public land, therefore, it should not be used to promote any one religion. We are a nation of many religions, and the Cross is directly related to Christianity. Why don't we take down the cross and put up an American flag to honor the men and weomen who served in the war?

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Why don't we take down the cross and put up an American flag to honor the men and weomen who served in the war?"

    Dood, I am totally offended by both war and the American flag; this is public land, therefore, it should not be used to promote any one political bent. We are a nation of many outlooks and sensitivities, and the flag is directly related to war.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Why the excitement over the Mt. Soledad cross? The city of Encinitas lets a church hold services in the community center, a public facility, on Sundays. Church services or a cross on public land have the same constitutional question.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "Church services or a cross on public land have the same constitutional question"

    The room is rented. Anyone can rent the room. The City does not sponser the services. Not the same.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Perhaps the room isn't rented.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Let's put up a Star of David, a big gold Buddha, a giant wood tiki, a totem pole, and whatever else we can think of. That would be sweet.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Madeline Murray O'HareJune 09, 2006 5:50 PM

    It's not Jews nor Muslims that oppose the cross it's Atheists. Our God is "No God"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Eric,

    In case you are serious, the issue is not about being "offended," no matter how many times you frame that as the issue (btw are you offended by the cross being moved?). It is about whether or not the government can actively sanction organized religion (a device of man). Be careful, I do not advocate or know of any restriction on the government being lead and influenced by those who ARE Christians. The constitution does not restrict Christians from operating in government. We bring our Christian values to the table and use those values to bring a better path to all. On the other hand, our government is wisely restricted from BEING any religious denomination.

    Why is this wise? There are many stronger reasons, but here is the most ignored. Take the celebration of Christmas. Some Christians have been against its celebration and Christmas has even been OUTLAWED at various times/places in America’s history. Yes way! A separation of Church and state PROTECTS us from having things like Christmas TAKEN from us. There is some irony because it turns out that it was hardcore Christians that outlawed Christmas.

    See the following links for American Christians who ran government and who were against Christmas.
    http://www.historychannel.com/exhibits/holidays/christmas/real3.html
    http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1967/1/1967_1_107.shtml

    That alone is probably one of the reasons the founding fathers didn’t want the state to be religious [in the end the CONSTITUTION is what they decided upon, regardless of what some wrote in position papers]. Well, maybe outlawing Christmas wasn’t a reason, because the first congress worked on Christmas and did not recognize it as a day to rejoice.

    We role the dice if we let government decide what our religious values should be. Very likely to come up unlucky in the long run, especially in a theocracy where political power is tied to religious infrastructure. Do you want the Pope making political and religious decisions for you? Do you want Jerry “big bucks” Falwell in charge instead? Maybe Kip McKean?

    That is a far stretch from an issue about a cross on a hill, but both sides have made this mountain into a symbol of our democracy and our American values. It scares me that so many Christians don’t even recognize true American values and that their religious leaders are creating false descriptions about basic tenants of American foundations. It is easy for them to do this because they have mixed religion with politics. That ease is the very reason the City of San Diego should separate itself at all levels from religion. They should sell the mountain to a church. Done and then everyone is happy.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Madeline"

    You are wrong. Our government is wisely designed to take no position. No God is a position.

    Just as I am not really Cotton Mather you are not Madeline.

    The real Madeline is an atheist that obviously would think that letting the Church use the community center was a bad idea. I don't think she is right but even more important there are no lines that are crossed by allowing a group (religious or not) to use public facilities (or air waves) if the government is not sponsoring the group.

    Imposing Madeline’s position would be unconstitutional which is why she has not been successful. It is a good thing we got one of those Constitution documents, because without it someone like Madeline could become President and force us to give up Christian activities.

    God bless America (also known as the constitution)

    Cotton Mather

    ReplyDelete
  19. Lets put that dude they just blew up in Iraqs head on the cross. Call it a war trophy memorial.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Kinda like the guys they hung on the bridge!

    ReplyDelete
  21. This is off topic, but we just discovered a mistake. We believe our mayor, Christy Guerin, did get some kind of award through the Workers' Compensation Board; however, the individual who appealed in 2001 was Alfred Guerin, not Christy Guerin.

    Sorry for any confusion.

    Here's the link:
    Here’s the link about the Guerin deal:

    http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/partiesAndAttorneys.cfm?dist=41&doc_id=35906&doc_no=D037714

    You can paste that into your address browser, taking out any spaces, and this will take you to the court info web site.

    Our apologies for any misunderstanding. We wish we could ask some questions directly, and get them answered by the candidates, themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  22. the shadow knowsJune 09, 2006 8:25 PM

    my understanding is that the mayor left the force under a cloud. She gave a sworn statement in a case where the person arrested said they were brutalized by the arresting officers. Her statement was that the officers did not use excessive force. Unfortunately, she was in Arizona at the time of the alledged brutality and so could not have witnessed anything. At least that is the story that I heard from a lady in Oceanside. I never checked up on it because it was water under the bridge, foul water if true, but still, old news.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cotton has been attending too many witchcraft trials.

    ReplyDelete
  24. when the Vampires cross over from the underworld will Busby counsel them on how to cast a vote?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Christy Guerin served the County and the Sheriff's Department admirable. She retired, like many others, with a disability. She does not have any appeals pending and her work comp case was settled many many years ago. Alfred Guerin is her husband who is a current commander on the Sheriff's Department. He has served and is serving with great distinction. He also has had dealings with the county and work comp. Most people in that job have been injured and have had to deal with work comp at one time or another. He is not retired and is still working.

    If you want to affect Christy Guerin you should look at a different angle. I don't think your infatuation with her work comp settlement is going to get you any traction.

    She does not have a cross in her yard but, as mayor, she does let a church use the community center.

    Heck, she might even know some vampires. Perhaps we should see if she has endorsed any vampires in the past. If true we should work hard to move the Soledad Cross to the community center.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dear BossypantsJune 10, 2006 1:08 PM

    Wow, Bossypants Guerin, was that you? Thanks for letting us know that both you and your husband got Workmans' Comp settlements. Could you answer our questions about the excessive force question that you allegedly were involved in with a teenage girl, whom you roughly put into handcuffs, for a traffic violation while you were on the force? Did you really appear on Judge Judy regarding this little fiasco, and lose, in her tv courtroom?

    Did you really give out someone's personal information, and get called on it, or was that the same incident that you just "fessed up" to?

    Thanks for answering the original question though, about who Alfred is. Yes, many police do get disability as well as retirement, in Christy Guerin's case. We cannot afford to pay for all your junkets for developers, junkets to Japan, two workman comp awards for your household, plus all the lawsuits you instigate, or cause, by your wrongheaded, meanhearted actions on City Council, and now, unfortuantely, as mayor.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't care if you let a church rent a room on Sundays. But then other rooms should be open to other groups, or clubs on Sunday, if requested. I hope the whole Community Center is not dedicated to one Church's services, and is unavailable to others on Sundays.

    As far as the cross, I used to go up there. I didn't like the fence they put around it. I don't go anymore. It was too much of a "scene" last time I went. I believe that the citizens of SD could have voted to let the City sell it to a private group. Because they chose to keep it public, they kind of took the power out of their own hands. The Courts have consistently ruled that our country was set up to "respect" the separation of church and state. When we don't, as with Bush and his tactics which are claimed to be "divinely inspired," then again, the power is taken out of our hands and turned over to those who presume to play God.

    You have played God with us, Bossypants, but having the big guns doesn't make you right. Might doesn't make right.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Vee believe een nutteen Lebowski, nutteen!

    ReplyDelete
  29. The City did try to sell the land to the public for $1.00. The court overturned this, stating that the value of the land is worth a lot more than that.The City did not try to sell it for the real value.
    With regard to Eric's statement that our flag represents war, I disagree. I have not supported any war since WW2. Our flag also represents democracy, freedom, and free sppech ( or you wouldn't be able to post on a any blog). Just because we have some people that tend to think war is always the answer, doesn't mean we are all war mongers. Personally, I would not like to live anywhere else in the world, despite our leadership, or lack of.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The Mt Soledad cross needs a bloody Jesus nailed to it like they have in the gothic churches of mainland Mexico. That would be awesome.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Perfect law school exam question: A church wants to hold services at a community center and also wants to sponsor a cross to be erected at the center. Can the city allow the church to do either of these things? First, they MUST let the church hold services, if the center is available to the public for group meetings. To not allow them to rent it would be content-based discrimination and unconstitutional. It would also probably violate the free-exercise clause of the Constitution. However, the City could not put up the Cross at the community center because that would violate the Establishment Clause. How about we sell an eighth of an acre of the Hall property back to Mr. Hall and THEN put it there.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Perfect law school exam question: A Mayor of a town allows a church to hold religious services in the city's community center build with taxpayer money. The church holds services in several large rooms during the hours the center is closed to the public. Other religious groups also want the same special treatment. The Mayor tells the other groups there isn't enough room for them at the the center. Under what theory do the other groups sue the city?

    ReplyDelete
  33. see, this is what i like about you, J.P.: you're always thinkin'. MissesH and i were perfectly willing to sit back and leave all this to people who care one way or another - then you come along with an important reminder about unintended consequences. this, my friend, is why you make the medium dollars. you've got vision and the rest of the world is wearing bifocals.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Anonymous,

    I was not being exactly serious, but maybe just a little.

    I completely understand where you are coming from, but seriously, what's next?

    The demo'ing of the California missions?

    ReplyDelete
  35. I say we put the Cross on the Ecke Ranch. Proposition C (for Christ or Cross, whichever)should be put on the November ballot. Our slogan could be "Bring Christ to Encinitas". The Cross could be placed in a field of poinsettias - the only thing that says Christmas better than Christ is a poinsettia field. The Cross is more identified with Easter, so I guess the field could be like an homage to the entire Christian message. Good stuff - and on private land. I'm gonna call Christ-y.

    ReplyDelete
  36. We all have a cross to bear, don't we. How about on SRF land right at the peak overlooking Swami's? That would make a splash.

    ReplyDelete
  37. What's the answer?June 13, 2006 4:15 PM

    I thought that was a good law school exam question.

    It seems to me that one group, one church should not be able to monopolize the rooms. If one group, only has access on Sunday, then the groups need to rotate in and out of the Community Center. Oh, is the Hall property going to be used for church services too at the teen center or at the newly proposed Amphitheater?

    This exclusive church rental sure doesn't make sense to me, at all. I guess one would sue due to lack of equal protection under the law. Or religious bias, recognizing one church and not the other?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Law School Answer:
    It has been a while since law school, but my recollection of Constitutional Law is pretty good. I think the issue would be whether or not the community center was available for rental to any group, religious or not. If it was, then a church could rent it, all of it if it was available. The City could not say, "We do not rent to churches." That would be content-based discrimination (discrimination that is based upon the message being conveyed in the meeting)and unconstitutional. However, if the center was not available to other groups, and the City decided to make a special exception for this particular church, that would be a violation of the Establishment Clause because the City would be establishing this religious message. It would also probably be content-based discrimination against any other groups who had been excluded in the past. Now, that is an interesting suggestion to allow other churches to rotate into the center. I don't know if that is feasible. In the abstract that sounds great, but think about how many churches there are. The City would then need to put every church that requested equal time into the rotation ad infinitum. I don't think they could be constitutionally required to do that. I think the bottom line is, so long as the center was available for rental to any group who wanted to rent it, if the church got there first, it's ok. Perhaps someone could find out the rental policy at the center. I think this is a pretty important issue. Our country is getting PRETTY scary with the Jesus stuff.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The "Jesus" stuff is our hope, not our fears. The blind without critical thinking skills that promote a religious take over of the GOVERNMENT is the scary thing.

    You can read Chapter 4 of American Theocracy (author was a Nixon staffer) at http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5290373

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.