I knew of the history of the cross, and that should not change the verdict.

To see why, ask yourself if those standing stone, totem poles, erected by eskimos and indians after a certain date and now on government land should be demolished. There seems to be two primary answers

a) Yes, because aboriginal are incapable of real religion, so there is no Establishment violation (as opposed to the actually valid semitic religions, such as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam)
b) No, because such things are part of the history and culture of a region.

On your blog I mentioned the ugly militantism that many atheist groups descend too [1], and this is a great example. That the atheist Soviets and secularist Turks left their Orthodox and Islamic themed structures on government property standing, but that so many American atheists refuse to grant the same right of place to historically Christian sites in the US, is horrifying. (Indeed, American Atheists have to look back to the Cultural Revolution for a similar cleansing of the past. Chinese today regret the same kind of destruction of religious-yet-cultural works by the Red Guards that secularists want to spread between our shores.)

[1] http://themetropolistimes.blogspirit.com/archive/2006/07/03/strategies-for-atheist-activism.html

I disagree with Marvin — I do not believe that atheism is a motivating factor here. But a strong secularism certainly is.

This is analogous to the secularism of Ataturk — a man who never renounced Islam, but tirelessly attacked public displays of it. And I would guess that Ataturk's motives where the same as those of the “Christian and Jewish judges” in this case.

From what I can tell, the issue for the past few years is over whether the city's attempts to sell the land were fair or were rigged in favor of a particular religious group.

You are right in that this is a stupid PR move. There are plenty of winnable school discrimination lawsuits to be filed, especially here in the South, but these guys spend their time on war memorials. Its sort of like the theory of McCarthy secretly working for the Soviets to discredit anti-communism.

http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/cross3.htm

*Every annual publication of the Thomas Brothers Map from 1954 to 1989 presented a geographic legal description of the location as the “Mt. Soledad Easter Cross” after which year (cross case was filed on May 31, 1989) the name of the legal location on the map was changed to the “Mt. Soledad Memorial.”

*There was no placard or marker to be found anywhere on Mt. Soledad Natural Park nor at the site of the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross to indicate that it was a veterans' memorial until after 1992, when the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association installed such a marker with a “Veterans” memorial inscription.

and

* The Mt. Soledad Cross was dedicated to “Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” in a dedication bulletin by the grandmother of William J. Kellogg, President of the Mt. Soledad memorial Association on Easter Sunday, 1954.

“Why are the courts forcing this nation to be atheists?”

I gave a more theoretical answer elsewhere, [1] but here's a stab:

Radical Secularism is a belief system that conflicts directly with religion. If someone is radically secular they cannot be religious, so any religious person is out of reach of radical secularism's belief system. Thus the only way radical secularism can spread is by destroying religious feeling.

This is similar to animals. Robins and Blackbirds compete for the same type of prey. Thus Blackbirds will attack Robins to drive out competition.

Just as blackbirds who were shy around robins would starve, types of radical secularism that are shy around religion would starve of followers.

To me, the most interesting thing is why, since Earl Warren, these people have been so stupid. Secularism has been much more successful in Germany, say, because the German activists haven't delighted in humiliating their opponents. (Some German states still have crosses in the classroom, while no American public schools can have prayer.) Perhaps American religionists have been cursed by enemies, but blessed with very foolish ones.

[1] http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/01/22/liberal-education-part-i-the-petty-troika.html

76% of the voters in San Diego want this memorial to stay. But they are overruled by 3 damn judges.

Why are the courts forcing this nation to be atheists?

The purpose of the cross on the RFK grave is to memorialize an American, violently killed by an enemy. The Korean War Veteran's Memorial Cross in San Diego, California, has a similar purpose.

San Diego's government attempted to solve the problem of the cross (which actually predates the Korean War, a cross on the hill going back to 1913) by selling the land. The sale was ruled unconstitutional, in a piece of Effects-Based Jurisprudence that would have made Warren proud.

The word “promote” in your question seems to be a weasel word. If you mean “To contribute to the progress or growth of; further,” then clearly constitutional acts like allowing student religious clubs to use public school property would be “promoting.” So would anti-Klan police activity (which would promote Catholicism and Judaism in a region), &c.

A test more in keeping with the 1st Amendment would be to ask whether it establishes a church, which it clearly does not do.

Sadly, cases like this will not be the last of the Leftist attack on and deformation of the law-courts. Too bad.

Almost all of these lawsuits filed by religious seperation groups and individuals are about things erected during the McCarthy era, and were put up to declare the area as Christian, and explicitly against atheism since it was associated with communism. Nobody's suing to get rid of the cross ontop of Independence Hall, to remove religious paintings from the Capitol building or to get rid of the cross on Kennedy's grave.

If secular judges were really trying to “cleanse the past” they would hardly be issuing decisions that make historical and secular cultural significance a factor, would they?