House votes to preserve San Diego cross

By Tom Strode - Jul 24, 2006 - 1

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved July 19 a measure intended to protect the Mount Soledad cross in San Diego, Cal., as a memorial to military veterans.

The House voted 349-74 to give the federal government ownership of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. The Senate has yet to act on the legislation.

Supreme Court Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy has blocked enforcement of a federal judge’s order for San Diego to remove the 29-foot cross by Aug. 1 or pay $5,000 a day in fines. Kennedy’s July 7 decision prevented fines until the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court rules on the case.

Congress passed in 2004 a bill designating the cross as a national memorial in honor of veterans and authorizing federal ownership of it if San Diego donated it. In 2005, San Diego voters approved with a 76 percent majority an initiative authorizing the city to give the memorial to the federal government. A state judge, however, ruled the measure unconstitutional.

Further Learning

Learn more about: Citizenship, Church and State, Legislation, Persecution

1 comments (post your own) feed

1 On Jul 25th, 2006, at 1:33pm, Louise P. Lloyd wrote:

I am glad the House of Representatives acted to protect the Soledad Veterans Memorial.  I pray the Senate will do the same!

Louise

Post a Comment




Notify me of follow-up comments?

Before You Submit Your Comment (below), Read This:

Thank you for your interest in the ministry of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission (SBC).

Comments are moderated to preserve the family-oriented nature of this website and in an attempt to avoid comment spam. We welcome opposing viewpoints, and we will not turn comments away as long as your views are presented with respect to everyone.

Your comments will not appear immediately and are subject to editing or deletion. We will make every attempt to check new comments in a timely manner, though there will likely be delays on the weekends and around holidays.

Please follow the these guidelines to insure your comments will be posted:

  1. Use a real name, at least a real first name. We find folks are less-rude online when not hiding behind a screen-name.
  2. Name-calling and vulgar-language will not be tolerated. Zero-tolerance is our policy. We will not spend time editing profanity. If it contains foul language, your post will be deleted. Oh, and we decide what is and what is not vulgar.
  3. Comments must be on topic. General comments (compliments, complaints, and otherwise) are best delivered here or expressed on your own personal Web site.
  4. And please, do not type in ALL CAPS. It looks like you're screaming at people.

Additionally, within Baptist polity, please recognize that many issues and decisions are addressed at a local church level. SBC denominational (national) offices have no control and desire no control over the activities of a local church. This entity is not responsible for overseeing and insuring the ethical behavior of Southern Baptist pastors or church members. If your concern involves a legal civil or criminal matter, we suggest you contact the proper local officials.

Issues involving pastoral staff or other church members, local Baptist associations or state Baptist conventions are local issues. Therefore the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission cannot and should not address such issues. While we regret we are unable to assist you, we encourage you to seek a biblical resolution of the issue at the local church level. If your question or submission pertains to a matter covered in this text, it is likely we will not acknowledge your submission.

Other than that, we welcome you and hope to see thoughtful discussions at ERLC.com