Alpine Summit

Wednesday, July 27, 2005

Cruciphobes Lose a Battle

Michelle Malkin, that wonderous woman of conservatism, talks about a battle to remove a cross from a hill on public land and coins the term "cruciphobe" which I really like and will no doubt start using in my day-to-day speech. One of the things that caught my attention in this story was this:

SAN DIEGO – A ballot measure to preserve the Mount Soledad cross on public land in La Jolla easily surpassed the two-thirds support it needed for approval Tuesday night.

But the voters' decision on Proposition A won't be the final word. The controversy heads back to court next month.

Two court dates are scheduled in the next three weeks. A Superior Court judge will examine the ballot measure's constitutionality Aug. 12, and a federal judge will hear cross-related arguments Aug. 15.

...

"Holy cow," Thalheimer said, looking at absentee-voting results that showed three out of four voters backing Proposition A. "It is better than I expected."

Attorney James McElroy, whose client filed a lawsuit challenging the presence of the cross on city land in 1989, called the vote meaningless.

"It still doesn't mean a damn thing," he said. "Voters should have never voted on it. It's a waste of taxpayers' money."


So, when it suits liberals to do so, they cry about letting the people decide and whine about letting the citizens vote in this case, they knew they were in the minority so tried keeping it in the courts. Even though there was a vote anyway, and 75% of the voters support the other guy (when only 66% is needed), they just go running back to court because they're offended and it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. This isn't about any kind of legality, this is about people hating the cross and hating Christianity and when they're found to be in the minority, they try and push their religion-hating agenda on everyone else through the courts. This is a tried and true tactic of the left. The first amendment guarantees freedom OF religion... not freedom FROM religion. The whole issue is stupid if you ask me; people should find better things to do with their time than whining about a cross on a hill.

Expecting a high number of absentee ballots, Proposition A backers spent $27,000 to send postcards to absentee voters. More than 84,000 voters cast absentee ballots on the cross question.

McElroy and Paulson preferred to wage their battle in court, and no one else stepped into the void to campaign against Proposition A.


They are the ONLY ones willing to fight this. That should tell them something. They just need to lay off the entire issue and recognize when they're fighting a losing battle- which is actually quite often for liberals.

Michelle Malkvin also links to Smash who chronicles the battle over this a lot better than I could as he seems to be closer to the subject than me. Great comments there, I recommend you read them. One thing he mentions that I've thought about before but didn't in this case, why is a cross so offensive to someone who doesn't believe in it? Why do they care so much to erase this symbol? Like I said: because they hate Christianity and the cross. It isn't any other explination why they would be fighting to hard to oppose this.

I have friends whose parents barely talk to them (or sometimes not at all) because of their Christian faith. These people's own flesh and blood, and they can't stand their children having religion. Why is that? I can understand why Jewish or Muslim or other religious parents wouldn't like their kids becoming Christian, but why atheist parents? By their logic, there's nothing lost or gained by their children being Christian; yet, they still hate it. One girl I know (who is going to seminary now) was grounded for going to church growing up, while her mother never practiced any specific faith (other than the faith that there is no God). It just amazes me.

|