Mt Soledad, A Mockery of Common Sense
While following a link regarding comment on a suicide bombing occurring during a popular football game, I stumbled on an article about the Mt Soledad Cross debacle being acted out in San Diego. I have a special attachment to that spot since I used to view it from my neighborhood when I lived in San Diego. My kids and I even hiked up the steep side over looking I-5 in the early 1980's. For some reason I have always enjoyed seeing and revisiting that special place. Even navigating the twisting steep roads between desirable residences to get to the top has a special allure for me.
This attraction has little to do with religious conviction, although I do feel a certain peace knowing that the cross is a symbol in our society for a set of values centered on being nice to each other and honoring good. I would be willing to object to its destruction just on these personal positions alone.
Now comes along an individual who is obviously on a different wave-length regarding the symbol of the cross and finds it offensive to the extent that he is willing to make it his prime purpose of existence to see that it’s destroyed. Although I might question the sanity of such a pursuit I will argue that he has a right to express his opinion and pursue his hearts desire as long as he doesn't break the law. However, this liberty I grant him is only with the belief that common sense will prevail. By this I include the kind of sense that is held in common by most of the people that would be affected by the results of the action proposed.
Here's where this issue becomes scary. The courts of both the State of California and the Federal Government seem bent on finding reasons to disallow the reasonable attempts of the City of San Diego to resolve this issue even to the extent of disregarding the results of a referendum put before the people where more than 80% want to leave the cross where it has been for decades. The State Judge even managed to manipulate the law to require that a 70% majority be required for the referendum to be valid, and after it was validated found reason to rule against it anyway. The Fed Court shoots down the City for trying to comply with the State Courts mandate to quit maintaining the cross with public funds because the City proposed turning over the property to another entity that the Court thinks is likely to keep the cross just like the people of San Diego say they want.
Is there something wrong with this picture, or could it be that I don't really understand how harmful this cross symbol is to the people of San Diego but the Court does?
My frustration is shared by a fellow blogger, Ninme, who used these expressions regarding some comments challenging the validity of the newly proposed Supreme Court nominee because she was a religious person:
"... I would have said it was unconstitutional ....... to vote against her because of her religion."
"Of course that never occurred to anyone [the people involved in the validity discussion] so the very strong feeling I have that I'm living in an alternate universe only intensified and I'm quickly being reduced to the state of gibbering idiocy. I wonder if they'd let me blog from the asylum?"
"It's just so insane. It's like you're watching a crowd of people through two-way glass talking about how things have changed since the sky turned green, and you want to but can't scream at them "It's blue! It's blue, you idiots!" But they can't hear you. And all this time you thought they knew what colour the sky is."
Something is terribly wrong with having justice met out by Judges blind to common sense. I don't believe that "Blind Justice" was intended to include "Stupid". It's like that General said about recovering New Orleans from Katrina, "Lets not get stuck on stupid".
May the people of San Diego prevail .....so they won't have to change the name of their baseball team too.
This attraction has little to do with religious conviction, although I do feel a certain peace knowing that the cross is a symbol in our society for a set of values centered on being nice to each other and honoring good. I would be willing to object to its destruction just on these personal positions alone.
Now comes along an individual who is obviously on a different wave-length regarding the symbol of the cross and finds it offensive to the extent that he is willing to make it his prime purpose of existence to see that it’s destroyed. Although I might question the sanity of such a pursuit I will argue that he has a right to express his opinion and pursue his hearts desire as long as he doesn't break the law. However, this liberty I grant him is only with the belief that common sense will prevail. By this I include the kind of sense that is held in common by most of the people that would be affected by the results of the action proposed.
Here's where this issue becomes scary. The courts of both the State of California and the Federal Government seem bent on finding reasons to disallow the reasonable attempts of the City of San Diego to resolve this issue even to the extent of disregarding the results of a referendum put before the people where more than 80% want to leave the cross where it has been for decades. The State Judge even managed to manipulate the law to require that a 70% majority be required for the referendum to be valid, and after it was validated found reason to rule against it anyway. The Fed Court shoots down the City for trying to comply with the State Courts mandate to quit maintaining the cross with public funds because the City proposed turning over the property to another entity that the Court thinks is likely to keep the cross just like the people of San Diego say they want.
Is there something wrong with this picture, or could it be that I don't really understand how harmful this cross symbol is to the people of San Diego but the Court does?
My frustration is shared by a fellow blogger, Ninme, who used these expressions regarding some comments challenging the validity of the newly proposed Supreme Court nominee because she was a religious person:
"... I would have said it was unconstitutional ....... to vote against her because of her religion."
"Of course that never occurred to anyone [the people involved in the validity discussion] so the very strong feeling I have that I'm living in an alternate universe only intensified and I'm quickly being reduced to the state of gibbering idiocy. I wonder if they'd let me blog from the asylum?"
"It's just so insane. It's like you're watching a crowd of people through two-way glass talking about how things have changed since the sky turned green, and you want to but can't scream at them "It's blue! It's blue, you idiots!" But they can't hear you. And all this time you thought they knew what colour the sky is."
Something is terribly wrong with having justice met out by Judges blind to common sense. I don't believe that "Blind Justice" was intended to include "Stupid". It's like that General said about recovering New Orleans from Katrina, "Lets not get stuck on stupid".
May the people of San Diego prevail .....so they won't have to change the name of their baseball team too.
posted by geezernuke at 2:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home