Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 237

Thread: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

  1. #131
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Are they there now, and in place as a war memorial? yes, or no?

    Of course there are, they demonstrate the Association and the City trying to use veterans as a shield in a case they lost.

    Doesn't change the fact they lied to the court about the purpose of the cross when it was erected and that the ignored veterans for 35 years and only used them (us) when it was convenient


    I don't have a problem with the Cross, DoD who now owns the property should deed it over to the Mt. Soledad Association and let them run it as a private entity. My problem is the lies perpetuated by it's supporters on why it was built.


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-16-13 at 10:53 AM.

  2. #132
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Of course there are, they demonstrate the Association and the City trying to use veterans as a shield in a case they lost.
    No, I don't think that they are "using" vets at all. It is a memorial. And has been for 24 years.

    Doesn't change the fact they lied to the court about the purpose of the cross when it was erected and that the ignored veterans for 35 years and only used them (us) when it was convenient
    I am not aware of a law suit in 1913. Do you have something that backs up your assertion here?

    I don't have a problem with the Cross, DoD who now owns the property should deed it over to the Mt. Soledad Association and let them run it as a private entity. My problem is the lies perpetuated by it's supporters on why it was built.
    That may in the end be the remedy, but I somehow don't think that atheists would stop at that. Disputes over things like this bring out great passion from both pro and con sides to the argument, so I'd be careful in labeling one side or another as "liars" then proportioning to be neutral.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  3. #133
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    11-25-17 @ 10:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    Doesn't change the fact they lied to the court about the purpose of the cross when it was erected and that the ignored veterans for 35 years and only used them (us) when it was convenient
    I am not aware of a law suit in 1913. Do you have something that backs up your assertion here?
    Only the pre-1989 history of the Cross as documented in the court cases which show it had nothing to do with veterans.

    The current cross was erected in 1954 not 1913, the wooden cross(es) that where there fell down or were damaged. The Mt. Soledad Association was given permission to build the current cross on city land in (iirc) 1953 and it's construction was completed in 1954.

    • The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.

    • The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954

    • The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)

    • The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.

    • Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.

    • There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction

    • Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.

    • Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.

    • Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.

    • Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.

    • No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.

    • Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”

    • No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.

    • Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.




    The above is derived from the history of the Mt. Soledad Cross from various legal documents that I read in the 2006/7 time frame from:
    Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT
    Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134
    Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406
    Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006
    Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005


    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    I'd be careful in labeling one side or another as "liars" then proportioning to be neutral.
    I said the city and the association who claimed in court that it was built as a war memorial were liars. I think that people that believe it was "built as a war memorial" are uninformed. I think that people the may truly feel that it has been transformed in the last 24-years into a memorial for veterans that lost their lives defining the country have a reasonable assertion.

    I'm free to hold those opinions.

    BTW - I never said I was "neutral" about the city and association lying.


    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-16-13 at 11:24 AM.

  4. #134
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 03:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,272

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    Only the pre-1989 history of the Cross as documented in the court cases which show it had nothing to do with veterans.

    The current cross was erected in 1954 not 1913, the wooden cross(es) that where there fell down or were damaged. The Mt. Soledad Association was given permission to build the current cross on city land in (iirc) 1953 and it's construction was completed in 1954.

    • The first cross was erected in 1913, prior to WWI, WWII, or the Korean War.

    • The cross was replaced multiple times between 1913 and 1954

    • The Mt. Soledad Association itself said the purpose of the 1954 cross was to replace the previous crosses (The crosses were to commemorate wars that hadn’t occurred yet?)

    • The Mt. Soledad Association itself in it’s dedication bulletin noted that the cross was dedicated to ““Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” not to war veterans.

    • Only one news article between April 17, 1954 and the 1989 lawsuit described the cross as a war memorial. No other references to it as a war memorial were found.

    • There is no evidence that the City planed the cross as a war memorial prior to its construction

    • Construction and dedication were planned and did occur to allow the dedication to be conducted on Easter Sunday, 1954. Not Memorial Day, not Veterans Day, or any other day to honor veterans.

    • Every year between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, the Mt. Soledad Association sponsored religious Easter sunrise services.

    • Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Memorial Day.

    • Not once between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, did the Mt. Soledad Assc. or any other organization sponsor ceremony's to honor war dead on Veterans Day.

    • No plaque or sign was ever in existence at the cross between 1954 and 1989, when the lawsuit was filed, indicating that the cross was a memorial to war dead.

    • Regarding the Mt. Soledad Assc. – “Its own bylaws describe its purpose as the promotion of “community interest in the development of the public facilities of the Mt. Soledad park area.” The bylaws make no reference to the commemoration of war dead.”

    • No one plague, not one sign, not one brick in the present "war memorial" wall now surrounding the cross was placed until after the City lost the suit.

    • Prior to the lawsuit travel guides, maps, phone directories, and even government publications referred to the cross as the “Soledad Easter Cross”.




    The above is derived from the history of the Mt. Soledad Cross from various legal documents that I read in the 2006/7 time frame from:
    Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT
    Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134
    Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406
    Jewish War Veterans v. Rumsfeld, US District Court Complaint Dtd 8/24/2006
    Paulson v. Abdulnour, Superior Court of California, Dtd 10/7/2005




    I said the city and the association who claimed in court that it was built as a war memorial were liars. I think that people that believe it was "built as a war memorial" are uninformed. I think that people the may truly feel that it has been transformed in the last 24-years into a memorial for veterans that lost their lives defining the country have a reasonable assertion.

    I'm free to hold those opinions.

    BTW - I never said I was "neutral" about the city and association lying.


    >>>>
    Thanks for the history, but not quite the question I asked....It is also curious that even your own history here doesn't show a single law suit against the memorial before 1989, when the atheist Paulson started his quest.

    In the first case you cite, the background narrative of the case says this....

    "The San Diego City Council then granted permission to the Association to construct the current cross. In 1954, in a religious service held on Easter Sunday, the Association dedicated the cross as a tribute to veterans of World War I, World War II, and the Korean Conflict."

    So before 1954 it may or may not have been there as memorial, however, upon the dedication in 1954, it became one, with the blessing of the SD city council. The law suit harassment by atheist groups didn't start until 1989 to present...So, of ALL of its long 100 year history, it wasn't until it had been there for some 75 years already in one form or another that atheists decided that they had a problem with it? I say to them, get over it! It's there, it's a memorial, and the majority of people want it to remain there. This is a classic case of 1, or 2% of whiners trying to force a vast majority to their views....IMHO.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

  5. #135
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    You asked for a military symbol, now you have it. Take a trip across Europe and view all the crosses on U.S. military graves there, so it is just not this country. In the Islands of the Pacific during WWII where we left many dead, look there. If one symbol illiterates the burial marker of the the military it is the cross. You can go way back into history, it is the cross that is used more than any other type of grave marker.
    Because Europe was equally culturally dominated by Christianity. Again, you're just appealing to tradition. Because more of the population was Christian (because they murdered everyone else), that was they symbol they used. That's not military, that's just Christian. And in this country, we don't endorse a religion. We don't pretend that practitioners of other religions don't exist, and we don't marginalize them. You're just repeating the same logical fallacy. It is not right to bury a non-Christian under a cross. Show some respect for the soldiers who fought and died despite being marginalized by your religion.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  6. #136
    Guru

    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Seen
    09-24-17 @ 04:35 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    2,942

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    I'm not a religious person, so it matters not to me one way or another.

    That said, it never ceases to amaze me the level of offense some people take against the stupidest minor things. This cross is neither a promotion of one particular religion or any religion at all nor does it in any way impinge on any person's personal expression of religion as associated with death.

    There was a time when people lived their own lives, minded their own damn business and let others live as they pleased. Some people need to get a life and stop finding drama and insult behind every door.
    You must have missed the sign at the bottom that says "All who see this monument must say 5 Hail Mary's. Failure to comply is punishible by $50 fine and 100 hours community service at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church."

  7. #137
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,175

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    You must have missed the sign at the bottom that says "All who see this monument must say 5 Hail Mary's. Failure to comply is punishible by $50 fine and 100 hours community service at Our Lady of the Lake Catholic Church."
    And if it does, that affects negatively on your life in what way?
    "Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." William F. Buckley Jr.

  8. #138
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,237

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    I wonder if they'll ever ban this:

    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #139
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,914
    Blog Entries
    24

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    Because Europe was equally culturally dominated by Christianity. Again, you're just appealing to tradition. Because more of the population was Christian (because they murdered everyone else), that was they symbol they used. That's not military, that's just Christian. And in this country, we don't endorse a religion. We don't pretend that practitioners of other religions don't exist, and we don't marginalize them. You're just repeating the same logical fallacy. It is not right to bury a non-Christian under a cross. Show some respect for the soldiers who fought and died despite being marginalized by your religion.
    Look it is quite simple, 20 years active duty and another 26 years as a Department of the Army Civilian and during that time if there ever was a symbol for the military burial it is the cross. Besides I am not a Christian, so it isn't my religion. I am a Theravada Buddhist. As a Buddhist I do not think a cross or any other religious symbol does harm. Let me share this with you, Vimalakirti Sutra 8

    he becomes a monk in all the different religions of the world so that he might free others from delusion and save them from falling into false views.

    in other what religion one has doesn't matter. What matters is following the path of being who we are. A wise person enters deeply into other religions in order to devote his life to helping others through the means of those religions. We can do this through the realm of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Atheism, Judaism, Shinto, Confucianism, Animism, Sikism - the lists goes on and on.

    A religious symbol over a grave doesn't show disrespect for anyone, it does just the opposite. It shows someone cares, cared about this individual who lies below. Is that so difficult to understand?
    h
    This Reform Party member thinks it is high past time that we start electing Americans to congress and the presidency who put America first and their political party further down the line. But for way too long we have been electing Republicans and Democrats who happen to be Americans instead of Americans who happen to be Republicans and Democrats.

  10. #140
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

    Quote Originally Posted by Perotista View Post
    A religious symbol over a grave doesn't show disrespect for anyone, it does just the opposite. It shows someone cares, cared about this individual who lies below. Is that so difficult to understand?
    h
    So you choose that symbol, and think it represents you. Why do you want to deny that choice to others? You have no right to label someone with a religious symbol that doesn't want it. Such a display is up to them and maybe their family, and no one else. Why is THAT so difficult to understand?
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

Page 14 of 24 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •