Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 237

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

  1. #141
    Sage
    Perotista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    17,943
    Blog Entries
    25

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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?
    I did not say I would choose that symbol, but if I was buried I would not think unkindly if a cross was place on of my grave. All things are impermanent, The cross or a cross has stood there since 1913. It was placed there as a memorial. It is a landmark and possibly a historical one. I have never understood this need to do away will religious symbols or to denigrate religion as it is something evil. Religion is not evil, there are some who use religion for evil ways but these usually do not follow in the true path of their religion.

    I am sure if anyone want to put a Buddhist statue over my grave there, it would be perfectly okay or any other religious symbol over the grave. the fact that this huge cross stands over the cemetery probably give many family member buried their peace of mind. That is not a bad thing. People pushing their agenda usually do not take this in mind. If someone buried me beneath a star of david, a cross, or just two pairs of empty boots, I wouldn't look unkindly on it. Whether the words spoken where Christian, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, I am sure they would sooth the troubled soul, especially those who attended, the living which this is all about anyway.

    Is you faith so weak, or what ever you believe in that you cringe and have to run away from a religious symbol that brings peace to other? That all religious symbols have to be torn down and destroyed in order to fill your heart with joy? People have a choice as to where they are buried or cremated. If one doesn't like the cross on top of this mountain, they can choose another cemetery. No one is forcing anyone to be buried there. Why try to force you will on others, I am sure since that cross or a cross has been there since 1913, everyone buried there since hasn't had a problem with it. So why make a problem out of something when a problem doesn't exist? I will never understand this.
    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.

  2. #142
    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
    And if it does, that affects negatively on your life in what way?
    If it does, that actually would be in violation of the constitution.

  3. #143
    Sage

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Last Seen
    10-10-16 @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    6,073

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The only question I have is whether the land the cross is on is owned by the government or a private individual. It does not say in the article. If owned by the government, I can see the decision.... maybe. Was this really an endorsement of religion, or is it similar to a tombstone, which would be a memorial, as opposed to a religious symbol. Of course if the land is owned by a private individual, then what is erected up there is none of the government's damn business.

    Your thoughts on this?
    The GOP has found its cause celebre.

  4. #144
    Sage
    Lursa's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Outside Seattle
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    29,926

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Amandi View Post
    I personally believe that if there is a cross and someone wants another religious icon put up it would have to be allowed. I also feel no government money should be spent on the putting it up or the up keep.
    Very sad. Instead of tearing down, I would prefer to be part of a group asking to put up a symbol that had meaning for us.

    Because no one has the right to not be offended by seeing the symbols of another religion...just that the govt shall not blah blah blah

    I dont believe in the govt paying for such things but this is already up there. Anything new would have to be paid for privately...but still allowed.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bucky View Post
    I have felt pain when I was in the womb. So when you say they are incapable of feeling pain, that is based on junk science.
    Quote Originally Posted by applejuicefool View Post
    A murderer putting a bullet through someone's brain is a medical procedure too.

  5. #145
    Canadian Conservative
    CanadaJohn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:01 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    27,193

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

    Quote Originally Posted by FederalRepublic View Post
    If it does, that actually would be in violation of the constitution.
    You've got to do better than that - what provision of the constitution is specifically violated and how/why?
    "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.

  6. #146
    Sage
    Peter King's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Netherlands
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    14,029

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

    Quote Originally Posted by danarhea View Post
    The only question I have is whether the land the cross is on is owned by the government or a private individual. It does not say in the article. If owned by the government, I can see the decision.... maybe. Was this really an endorsement of religion, or is it similar to a tombstone, which would be a memorial, as opposed to a religious symbol. Of course if the land is owned by a private individual, then what is erected up there is none of the government's damn business.

    Your thoughts on this?

    EDIT: My bad. The land IS owned by the government, so the first question remains. Is the cross there really an endorsement of a religion or not? I believe it's not, and therefore disagree with the decision.

    NOTE: I need to learn to read my own damn links. LOL.
    I may be an atheist but I could care less if that cross was on the memorial. Crosses have been used as grave markers for centuries and I do not see a problem with one being on a war memorial.
    Former military man (and now babysitter of Donald Trump) John Kelly, is a big loud lying empty barrel!

  7. #147
    Sage
    clownboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    08-17-16 @ 10:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    26,087

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

    The simplest solution would have been to allow the land to be sold to a private group that would maintain the memorial. As I understood it, a few private groups offerred and the atheists blocked the sale.

  8. #148
    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
    I did not say I would choose that symbol, but if I was buried I would not think unkindly if a cross was place on of my grave.
    Congratulations. That's making a choice. You're choosing it. And you're choosing to try to deny that choice to others. Don't do that.

    I have never understood this need to do away will religious symbols
    That's okay, because no one is actually trying to do that. What we're trying to do it keep religion from forcing itself on people who don't want a part of it.

    or to denigrate religion as it is something evil. Religion is not evil, there are some who use religion for evil ways but these usually do not follow in the true path of their religion.
    You would be wrong there, but that's not even the issue. Forcing religion on people is evil. I hope you can at least agree to that.

    I am sure if anyone want to put a Buddhist statue over my grave there, it would be perfectly okay or any other religious symbol over the grave. the fact that this huge cross stands over the cemetery probably give many family member buried their peace of mind. That is not a bad thing. People pushing their agenda usually do not take this in mind. If someone buried me beneath a star of david, a cross, or just two pairs of empty boots, I wouldn't look unkindly on it. Whether the words spoken where Christian, Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu, I am sure they would sooth the troubled soul, especially those who attended, the living which this is all about anyway.
    Again, your choice. You wouldn't mind. Just because that's your position doesn't mean that it has to be anyone else's.

    Is you faith so weak, or what ever you believe in that you cringe and have to run away from a religious symbol that brings peace to other?
    Again, you're entitled to whatever symbols you want. Just as anyone else is entitled to whatever symbols, or not, they choose. Me, I don't freak out over anyone's symbols. I just get upset when they decide that their symbols should represent me.

    That all religious symbols have to be torn down and destroyed in order to fill your heart with joy?
    Again, no one wants to do that. Who tells you that anyone wants this? Whoever they are, stop listening to them. They're lying to you.

    People have a choice as to where they are buried or cremated. If one doesn't like the cross on top of this mountain, they can choose another cemetery. No one is forcing anyone to be buried there. Why try to force you will on others,
    Bolded for emphasis. Because it's hilarious. That is exactly what I am advocating against. Do not assign someone a religious symbol against their will. The person, and only the person, should make that decision.

    I am sure since that cross or a cross has been there since 1913, everyone buried there since hasn't had a problem with it.
    That's probably not true. They just didn't have the means to speak out.

    So why make a problem out of something when a problem doesn't exist? I will never understand this.
    That's what it comes down to for you. It's not a problem for you, so it's not really a problem. Get over yourself. Your opinions aren't universal.

    I find myself having to say the same thing over and over to you. Why is this concept so hard. Don't push a religious icon on someone else. This is a military graveyard. It is owned by the public. It is not a church graveyard. It is public. That means that there can't be a religious requirement. You don't have to be a member of a certain religion, or any religion, to be there. You don't have to subscribe to its ideas or its symbols. You cannot force that on anyone. No one is trying to stop those who wish such a symbol from having one on their graves. But we are trying to stop anyone from putting it on the graves of those who don't want it. Got that? Protecting individual liberty. If you're not behind that, you should be.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  9. #149
    Guru
    WorldWatcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 07:50 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,041

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

    Quote Originally Posted by j-mac View Post
    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.

    The first case I listed was Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT, your quote is from Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406. Two different rulings. Paulson v. San Diego was consolidated into Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134 and now I can't find the pleading from the first case. The case you pulled the quote from was about the sale of the land and they may have taken that from the respondents brief. In 1992 the City Appealed the Murphy decision and the appeal was denied.

    But thanks for that, looks like I need to pull that from the list and the reference to the Association bulletin describing the dedication as being to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” since I can't link to it.

    From the detailed history where the court actually looked into the history:

    " More troubling than the City's characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a secular memorial, however, is its characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a memorial at all. Whereas Cyrus Yawkey's deed corroborates the genuineness of the commemorative objective attending the cross on Mt. Helix, no corresponding evidence corroborates the genuineness of the alleged commemorative objective which the City advances in support of the cross on Mt. Soledad. In fact to the contrary, the evidence indicates that the city's purported commemorative objective is a pretext.

    The numerous declarations, news articles, book excerpts and other exhibits submitted by the parties reveal only one occasion between the erection of the cross on Mt. Soledad and the filing of this lawsuit on which the cross site has ever been recognized as a war memorial.42 That occasion was the cross' dedication on April 17, 1954, when the San Diego Union reported that the cross "is meant to be a lasting memorial to the dead of the two world wars and the Korean fighting." With the exception of this single newspaper report, there is no evidence that prior to this lawsuit the City intended the cross to serve as a memorial.

    Correspondence between the City and the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which the city authorized to build and maintain the cross, together with newspaper accounts from 1954 indicate that the cross was intended to replace predecessor crosses which had once been the scene of Easter sunrise services but had since been vandalized or fallen into disrepair. Clearly these predecessor crosses, which date as far back as 1913, could not have been erected as memorials to the dead of the two world wars and the Korean fighting, all of which occurred after 1913. Nevertheless, the fact that non-commemorative crosses once stood on a site where citizens subsequently chose to erect a new cross should not by itself defeat the genuineness of the new cross' purported commemorative purpose.

    News accounts reveal further indications of a religious purpose. Several such accounts indicate, for example, that a ceremony dedicating the cross occurred, as planned, on Easter Sunday 1954. Although Memorial Day occurs just 6 weeks after Easter, the Memorial Association evidently preferred to schedule the cross' completion and dedication for the day of the Resurrection. Although it could have selected any of innumerable different symbols, including many different types of crosses, in order to commemorate fallen soldiers of all faiths, the Memorial Association selected the configuration of the Latin cross, the type of cross on which biblical and historical accounts indicate that Jesus Christ, on the morning marked by Easter, rose from the dead.

    City records, correspondence and news articles indicate, moreover, that every Easter without fail since 1954, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association has sponsored an Easter sunrise service at the site of the cross. There is no record of the Association, the City or any other organization having sponsored a memorial service or ceremony at the site of the cross on Memorial Day, Veterans Day or any other day between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed. Also during the period between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed, no plaque or sign existed to indicate to visitors that the cross was intended to commemorate our country's war dead. As plaintiffs observe, there was "no way for a visitor to know that on April 18, 1954, someone stood beside the Cross and described it as a veterans memorial."

    In light of this evidence, it is not surprising that numerous travel guides, road maps, the Yellow Pages telephone directory and even federal government publications refer to the structure atop Mt. Soledad as the "Soledad Easter Cross." Even the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association itself appears to have lost sight of the purported purpose for which it erected the cross. 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.

    Faced with this battery of evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the commemorative objective advanced by the City is anything other than pretext. The court, therefore, finds that insofar as the disposition of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross, the City has impermissibly exhibited (if not exercised) preference. The City's conduct, consequently, is unconstitutional, and the City is directed that, if it truly wishes to honor the war dead, then it should do so other than with the Latin cross which it has permitted to stand atop Mt. Soledad. Cf. Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 234 ("because the county can effectively recognize its war dead without resort to the use of these religious symbols, it must do so")."



    >>>>
    Last edited by WorldWatcher; 12-16-13 at 03:37 PM.

  10. #150
    Sage
    j-mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    South Carolina
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    30,315

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

    Quote Originally Posted by WorldWatcher View Post
    The first case I listed was Paulson V. San Diego, Civ. No. 89-020 GT, your quote is from Philip K. Paulson v. City of San Diego, 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 00-55406. Two different rulings. Paulson v. San Diego was consolidated into Murphy v. Bilbray, US District Court, CIV NO 90-0134 and now I can't find the pleading from the first case. The case you pulled the quote from was about the sale of the land and they may have taken that from the respondents brief.

    But thanks for that, looks like I need to pull that from the list and the reference to the Association bulletin describing the dedication as being to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” since I can't link to it.

    From the detailed history where the court actually looked into the history:

    " More troubling than the City's characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a secular memorial, however, is its characterization of the Mt. Soledad cross as a memorial at all. Whereas Cyrus Yawkey's deed corroborates the genuineness of the commemorative objective attending the cross on Mt. Helix, no corresponding evidence corroborates the genuineness of the alleged commemorative objective which the City advances in support of the cross on Mt. Soledad. In fact to the contrary, the evidence indicates that the city's purported commemorative objective is a pretext.

    The numerous declarations, news articles, book excerpts and other exhibits submitted by the parties reveal only one occasion between the erection of the cross on Mt. Soledad and the filing of this lawsuit on which the cross site has ever been recognized as a war memorial.42 That occasion was the cross' dedication on April 17, 1954, when the San Diego Union reported that the cross "is meant to be a lasting memorial to the dead of the two world wars and the Korean fighting." With the exception of this single newspaper report, there is no evidence that prior to this lawsuit the City intended the cross to serve as a memorial.

    Correspondence between the City and the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which the city authorized to build and maintain the cross, together with newspaper accounts from 1954 indicate that the cross was intended to replace predecessor crosses which had once been the scene of Easter sunrise services but had since been vandalized or fallen into disrepair. Clearly these predecessor crosses, which date as far back as 1913, could not have been erected as memorials to the dead of the two world wars and the Korean fighting, all of which occurred after 1913. Nevertheless, the fact that non-commemorative crosses once stood on a site where citizens subsequently chose to erect a new cross should not by itself defeat the genuineness of the new cross' purported commemorative purpose.

    News accounts reveal further indications of a religious purpose. Several such accounts indicate, for example, that a ceremony dedicating the cross occurred, as planned, on Easter Sunday 1954. Although Memorial Day occurs just 6 weeks after Easter, the Memorial Association evidently preferred to schedule the cross' completion and dedication for the day of the Resurrection. Although it could have selected any of innumerable different symbols, including many different types of crosses, in order to commemorate fallen soldiers of all faiths, the Memorial Association selected the configuration of the Latin cross, the type of cross on which biblical and historical accounts indicate that Jesus Christ, on the morning marked by Easter, rose from the dead.

    City records, correspondence and news articles indicate, moreover, that every Easter without fail since 1954, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association has sponsored an Easter sunrise service at the site of the cross. There is no record of the Association, the City or any other organization having sponsored a memorial service or ceremony at the site of the cross on Memorial Day, Veterans Day or any other day between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed. Also during the period between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed, no plaque or sign existed to indicate to visitors that the cross was intended to commemorate our country's war dead. As plaintiffs observe, there was "no way for a visitor to know that on April 18, 1954, someone stood beside the Cross and described it as a veterans memorial."

    In light of this evidence, it is not surprising that numerous travel guides, road maps, the Yellow Pages telephone directory and even federal government publications refer to the structure atop Mt. Soledad as the "Soledad Easter Cross." Even the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association itself appears to have lost sight of the purported purpose for which it erected the cross. 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.

    Faced with this battery of evidence, it is difficult to conclude that the commemorative objective advanced by the City is anything other than pretext. The court, therefore, finds that insofar as the disposition of the Mt. Soledad Latin cross, the City has impermissibly exhibited (if not exercised) preference. The City's conduct, consequently, is unconstitutional, and the City is directed that, if it truly wishes to honor the war dead, then it should do so other than with the Latin cross which it has permitted to stand atop Mt. Soledad. Cf. Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 234 ("because the county can effectively recognize its war dead without resort to the use of these religious symbols, it must do so")."



    >>>>
    Do you have a link to this "detailed history" you pulled this from?

    Look, you side with the atheists, I understand that, but I wonder why it bothers you, and them so? It's been there for a hundred damned years for goodness sake, and no one had a problem until the atheists got their pink panties in a bunch.

    Why is it that a group that may represent 2% of the entire population of the US want to make everyone bend to their sour view of everything...Good grief....Just leave people alone.
    Americans are so enamored of equality that they would rather be equal in slavery than unequal in freedom.

    Alexis de Tocqueville

Page 15 of 24 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 ... 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
  •