• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. judge orders landmark California cross taken down

I know the first cross was erected in 1913 and the City took over the property in 1916, however I could have confused it with the Mt. Helix case where Cyrus Yawkey deeded the property to San Diego County in 1925 before his passing.

Been a number of years since I've looked into the matter so I just reviewed the decision in Murphy v. Bilbray (which I had in a old folder where I keep reference documents sometimes when involved with debates). The history reviewed in the court documents clearly indicate Mr. Yawkey deeded the property to the county however doesn't say one way or the other for the Mt. Soledad property - only that the city acquired it in 1916.

So we'll go with the city using eminent domain.


>>>>

Are we even talking wbout the same deal?...lol
 
Are we even talking wbout the same deal?...lol

Commonly referred to as Murphy v. Bilbray, United States District Court (Southern District of California). The case was a consolidation of Murphy v. BilBray, Paulson v. City of San Diego, and Ellis v. City of La Mesa. It addressed the Mt. Helix Cross (Murphy), the Mt. Soledad Cross (Paulson), and religious symbology in La Mesa. The decision documents extensive history of the cases in the decision.

I had a copy of the PDF decision on my computer from historical files. Looks like the decision is online at -->> MURPHY v. BILBRAY | Leagle.com



(Disclaimer: I don't know if the web page matches the decision [ although it appears to], I have a PDF copy of the court record.)

>>>>
 
Commonly referred to as Murphy v. Bilbray, United States District Court (Southern District of California). The case was a consolidation of Murphy v. BilBray, Paulson v. City of San Diego, and Ellis v. City of La Mesa. It addressed the Mt. Helix Cross (Murphy), the Mt. Soledad Cross (Paulson), and religious symbology in La Mesa. The decision documents extensive history of the cases in the decision.

I had a copy of the PDF decision on my computer from historical files. Looks like the decision is online at -->> MURPHY v. BILBRAY | Leagle.com



(Disclaimer: I don't know if the web page matches the decision [ although it appears to], I have a PDF copy of the court record.)

>>>>

After reading through the case I have to wonder at just what wimps these 'deeply offended' atheists are. Their families should be embarrassed for their whining behavior.
 
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 understand the decision, and although I agree with the legal rationale, I'm really rather sad about it. This cross had stood for centuries, and there was never an intent to insult those veterans who weren't specifically Christian. It was a memorial for all who served, and regardless of religious belief/non-belief the vast majority of Americans understood this.

I'd hate to see it torn down. :(
 
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.

There are crosses on grave stones in US Military cemeteries... these need to come down to.
 
I understand the decision, and although I agree with the legal rationale, I'm really rather sad about it. This cross had stood for centuries and there was never an intent to insult those veterans who weren't specifically Christian. It was a memorial for all who served, and regardless of religious belief/non-belief the vast majority of Americans understood this.

I'd hate to see it torn down. :(

Gawk!!! When I inadvertently typed the word "centuries", clearly I meant "decades". :3oops:
 
I understand the decision, and although I agree with the legal rationale, I'm really rather sad about it. This cross had stood for centuries, and there was never an intent to insult those veterans who weren't specifically Christian. It was a memorial for all who served, and regardless of religious belief/non-belief the vast majority of Americans understood this.

I'd hate to see it torn down. :(

I only seems like a neutral default because of the position of privilege that Christianity enjoys in this country. What would be lost by having a non-religious symbol there? What if it were a heart, or an eagle, or a flower? Or perhaps something specifically military? That would be more appropriate a memorial, since all of the people buried there are soldiers, right? Perhaps a globe to symbolize their sacrifice to make a better world? There are many many symbols that would be better than a cross, an instrument of brutal torture and execution.
 
I only seems like a neutral default because of the position of privilege that Christianity enjoys in this country. What would be lost by having a non-religious symbol there? What if it were a heart, or an eagle, or a flower? Or perhaps something specifically military? That would be more appropriate a memorial, since all of the people buried there are soldiers, right? Perhaps a globe to symbolize their sacrifice to make a better world? There are many many symbols that would be better than a cross, an instrument of brutal torture and execution.

Crosses has been used to mark the graves of U.S. military soldiers before the Revolutionary War. Even overseas crosses dot the cemeteries of U.S. fallen in war in far off lands. If there is a symbol for a military death, it is the cross.
 
I only seems like a neutral default because of the position of privilege that Christianity enjoys in this country. What would be lost by having a non-religious symbol there? What if it were a heart, or an eagle, or a flower? Or perhaps something specifically military? That would be more appropriate a memorial, since all of the people buried there are soldiers, right? Perhaps a globe to symbolize their sacrifice to make a better world? There are many many symbols that would be better than a cross, an instrument of brutal torture and execution.


no, it's because it has stood there for decades. The same thinking would apply to any symbol standing for that duration.
 
As a take on "crosses" on U.S. government land..
In the state of Montana, U.S. 2 crosses the entire northern section of the state east-to-west..Long drive to say the least..
It is not an exaggeration to say that around every bend in the road is a "formation" of crosses, not very large crosses..
We saw from one to the most of NINE crosses, all representing Road Accidents .
 
Crosses has been used to mark the graves of U.S. military soldiers before the Revolutionary War. Even overseas crosses dot the cemeteries of U.S. fallen in war in far off lands. If there is a symbol for a military death, it is the cross.

Because this country is culturally dominated by one religion that pushes out all the others. Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean it's right.
 
I understand the decision, and although I agree with the legal rationale, I'm really rather sad about it. This cross had stood for centuries, and there was never an intent to insult those veterans who weren't specifically Christian. It was a memorial for all who served, and regardless of religious belief/non-belief the vast majority of Americans understood this.

I'd hate to see it torn down. :(

Do you realize that the Cross was erected and completion timed to be done on Easter Sunday in 1954 and that the announcements punished by the creators of the cross dedicated it, not the the fallen heroes of wars, but to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” on April 18th even though Memorial Day (May 30) was just a few weeks later. That between 1954 - 1989 NOT ONE permit was ever requested for either Veterans Day or Memorial Day commemorations but on each of those intervening years there were permits issued for Easter Sunday Sunday services. Between 1954-1989 there was not one sign, not one plaque or other commemorative indication of any type of "War Memorial". That prior to the 1989 lawsuit, the site was designated on official maps, travel guides and other government documents as the "Soledad Easter Cross".

It wasn't until 1989 and it became convenient to use veterans and fallen military that first events were held on the site and plagues began to be mounted. I was stationed in San Diego in the early 80's and made the trip up to the Cross. I used to fly out of Naval Air Station Miramar during training flights for VAW-110 and flew over it many, many times. Nice place, but there was nothing there but a road and the Cross - nothing.

I don't have anything against the Cross, I wish the City in 1954 had turned the plot of land over to the Mt. Soledad Association so that the property rested in private hands and the Cross could be erected - then their wouldn't have been an issue. But the idea that it was erected in 1954 and dedicated as a "War Memorial" is pretty obviously a ruse resulting form the 1989 case. The association, in cahoots with the City, latched on to the idea of starting to call it a "War Memorial" simply as a legal maneuver to foil the case. They used veterans as a convenient shield. And as a military retiree, that does not make me happy.

I don't know what the "best" solution is, that will be argued by better minds then mine. All I know is the public shouldn't swallow "hook-line-n-sinker" the story line about the Cross being erected to honor war veterans. The City and the Mt. Soledad association ignored us for 35-years until we became a means to an end in the legal troubles they had lost.



>>>>
 
It should have been considered a historical landmark and left in place. Re-writing history to meet political correctness and ideology of the time is always a mistake.
 
At least until they put up somebody else's religious symbol.
If our country moves to a time where Islam is the predominant religion then guess what, you're going to see the crescent moon and star around a little more. That doesn't mean you have to worship it. As long as we're not being forced to worship it, it stays in my opinion. I haven't heard of any widespread effort by Christians or any other religion in the US to force citizens to worship their god by bowing in front of their symbols or anything like that. It's a piece of architecture in it's simplest form and a symbol of hope, faith, etc to others. That's no different that any other object you'll find. It means something different to everyone.
 
Unfortunately, many people have the Taliban mentality that lead to them destroying the ancient Buddhist statute carved into a mountain.

The judge is Taliban and the Taliban wanted an historic religious monument destroyed on behalf of the current religion of government, which is atheism. So the Taliban judge agreed with the Taliban minded minority and erased an historic religious monument. Court.-ordered and imposed ignorance.
 
A cross has been at that site for a century.

Would the relatives of those buried there have a legitimate suit demanding the remains of their deceased be removed from an atheist cemetery if buried after the cross was there? What right does the government have to change the rules and statement of a cemetery? Eternal life is the core of Christianity.

What about changing the names on the headstones of people named after a Biblical character? Should that be ordered to since it "offends" intolerant people demanding their own ideology, atheism, be declared the national religion and even the deceased retroactively be declared atheists by federal law?

Disturbing a grave site and altering for popularism and trendy logic on ideology is serious business to many people.

Any body buried there was buried there by request. No body was buried there against the wises of the deceased and/or deceased's relatives. They chose to be buried at a cemetery with a symbol of Christianity. A federal judge has now ruled the U.S. Constitution retroactively denies them a Christian final resting place and must instead have an atheist final resting place.

I hope the Obama administration takes this on up to the Supreme Court to decide if atheism is the official government and constitutionally required ideology of the federal government, including retroactively.

The Supreme Court also should decide if the Declaration of Independence should be ordered removed from all government facilities and the text of it banned from all public school text books. It also contradicts atheism ideology.
 
Last edited:
I do understand your point, and it's a good point.

I object to the cross on the hill in California ONLY because of how it plays versus the rule of law. Because I support Americans United for Separation of Church & State, I've been reading about the legal battle over that symbol for years. I thought some private entity was going to buy either the real estate or the cross itself, but have not been keeping up with the case.

IF it is government property that the cross is on, it should be removed. I don't object to the cross itself, I object to the cross being on government property.

All Native American reservations are "federal land." Accordingly you also must believe that all religious symbols and icons of their religions also must be removed including from their ancient burial sites and their houses on such federal land, correct? That a condition of staying on the reservation is to display themselves as atheists - now and historically.
 
Most were Christians for sure. Some were atheists though and those folks haven't had a memorial put up for them. America didn't take kindly to atheists back then. Those days are over.

Not with this attitude they are not.

The cross was put up a long time ago as a war memorial and your attitude is that is not allowed because it is in the shape of a cross. You want to deny the majority this symbol because you do not like it.

I am Jewish and I have no problems with a cross as a memorial.

If you think the atheists that died should have a memorial, get them together and make one, but you want to destroy instead of create.
 
I'm not religious either but these jerks just get too tiresome and, as you mentioned, only go after the easy targets. Others don't turn their cheeks so easily when their religion is attacked but these same cowards would never go after them.

Well it does say in the book you know. Turn the other...
 
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.

Do you know what happened to that?

Technology.

Life has become so easy that people go out and look for stuff to get into.

If you are for taking down this cross, not you John but anybody that wants to answer, what do you suggest putting in its place, or do the dead not deserve any kind of memorial in that spot?
 
Why does a cross represent such a memorial? What's the origin of using a crucifix in memory of something?

When it was put up that was its intention and everybody knew it.

Did this cross have a dead Jesus on it? If not it was not a crucifix.
 
This particular cross has a sordid legal history. In a nutshell, a Christian group lied to the State and the taxpayers, claiming they were building and maintaining a war memorial. They were bilking the State for a war memorial that didn't exist. This cross and the surrounding area were basically being used as an outdoor church and it was always advertised as an "Easter Cross" with no signage, flags, or even plaques indicating that it was a war memorial until they were, rightfully, sued. This place isn't a war memorial, it isn't treated as one, and the tax payers shouldn't have to either pay for it or look at it IMO.

The taxpayers are now going to pay to take it down.
 
A cross has been at that site for a century.

Would the relatives of those buried there have a legitimate suit demanding the remains of their deceased be removed from an atheist cemetery if buried after the cross was there? What right does the government have to change the rules and statement of a cemetery? Eternal life is the core of Christianity.

What about changing the names on the headstones of people named after a Biblical character? Should that be ordered to since it "offends" intolerant people demanding their own ideology, atheism, be declared the national religion and even the deceased retroactively be declared atheists by federal law?

Disturbing a grave site and altering for popularism and trendy logic on ideology is serious business to many people.

Any body buried there was buried there by request. No body was buried there against the wises of the deceased and/or deceased's relatives. They chose to be buried at a cemetery with a symbol of Christianity. A federal judge has now ruled the U.S. Constitution retroactively denies them a Christian final resting place and must instead have an atheist final resting place.

I hope the Obama administration takes this on up to the Supreme Court to decide if atheism is the official government and constitutionally required ideology of the federal government, including retroactively.

The Supreme Court also should decide if the Declaration of Independence should be ordered removed from all government facilities and the text of it banned from all public school text books. It also contradicts atheism ideology.


You realize...

(a) there are no veterans buried on Mt. Soledad, and

(b) the history of the Cross had absolutely nothing to do with veterans until we became a convenient tool to try to forestall a Cross dedicated, not to veterans, but to "Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ".

(c) Veteran's cemeteries provide a resting place for all veterans irregardless of faith, the symbology on the marker is chosen by the deceased (or next of kin if there is no directive) and are not imposed by the government. They have symbols for various Christian sects, Muslims, Wiccans, Jews, and even Atheists.


>>>>
 
Because this country is culturally dominated by one religion that pushes out all the others. Just because something is a tradition doesn't mean it's right.

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.
 
All Native American reservations are "federal land." Accordingly you also must believe that all religious symbols and icons of their religions also must be removed including from their ancient burial sites and their houses on such federal land, correct? That a condition of staying on the reservation is to display themselves as atheists - now and historically.

We don't need "atheism" designated as any federal policy or goal.

The government being neutral on all matters religious is NOT a statement in favor of atheism. Why is the notion of neutrality so hard to understand?

To answer your question regarding Native American symbols and icons, no I do not believe they should be removed from burial sites. That seems an absurd question.
 
Back
Top Bottom