• 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

The Mount Soledad cross won’t be coming down anytime soon, says Mt. Soledad Memorial Association

Press Information | Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial

There are many plaques there, honoring vets from the Revolutionary war, to the present conflicts in the ME. This guy Steve Trunk, (whom is furthering the case) is not unlike many other atheists I have had the pleasure, or should I say displeasure to meet in person throughout my life, according to what I read of his statements, and pronouncements. He seems to think it is all about him. As he states on the FFRF website, "The presence of the cross makes me feel as if I’m a second-class citizen." Awwwww, poor wittle baby...Does it hurt your wittle feewings? What a putz!

There is a letter about what this attack by groups like FFRF, and the "humanists" are up to in this country, and is it any surprise that the 9th Circuit is firmly on their side, as a long seen wildly leftist leaning court. The letter says better what I can not myself, it reads in part:

"The effort to scrub the public square of religious expression and symbols is a threat to religious freedom, runs contrary to our founding documents, and is unfaithful to our history as a free people. It also represents an incorrect application of the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That 2011 opinion also demonstrated that the 2005 Supreme Court decision of Van Orden v. Perry, a "ten commandments" case, has made the illogic of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence even more pronounced in the United States.

Even the convoluted trail left by the Lemon case and its progeny can now be abandoned by a Court, under the ruse of an "exception" to the Lemon analysis, only to be replaced by Judicial whimsy. In other words, unelected Federal Judges now determine whether we can express ourselves as a people who have a religious heritage.

Federal Judges now make up their own rules by which they decide, on their own, whether a religious symbol, especially a Christian religious symbol, will be allowed to stand on public land or in a public building. There is not even a pretense that the actual words of the Establishment Clause have any effect in this new world of the judicial oligarchy.

That 224 page opinion rendered by the 9th Circuit in the Mt Soledad case back in 2011 is one of many examples of why it is absolutely essential that we reclaim the "Separation of Powers" doctrine and rein in Federal Judges and Courts. The recent decision of the lower Federal Court only makes it all more urgent. Are we going to begin tearing down other symbols of our history because they have religious symbols within them?

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights is best understood as an anti-establishment clause. It was intended to prohibit the "establishment" of one particular religion - in the sense of a Federal or State sponsored Church which mandated adherence from unwilling citizens. The American founders fled coercive approaches to religion which compelled adherence to a particular sect. Yet, they were not anti-religious.

They were MOST assuredly NOT against religious symbols or religious expression. Our history is filled with them. Or, more accurately, it once was. Religious symbols are no longer seen as a wonderful sign of the history of the West and the American founding by the new Judicial Oligarchs.

Rather they are seen as a threat to the increasingly hostile secularist order. When they are allowed they must be demonstrated to have been eviscerated of any religious meaning and somehow thereby rendered "secular" and acceptable.

This 9th Circuit Court opinion showed hostility toward the Cross: [C]onsidering the entire context of the Memorial, the Memorial today remains a predominantly religious symbol. The history and absolute dominance of the Cross are not mitigated by the belated efforts to add less significant secular elements to the Memorial.

The fact that the Memorial also commemorates the war dead and serves as a site for secular ceremonies honoring veterans cannot overcome the effect of its decades-long religious history...The Memorial's relatively short history of secular usage does not predominate over its religious functions so as to eliminate the message of endorsement that the Cross conveys."

Those Judges were particularly offended by the size of the cross noting (W)e cannot overlook the fact that the Cross is forty-three feet tall. It physically dominates the Memorial, towering over the secular symbols placed beneath it, and is so large and placed in such a prominent location that it can be seen from miles away.

Their disjointed legal opinion finally concluded, [A]fter examining the entirety of the Mount Soledad Memorial in context-having considered its history, its religious and non-religious uses, its sectarian and secular features, the history of war memorials and the dominance of the Cross-we conclude that the Memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause.

Now, Judge Burns has followed the directives of other Judicial Oligarchs and ordered that a beloved part of our history, a Cross which has long honored the war dead, be torn down. Charles LiMandri, a courageous Catholic Lawyer who represents the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, said he was going to Appeal."

Religious Cleansing in the USA: Federal Judge Orders Mt. Soledad War Memorial Cross Be Torn Down - U.s. - Catholic Online

Remember friends, scrubbing the public square of any religious references is among the first things done by Communists in communities, largely because of the threat religion poses to a totalitarian state. Just sayin'
 
The Mount Soledad cross won’t be coming down anytime soon, says Mt. Soledad Memorial Association

Press Information | Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial

There are many plaques there, honoring vets from the Revolutionary war, to the present conflicts in the ME. This guy Steve Trunk, (whom is furthering the case) is not unlike many other atheists I have had the pleasure, or should I say displeasure to meet in person throughout my life, according to what I read of his statements, and pronouncements. He seems to think it is all about him. As he states on the FFRF website, "The presence of the cross makes me feel as if I’m a second-class citizen." Awwwww, poor wittle baby...Does it hurt your wittle feewings? What a putz!

There is a letter about what this attack by groups like FFRF, and the "humanists" are up to in this country, and is it any surprise that the 9th Circuit is firmly on their side, as a long seen wildly leftist leaning court. The letter says better what I can not myself, it reads in part:

"The effort to scrub the public square of religious expression and symbols is a threat to religious freedom, runs contrary to our founding documents, and is unfaithful to our history as a free people. It also represents an incorrect application of the Establishment Clause, found in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

That 2011 opinion also demonstrated that the 2005 Supreme Court decision of Van Orden v. Perry, a "ten commandments" case, has made the illogic of Establishment Clause Jurisprudence even more pronounced in the United States.

Even the convoluted trail left by the Lemon case and its progeny can now be abandoned by a Court, under the ruse of an "exception" to the Lemon analysis, only to be replaced by Judicial whimsy. In other words, unelected Federal Judges now determine whether we can express ourselves as a people who have a religious heritage.

Federal Judges now make up their own rules by which they decide, on their own, whether a religious symbol, especially a Christian religious symbol, will be allowed to stand on public land or in a public building. There is not even a pretense that the actual words of the Establishment Clause have any effect in this new world of the judicial oligarchy.

That 224 page opinion rendered by the 9th Circuit in the Mt Soledad case back in 2011 is one of many examples of why it is absolutely essential that we reclaim the "Separation of Powers" doctrine and rein in Federal Judges and Courts. The recent decision of the lower Federal Court only makes it all more urgent. Are we going to begin tearing down other symbols of our history because they have religious symbols within them?

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights is best understood as an anti-establishment clause. It was intended to prohibit the "establishment" of one particular religion - in the sense of a Federal or State sponsored Church which mandated adherence from unwilling citizens. The American founders fled coercive approaches to religion which compelled adherence to a particular sect. Yet, they were not anti-religious.

They were MOST assuredly NOT against religious symbols or religious expression. Our history is filled with them. Or, more accurately, it once was. Religious symbols are no longer seen as a wonderful sign of the history of the West and the American founding by the new Judicial Oligarchs.

Rather they are seen as a threat to the increasingly hostile secularist order. When they are allowed they must be demonstrated to have been eviscerated of any religious meaning and somehow thereby rendered "secular" and acceptable.

This 9th Circuit Court opinion showed hostility toward the Cross: [C]onsidering the entire context of the Memorial, the Memorial today remains a predominantly religious symbol. The history and absolute dominance of the Cross are not mitigated by the belated efforts to add less significant secular elements to the Memorial.

The fact that the Memorial also commemorates the war dead and serves as a site for secular ceremonies honoring veterans cannot overcome the effect of its decades-long religious history...The Memorial's relatively short history of secular usage does not predominate over its religious functions so as to eliminate the message of endorsement that the Cross conveys."

Those Judges were particularly offended by the size of the cross noting (W)e cannot overlook the fact that the Cross is forty-three feet tall. It physically dominates the Memorial, towering over the secular symbols placed beneath it, and is so large and placed in such a prominent location that it can be seen from miles away.

Their disjointed legal opinion finally concluded, [A]fter examining the entirety of the Mount Soledad Memorial in context-having considered its history, its religious and non-religious uses, its sectarian and secular features, the history of war memorials and the dominance of the Cross-we conclude that the Memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause.

Now, Judge Burns has followed the directives of other Judicial Oligarchs and ordered that a beloved part of our history, a Cross which has long honored the war dead, be torn down. Charles LiMandri, a courageous Catholic Lawyer who represents the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, said he was going to Appeal."

Religious Cleansing in the USA: Federal Judge Orders Mt. Soledad War Memorial Cross Be Torn Down - U.s. - Catholic Online

Remember friends, scrubbing the public square of any religious references is among the first things done by Communists in communities, largely because of the threat religion poses to a totalitarian state. Just sayin'
 
One thing it represented was repression of atheist thought. It's also a huge violation of the separation of church and state. It's got to go. There is a Constitution you know.

So as long as the cross is there, you can't think?
 
There are many plaques there, honoring vets from the Revolutionary war, to the present conflicts in the ME.


And not one of them was there between the 1954 construction and 1989 when the City lost the lawsuit regarding the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross (as it was known prior to the defenders trying to rewrite the history of the Cross).


>>>>
 
And not one of them was there between the 1954 construction and 1989 when the City lost the lawsuit regarding the Mt. Soledad Easter Cross (as it was known prior to the defenders trying to rewrite the history of the Cross).


>>>>

Are they there now, and in place as a war memorial? yes, or no?
 
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:
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.
 
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


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:
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.
 
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.
 
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."
 
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?
 
I wonder if they'll ever ban this:

Toscana-14k-Gold-filled-Cross-Pendant-P14837782.jpg
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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:
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom