• 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

This is also interesting....

Roles both religious and secular have been ascribed to each cross. Each has on occasion been used by members of the public for Christian religious purposes. 10 Each cross also has been dedicated as a memorial to an individual or individuals who have died. 11 In addition, the cross on Mt. Helix *1424 serves pilots as a navigational aid, and the cross on Mt. Soledad assists surveyors and seismologists. 12
While the two crosses clearly are alike in many respects, they also are distinguishable. In particular, it should be noted that whereas the property on which the Mt. Soledad Latin cross stands has been public for as long as the cross has stood there, the property on which the Mt. Helix Latin cross stands did not become public until after the cross had been erected on it. 13

https://www.casetext.com/case/murphy-v-bilbray/
Click to expand...
 
j-mac said:
Do you have a link to this "detailed history" you pulled this from? [/QOUTE]

MURPHY v. BILBRAY | Leagle.com

j-mac said:
Look, you side with the atheists, I understand that,
Click to expand...

Wrong.

j-mac said:
but I wonder why it bothers you, and them so?
Click to expand...

I'm a Christian, crosses don't bother me in the least.

What bothers me is how the City used a liberal playbook tactic. Tell a lie, tell it often enough and the uninformed will believe it. The City used veterans, I've stood at that Cross in the early 80's. There was nothing there but the cross. Not one indication that it was intended as a "War Memorial", that is a charade created in 1989 because of the case filing. If the cross had been intended as a "war memorial" then explain why NOT ONE Veterans Day or Memorial Day observance resulted but that for EVERY year the Mt. Soledad Association requested and received Easter Sunday Service permits?


j-mac said:
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.
Click to expand...

2013-1954 = 59 years.

1989 (when the suit was filed) - 1954 = 35 years


>>>>
Click to expand...
 
WorldWatcher said:
j-mac said:
Do you have a link to this "detailed history" you pulled this from?
Click to expand...

MURPHY v. BILBRAY | Leagle.com
Click to expand...

Thank you, I figured it out...

Wrong.
Click to expand...

Could have fooled me....You are using their arguments, citing their law suits, and it would seem wanting the cross removed. Am I wrong?

I'm a Christian, crosses don't bother me in the least.

What bothers me is how the City used a liberal playbook tactic. Tell a lie, tell it often enough and the uninformed will believe it. The City used veterans, I've stood at that Cross in the early 80's. There was nothing there but the cross. Not one indication that it was intended as a "War Memorial", that is a charade created in 1989 because of the case filing. If the cross had been intended as a "war memorial" then explain why NOT ONE Veterans Day or Memorial Day observance resulted but that for EVERY year the Mt. Soledad Association requested and received Easter Sunday Service permits?
Click to expand...

Well, you yourself acknowledge that there was a story in 1954 about it being dedicated as a WWI, WWII, and Korean war memorial, one article, or a thousand it doesn't matter. What matters is what the city council approved. Why do the Easter Sunday services bother you, if as you say being a Christian and all?

2013-1954 = 59 years.

1989 (when the suit was filed) - 1954 = 35 years
Click to expand...

So my math was a little off...The first cross was erected there in 1913....2013 - 1913 = 100 years.

Regardless, you are not addressing my question, which is, if they erected this cross in 1954, why then did it take them until 1989 to start bitching about it?

And further, are you aware that this isn't the only cross/memorial under attack by this group of atheists? What is their problem? Can't they live and let live?
 
Paschendale said:
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.



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.



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.



Again, your choice. You wouldn't mind. Just because that's your position doesn't mean that it has to be anyone else's.



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.



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.



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.



That's probably not true. They just didn't have the means to speak out.



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.
Click to expand...

I am not denying anyone a choice, I do not see the reason for the cross to come down, again you asked for a symbol for the military and I gave it to you. There are more military dead buried under the cross than any other symbol, so if there is a symbol, it would be the cross. Now if you aren't trying to do away with the religious symbol over Mount Solidad, then what is it? You sure aren't trying to keep it there. That cross certainly isn't forcing any religion on anyone. It just sits there still, unmoving, untalking and as a quiet memorable to veterans as it was intended.

If tearing down this cross doesn't fill peoples hearts with joy, why do it. I am sure tearing it down doesn't fill their hearts with sadness as if it did they wouldn't want it taken down. If someone is buried in a military cemetery and doesn't like the cross over them, they are free to change it. But this is about the cross on that mountain, what harm does it do? Why force people to tear it down? It does not promote any religion, it can't, it doesn't talk, it doesn't write, it doesn't file lawsuits. People do that. What it has done since 1913 is provide comfort to probably millions of people who either visited the cemetery or passed by it. Why are you against providing comfort?

I am free to practice my religion here, so too are you. You're free to practice non-religion and everything else. Why are so many people so scared of a religious symbol? What harm has a religious symbol ever done to you? I just don't understand this at all. Let the cross be, if it was a star of David, I would say the same, if it was just a metal poll with a football on it, I would say the same. It has been their for 100 years or a cross has been there for a hundred years. Why force you non-religion on everyone else? We Buddhist do not do that, you believe as you will, no problem. We Buddhist also respect other religions, we would never have you change or try to make you abandon your religion. I was brought up to believe this country was established on the freedom of religion, NOT free from religion as you are advocating.

All I can say is shame on you. Let the crosses or any other religious symbol be. They harm no one and provide comfort to some. I will never understand the move to de-religionise this country.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

And I would agree with those atheists. A monument has to be as inclusive as possible and as freely accessible as humanly possible and as long as it is owned by the government this will be guaranteed. Also, private groups can have points of view which may not be agreed with by the government or the people who visit the monument. How would it look if it becomes possible for extreme groups to own such a monument (like for example the KKK) or the socialist party of American/Tea party, scientology or the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
 
j-mac said:
Could have fooled me....You are using their arguments, citing their law suits, and it would seem wanting the cross removed. Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

I'm siting the lawsuits in the case that detail history of the cross. I have no desire to have the cross removed. The common sense solution to would have been to sell the property in an open bid. If the new owner wanted to keep it. That's fine, however that is not what the city tried to do.


j-mac said:
Well, you yourself acknowledge that there was a story in 1954 about it being dedicated as a WWI, WWII, and Korean war memorial, one article, or a thousand it doesn't matter. What matters is what the city council approved. Why do the Easter Sunday services bother you, if as you say being a Christian and all?
Click to expand...

The Easter Sunday Services don't bother me at all. What bothers me is for the City to claim it's a War Memorial and then dedicated it on a religious holiday instead of Memorial day which was right around the corner. What bothers me is that for 35-years the city didn't honor Veterans at their "War Memorial"which was actually on the maps and government documents as "Soledad Easter Cross", and when I was in San Diego that's what we knew it by, but when called on it suddenly they decide to use the Veterans as a shield in their lawsuit.


j-mac said:
Regardless, you are not addressing my question, which is, if they erected this cross in 1954, why then did it take them until 1989 to start bitching about it?
Click to expand...

You'd have to ask Paulson, but if IIRC he's dead now.


j-mac said:
And further, are you aware that this isn't the only cross/memorial under attack by this group of atheists? What is their problem? Can't they live and let live?
Click to expand...

You'd have to ask them.

I think it's valid to tell atheists trying to remove established memorials to pound sand. But don't lie about it and hide from the real reason the memorials were erected.



>>>>
 
WorldWatcher said:
I'm siting the lawsuits in the case that detail history of the cross. I have no desire to have the cross removed. The common sense solution to would have been to sell the property in an open bid. If the new owner wanted to keep it. That's fine, however that is not what the city tried to do.




The Easter Sunday Services don't bother me at all. What bothers me is for the City to claim it's a War Memorial and then dedicated it on a religious holiday instead of Memorial day which was right around the corner. What bothers me is that for 35-years the city didn't honor Veterans at their "War Memorial"which was actually on the maps and government documents as "Soledad Easter Cross", and when I was in San Diego that's what we knew it by, but when called on it suddenly they decide to use the Veterans as a shield in their lawsuit.




You'd have to ask Paulson, but if IIRC he's dead now.




You'd have to ask them.

I think it's valid to tell atheists trying to remove established memorials to pound sand. But don't lie about it and hide from the real reason the memorials were erected.



>>>>
Click to expand...

Ok, so, let me see if I have this right...You don't have a problem with the cross being there, you don't have a problem with there being a service there on Easter Sunday, and you don't want the cross brought down....Your main beef is who owns the land, private vs. public...And that is it?
 
Peter King said:
And I would agree with those atheists. A monument has to be as inclusive as possible and as freely accessible as humanly possible and as long as it is owned by the government this will be guaranteed.
Click to expand...

Stop there Peter, Do you have proof that other symbols have been denied?
 
j-mac said:
Ok, so, let me see if I have this right...You don't have a problem with the cross being there,
Click to expand...

Correct.

j-mac said:
you don't have a problem with there being a service there on Easter Sunday,
Click to expand...

Correct

j-mac said:
and you don't want the cross brought down....
Click to expand...

Correct

The city should just have sold the land in an open bid process and down with it. (The process they tried wasn't a true open bid.)

j-mac said:
Your main beef is who owns the land, private vs. public...And that is it?
Click to expand...

Secondary. My main "beef" is that the city used Veterans for political purposes. They ignored them (as it pertains to the cross) until such time as we became a convenient made up excuse. After ignoring us since the Cross was erected suddenly "its all about the Veterans" as an emotional appeal instead of being straight up and working through a solution that could have made both sides happy.



>>>>
 
j-mac said:
Stop there Peter, Do you have proof that other symbols have been denied?
Click to expand...

I don't, but why risk it. The government can maintain the monument and there is no need to have private organizations to take it from their hands.
 
Deuce said:
Why does a cross represent such a memorial? What's the origin of using a crucifix in memory of something?
Click to expand...

A cross is not a crucifix.
 
CanadaJohn said:
You've got to do better than that - what provision of the constitution is specifically violated and how/why?
Click to expand...

Why? Do you think the US government is allowed by the constitution to coerce US citizens into serving a particular church under penalty of law?
 
FederalRepublic said:
Why? Do you think the US government is allowed by the constitution to coerce US citizens into serving a particular church under penalty of law?
Click to expand...

I'm not the one who claimed the cross was clearly unconstitutional - you did - I was simply giving you the opportunity to make your case by pointing out the specific provisions of the constitution you believe are/were violated. The fact you failed to do so leaves me with the conclusion that you were unable to do so.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I'm not the one who claimed the cross was clearly unconstitutional - you did - I was simply giving you the opportunity to make your case by pointing out the specific provisions of the constitution you believe are/were violated. The fact you failed to do so leaves me with the conclusion that you were unable to do so.
Click to expand...

I did? I think you may have missed something in translation from American to Canadian...suggest a review:

CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

FederalRepublic said:
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."
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
And if it does, that affects negatively on your life in what way?
Click to expand...

FederalRepublic said:
If it does, that actually would be in violation of the constitution.
Click to expand...

CanadaJohn said:
You've got to
do better than that - what provision of the constitution is specifically violated and how/why?
Click to expand...


Where did I say that the cross was clearly unconstitutional? I didn't need an opportunity to make that case. I gave you a specific, hyperbolic example of what would be unconstitutional (forcing support of a particular religion under penalty of law), but do I really need to make that case to you? I think I can do it, just didn't think it was necessary...:golf
 
Peter King said:
And I would agree with those atheists. A monument has to be as inclusive as possible and as freely accessible as humanly possible and as long as it is owned by the government this will be guaranteed. Also, private groups can have points of view which may not be agreed with by the government or the people who visit the monument. How would it look if it becomes possible for extreme groups to own such a monument (like for example the KKK) or the socialist party of American/Tea party, scientology or the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
Click to expand...

Your initial premise is flawed, A monument doesn't have to be inclusive at all. Yes, a PUBLIC monument probably should be, but a privately owned one does not suffer under that requirement at all. Once again, it was an easy solution that would have satisfied those reasonable on both sides of the issue. But the frothing at the mouth atheists blocked the sale so they could "win". Silly.
 
Peter King said:
I don't, but why risk it. The government can maintain the monument and there is no need to have private organizations to take it from their hands.
Click to expand...

Then you can't proclaim it as though it has happened.
 
clownboy said:
Your initial premise is flawed, A monument doesn't have to be inclusive at all. Yes, a PUBLIC monument probably should be, but a privately owned one does not suffer under that requirement at all. Once again, it was an easy solution that would have satisfied those reasonable on both sides of the issue. But the frothing at the mouth atheists blocked the sale so they could "win". Silly.
Click to expand...

But a war memorial should be a public monument and should not be given to private organizations.
 
j-mac said:
Then you can't proclaim it as though it has happened.
Click to expand...

I proclaimed nothing, you started with the "Do you have proof that other symbols have been denied?" stuff. All I said was that a monument celebrating war heroes should be as inclusive as possible (so that as many people feel at home there to honor their fallen loved ones) and as accessible as possible and I still stand by that.

I did not proclaim that other symbols were denied, heck, I didn't even bring up other symbols (you did) and I already said that I have not problem with a cross on the monument to begin with. All I am saying is that a public monument should not be handed over to a private organization if there is no need to do so.
 
Peter King said:
But a war memorial should be a public monument and should not be given to private organizations.
Click to expand...

what's the big deal? It becomes a private entity and people get to maintain it in it's current state? Seems like a win, win
 
Dr. Chuckles said:
what's the big deal? It becomes a private entity and people get to maintain it in it's current state? Seems like a win, win
Click to expand...

No, that is evading the issue. The USA should stop judges like this from doing stuff like this. The cross should have never been removed and that is the issue. Turning it over to a private entity just evades the issue instead of solving it.

And this is a very different thing than the ten commandments issue, that is a truly christian kind of a thing and is much more religious than the humble grave cross ever was.

The words "religion" in the constitution were meant for all religions but a simple cross should not be seen as a representation or a favoring of one religion over the others.
 
Posted by FederalRepublic
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."
Click to expand...

Sorry to say I missed it and when I google all is see is a the quote on this forum. If this sign about the 5 Hail Marys in really there than the sign should be removed and the problem would be solved.
 
Peter King said:
I proclaimed nothing, you started with the "Do you have proof that other symbols have been denied?" stuff. All I said was that a monument celebrating war heroes should be as inclusive as possible (so that as many people feel at home there to honor their fallen loved ones) and as accessible as possible and I still stand by that.

I did not proclaim that other symbols were denied, heck, I didn't even bring up other symbols (you did) and I already said that I have not problem with a cross on the monument to begin with. All I am saying is that a public monument should not be handed over to a private organization if there is no need to do so.
Click to expand...
If you want an 'inclusive' war monument then why not have one with a swastika on it, or the rising sun. These petty trivializations just make atheists appear stupid, despite perhaps having some legitimate arguments elsewhere.
 
Peter King said:
The words "religion" in the constitution were meant for all religions but a simple cross should not be seen as a representation or a favoring of one religion over the others.
Click to expand...

Which part of the constitution are you referring to in this claim?
 
Peter King said:
No, that is evading the issue. The USA should stop judges like this from doing stuff like this.
Click to expand...

How is it evading the issue? It offers a direct compromise that maintains the historical integrety of the site while removing the dilemma of public ownership.

The cross should have never been removed and that is the issue.
Click to expand...

Why, because you got some bug up your ass against religion? Sorry, chief, the world doesn't cater to your pet peeves

Turning it over to a private entity just evades the issue instead of solving it.
Click to expand...

Actually the issue seems it offers a solution you don't like

And this is a very different thing than the ten commandments issue, that is a truly christian kind of a thing and is much more religious than the humble grave cross ever was.

The words "religion" in the constitution were meant for all religions but a simple cross should not be seen as a representation or a favoring of one religion over the others.
Click to expand...

I'm not following
 
Grant said:
If you want an 'inclusive' war monument then why not have one with a swastika on it, or the rising sun. These petty trivializations just make atheists appear stupid, despite perhaps having some legitimate arguments elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I was not aware this monument was in Japan or in Germany, also I was not aware that this monument was for German and Japanese war dead. This is still an American monument last time and I checked for US victims of war.

Atheist trivialize nothing and we also do not make ridiculous remarks about swastika's or the rising sun. This is a monument to all the fallen US service men, no matter if they are Jewish, Muslim (not likely but who knows), native American faith, Christians or no faith.

That some dumb atheist objected to a cross and that a dumb judge agreed with him is not the fault of "Atheists" but of one or a few atheists. Just like there are a whole host of different christians there are a lot of different atheists, some go insane about something stupid like a simple funeral cross but most (most likely) could care less. They are much more bothered with praying at school (through the intercom) than a cross on a monument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom