- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
Are we even talking wbout the same deal?...lol
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
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.)
>>>>
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.
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.
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 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.
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.At least until they put up somebody else's religious symbol.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Why does a cross represent such a memorial? What's the origin of using a crucifix in memory of something?
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.
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.
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.
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 use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?