The 76% of San Diegans who voted in 1992 to protect the memorial know what it is.

1) “voting to protect it” tells us nothing about why they want to keep it. It could just be that the majority of San Diegans want a religious icon overlooking the city.
2) My understanding is that the turnout of that vote was rather on the low side and the nature of such votes does qualify it as a scientific poll. Yes, this is how we elect people and pass legislation, but it is not how we settle constitutional matters.

you’ve been arguing the entire time that you believe (facts be damned) that this cross was intended primarily as a religious symbol

What you did here in defending the ACLU’s argument is assume that the motives of those placing the memorial were different from the stated purpose.

I have not made a single mention of “motive” or “intent”. My argument rests entirely on the actual use of the site.

I would be willing to bet that there have been far more military events than weddings there over the years.

As I’ve said, if it is true that the site has played a greater role as a secular item than as a religious item, I would withdraw my objection. However, my understanding is that that is not the case.

“…consisted of nothing more than a single religious symbol.”

But that in of itself does not make the memorial unconstitutional any more than it makes the Argonne and Canadian Crosses, both single religious symbols, unconstitutional.

Sorry, I was vague. I was referring to the fact that the entire site consisted of a cross, a field, and maybe some benches. Your other examples are indisputably part of a much larger (the largest in the country?) memorial.

The absence of a plaque (as if a the affixation of a plaque from the 1954 military dedication ceremony would have prevented Paulson’s suit) does not erase the true history

The absence of a plaque is by no means a deciding factor, but it is conspicuous and those little things add up.

BTW, I don’t care in the least about Paulson’s motives or under what circumstances he may or may not have acted differently. All that matters is that the site is under review.

in this lengthy exachange I have told you far more than you already knew, facts that you cannot seriously dispute

You mentioned very little that I didn’t already know, but that isn’t really relevant anyways. Our disagreement comes down to the very subjective question “Has the site served primarily in a secular or religious manner?”

demanding that I prove that every single person that has ever lived in San Diego since 1954

You brought it up. I just asked you to back up your claim that “no one in the city of San Diego [questioned the purpose of the cross]“.

But still Jeff, it’s a BIBLE. There’s no Koran or Bhagavad-Gita and I’m sure that there have been Muslims and Hindus who’ve died in battle and are buried at Arlington…doesn;t the presence of a Bible “favor” troops over on faith over the other. Wouldn’t its presence as the single Holy text included in the cornerstone vilate the Establishment Clause?

Using the ACLU’s position, yes, it would also be a violation. Using my position, no, it wouldn’t be.

Oh come on Jeff. OK, I’m sure there have been some people in San Diego who didn’t know what the cross was and even some people who didn’t even know it existed. I’ll grant you that, but it doesn’t really matter that someone somewhere may have been confused or unaware. Paulson knew full well that it was a memorial and that it was dedicated as such. The 76% of San Diegans who voted in 1992 to protect the memorial know what it is. And the fact that you acknowledge those who dedicated it knew what they were dedicating it for (the intent was clear and this is what is covered by the precedents I cited earlier concerning religious symbols serving a legitimate secular purpose) shatters your other arguments anyway.

“I don’t spout superlatives like “purely”, and you know it. I said “more as a religious icon than a memorial”. ”

But Jeff, you’ve been arguing the entire time that you believe (facts be damned) that this cross was intended primarily as a religious symbol and used the weddining argument in an attempt to bolster your argumnet. I think you see that your hair-splitting about the word “purely” is an attempt to deflect the fact that you’ve realized it was a bad example because I would bet that not only are there ALSO military-related ceremonies at Soledad, I would be willing to bet that there have been far more military events than weddings there over the years. Not only that, every time I have gone, the vast majority of other visitors there were vets or familes of vets who’ve made the trip BECAUSE it is well-known as a must-see landmark for those who want to honor veterans, not for those who wish to pray (although I have prayed there…for my brothers-in-arms who fought and dies of course becauseTHAT is what the cross is there for and always has been there for). Additionally, representatives of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association (est. in 1952 not as the Mt. Soledad Mass Forced Conversion Cult, but as the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association) are regularly present to provide history lessons for Boy/Girl Scout troops and school field trips about the memorial and guess what the history of the memorial is Jeff?

“What mind reading have I done?”

Here you go:

“the claim is that these memorials are an “establishment clause violation” because they are on public land and they are religious objects first, and “war memorials” a distant second.”

What you did here in defending the ACLU’s argument is assume that the motives of those placing the memorial were different from the stated purpose. This is exactly what was being addressed in McCreary as an invalid appraoch. The fact remains that the stated intent of the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association was to honor primarily those killed in service on the Korean peninsula.

“…consisted of nothing more than a single religious symbol.”

But that in of itself does not make the memorial unconstitutional any more than it makes the Argonne and Canadian Crosses, both single religious symbols, unconstitutional. The absence of a plaque (as if a the affixation of a plaque from the 1954 military dedication ceremony would have prevented Paulson’s suit) does not erase the true history and intent of the memorial, again erected with permission from the city by the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, with no complaints from anyone connected to those who are honored by the memorial .

“I’m just saying that from what I do know, it is questionable.”

…and in this lengthy exachange I have told you far more than you already knew, facts that you cannot seriously dispute without demanding that I prove that every single person that has ever lived in San Diego since 1954 was aware of the purpose of the memorial, which of you know is a ridculous demand and serves only to obscure a crumbling argument.

“The graves and the 24/7 honor guard makes the site’s status as a memorial pretty airtight.”

But still Jeff, it’s a BIBLE. There’s no Koran or Bhagavad-Gita and I’m sure that there have been Muslims and Hindus who’ve died in battle and are buried at Arlington…doesn;t the presence of a Bible “favor” troops over on faith over the other. Wouldn’t its presence as the single Holy text included in the cornerstone vilate the Establishment Clause? I know you see my point.

no one who erected the monument…

I don’t dispute that.

…not the color guard who graced the dedication ceremony…

I don’t dispute that.

no one in the city of San Diego

NO ONE until Paulson

I’m awfully curious about these statements. How exactly did you determine state of mind of a city of a million people over a span of decades?

By your wedding logic (that if weddings are performed or photographed there, it makes it a purely religious site), then if military-related ceremonies are performed there, it can’t be denied that it is a military memorial.

I don’t spout superlatives like “purely”, and you know it. I said “more as a religious icon than a memorial”.

the court must avoid a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts” andaviod the practice of of deciphering the “veiled psyche of government officers.” This puts your mindreading standard on shakier ground than it already is being that the facts about the history of Soledad put you on the other side of the truth.

What mind reading have I done? My understanding is that the “memorial” , until all the brouhaha, consisted of nothing more than a single religious symbol and that it attracted significantly more activities of a religious nature than than of a military nature.

Now, if that vista is truly so beautiful that the site would host wedding activity even if it consisted of nothing more than a bench and a garbage can, that should certainly be taken into account along with a myriad of other factors. I have not researched the matter to that depth, so I don’t pretend have the final word on the subject.

I’m just saying that from what I do know, it is questionable.

Jeff, do you oppose the inclusion of a Bible in the cornerstone of the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington?

I would need a better understanding of its context (are other historical or religious items sprinkled throughout the area?), but it’s doubtful that I would oppose it. The graves and the 24/7 honor guard makes the site’s status as a memorial pretty airtight.

Jeff, this is tiresome. To those killed in Korea primarily. Once more:

To go back to something I wrote earlier: In 1954 (you know, 35 years before Paulson filed), a PRIVATE group known as the MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION was granted permission by the city TO CONSTRUCT THE CURRENT CROSS AS A MEMORIAL TO WWII AND KOREAN WAR DEAD. Not sure how this is still unclear Jeff.

No, not the Mt. Soledad Southern Baptist Worldwide Evangelistic Missionary Society, but the MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION. Jeff, once more, no one who erected the monument, no one in the city of San Diego, not the color guard who graced the dedication ceremony, not the families of those honored, NO ONE until Paulson filed his suit questioned the purpose of the cross. The only people distorting the constitution in this case are those pretending that the cross was something other than a war memorial.

“I disagree with your conclusion. In each of those cases, the item in question was in a context gave it credibility as a secular item. Soledad was a cross on a hill. Nothing more, nothing less.”

You are half right, but you veer off. Just because Soledad is a singular symbol doesn’t mean that there is no secualr purpose. The fact that people have had weddings up there means NOTHING except that Mt. Soledad offers one of the most beautiful vistas in the world. I was stationed in the San Diego area for several years and have been up there. There are also regular military ceremonies there and there have been for many years. By your wedding logic (that if weddings are performed or photographed there, it makes it a purely religious site), then if military-related ceremonies are performed there, it can’t be denied that it is a military memorial. What was that about the duck and the swan Jeff?

Anyway, back to the precedents — in McCreary, a negative decision regarding public display of the Decalogue, the opinion says that the court must avoid a “judicial psychoanalysis of a drafter’s heart of hearts” andaviod the practice of of deciphering the “veiled psyche of government officers.” This puts your mindreading standard on shakier ground than it already is being that the facts about the history of Soledad put you on the other side of the truth.

Jeff, do you oppose the inclusion of a Bible in the cornerstone of the Memorial Amphitheater at Arlington?

It was erected AS a memorial to war dead. When it was erected, there was no question about why.

Again, I ask to whom? Yes, they were consistent in declaring its stated purpose, but you’re cynical enough to know that “stated purposes” are not always the whole story. A gigantic cross, without so much as a plaque nearby? There would have my mind and that doubt would have grown during every year I watched it used more as a religious icon than a memorial. Seriously, now… weddings? How many war memorials actually host weddings?? You can call it a duck til the end of time, but if it has the genes of a swan, it’s a swan.

And Jeff, if the issue is ONLY that it is on public land, why, oh why, wouldn’t the transfer of that land to the private organization that has ALWAYS maintained the memorial be an acceptable compromise?

Because that compromise would open a gaping loophole. A determined organization could erect crosses on public land across the country skirt the constitution by buying the land 100 square feet at a time.

The defense of the Wiccan (is that an ACLU case…I thought that was AUSCS case…anyway)

http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/26970prs20060929.html

Van Orden, McCreary and Green v. Haskell County would be directly applicable and support the memorials .

I disagree with your conclusion. In each of those cases, the item in question was in a context gave it credibility as a secular item. Soledad was a cross on a hill. Nothing more, nothing less.

BTW, I’m sure you’ve noticed by now that I haven’t commented on Mojave. I know very little about that case and I don’t care to learn at this point, so I’m confining my discussion to the case on which I can talk intelligently.

You’re trying to rationalize a completely irrational and deceptive position

If you say so.

That is how Soledad and Mojave were dedicated. These being the facts, what is your position?

See the first paragraph of this comment. Soledad seems to serve more as a religious icon that as a memorial. That’s why I question it.

It was erected AS a memorial to war dead. When it was erected, there was no question about why. To go back to something I wrote earlier: In 1954 (you know, 35 years before Paulson filed), a PRIVATE group known as the MOUNT SOLEDAD MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION was granted permission by the city TO CONSTRUCT THE CURRENT CROSS AS A MEMORIAL TO WWII AND KOREAN WAR DEAD. Not sure how this is still unclear Jeff. As I understand your argument Jeff, it sounds as if you should be supporting the retention of the cross as it stands.

“Yes, they oppose privatizing that land. However, you’ve gone further to say the ACLU wants to “tear it down.” I originally took “tear it down” to mean “destroy”, which is not their position. I do see that you could have meant “tear it down” as in “tear it down and erect elsewhere”, so if that’s the case, I’ll retract my statement. ”

By “tear it down,” yes, I mean “tear it down from where it now stands.” Moving it would be to concede that the ACLU has a legitimate constitutional claim and it does not.

And Jeff, if the issue is ONLY that it is on public land, why, oh why, wouldn’t the transfer of that land to the private organization that has ALWAYS maintained the memorial be an acceptable compromise? I’ll answer. Because the ACLU doesn’t give a rip about honoring veterans, it only wants its unpalatable position vindicated and its precedent on the books so it can strengthen its ridiculous position that the Est. Clause requires public lands be cleansed of all religious symbols regradless of what they represent. The defense of the Wiccan (is that an ACLU case…I thought that was AUSCS case…anyway) just shows the hypocrisy of these groups — they fight for a marginal belief system on behalf of one person (for the record I do agree with the position that a Wiccan has just as much right to have his/her symbol on a head stone as a Christian does…duh, who would disagree with that?) yet, continues such a dishonorable and callous campaign to rip down memorials that honor thousands.

“Unless there’s a precedent I’m unaware of, that statement is not quite correct. The status quo is not necessarily constitutional just because it hasn’t been challenged previously.”

Van Orden, McCreary and Green v. Haskell County would be directly applicable and support the memorials . Though these are both Ten Commandments cases, they deal with the intent of those who placed the displays and what the displays represent. Additionally, both memorials (Soledad and Mojave) satisfy the ridiculous Lemon test as they undoubtedly have a “secular purpose.”

“I understood their position to be “They oppose the cross staying on public land. They oppose transferring the public land to private ownership. They support moving the cross to private land. They support individual symbols on public land if the symbol is chosen by individual (or, presumably, his next of kin)” Is that not accurate?”

Yeah, pretty much, but go back up to what I wrote earlier about opposition to a deal that would have made the land private in the case of Soledad and would have RETURNED it to private hands in the case of Mojave. This is what I meant by you falling for the ACLU’s doubletalk. You’re trying to rationalize a completely irrational and deceptive position, despite the fact that you say you haven’t decided at what conclusion you’ll ultimately arrive.

“I don’t care if a group chooses a Christian marker, as long as it’s representative of the group honored by the marker. What I cannot support is someone erecting religious markers and calling them “memorials” just to circumvent the constitution.”

Again Jeff, as I have explained, the vast majority of veterans’ memorials are placed in this manner by freinds, family, comrades-in-arms from the very same unit(s) being honored or others with close connections. That is how Soledad and Mojave were dedicated. These being the facts, what is your position?

How did I determine what? That Soledad has always been a veterans’ memorial?

You said its purpose was never in doubt. You didn’t specify “by whom”, but I’m assuming you meant that its purpose was never in doubt by San Diegans. If I’m wrong on that please correct me.

So my question, sans pronouns this time, was how did you determine what the San Diegans did or did not doubt prior to the original lawsuit?

How exactly am I “misrepresenting” the ACLU’s position? There were several efforts over the years to privatize the land around the memorial, all met with fierce ACLU opposition.

Yes, they oppose privatizing that land. However, you’ve gone further to say the ACLU wants to “tear it down.” I originally took “tear it down” to mean “destroy”, which is not their position. I do see that you could have meant “tear it down” as in “tear it down and erect elsewhere”, so if that’s the case, I’ll retract my statement.

Anyway, you are falling for ACLU doubletalk

I have not yet decided if I support the ACLU’s position.

it has never been unconstitutional to honor veterans with a religious symbol on public land

Unless there’s a precedent I’m unaware of, that statement is not quite correct. The status quo is not necessarily constitutional just because it hasn’t been challenged previously.

so the ACLU’s “compromise” (remove the cross from where it has always been) is simply based on the lie that the ACLU has constructed about the constitutionality of the memorial.

Again, you’re simply assuming your position is correct, a pretty meaningless exercise.

What is ACTUALLY going on is that the ACLU is misrepreseting it OWN position in order to save some PR face.

After about three minutes worth of reading their FAQ, I understood their position to be “They oppose the cross staying on public land. They oppose transferring the public land to private ownership. They support moving the cross to private land. They support individual symbols on public land if the symbol is chosen by individual (or, presumably, his next of kin)” Is that not accurate?

I understand your first point to a degree about why you chose to argue the point in the manner you chose, but it still doesn’t make your position constitutionally consistent. If a cross, which “favors one religion” is “unconstitutional,” under any legal construct, it would not matter whether or not that cross was on a veterans’ memorial. What O’Connorian standard of reasoning are you using here to reach a different conclusion?

It’s basically the same logic the ACLU uses to support individual markers and oppose group markers, except I draw the line at a different point. I don’t care if a group chooses a Christian marker, as long as it’s representative of the group honored by the marker. What I cannot support is someone erecting religious markers and calling them “memorials” just to circumvent the constitution.

How exactly am I “misrepresenting” the ACLU’s position? There were several efforts over the years to privatize the land around the memorial, all met with fierce ACLU opposition.

Anyway, you are falling for ACLU doubletalk — again, it has never been unconstitutional to honor veterans with a religious symbol on public land, so the ACLU’s “compromise” (remove the cross from where it has always been) is simply based on the lie that the ACLU has constructed about the constitutionality of the memorial. As mentioned above, the ACLU has OPPOSED compromises that would have (unnecessarily in my view) transfered the land to private hands in BOTH the Soledad and Mojave (which WAS on private land for 65 years until the Clinton land grab) cases. What is ACTUALLY going on is that the ACLU is misrepreseting it OWN position in order to save some PR face. I am providing the more accurate picture.

I understand your first point to a degree about why you chose to argue the point in the manner you chose, but it still doesn’t make your position constitutionally consistent. If a cross, which “favors one religion” is “unconstitutional,” under any legal construct, it would not matter whether or not that cross was on a veterans’ memorial. What O’Connorian standard of reasoning are you using here to reach a different conclusion? It sounds like the distinction you’ve adopted is based on the fact that you just know in your heart that it is wrong, jurisprudential consistency aside. I definitely don’t fault you for that, because I agree with your instinct. The big problem, Jeff, is that your position can’t be defended the way you’d like it to stand.

That’s fine Jeff, but the problem is, the topic of this post is the ACLU’s lawsuits.

Yes, but you made several assertions that if one opposes the Soledad Cross, one must also oppose other crosses. I was demonstrating cases that make that statement false.

As a side note, it seems you’re also misrepresenting the ACLU’s position.

Is there anything wrong with religious symbols on gravestones in military cemeteries such as Arlington Cemetery?
Once again, absolutely not. Veterans and their families are entitled to have the individual religious beliefs of veterans recognized on headstones in military cemeteries.

There is a myth — popular with many who have little concern for the truth — that the ACLU opposes religious symbols on headstones. To the contrary, the ACLU’s position is that every veteran’s family should have the right to decide which religion or belief symbol should be placed on gravestones.

So does this mean that the Mt. Soledad cross must be destroyed?
The problem is not the religious symbol. The problem is the government getting involved and endorsing and sponsoring this symbol. Those who truly wish to save the Mt. Soledad cross have a perfectly constitutional solution, which the ACLU — and the former litigants in the 17-year lawsuit, according to a settlement agreement reached in 2004 — support: move the cross to a non-governmental site.

The purpose of Soledad, again, was NEVER in doubt until Paulson invented the convenient fiction

How exactly did you determine that?