Controversy over cross honoring WWI veterans

[B-17engineer]

The Supreme Court is taking up a long-running legal fight over a cross honoring World War I soldiers that has stood for 75 years on public land in a remote part of California.

The cross, on an outcrop known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve, has been covered in plywood for the past several years following federal court rulings that it violates the First Amendment prohibition against government endorsement of religion.

The justices were to hear arguments Wednesday in a case the court could use to make an important statement about its view of the separation of church and state. The Obama administration is defending the presence of the cross, which court papers describe as being 5 feet to 8 feet tall.

* The Supreme Court


A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.

Easter Sunrise services have been held at the site for decades.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has repeatedly ruled in Buono's favor. Congress has intervened on behalf of the cross, prohibiting the Park Service from spending money to remove the cross, designating it a national memorial and ultimately transferring the land to private ownership.

The appeals court invalidated the 2004 land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve - like a doughnut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.

Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, with some worrying that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling in Buono's favor. Jewish and Muslim veterans, by contrast, object that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others.

The administration wants the court to rule that Buono had no right to file his lawsuit because, as a Christian, he suffers no harm from the cross. His main complaint is that others may feel excluded, the government says.

Alternatively, the administration says the land transfer took care of any First Amendment problem.



Supreme Court To Consider Cross Honoring WWI Soldiers In Sunrise Park In Mojave National Preserve - cbs5.com

[diddyriddick]

Originally Posted by B-17engineer

A former National Park Service employee, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, sued to have the cross removed or covered after the agency refused to allow erection of a Buddhist memorial nearby. Frank Buono describes himself as a practicing Catholic who has no objection to religious symbols, but he took issue with the government's decision to allow the display of only the Christian symbol.

Easter Sunrise services have been held at the site for decades.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco has repeatedly ruled in Buono's favor. Congress has intervened on behalf of the cross, prohibiting the Park Service from spending money to remove the cross, designating it a national memorial and ultimately transferring the land to private ownership.

The appeals court invalidated the 2004 land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve - like a doughnut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.

Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, with some worrying that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials could be threatened by a ruling in Buono's favor. Jewish and Muslim veterans, by contrast, object that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans and excludes others.





Supreme Court To Consider Cross Honoring WWI Soldiers In Sunrise Park In Mojave National Preserve - cbs5.com

This is precisely why there should be a "wall of separation". Thanks for the heads-up.

[proton45]

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

This is precisely why there should be a "wall of separation". Thanks for the heads-up.

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but whats a "wall of separation"? How does it apply to the situation?

[diddyriddick]

Originally Posted by proton45

I'm sorry if I sound ignorant, but whats a "wall of separation"? How does it apply to the situation?

Sorry, P. In a letter to the Danville Baptist Association of Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation" to characterize his view of the intermixing of church and state. Clearly, Jefferson believed that " religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god."

[proton45]

Originally Posted by diddyriddick

Sorry, P. In a letter to the Danville Baptist Association of Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation" to characterize his view of the intermixing of church and state. Clearly, Jefferson believed that " religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god."

Ah, thanks...the man was a font of good ideas.

[syscom3]

If this cross were to represent the WW1 veterans of San Bernardino County, then I can safely say that there were zero Muslims and a handfull of Jews that served in the armed forces for this war, from this area.

[GrauGeist]

There are cemetaries that have Jewish veterans interred alongside Christian veterans, and no one has an issue. It's not about the faiths of the veterans and thier representation that the ACLU is after, it's the half-cocked notion of "seperation of Church and State" that they are trying to cement.

The phrase of "seperation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution, it was in a reply to a letter that Thomas Jefferson mentioned it. And it's been taken out of context every since.

The way I see it, if the ACLU were truly after a complete "seperation of Church and State", then they will have to press to have cities and counties renamed, no more religious holidays and let's not forget the names of days and months.

All or nothing...

[vikingBerserker]

All the problems in the world today, and this is what the idiots complain about??

[GrauGeist]

Originally Posted by vikingBerserker

All the problems in the world today, and this is what the idiots complain about??

LMAO!

No sh!t, huh?

[RabidAlien]

So relocate the dang thing onto some non-governmental land, build a memorial to vets of other faiths, and friggin get on with life! Its a memorial to honor those who fought. Perhaps someone should research the names associated with the memorial (I haven't seen the thing, so I have no idea if there are names or unit numbers inscribed on it anywhere, or if its just a general "those who served" memorial) and see if its truly exclusive, or not.

Someone should disband the ACLU (heard someone refer to them as the "Get" Club...as in "Get ACLU"...."Get A Clue"). The fact that these men died to protect their rights to be idiots....that really burns me.

[proton45]

I'm curious what the nature of the Buddhist memorial was? Does anyone know?

I have to say that, on first glance, it doesn't look like a war memorial...it looks pretty religious in nature.

After taking a quick glance at the news headlines I have to say that I was a bit surprised to find that it is the Christian groups that are fighting to keep the cross memorial in place...not the veterans groups.

[GrauGeist]

Well, a little bit of history regarding the Mojave Cross. It was erected in 1934 by recuperating WWI veterans who were sent to the desert climate by doctors who felt the environment would help thier health (many suffered respiratory ailments). The Veterans did this in rememberance of thier comrades and it became a popular spot for vets and thier families to visit for years afterward.

An interesting note here: the Cross was erected decades before that area became the Mohave Desert Reserve. So if the ACLU wants to be technical, the Federal Government can't occupy that land, since there must be a seperation of Church and State, right?

Anyway, as far as Bhuddists go, I don't think there's too many that serve in the armed forces, since they are more prone to non-violence. However, the military does recognize a person's faith (or non-faith) when they are interred. You can see Crosses, Star of Davids, Crescents and even obelisks for Athiests in any national cemetary and I'm sure that if a Bhuddist was interred, they would be represented in a respectful way just the same.

[vikingBerserker]

Perhaps the US Government should just classify it as a National Landmark (kinda like they do for certain churches).

I'm surprised the ACLU has not tried to have the Supreme Court torn down on account of all the religious symbology in it.

[diddyriddick]

Originally Posted by GrauGeist

The phrase of "seperation of Church and State" is not found in the Constitution......

Granted. But the Constitution DOES say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." There is the substance of our disagreement. If a duly elected or appointed government sanctions ANY religious display on public lands, it is problematic in my view, and notably, even some of the conservative justices have reservations.

Originally Posted by GrauGeist

.... it was in a reply to a letter that Thomas Jefferson mentioned it. And it's been taken out of context every since.

How exactly is it taken out of context? In the original letter, the Danbury Baptist Association wrote "Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty--that religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals--that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions--that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbors...." Jefferson's response was unequivocal, "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.]" Jefferson's choice of words here is instructive; he didn't call it a chain link fence of separation.

Nobody is advocating removing individual markers here. Moreover, if they were to convert the public lands to private hands(as the article suggests), I would have no beef. But I would be offended if I suffered in name, person, or effects on account of my religious opinions when my loved one were interred in public lands dominated by a christian symbol.

Just my 2 cents.

[Butters]

"On May 14, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a Justice Department petition to rehear en banc its September 2007 decision striking down a congressionally mandated land exchange to save an 8-foot (2.4 m) metal cross that is bolted onto rocks on a rise in the Preserve. The court found the land exchange to be a transparent "attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin cross" on federal land." ~ Wik

US governments, federal or otherwise, are legally bound to abide by the rules and principles embodied in the Constitution. Including the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. As the Latin cross is universally recognized as the definitive symbol of the Christian religion, the presence of that Mojave cross is a clear violation of the Establishment clause.

Certain religious groups perceive the Establishment clause as being prejudicial to the practice of their faith. Nothing could be further from the truth. The First Amendment is the guarantor of their right to freedom of religious expression. That freedom however, does not extend to granting them, or any other religious creed, any special privilege in the public sphere. The presence of that cross, as a religious symbol exclusive to Christianity, on federal land, is a tacit endorsement of Christianity by the US govt. As such, it implies that Christianity, and by extension, its adherents, are entitled to privileges that those of other faiths (or no faith) are not.A clear violation of the Constitution...

The fact that the cross is meant as a memorial to war veterans is irrelevant. The Constitution does not allow war memorials or war cemetaries exclusive to specific religious or ethnic groups on public land. All veterans or war dead, regardless of their faith or ethnicity, are considered to be of equal status and entitled to equal consideration by law. No exceptions.

The location of the cross has no special historical significance. It is not the site of a battle or a burial ground, and hence would lose nothing of its symbolism if moved to another location. So they might as well move it now, because sooner or later it will be removed. Because the principle of the rule of law demands it.

JL