Man sues over Mohave Desert Cross

[Patriot]

http://hi-caliber.blogspot.com/2009/06/one-man-files-suit-to-take-down.html


http://onthedocket.org/articles/2009/02/23/justices-agree-hear-mojave-desert-cross-case-feb-23-2009






When the fall term begins, one of the most prominent cases before the court will regard the Mojave Desert Cross, a memorial to World War I veterans that an appeals court declared unconstitutional.

The American Civil Liberties Union and a former National Park Service employee have been challenging the cross' continued presence on national parkland for nearly eight years. A cross has stood on the site since 1934, when a local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected it atop an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock.

Congress has transferred ownership of the land on which it sits to a private party.

The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals twice said the cross must come down. I invalidated the 2004 congressionally approved land transfer, saying that "carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast preserve -- like a donut hole with cross atop it -- will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement" of the religious symbol.


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/08/sotomayor-faces-challenging-cases-new-supreme-court-justice/



Wow, he's been fighting this for eight years? Seriously? Perhaps he needs a hobby?

Gee, I wonder how much plywood and nails it will take to cover up all those crosses at Arlington? :rolleyes:


http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/crosses/picture.crosses.usca43429.html

http://www.terragalleria.com/pictures-subjects/crosses/picture.crosses.usca43432.html

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/white-crosses.htm

[LisaM22]

how long did some have to fight to have the wican symbol on their tombstone, separation of church and state is a fight worth fighting, the government should not be endorsing any one religion over any other


as for Sotomayor, I am not sure she is for separation of church and state, that is yet to be seen, I have a feeling the religious right will be happy with her votes

[Details]

Separation of church and state was one of the major reasons this country was founded, people fleeing religious persecution, running away from a country where there was one religion with privileges the other religions didn't have.


If I built a big huge Jewish monument on gov't land, a big old Muslim monument to Mohammed on gov't land, a nice flying spagetti monster Holy Meatball - anyone think the government would be fine with it, and just sell me the land?

[LisaM22]

Separation of church and state was one of the major reasons this country was founded, people fleeing religious persecution, running away from a country where there was one religion with privileges the other religions didn't have.


If I built a big huge Jewish monument on gov't land, a big old Muslim monument to Mohammed on gov't land, a nice flying spagetti monster Holy Meatball - anyone think the government would be fine with it, and just sell me the land?

exactly, if one is allowed all should be allowed, we will just have a pile of religious monuments, with all religions competing for the attention

[Hey Paula]

The cross in the desert symbolizes sacrifice. Like the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, it doesn't contain an image of Jesus. Hence, it is not a religious symbol and is therefore not in violation of separation of church and state.

IMO

[LisaM22]

The cross in the desert symbolizes sacrifice. Like the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, it doesn't contain an image of Jesus. Hence, it is not a religious symbol and is therefore not in violation of separation of church and state.

IMO

then other religions should be able to put up their symbols as well - all or nothing - have to be fair

[Brentwood]

The cross in the desert symbolizes sacrifice. Like the crosses in Arlington National Cemetery, it doesn't contain an image of Jesus. Hence, it is not a religious symbol and is therefore not in violation of separation of church and state.

IMO

The cross stands for Jesus dieing on a cross as a savior rising him up to the status of g-d. Not all believe that way.

[Brentwood]

exactly, if one is allowed all should be allowed, we will just have a pile of religious monuments, with all religions competing for the attention

Well said!

[LisaM22]

Separation of church and state was one of the major reasons this country was founded, people fleeing religious persecution, running away from a country where there was one religion with privileges the other religions didn't have.


If I built a big huge Jewish monument on gov't land, a big old Muslim monument to Mohammed on gov't land, a nice flying spagetti monster Holy Meatball - anyone think the government would be fine with it, and just sell me the land?

exactly....

[Hey Paula]

SCOTUS Blog

Analysis: A Case of Disappearing Issues

EXCERPT:

Justice Scalia spent considerable effort in trying to keep the argument on the constitutionality of the cross’s display. He said the government had no obligation, just because it put up a monument to one faith, to have other monuments on the same site to other faiths. In fact, he said, the Mojave cross was a commemoration of the service of soldiers of all faiths, including Jews and Muslims. Scalia said it was “outrageous” to suggest otherwise.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the Court should take the government at its word, that Congress had washed its hands of the cross and had remedied whatever Establishment Clause problem its presence on public land had caused. Echoing the Solicitor General’s core argument, Alito said Congress’s only interest was in maintaining a war memorial.

More at link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-a-case-of-disappearing-issues/

[LisaM22]

SCOTUS Blog

Analysis: A Case of Disappearing Issues

EXCERPT:

Justice Scalia spent considerable effort in trying to keep the argument on the constitutionality of the cross’s display. He said the government had no obligation, just because it put up a monument to one faith, to have other monuments on the same site to other faiths. In fact, he said, the Mojave cross was a commemoration of the service of soldiers of all faiths, including Jews and Muslims. Scalia said it was “outrageous” to suggest otherwise.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., suggested that the Court should take the government at its word, that Congress had washed its hands of the cross and had remedied whatever Establishment Clause problem its presence on public land had caused. Echoing the Solicitor General’s core argument, Alito said Congress’s only interest was in maintaining a war memorial.

More at link: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/analysis-a-case-of-disappearing-issues/

how crazy that he argues it is ok for a monument for one faith, but not others... crazy, he admits right there that it is a monument of faith? he blew it

[Tracian]

I think that cross is part of history, much like the Missions in California, that are on government land, and do have Christian symbols.

I am a Wiccan, and honestly find these lawsuits, just like the one about the cross in San Diego a waste of court time.

I mean, should the road side memorials put up with crosses on government land be removed?

[Tracian]

I disagree, they set a precedent, the government sold a small piece of land in the middle of government land for the sole purpose of violating the law, that is wrong, all they had to do was allow other religious monuments or remove it, problem solved


Why should they have to remove it? If the land is privately owned then it is not government land, regardless of the reasons it was sold, it is not for anyone to tell a private person what they can or cannot erect on their property if it does not violate codes of that county or state.

But back to the other point, should all historic sites be devoid of any religious symbolism? If so, then why are there not law suits to tear down the Missions in CA? If religious symbols should not be allowed on government land, then those that put up crosses on road sides, should be fined.

What about government own cemeteries? Should all the crosses be removed, as well as, other symbols?

Part of freedom is tolerance, and so far I am not seeing a whole lot of that.

[LisaM22]

I think that cross is part of history, much like the Missions in California, that are on government land, and do have Christian symbols.

I am a Wiccan, and honestly find these lawsuits, just like the one about the cross in San Diego a waste of court time.

I mean, should the road side memorials put up with crosses on government land be removed?

I disagree, they set a precedent, the government sold a small piece of land in the middle of government land for the sole purpose of violating the law, that is wrong, all they had to do was allow other religious monuments or remove it, problem solved - the cross is not the problem, to most it means death, someone died here or was buried here, but when you make a monument and try to bypass the law, that is a different story altogether

btw, it is not even the original cross, it has been replaced over the years many times....

[LisaM22]

Why should they have to remove it? If the land is privately owned then it is not government land, regardless of the reasons it was sold, it is not for anyone to tell a private person what they can or cannot erect on their property if it does not violate codes of that county or state.

But back to the other point, should all historic sites be devoid of any religious symbolism? If so, then why are there not law suits to tear down the Missions in CA? If religious symbols should not be allowed on government land, then those that put up crosses on road sides, should be fined.

What about government own cemeteries? Should all the crosses be removed, as well as, other symbols?

Part of freedom is tolerance, and so far I am not seeing a whole lot of that.

one small cross per soldier is not a issue unless the soldiers family whats another religions symbol imo

the problem is the government admits it is a religious symbol, they should now have to allow others, sell others small plots of land if need be, they have to be fair and not favor any one religion

I am fine with leaving it there, just as long as others are allowed to place their religious monuments there as well if they wish


as for raod side crosses, if they fined someone for putting up a wican symbol, then yes they should do the same for a christian symbol, have to be fair, allow all or none

you said "Part of freedom is tolerance, and so far I am not seeing a whole lot of that."

well we are not seeing tolerance of other religions, that is my point, all or none

when the gov says "He said the government had no obligation, just because it put up a monument to one faith, to have other monuments on the same site to other faiths."

then something is wrong with that picture imo

[Tracian]

I disagree, they set a precedent, the government sold a small piece of land in the middle of government land for the sole purpose of violating the law, that is wrong, all they had to do was allow other religious monuments or remove it, problem solved - the cross is not the problem, to most it means death, someone died here or was buried here, but when you make a monument and try to bypass the law, that is a different story altogether

btw, it is not even the original cross, it has been replaced over the years many times....


The Missions have been restored as well.

I just don't see the issue, those symbols were placed long ago originally, they should remain, as a reminder of how far we have come, and how far we will continue to move forward.

[Hey Paula]

Intolerance breeds intolerance.

[LisaM22]

Intolerance breeds intolerance.

exactly, all or none...

[Tracian]

exactly, all or none...



I think the point I am making is that these particular symbols are part of history; where this country was at one time, much like California's history is deep within religious founding.

We teach, and even have field trips to Missions, and actually teach a bit about that religion in public schools; as it is necessary to understand the history of California, why some things have happened in California.

The same with these crosses; they IMO, are not so much about religion, they are about the 'time' and the motivation that they were placed.

I do disagree with the Ten Commandments being on display on a monument in a court house; UNLESS that is an historic marker, again offering insight into the our country as it once was.

Why is there not an outcry, seriously, about our elected leaders swearing their oath of office on a religious book? Shouldn't that be changed to swearing on the Constitution?

IMO, the time these symbols were placed is the issue, not the symbol itself.

[LisaM22]

http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2009/10/07/california-mojave-desert-cross-case/

this is what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say about it

"“It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead,” Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. “What would you have them erect?…Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”"

[Tracian]

http://gods4suckers.net/archives/2009/10/07/california-mojave-desert-cross-case/

this is what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say about it

"“It’s erected as a war memorial. I assume it is erected in honor of all of the war dead,” Scalia said of the cross that the Veterans of Foreign Wars built 75 years ago atop an outcropping in the Mojave National Preserve. “What would you have them erect?…Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star?”"


Exactly, 75 years ago, the Christian faith was the basic accepted faith of the time; it is logical and historically correct for that symbol to honor those fallen at that time.

Again, like the Missions, at that time, it was the accepted religion, and should be historically remembered as such.

These are historical monuments, not a current social commentary.

[LisaM22]

I think the point I am making is that these particular symbols are part of history; where this country was at one time, much like California's history is deep within religious founding.

We teach, and even have field trips to Missions, and actually teach a bit about that religion in public schools; as it is necessary to understand the history of California, why some things have happened in California.

The same with these crosses; they IMO, are not so much about religion, they are about the 'time' and the motivation that they were placed.

I do disagree with the Ten Commandments being on display on a monument in a court house; UNLESS that is an historic marker, again offering insight into the our country as it once was.

Why is there not an outcry, seriously, about our elected leaders swearing their oath of office on a religious book? Shouldn't that be changed to swearing on the Constitution?

IMO, the time these symbols were placed is the issue, not the symbol itself.

because they can swear on any book, it is not required that it be just one book.... part of the all or none I was referring too - some people feel they can not lie when swearing to their religious book, that is why we allow it, not sure it has helped much, but maybe it has - some swear on the bible just so others will "think" they wont lie, see that in court all the time

[Tracian]

because they can swear on any book, it is not required that it be just one book.... part of the all or none I was referring too - some people feel they can not lie when swearing to their religious book, that is why we allow it, not sure it has helped much, but maybe it has

But that is a government office, religion should have no part in the oath on takes to protect or serve in it.

I only mention it, because IMO, it is hypocritical to excuse the taking the oath of office while one's hand rests on a religious book; but to be up in arms about historical crosses, because they are a religious symbol.

In both cases these are more a matter of tradition and history than religion.

[LisaM22]

But that is a government office, religion should have no part in the oath on takes to protect or serve in it.

I only mention it, because IMO, it is hypocritical to excuse the taking the oath of office while one's hand rests on a religious book; but to be up in arms about historical crosses, because they are a religious symbol.

In both cases these are more a matter of tradition and history than religion.

all or none, if they allowed all religions it is not a issue, the government can not endorse any one religion over any other. it would be hypocritical to allow one and not the others

[Tracian]

all or none, if they allowed all religions it is not a issue, the government can not endorse any one religion over any other. it would be hypocritical to allow one and not the others


Protecting a historical symbol is not the same as endorsing a religion.

[LisaM22]

Protecting a historical symbol is not the same as endorsing a religion.

not allowing others religious symbols is, if a family of a soldier that died wants their religious symbol next to the cross, then it should be allowed

the idea is not to take down the cross, but to make it clear that if all religions are not supported equally by the government then none should be supported - all or none

[Tracian]

not allowing others religious symbols is, if a family of a soldier that died wants their religious symbol next to the cross, then it should be allowed

the idea is not to take down the cross, but to make it clear that if all religions are not supported equally by the government then none should be supported - all or none


This cross was not put up last week, it was put up 75 years ago, which is the issue, it is more historical than religious.

If this cross was put up last week...then I would agree...but again, this is a part of history, much like California's Missions.

[LisaM22]

This cross was not put up last week, it was put up 75 years ago, which is the issue, it is more historical than religious.

If this cross was put up last week...then I would agree...but again, this is a part of history, much like California's Missions.

actually the last cross was not put up 75 years ago, it was replaced recently, so it is newer then that, but I do not care how long ago it was, if family of the dead soldiers would like their symbol up as well I say put it up, sell em a little plot of land and let them put their symbol up, their loved one gave their life for this country, think that is enough to grant them this request

[Tracian]

actually the last cross was not put up 75 years ago, it was replaced recently, so it is newer then that, but I do not care how long ago it was, if family of the dead soldiers would like their symbol up as well I say put it up, sell em a little plot of land and let them put their symbol up, their loved one gave their life for this country, think that is enough to grant them this request


You are seeing this as a religious symbol, I believe it is a part of history, even if it was replaced, the original was placed there 75 years ago.

Missions in CA are also refurbished, but that does not make them less of a historical monument.

I respect you Lisa, but we are at an impasse...so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

[LisaM22]

You are seeing this as a religious symbol, I believe it is a part of history, even if it was replaced, the original was placed there 75 years ago.

Missions in CA are also refurbished, but that does not make them less of a historical monument.

I respect you Lisa, but we are at an impasse...so we are going to have to agree to disagree.

I do not see it as a religious symbol as I posted up thread, but the courts seem to, as the quote I made up thread and if that is the case then other religions need to be allowed to have their religious symbols above their dead in the same manner - I do agree with you, this one we will have to agree to disagree on, I think if they allow one, they should all be allowed, not gonna change my mind on that - jmho

[ninetoes]

What do we do with cities like "Las Cruces", which literally means "the crosses", whose symbol is 3 crosses standing side by side? Should they be forced to remove the symbol from all of their govt buildings?

[EMAA]

What do we do with cities like "Las Cruces", which literally means "the crosses", whose symbol is 3 crosses standing side by side? Should they be forced to remove the symbol from all of their govt buildings?

They would have to start at the White House. Sad, if ya ask me.

Probably won't be long before that becomes the next big rally cry.


jmo