The Supreme Court decided Monday (Feb. 23) to consider a case about a controversial eight-foot cross that was erected as a war memorial on federal property in California.
The legal battle surrounding the memorial in the Mohave National Preserve in San Bernardino County, Calif., has pitted veterans groups against advocates for church-state separation.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross and a 2004 congressional statute designed to maintain its placement is unconstitutional.
“It is bad enough to say that the veterans’ memorial is unconstitutional, but it is outrageous to say that the government cannot give the monument back to the people who spilled their blood and put it there in the first place,” said Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute and attorney for the VFW and other veterans groups, which sought the high court’s review of the case.
After the National Park Service denied a request to erect a Buddhist shrine in the preserve, a visitor to the preserve sued in 2001 because the property was not “open to groups and individuals to erect other free-standing, permanent displays.”
The American Civil Liberties Union has represented that visitor, Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent at the preserve.
“The appeals court rightly found that the statute did not solve the Establishment Clause problem created by a large cross in the midst of a National Preserve,” said Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney with the ACLU of Southern California. “In fact, it compounded the problem by continuing to favor this one religious symbol that had already been granted unique access to federal property.”
The Supreme Court is already mulling another case involving government property and religious symbols. It heard arguments in the fall about whether a small Utah religious sect should be permitted to erect a monument of its beliefs in a city park that already includes a Ten Commandments monument.
By Adelle M. Banks
Religion News Service
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Comments
Powered by Facebook Comments
posted February 24, 2009 at 8:52 pm
Good man Frank Buono!
In what way is a cross a memorial to troops? It’s fine as a gravestone for an individual Christian soldier but “troops” are Christians and Jews and Muslims and Atheists and Hindus and so forth so just a cross is no memorial to them, it’s a religious monument erected on public land and stealing their glory.
It needs to come down, then a real monument to veterans’ sacrifices needs to go up.
posted February 25, 2009 at 10:25 am
It drives me nuts when I have to defend non-Chrstians from self-defensive Christians. However, according to other places on B’net, one of the issues is whether the Park can deed the land back to the Veterans and get other land in an exchange. Also, it seems that the cross itself is not historic – it has been replaced a few times over the years. So it is the Memorial that is question. I think it would benefit everyone if we could, as a people and a culture, find a memorial symbol that is not so specificially religious. There is a place for religious symbols and a place to national, secular symbols. Making them try to seem equal and the same only makes for confusion and some anguish.
posted February 25, 2009 at 6:28 pm
nnmns quote: “In what way is a cross a memorial to troops?”
Well I guess you’d have to be one to know so it is not a surprising question considering.
The cross is historic absolutely just look into any Revolutionary war, Civil war, WWI and II and Korean the cross has always been there, more so than any other symbol. Men have given their lives in the comfort of the cross for this nation throughout its history to suggest anything other is disrespectful to many brave soldiers to whom we owe much.
posted February 26, 2009 at 12:18 am
ck,
That works if the person buried below the cross was a Christian. Making a default judgement that all veterans are/were Christian is not appropriate. There are thousand of Jewish veterans and now many Moslem veterans. Robbing the cross of its meaning and power just to make it a secular symbol seems to defy the logic that first led to its use. “That’s the way we’ve always done it” does not carry any water – that is simply delaying tactic.
posted February 26, 2009 at 4:56 am
cknuck: “Men have given their lives in the comfort of the cross”
So you’re saying it’s not as big a deal for a Christian to sacrifice his/her life as for a Jew or an atheist or so forth. I’ll keep that in mind.
But this has nothing to do with whatever comfort their belief gives them, it has to do with a cemetery where only their bodies lie. It’s of no comfort to them and I doubt even you will claim soldiers give any thought to what kind of monument might be in their cemetery.
But they fight for our country which, thankfully, is controlled by our Constitution (a very good one) not just by the whim of the majority, as may be whipped up by you and your ilk when you can.
posted February 26, 2009 at 1:13 pm
The only robbery here jest is the men who fought right to express why or how they found courage in the face of death. Yes it is history and the very foundation of what this country was built on, not other countries but this one. You’d have to erase a part of our history in order to erase the cross.
nnmns the Constitution was framed under the cross not by Buddhism, Judaism, not by Islam those faith have influenced other countries but here Christianity no matter how you try to deny it is the frame work for this country and it’s constitution.
posted February 26, 2009 at 2:15 pm
No, we have the Constitution, not as you’d like it to be or as I’d like it to be but as it is.
I realize you are reality-challenged but that is the reality.