Skip to comments.Supreme Court Hears Mojave Cross Case
Posted on 10/07/2009 1:53:57 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
Deep in the heart of the Mojave National Preserve in California stands a five foot cross carefully disguised in a plywood box.
The U.S. Park Service was forced to cover the cross until the Supreme Court decides whether the cross can remain in its place as a monument to fallen soldiers during World War I, or whether it must come down because its presence violates the Constitution.
The case is the latest in a recent flurry of challenges to religious symbols placed on public property.
The cross was constructed more than 70 years ago by the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
...Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, expressed his dismay that the government was showing favoritism of one religious symbol over another.
...In 2003 Congress found a novel way to deal with the situation: it passed legislation to transfer the land to private ownership.
...Lawyers for Buono say that the proposed transfer is merely a sham and an ineffective way to try to get around the constitutional violation. They argue that although the land might be transferred to private hands -- owned by the Veterans of Foreign Wars -- the government still has too close a relationship to the cross. The cross would still be designated as a national memorial and the government will maintain oversight of the property.
...Before even reaching the question of whether Congress acted appropriately, the Supreme Court will first have to decide whether Buono has the right -- or the legal "standing" -- to bring the case against the government.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
When they ignore,”...the free exercise thereof...”.
When they ignore, “...shall not be infringed.”.
Their time is up.
>>Damn the ACLU, just damn them.
I’m fairly certain that they already are.
Because the Constitution says: "Congress shall stamp out all religious expression in public".
Oh wait, it doesn't.
Because the no-god God is the official state religion. You can follow another faith, but the official position of the government is that god does NOT exist.
“A monument to fallen soldiers.” It’s not a church.
I fail to see how this impinges upon the Constitution. A cross neither establishes a Govermental religion, and the Gov’t insisting upon the removal of this landmark certainly falls under the ‘preventing the free exercise thereof’.
I fully expect the court to rule that the cross should come down, but not because of “separation of church and state”, which they will assiduously avoid (hey, I think that’s the first time I ever actually used that word!).
I imagine that they will say that the veterans who put up the cross (in 1934, I believe) had no permission to do so, and so it should never have been there in the first place.
Spell it out. I don’t get the acronym.
THAT OFFENDED ME!
I’m just guessing....
The court must decide whether Buono is sufficiently harmed by the matter at hand to be able to bring the case.
He lives in Oregon, several hundred miles away from the remote location of the cross in the CA desert. Yet he claims he must travel to the area 3-4 times per year and somehow try to avoid viewing the cross. Of course, it is now covered up AND it is on private land.
If the Supreme Court finds that Buono has no standing, it may never get to the question of whether Congress succeeded in avoiding the constitutional question by transferring the land.
The cross is on private land?
A cross on church property is okay, but allowing a cross display on public property is “respecting an establishment of religion” and a violation ot the First Amendment.
Jesus said there would come a time when the Word would be hidden...people too ashamed of their own actions to confront the Truth of the cross. Go ahead...cover it, or tear it down.
Soon the government will be coming after Christians. There are already courts in Canada when people of religious beliefs are confronted by government bureaucrats and forced to recant their public religious views...or face fines or imprisonment.
It is just a matter of a few years...it will be so here too
Read the article. Congress voted to transfer the land to private hands.
This is the aCLU displaying its hatred of Christians and God. It is the Mother of all Hate Crimes. These piggies were offered a piece of land five times bigger in size for this one little piece of land. That wasn’t good enough for the Christian haters. They want God and all Christians gone. They are not compatible with the aCLU’s perverted, communist lifestyle.
Maybe we can claim it isn’t a cross-cross.
You gave me a smile. Just look at how complicated and convoluted this “case” has become. For 60 years, the cross was on display and no one complained until this Buono guy came along. And, oh yeah, he happens to be ACLU. For them, it’s two-fer: nail the Christians and the military. We are no longer a “free country” when we have so-called cases like this going to the Supreme Court.
Buona was put in place for the specific purpose of attacking the cross.
Hence my use of the term "religious expression".
Which makes the Free-exercise clause one of the most ignored parts of the Constitution.
Yes, the Left has determined the playing field. We can only dance around the edges of this settled, unconstitutional law.
Exactly. How long will we endure this government oppression? This crap won’t stop until they go to remove it, and are met with too many citizens, too well armed, to deal with without embarrassment.
Dig in a perimeter around that hill and hang a flag. “Come and take it”.
Deep in the heart of the Mojave National Preserve in California stands a five foot cross carefully disguised in a plywood box. The U.S. Park Service was forced to cover the cross until the Supreme Court decides whether the cross can remain in its place as a monument to fallen soldiers during World War I, or whether it must come down because its presence violates the Constitution.
>> Yet he claims he must travel to the area 3-4 times per year and somehow try to avoid viewing the cross.
And yet this POS has managed to force the rest of the Country to suffer and pay for his selfish indignation.
The fact that there was an injunction against the land swap that would have put this historical monument on private land, shows this to be pure harassment.
Got a better idea ... What Would Patton Do?
"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't.
This case and others like it are just surreal.
This just cannot be my country anymore.
Damn all lawyers, especially the ACLU.
When, how, where......do we stand up and reject this? When how and where can we make a stand against what’s happening in every niche of life? My God, this country is dying.
Can you point out where Jesus said anything at all about the cross?
The cross, which today is a ubiquitous symbol of Christianity did not come into use among Christians until the second century...
The Constitutional position is that each American decides for themselves, and Congress stays out of it.
Freedom OF Religion is not Freedom FROM Religion.
It imposes Atheism as the official stance (there is no god that can be spoken of except the No God god).
Clearly the founding fathers did not intend this. They made references to God in the Bill of Rights. Had they wanted “no references whatsoever” to God, they would have written that way.
Time was in Europe the populace had to convert from Catholicism to Protestantism to Catholicism to Protestantism depending on who was in power. In the muslim world, non-muslims pay a tax for following a different faith.
You can practice whatever faith with no penalty in this country. But it doesn’t mean that you can’t mention God in any official capacity if in doing so you are not establishing that faith as the Official State Religion.
The same restriction on advocating a faith also prohibits opposing it. The NEA funded art that is antiChristian is likewise prohibited under the “establishment” clause.
Our forefathers’s thankfulness to, and reliance upon, a transcendental God is a wonderful inheritance for Americans.
It’s not as tho any person of a different religious faith has been turned DOWN when they requested to put up an icon of their choice...I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m sure sick and tired of Christianity getting dumped on and restricted...especially since it seems the gov. has no problem looking the other way when various other religions are practicing their faith with nary a negative word from gov. or media...it’s beyond maddening....it is time for Our Lord to return,....I’m sure the patience of God has worn very thin, when it comes to this mixed up gov. of ours.
I'm good with that.
“Public spaces should be “inclusive” of the religious beliefs of the community”
Foolish, because it’s easier said than done.
Beliefs belong in church ...
My beliefs go where I do. Are you saying I need to leave them at home?
Well, the Congress voted to transfer the land from public to private ownership, but according to post #32, there is a court injunction against doing so... imagine my surprise... so the land is in a kind of limbo.
Isn’t that some weird symbolism.
According to the article, the flap started when this Buono guy proposed placing a Buddhist shrine at the memorial and was turned down. I’m not sure who did the turning down.
But, right there the case becomes invalid because instead of saying all and any religion should be removed from public land, they proposed that all or many should be represented.
I believe this is done in our National Cemeteries. Some headstones have crosses, some Stars of David, some a Buddhist symbol, etc.
I feel the court can only rightly say the appellant has no standing, i.e., throw the case out.
I didn’t say Jesus said “cross”...he said “Word”.
“Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”
The Northwest Ordinance. It’s the Law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.