Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Supreme Court Hears Mojave Cross Case
ABC News ^ | October 7, 2009 | Ariane de Vogue

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: cross; firstamendment; lawsuit; mojave; mojavecross; scotus; vfw
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last
Damn the ACLU, just damn them.
1 posted on 10/07/2009 1:53:57 PM PDT by La Enchiladita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
Can we put a tarp over -9bama? I mean, just until the US Supreme court determines that he is eligible to be president, of course.


2 posted on 10/07/2009 1:58:18 PM PDT by C210N (A patriot for a Conservative Renaissance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

When they ignore,”...the free exercise thereof...”.
When they ignore, “...shall not be infringed.”.
Their time is up.


3 posted on 10/07/2009 1:58:27 PM PDT by tet68 ( " We would not die in that man's company, that fears his fellowship to die with us...." Henry V.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

WWWLD?


4 posted on 10/07/2009 1:59:25 PM PDT by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

>>Damn the ACLU, just damn them.

I’m fairly certain that they already are.


5 posted on 10/07/2009 2:00:32 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Question O-thority!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
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.

Because the Constitution says: "Congress shall stamp out all religious expression in public".

Oh wait, it doesn't.

6 posted on 10/07/2009 2:04:08 PM PDT by dan1123 (Gov't Healthcare Plan: Break it and Take it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

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.


7 posted on 10/07/2009 2:05:27 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: dan1123

“A monument to fallen soldiers.” It’s not a church.


8 posted on 10/07/2009 2:06:13 PM PDT by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

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’.


9 posted on 10/07/2009 2:06:14 PM PDT by Hodar (Who needs laws .... when this "feels" so right?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

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.


10 posted on 10/07/2009 2:08:51 PM PDT by SandWMan ( I'm still trying to find the section in the Constitution that mentions "nation building".......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Spell it out. I don’t get the acronym.


11 posted on 10/07/2009 2:10:20 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (GO DODGERS!!! ALL THE WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
Folks, how long are we going to endure our oppressive Government?
12 posted on 10/07/2009 2:11:29 PM PDT by Ben Mugged (Unions are the storm troopers of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita
Funny, we never heard anything from the ACLU when Xlinton took 2 sticks and formed a cross on the beach!

THAT OFFENDED ME!

13 posted on 10/07/2009 2:14:41 PM PDT by unixfox (The 13th Amendment Abolished Slavery, The 16th Amendment Reinstated It !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

I’m just guessing....

What
Will
Wise
Latina
Do


14 posted on 10/07/2009 2:16:11 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SandWMan
The question before the court, as I understand it, is whether this individual has standing to bring this case.

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.

15 posted on 10/07/2009 2:16:26 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (GO DODGERS!!! ALL THE WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

The cross is on private land?


16 posted on 10/07/2009 2:18:07 PM PDT by SandWMan ( I'm still trying to find the section in the Constitution that mentions "nation building".......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

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.


17 posted on 10/07/2009 2:18:13 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

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


18 posted on 10/07/2009 2:19:56 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

Read the article. Congress voted to transfer the land to private hands.


19 posted on 10/07/2009 2:22:19 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (GO DODGERS!!! ALL THE WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: La Enchiladita

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.


20 posted on 10/07/2009 2:22:48 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (America! We're spending our grandchildren's inheritance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-50 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson