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 previous 1-2021-4041-50 last
To: HKMk23

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.


41 posted on 10/08/2009 7:23:13 AM PDT by a fool in paradise (There is no truth in the Pravda Media.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: guitarplayer1953

Our forefathers’s thankfulness to, and reliance upon, a transcendental God is a wonderful inheritance for Americans.


42 posted on 10/08/2009 7:52:37 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Hodar

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.


43 posted on 10/08/2009 10:14:37 AM PDT by Molly T. (Has this administration crossed YOUR line in the sand yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Public spaces should be "inclusive" of the religious beliefs of the community, not exclusive of ALL belief. If someone wants to put up a menorah, next to a crucifix, next to a Flying Spaghetti Monster...

I'm good with that.

44 posted on 10/08/2009 10:20:21 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

“Public spaces should be “inclusive” of the religious beliefs of the community”

Foolish, because it’s easier said than done.

Beliefs belong in church ...


45 posted on 10/08/2009 11:14:41 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

My beliefs go where I do. Are you saying I need to leave them at home?


46 posted on 10/08/2009 11:20:46 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (III)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: SandWMan

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.


47 posted on 10/08/2009 12:00:23 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (GO DODGERS!!! ALL THE WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

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.


48 posted on 10/08/2009 12:04:45 PM PDT by La Enchiladita (GO DODGERS!!! ALL THE WAY!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: CurlyDave

I didn’t say Jesus said “cross”...he said “Word”.


49 posted on 10/08/2009 12:39:01 PM PDT by kjo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

“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.


50 posted on 10/08/2009 1:40:06 PM PDT by SandWMan ( I'm still trying to find the section in the Constitution that mentions "nation building".......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


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