• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cross in a box

Alareth

Philosopher
Alareth
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
7,682
Location
Jacksonville, FL
In 1934 the Mojave Cross was erected as a memorial to WWI soldiers. The land the cross sits on was transfered to the National Park Service.

The problems began when a group requested permission a Buddhist shrine next to the cross and was denied.

A former deputy superintendant along with the ACLU filed suit over it. Since then a court has ordered it removed, Congress declared it designated it a national memorial and worked out a landswap deal that would make the ground it sits on private property but it was blocked by a San Francisco
appels court.

Currently it sits obscrured inside a plywood box by order of a judge until the issue is resolved. It goes before the SCOTUS on Wednesday.

Link to CNN article
 
Last edited:
Sir Robin Goodfellow said:
Is this a situation where it can be reasonably argued that the cross is in a historical context?
Click to expand...

The original cross erected in 1934 was made of wood. The current one is constructed of white painted metal pipes and was erected in 1998. So it's not a historical artifact.
 
In 1934 the Mojave Cross was erected as a memorial to WWI soldiers. The land the cross sits on was transfered to the National Park Service.
Click to expand...

1. Cross put up on private land
2. Then government gloms onto it.

I would say this counts as government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
 
Beerina said:
1. Cross put up on private land
2. Then government gloms onto it.

I would say this counts as government "prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Click to expand...

The actual situation is more like this.

1. Cross put up on land owned by the BLM (part of the federal government).

2. Cross falls down after a few years in rough climate.

(Steps 1 and 2 repeated several times).

3. Land transfered from BLM to the National Park Service.

4. Replacement cross is put up without permission.

5. Another group requests permission to place a Buddhist shrine on land near the cross.

6. NPS rejects the application, stating that allowing a structure on NPS lands is prohibited under federal law. They also note that the cross will be removed.

7. Congress steps in and transfers a small parcel of federal land in the middle of public land to private ownership to save the cross.

Quoting the Ninth District Court of Appeals decision:

We previously held that the presence of the cross in the Preserve violates the Establishment Clause. See Buono II, 371 F.3d at 548-50. We also concluded that a reasonable observer aware of the history of the cross would know of the government’s attempts to preserve it and the denial of access to other religious symbols.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, if the original memorial had been something other than small and temporary, yes, historical.

The SMART thing would have been for the cross supporters to recognize that the 1st amendment exists, and allow a small and tasteful shrine, anything Jewish that anyone wanted to put up, etc. A few tasteful monuments to our war dead aren't a big issue.

But singling out one religion as special? Oops. Nice going. Amendment 1 kicks in.
 
Once the Jewish and Buddhist shrines have gone up then many of the other religions may want one too to remember all people of their religion that died in WW2.

No the best idea is to not allow any religious symbols.
 
Why not put up a non-religious memorial to all the dead? Or am I being silly?
 
Our courthouse has a memorial for the Great War. I don't recall anything religious on it. I'll have to look closer next time I'm near it.
 
Sledge said:
Why not put up a non-religious memorial to all the dead? Or am I being silly?
Click to expand...
Because part of non-establishment is the general concept of not establishing - of having no say in the matter, neutral or non-neutral. The government should treat a religious institution and a non-religious institution similarly - which means that the original religious memorial could be joined by a non-religious memorial, but the government shouldn't be saying that it's a 'bad religion' and needs to be taken down while a non-religious memorial or memorial from a different religion remains up.
 
Actually a cross is over 2,000 years old. It was used to mark the grave of many people when they died. Nothing religious in the origins.
 
GreyICE said:
Yeah, if the original memorial had been something other than small and temporary, yes, historical.

The SMART thing would have been for the cross supporters to recognize that the 1st amendment exists, and allow a small and tasteful shrine, anything Jewish that anyone wanted to put up, etc. A few tasteful monuments to our war dead aren't a big issue.

But singling out one religion as special? Oops. Nice going. Amendment 1 kicks in.
Click to expand...

There's a Facebook group about this and while I was doing some digging I found an amicus curiae brief filed by Jewish War Veterans of America on behalf of the plaintiff. Oddly enough, none of the theocrats on that group had any comment on it.
 
Is there something special about the location that people who want to honor WWI fallen have to do it there and not elsewhere? Was there a WWI battle on the spot? If not, nothing's stopping people from putting up any kind of monument they want on their own land. The fact that they're fighting over this particular spot suggests the main concern isn't honoring the war dead (or placating their vengeful ghosts) at all, but in making some kind of point about certain religions and government. (If I were a vengeful ghost, I'd be angered that someone was trying to use my death as a pawn in some stupid court game nearly a century later.)
 
applecorped said:
Get rid of all those crosses in Arlington!!!
Click to expand...

You are aware, I hope, that the crosses at Arlington are markers for christian servicemen, and servicement buried at arlington who aren't christian have other symbols on their graves? The crosses in a cemetary aren't construed by a rational person as representing the nation, but rather the religious preferences of the individual servicemen, therefore no public establishment of religion has occured.

A.
 
When I die, I want my grave to be marked by weeping, naked, busty blondes.
 
Sledge said:
When I die, I want my grave to be marked by weeping, naked, busty blondes.
Click to expand...

Barring the fact that I plan on living forever so big sky daddy doesn't get me, this would make an awesome monument. I'd even settle for realistic and anatomically correct statuary. Animatronic statuary.

A.
 
rjh01 said:
Actually a cross is over 2,000 years old. It was used to mark the grave of many people when they died. Nothing religious in the origins.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that crosses were used to mark graves over 2000 years ago, before the christian movement?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom