The Supreme Court appeared divided along philosophical lines Wednesday as justices heard arguments in a long-running legal battle over a cross built as a memorial to U.S. war dead on federal park land in California's Mojave Desert.
The Obama administration argued that Congress removed any constitutional questions over the separation of church and state when it transferred ownership of the land where the cross stands to a private owner. The approach appeared to have some traction with the court's conservative justices.
Justice Samuel Alito asked, "Isn't that a sensible interpretation" of a court order prohibiting the cross' display on government property?
But the more liberal justices seemed to agree with a federal appeals court that invalidated the transfer, saying Congress was trying to maneuver around the First Amendment.
Opponents of the cross have argued that the presence of a Christian symbol on public land violates the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a particular religion. But those who want the cross to remain say it's a historical symbol that is intended to honor all war dead.
The cross has stood on an outcropping of rock in a remote part of the California desert for 75 years. It was originally erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars without the permission of the government and been rebuilt twice since then.
In 1999, a Buddhist asked the National Park Service for permission to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross, but the request was refused.
Enlarge Courtesy of the Liberty Legal InstitutePending legal review, the cross at the Mojave National Preserve has been hidden within a plywood box. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether its status violates the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion.
Courtesy of the Liberty Legal InstitutePending legal review, the cross at the Mojave National Preserve has been hidden within a plywood box. The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether its status violates the Constitution's ban on establishment of religion.
That led a former park service employee, Frank Buono, to challenge the presence of the cross, saying it was unconstitutional to have a religious symbol on public land. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in San Francisco has sided with Buono in several instances and ordered the cross removed. Each time, Congress has intervened, and for now, the cross stands covered with plywood.
In addition to transferring ownership of the land, lawmakers have also prohibited the park service from spending money to remove the cross, and later designated the site a national memorial to those who died during World War I.
On Wednesday, Obama administration attorneys contended that Buono did not have legal standing to file the suit in the first place because he's a Christian and was not harmed by the cross' presence.
Veterans groups are on both sides of the case, Salazar v. Buono. Some worry that other religious symbols that serve as war memorials might be threatened if the court sides with Buono.
Some Jewish and Muslim veterans maintain that the Mojave cross honors Christian veterans.
7 comments:
In my opinion if they are allowing a cross i don't see why they wouldnt allow a buddhist or other religious symbol to be put up next to it. I guess in defense they could argue the cross isnt their to worship God, its just in remembrance of those soldiers. Personally, arguements like this make me laugh. I think they are making it a bigger issue than it should be. But i wonder if they still would be arguing about seperation of church and state if it was a star of david or another religious symbol..
i believe that this is technicaly a violation of constitution but i also believe thst it doesn't mean any harm to anybody, and i'm not sure if you can categorize this as a religous promotion. but yet again if people are offended by it, law's a law.
I fail to see where the issue is. If I read the article right, the cross is now on private property. End of story. Period. It WAS on public land at one time, but that does not mean its use can be regulated now.
If the cross was still on public land, there would be a legitimate case. I don't believe the memorial was meaning to promote religion, but it inadvertently is violating the Establishment Clause, especially with the denial of the Buddhist memorial. I would agree that any new religious references should not be put up or said or whatever, but I think trying to purge government of all religion is going too far because it inadvertently favors atheism (technically not a religion, but it is a religious stance). No matter what happens in these kinds of situations, somebody is always going to be offended.
While a cross is a typical grave marker and has been for centuries, why couldn't other religions add a memorial of approximately the same size to the area? it could look really cool and represent our nations diversity.
I think that the cross should remain where it is at and that the establishment clause has no power in this because the land is not owned by the government any longer. As long as it is privately owned it is not inhibiting anyone's first amendment. If the the government were to force the removal of it that could be a violation against the land owners first amendment to freedom of expression. It doesn't matter if it was a way of getting around the first amendment by transfering ownership, the fact is that it's someone elses right now to express their beliefs in any way they feel.
I think that the cross should be able to remain in the park. It was placed there as historical symbol to honor veterans, regardless of the religion of the act.
Considering the park is owned by a separate party they can do what they wish the property they have right to. The owners want to have it put there for the remeberance of certain soldiers so be it it's theirs.
Post a Comment