US: ACLU trying to remove cross from CA desert

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a suit in 2001 demanding that a seven-foot cross erected in the California desert in 1934 commemorating sacrifices endured by our soldiers in World War I be taken down. At some point after 1934 the land on which the cross was erected became federally protected, and thus the cross became a fit issue for the ACLU's squalling about the separation of church and state. The creation of this World War I monument was -- get this! -- part of a 1930s medical program to help World War I veterans recover from shellshock. Physicians treating them thought that their work in the desert heat would be therapeutic. In 2004 the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU, but veterans groups objected -- thus the case's journey to the Supreme Court.

Full story:
http://capoliticalnews.com/blog_post/show/2233

This is the same ACLU that is "squalling" in support of your position in an unrelated matter.  You've gotta admire their committment to equality when it comes to the defense of civil liberties.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26524res20060824.html#intro

Just in case people want the other side of the story.

Utterley ridiculous.  Move the cross.  Problem solved.

Vicky

http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/26524res20060824.html#intro

Just in case people want the other side of the story.

That's the wrong case.  The cross referred to in my post is located in the Mojave National Preserve.

Here's an ACLU press release from 2001 (I couldn't find anything more recent):

http://www.aclu.org/religion/discrim/16319prs20010322.html

"If any person was allowed to place a permanent, free-standing expression of his or her religious or political viewpoint at this site, we would have no objection,"" said Eliasberg, ""but that is not the case here. No other group is allowed to erect a religious symbol. This creates a situation in which the federal government favors Christian expression over any other."

That's the wrong case.  The cross referred to in my post is located in the Mojave National Preserve.

Eh, my bad.  While camoscato posted the brief from the case you posted, the link I posted explains the ACLU's position on religious freedoms of the individual and separation of church and state.

the link I posted explains the ACLU's position on religious freedoms of the individual and separation of church and state.

It does indeed.  And that's the issue.

It does indeed.  And that's the issue.

For you, maybe.  What's your issue with their position?

The issue is the ridiculousness of claiming that the federal government is somehow endorsing a religion just because there happens to a cross on land which it has taken over.   The veterans' cross had already been there for 60 years when the Mojave National Preserve was created. 

Does this mean that any time an area becomes a national park/preserve that every inch of it must be scrutinized for anything which could be construed as a religious symbol, and such symbols removed?   

Does this mean that any time an area becomes a national park/preserve that every inch of it must be scrutinized for anything which could be construed as a religious symbol, and such symbols removed?   

Why would every inch need to be scrutinized?  If it's known about, or brought to the attention of the body that runs and maintains the government property, it should be moved. 

I really think you're grasping at straws, Paul. "Every inch will need to be scrutinized!" Oh poor you. You lament as if someone will force you, or people like you, at the point of a knife to scour every inch of ground for a stray religious landmark. Even if it did need to be done, it'd be done by people who share philosophy with ACLU, and surely you can't object to them engaging in busywork like that. Hey, less time for them to infrindge on your sacred right to infringe on everyone else's right to freedom of religion.

That is assuming they'd even do anything of the sort rather than just act on someone's complaint.

Hey, less time for them to infrindge on your sacred right to infringe on everyone else's right to freedom of religion.

How is a cross which has been there for 75 years infringing upon anyone's right to freedom of religion?    How is believing that there is no reason to remove it infringing upon anyone else's religious freedom either?

It's the ACLU and its ilk clutching at straws by trying to make some tenuous link between the mere presence of the cross on federal land and the government somehow endorsing the religion it represents.

Because it's maintained and replaced by federal funds, and it's on federal lands.  If it were private property, this wouldn't be an issue.  The fact the US doesn't fund religion or favour one religion over the other not only preserves a person's right to choose what to believe or not to believe, but protects the religions themselves.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/mojavecross.htm

According to some sources, the purpose of the cross was to honor all Christian veterans of World War I. Other sources indicate that it is to honor the soldiers who fought and were killed in the war. A plaque at the base of the cross once explained its purpose, but disappeared years ago.

The cross was originally maintained by the National Park Service, and has been replaced many times. It had been designated by Congress as a war memorial. Its present form is an eight-foot tall Latin cross, a symbol used mainly by Protestants. It was fabricated from two metal pipes welded together and painted white.

There's also a history of the suit listed.  The cross' history listed on that site is very different from the one your article listed.

How is a cross which has been there for 75 years infringing upon anyone's right to freedom of religion? 

The length of time the cross has been there is irrelevant.  The government not only protects the right to freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.  The cross should be moved off of federal land to keep the area free of all religious icons.

  How is believing that there is no reason to remove it infringing upon anyone else's religious freedom either?

It's not.  Believe whatever you want.  You're wrong, though.