US: ACLU trying to remove cross from CA desert

I think it’s important to ask why after 75 years this cross is causing controversy, because much to my surprise I found myself agreeing with Paul’s view.

Length of time is a consideration for me. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, but the state didn’t erect the cross and seems not to have owned the land when it was first built. After 75 years, history must be considered and perhaps it should be left alone.

But of course there’s more to the story. The ACLU didn’t just scour the desert looking for a case. They responded to a complaint by a private citizen, which is usually how these things start – with one person.

Read here: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org//analysis.aspx?id=21282&SearchString=mojave

Quote:
After an application to erect a Buddhist memorial nearby was denied in 1999, the American Civil Liberties Union voiced concern about the presence of the cross itself. In 2001 Frank Buono, the former assistant superintendent of the preserve, filed suit challenging the presence of the cross and objecting to the government’s refusal to allow other displays. Buono was successful at the district-court and appeals-court levels.

One part of me still feels what’s the harm after so long, but when one religion is favoured over another then that seals it for me. Sadly, the cross has got to go.

I think it’s important to ask why after 75 years this cross is causing controversy, because much to my surprise I found myself agreeing with Paul’s view.

Strange things can happen sometimes!   

Length of time is a consideration for me. I firmly believe in separation of church and state, but the state didn’t erect the cross and seems not to have owned the land when it was first built. After 75 years, history must be considered and perhaps it should be left alone.

That's my point.  It's not as if the federal government has come along and erected the cross with taxpayers' money.  It simply took over the land on which a cross had already stood for about 60 years (a quick search showed that the Mojave National Preserve was created and became federal land only in 1994). 

If the history of the Mojave Desert is to be preserved, then surely that memorial is now a part of that history?   75 years ago might not be a huge time on the grand scale of mankind's existence, but the National Park Service is maintaining and preserving the Kelso Railroad Depot, which dates back to the 1920s.   If that is part of the recent history of the area to preserve, then why not the memorial which is only a few years younger?

In fact that raises an interesting question: I don't imagine there are any crosses or other religious symbols which are an integral part of the railroad depot, but what if there were?  Or what if the NPS took over land as a preserve on which stands an old church?  Would the church have to be demolished?   Not much of a way to preserve the history of the area.

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. 

Which rather suggests a simple solution: Sell the small area of land on which the memorial stands back into private ownership, then the cross is not on federal land and the NPS will not be maintaining it. 

That would keep everyone happy, wouldn't it? 

Which rather suggests a simple solution: Sell the small area of land on which the memorial stands back into private ownership, then the cross is not on federal land and the NPS will not be maintaining it.  

That would keep everyone happy, wouldn't it?  

Or replace it with a non-religious symbol, which if the memorial was really meant to commemorate all veterans of WWI, and not just Protestant Christian ones, would be appropriate.

US wars aren't fought in the name of Christianity, but under the banner of the flag.

ETA: The length of time this memorial existed is irrelevant IMO.  The government was wrong in declaring it a memorial.  The fact it was years ago doesn't change that it was wrong.  Old things that violate laws and principals still do violate laws and principals, and the fact that we've paid for it to be replaced over the years sort of buggers belief that an issue wasn't made of it before.

Religious symbols in memorials on government land really only belong in commemoration of an individual and as representative of their personal beliefs.

It's not as if the federal government has come along and erected the cross with taxpayers' money. 

No, but the federal government is maintaing the cross on federal land using taxpayers' money and not allowing any other religious symbols to be placed in the same area.  So between spending taxpayers' money on a religious symbol, allowing that symbol to remain on federal land, and excluding other religious symbols, I think the cross has to go.  Otherwise it looks like the federal government is favoring a religion.

Old things that violate laws and principals still do violate laws and principals

But the cross didn't violate anything when it was constructed (and when later replacements occurred).   If we accept that there is a conflict between the presence of the cross and the land on which it stands being federally owned, then why did the federal government take over the land in the first place?  Surely the government itself is responsible for creating the conflict, because the cross was there first. 

No, but the federal government is maintaing the cross on federal land using taxpayers' money

So what's wrong with my simple solution above?  Sell the small piece of land back into private ownership, and both of those problems are solved.  In fact, given that the government created the apparent conflict in the first place, surely that's what should have happened when the general area came under federal ownership.  They should have simply left that small piece of land alone.

So what's wrong with my simple solution above?  Sell the small piece of land back into private ownership, and both of those problems are solved.  In fact, given that the government created the apparent conflict in the first place, surely that's what should have happened when the general area came under federal ownership.  They should have simply left that small piece of land alone.

Congress tried to do just this. They enacted legislation to swap the 1 acre of land that the cross sits on for 5 acres of land valued at the same value. The Court of Appeals has placed an injunction on the legislature being enacted.

I haven't had a chance to look into why the Court imposed the injunction. There might have been other issues relating to the transfer.

Congress tried to do just this. They enacted legislation to swap the 1 acre of land that the cross sits on for 5 acres of land valued at the same value. The Court of Appeals has placed an injunction on the legislature being enacted.

I haven't had a chance to look into why the Court imposed the injunction. There might have been other issues relating to the transfer.

Maybe cause it was a no-bid transaction? Selling it to one particular organization based on that organization's religious affiliation probably runs afoul of the establishment clause, possibly? Let them have open bidding on this plot of land, if they want to sell it, whoever ends up with it, can do as they choose: keep the cross or ditch it.

But the cross didn't violate anything when it was constructed (and when later replacements occurred).   If we accept that there is a conflict between the presence of the cross and the land on which it stands being federally owned, then why did the federal government take over the land in the first place?  Surely the government itself is responsible for creating the conflict, because the cross was there first.  

The replacement of the crosses did violate the law.  Just because the government does something, doesn't make it legal.  They shouldn't have declared it a war memorial with a [edit: single] religious symbol as the memorial.

ETA: The NPS information on the cross: http://www.nps.gov/archive/moja/adminhist/adhi6.htm  (about halfway down the page).

Really interesting that they denied the guy the right to build the Buddhist structure with the excuse that they planned to eventually remove the cross.

Maybe cause it was a no-bid transaction? Selling it to one particular organization based on that organization's religious affiliation probably runs afoul of the establishment clause, possibly? Let them have open bidding on this plot of land, if they want to sell it, whoever ends up with it, can do as they choose: keep the cross or ditch it.

Have had a chance now to do some more reading. Yes, it was because the Court said it was in violation of the establishment clause. However I am having a very hard time reconciling how the Court regarded a transfer to the VFW as being related to, or showing preference for, a specific religion. As far as I know the VFW has members from many different religions.

Hope somebody can clarify this for me.

Hope somebody can clarify this for me.

Maybe they were considered a religious organization for this purpose because of WHY they wanted to buy the land, if that makes any sense. The sale was a specifically meant to preserve this particular religious symbol, and thus violated the establishment clause. Basically, the government was selling land bid-free so a Protestant landmark could be preserved. Intent counts?

Does that sound like a reasonable explanation or am I totally off?

Does that sound like a reasonable explanation or am I totally off?

Actually yes, from that perspective it does sound reasonable that the Court could make that conclusion.

Not necessarily a decision I agree with, but reasonable.

My concern is why is there a Christian cross on a Mojavo reserve? That is a gross insult to the tribe.

The replacement of the crosses did violate the law.  Just because the government does something, doesn't make it legal.

I was refering to replacements by the veterans' group prior to the land being taken over by the federal government. 
 

Maybe they were considered a religious organization for this purpose because of WHY they wanted to buy the land, if that makes any sense. The sale was a specifically meant to preserve this particular religious symbol, and thus violated the establishment clause. Basically, the government was selling land bid-free so a Protestant landmark could be preserved. Intent counts?

So if that's the case we're left with these facts:
 
* It's been declared unconstitutional for a cross to stand on federally owned land.

* The federal government took over ownership of land on which a cross already stood, which was thus a violation of the law.

* Even though the cross was there first, the court has ruled that the initial violation of the law cannot be corrected by returning that piece of land into private ownership.

Seems to me that the issue is not simply about separation of church and state and preventing a cross from standing on federally owned land, but more about getting the cross removed at any cost.

I was refering to replacements by the veterans' group prior to the land being taken over by the federal government.  

Whether or not the VFW replaced it while it wasn't a national preserve is irrelevant to what's going on now.
 

Seems to me that the issue is not simply about separation of church and state and preventing a cross from standing on federally owned land, but more about getting the cross removed at any cost.

No.  It's about separation of Church and State, Paul.  If it were about removing crosses, there are a lot of crosses in the US that could be removed without making federal cases.  Making a private island in a national preserve by selling land the people own directly to people just so they can preserve a cross is not exactly the only solution.

Making a private island in a national preserve by selling land the people own directly to people just so they can preserve a cross is not exactly the only solution.

But it is the solution which satisfies all the requirements of those who want the memorial to remain and those who don't want a cross on federally owned land.   And we're talking about land which did not come into federal ownership until as recently as 1994, at which time the cross (or a cross) had already stood there for 60 years.