US: ACLU trying to remove cross from CA desert

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.

It's not the only solution, nor is it the solution that best avoids the appearance of a state religion.  The reasons have been explained already.  You can agree or disagree, but not everyone thinks that making an island sold directly to the VFW to protect a non-permanent structure is the best one.

ETA: If you replaced "cross" with "pentacle", the VFW with a Wiccan veterans' group, and "Easter service" with Ostara celebrations, would you still be supporting the memorial to remain?  Say if the history remained the same except that it was a neo-pagan who constructed the first memorial?  I would still support the ACLU's bid to remove it.

I find this a fascinating topic!

Would the situation be different for a permanent structure? If a piece of land has a religious building on it, is the federal government barred from owning it on that basis (and also barred from transferring it to a religious organisation for its upkeep)? For example, if a historic building (say a house belonging to a prominent figure from history) had a chapel within it, could that house not be owned by a government entity?

Is Stonehenge a religious site which if in the US could not be federally owned and would have to be dismantled or sold to the highest bidder? :-)

It's not the only solution, nor is it the solution that best avoids the appearance of a state religion.

What other solution is there which (a) satisfies the declared constitutional requirement that a cross does not stand on federal land, and (b) satisfies the wishes of people who want the cross to remain the location it's been for the last 75 years?

ETA: If you replaced "cross" with "pentacle", the VFW with a Wiccan veterans' group, and "Easter service" with Ostara celebrations, would you still be supporting the memorial to remain? 

Yes.

Would the situation be different for a permanent structure? If a piece of land has a religious building on it, is the federal government barred from owning it on that basis (and also barred from transferring it to a religious organisation for its upkeep)?

That goes back to a point I made earlier.  If the federal government is barred from owning land on which a religious symbol stands, then how could the federal government have legitimately taken ownership of that land in the first place?   The cross was there first.  Thus if it's illegal for the federal government to own land on which that cross stands, surely the original transfer of the land must be void? 

What other solution is there which (a) satisfies the declared constitutional requirement that a cross does not stand on federal land, and (b) satisfies the wishes of people who want the cross to remain the location it's been for the last 75 years?

The cross hasn't been there for 75 years.  A series of crosses have been.  Replace it with a non-religious marker or a more inclusive one.  Or move it.  If it's about honouring the dead of WWI, a religious symbol wouldn't be needed.  It's particularly obvious this isn't about the history of the cross or the dead it's meant to represent, but the religious representation when a Buddhist display proposal was rejected.

That goes back to a point I made earlier.  If the federal government is barred from owning land on which a religious symbol stands, then how could the federal government have legitimately taken ownership of that land in the first place?   The cross was there first.  Thus if it's illegal for the federal government to own land on which that cross stands, surely the original transfer of the land must be void? 

The federal government isn't barred from owning land where a religious symbol stands.  Case in point: Arlington.  This is about favouring or endorsing a religion (in this case, Protestant Christianity) by allowing a display and disallowing others.

But in the case of a historic building containing a chapel, is there a requirement to authorise the display of other religious symbols even where it is known that the original inhabitant of the house was (say) a devout catholic and furnished the chapel in a specifically Christian way?

But in the case of a historic building containing a chapel, is there a requirement to authorise the display of other religious symbols even where it is known that the original inhabitant of the house was (say) a devout catholic and furnished the chapel in a specifically Christian way?

This isn't a chapel.  It is a semi-permanent memorial.

I realise.

I was going off-topic, I admit - but in the spirit of trying to understand what is and isn't permitted by the US constitution, because it seemed that it would be interesting to look at the big picture in which this case sits.

The US Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a religion or endorsing a religion.  There's nothing that lists what it can and can't do, and just like with other parts of the Constitution, it was left vague as not to become outdated as times change.

There are some things that would definitely not be unconstitutional.  Congress and the National Park Service behaved badly with this one.

The cross hasn't been there for 75 years.  A series of crosses have been. 

I acknowledged that above.  But a cross has been there for 75 years.

The federal government isn't barred from owning land where a religious symbol stands.

So what is the problem with the cross remaining where it is then?   I don't really believe that anyone will think that the presence of a cross on the land means that the federal government is endorsing a particular religion.  Do you think people will be silly enough not to realize that the cross was there long before the feds took over the land, and thus it is being kept there due to its history?   

I was going off-topic, I admit - but in the spirit of trying to understand what is and isn't permitted by the US constitution, because it seemed that it would be interesting to look at the big picture in which this case sits.

I don't think it's off topic at all, but another branch of the same issue.  As I suggested above, what would the position be if, say, the remains of some 19th century settlement were within the boundaries of a piece of land which was to become a federal preserve, and those remains included a church, complete with a cross over the entrance?

Does the cross have to be removed?  The entire church?   

I acknowledged that above.  But a cross has been there for 75 years.

You may have acknowledged it, but you were referring to it as a singular cross.  There is nothing historically significant about the cross itself.  What is significant is what it was meant to represent.  IMO, the history of this monument has been inflated to make it less about the removal of a religious symbol that should have been removed when the preserve was incorporated.  

So what is the problem with the cross remaining where it is then?   I don't really believe that anyone will think that the presence of a cross on the land means that the federal government is endorsing a particular religion.  Do you think people will be silly enough not to realize that the cross was there long before the feds took over the land, and thus it is being kept there due to its history?  

OK, we are just going in circles, and you are starting to resort to calling people who don't believe what you do silly.  Ah well.  I tried to make it clearer why people the cross and how the NPS handled it objectionable.

One (hopefully) last time: This isn't just about the cross being on federal land, but disallowing other religious memorials at the same site, using federal resources to maintain the memorial, making a federal monument out of the cross well after it bought the land, and then trying to sell the property directly to the VFW in order to make a loophole to preserve the cross.

All these things are indicating that this is being protected not as a memorial, but as a religious symbol, and because it is the symbol of the "default" religion of the US.
 

So what is the problem with the cross remaining where it is then? 

As has been said multiple times on this thread, the cross in and of itself is not the problem.  The problem is that there is a cross, and no other religious symbols are allowed, which shows favoritism to one religion at the expense of all the others.

OK, we are just going in circles, and you are starting to resort to calling people who don't believe what you do silly.

No, what I said was just because a cross stands on what is now federal land that anyone would be silly enough to think that that automatically represents some sort of government endorsement.  You've already said that there is no outright ban on a religious symbol on federal land.

One (hopefully) last time: This isn't just about the cross being on federal land, but disallowing other religious memorials at the same site

The problem is that there is a cross, and no other religious symbols are allowed, which shows favoritism to one religion at the expense of all the others.

But would the erection of any more Christian symbols be allowed now either?   

But would the erection of any more Christian symbols be allowed now either?   

I don't know.  The case was brought about because a Buddhist memorial wasn't allowed to be placed in the same area where the Christian memorial is now, thus favoring the symbol of one religion over another.  If other Christian symbols were allowed, that'd just make the argument that the government is endorsing Christianity that much stronger.

As has been said multiple times on this thread, the cross in and of itself is not the problem.  The problem is that there is a cross, and no other religious symbols are allowed, which shows favoritism to one religion at the expense of all the others.

The majority of Americans are Protestant Christians.  To say this cross doesn't belong because of a Crescent moon and Star of David aren't next to it - strikes me as absurd and petty.  I'm a Deist that came from a Catholic background and this doesn't bother me in the slightest.  There are bigger problems out there - like why exactly the Federal government owns this land.

The majority of Americans are Protestant Christians.  To say this cross doesn't belong because of a Crescent moon and Star of David aren't next to it - strikes me as absurd and petty.  I'm a Deist that came from a Catholic background and this doesn't bother me in the slightest.  There are bigger problems out there - like why exactly the Federal government owns this land.

You have the right not to be bothered by it.  You not being bothered by it doesn't mean it's not a violation of the Constitution.