posted on June 13, 2004 03:02:58 AM newSAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A federal appeals court has ruled that an 8-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve that was originally intended as a war memorial is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a retired National Park Service employee who objected to the religious symbolism of the steel-pipe structure.
The cross, the subject of constant attack by vandals, was constructed in 1934 by a group of World War I veterans. According to a plaque they placed nearby, the cross was intended as a memorial, but has since attracted Christian worshippers. Congress has declared the site a war memorial.
The cross, on a site known as Sunrise Rock, has been covered in a heavy tarp after a federal judge in Riverside sided with the ACLU in 2002, ruling that the "primary effect of the presence of the cross" was to "advance religion."
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday upheld that ruling.
The San Francisco-based appeals court, however, did not indicate whether the cross must be immediately removed -- as the ACLU wishes -- or whether it can remain covered pending fresh appeals.
The park service did not return calls seeking comment Monday on whether it would ask the 9th Circuit to reconsider, appeal to the Supreme Court or let the opinion stand and remove the cross.
After the cross was constructed about 10 miles south of Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and Barstow, Congress in 1994 declared the 1.6 million-acre area a national preserve under the National Park Service's jurisdiction.
The park service defended the cross in court, saying the outcropping it rests on was being transferred to a local Veterans of Foreign Wars post in exchange for five acres of privately held land near the preserve.
The government told the court that the pending land transfer mooted the case. But the appeals court said the transfer could take years, meaning that the cross was still on public land.
posted on June 13, 2004 04:58:44 AM new
Pretty soon the ACLU will be demanding the crosses removed from all grave sites across America.
-----------
ACLU threatens county suit (Wants cross removed from Los Angeles County seal)
Los Angeles Daily News ^ | Monday, May 24, 2004 | By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Posted on 05/25/2004 8:39:47 AM PDT by StoneColdGOP
Nearly half a century after Los Angeles County adopted an official seal with a tiny cross in it, the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter declared it unconstitutional and threatened on Monday to sue to have it removed.
The ACLU Southern California chapter said the "Latin cross" on the seal is a "sectarian religious symbol" and reflects an "impermissible endorsement of Christianity."
The seal was adopted 47 years ago but the ACLU never challenged it. The organization said its complaint was prompted by phone calls it received after the city of Redlands recently agreed to remove a cross from the city seal.
The letter to the county is similar to one the ACLU sent to Redlands.
"Los Angeles County is the most diverse county in the United States, and if the city of Redlands decided it had to do something, we think the county of Los Angeles should also," ACLU Executive Director Ramona Ripston said.
Douglas W. Kmiec, chairman and professor of constitutional law at the Pepperdine University School of Law, said there is little in U.S. Supreme Court precedents that would "demand such erasure of history."
"I think this is unfortunately an all-too-commonplace effort to revise history and to expunge from the historical record all evidence of religious belief," Kmiec said. "It would be hard, it seems to me, to conclude that anyone seeing the seal of Los Angeles County would feel coerced to believe in a particular religious faith."
The county seal was designed by former county Supervisor Kenneth Hahn, the father of Los Angeles Mayor James Hahn, and was adopted by the Board of Supervisors on March 1, 1957.
The cross represents the influence of the church and the history of the missions of California, which dates back to the 1700s when missions were built in San Fernando and San Gabriel, according to the county's Web site.
Mayor Hahn stands by the seal and is disappointed by the ACLU's threats that the cross should be eliminated, said his spokeswoman Shannon Murphy. She said it represents a cross at the Pilgrimage Theater, near the Hollywood Bowl, and that the mayor believes it is an important part of Los Angeles history.
County spokeswoman Judy Hammond said removing it would cost "untold thousands and thousands of dollars" because the seal is on many of the county's 5,000 buildings, thousands of vehicles, stationery, business cards, plaques, flags and Internet sites.
Supervisor Michael D. Antonovich wrote in a letter to Ripston that her letter was "right out of a George Orwell novel. Your failure to understand the history and to rewrite it from the so-called political correctness follows the hate of past book burners."
Here's a site with a picture of the LA County Seal
posted on June 13, 2004 08:00:34 AM new
Linda says,
The cross represents the influence of the church and the history of the missions of California, which dates back to the 1700s when missions were built in San Fernando and San Gabriel,
That's just the problem here. It represents the influence of the church. And in the fact that it is meaningful of something that happened in the 1700's has no bearing on today's issue. California became a state in September 1850. Those boobs that designed the seal should have known better.
It's best that it be removed. Not all people may feel comfortable with it, as it might be offensive to some. I am sure that we all understand there is NO CORRECT RELIGION. That is why the American public has the right to have it removed.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 13, 2004 08:45:20 AM new
The cross is located on federal land paid for with federal tax dollars.
I do not wish my tax dollars to fund or promote a religion which I do not adhere to. It is unconstitutional.
I am sure Christians would not wish to fund a crescent and star, or a star of David, a shrine to the Buddha or any of the many other religious symbols that they do not worship.
This ruling pertains to public property not private. There are countles crosses visable across the US on private property.
posted on June 13, 2004 08:51:22 AM new
"True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind".
This is your sig file. Why don't you do as you say?
posted on June 13, 2004 09:04:27 AM new
"I am sure Christians would not wish to fund a crescent and star, or a star of David, a shrine to the Buddha or any of the many other religious symbols that they do not worship."
There are many things I would not wish to fund and those aren't any of them. What people use for their religious symbols is their business and I have no say in the matter. It's call freedom of choice. Maybe Christians are more tolerant than non christans. Worship is a matter of choice and I for one don't want that taken away as the ACLU is trying to do and have done. They have megabucks behind them and all they do is travel around the country looking for religious symbols in public places, trying cases that have no meaning. Don't they have better things to do with their money like help the homeless.
posted on June 13, 2004 09:39:44 AM new
Personally, I don't have a problem with the cross. We are having the same issue with a cross down here in San Diego. People sued to have it removed. During the suit, the city sold the land making the suit irrlelevent but the people again sued because they sold it at a discounted price to a church based group and the courts overturned the sale. The city then sold it again and this time were sued because the bidding which required upkeep of the city unduly favored religious groups. Sale was overturned again and this case is now being submitted to the Supreme Court. The whole thing has been ridiculous and far more money has been spent on the suit than would ever have been spent on upkeep of the cross since the upkeep was done by the same group tnat brought the land anyway.
I don't believe that the government should go around erecting religious monuments but in the cae of the cross mentioned in the original article - the cross was erected by a private group on land that did not become federal land until 60 years later. I think the whole thing is ridiculous and quite honestly embarassing when there are real issues of seperation of church and state to be addressed.
We have a president that flys at tax payers expense to the Rome to request that the Vatican exude it's influence to favor him in the elections (ironically against a catholic canditdate) and we are getting bogged on this kind of menial crap?
The intention of the seperation of church and state to protect thhe government and people from undo influence of the church and the church of undo influence from the government. It was not intended to abolish all evidence of religion.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
[ edited by fenix03 on Jun 13, 2004 09:42 AM ]
posted on June 13, 2004 09:40:58 AM new
Libra, I am all for freedom of religion. People should have the ability to profess their faith, however I feel it boils down to the separation of church and state issue. It has already been shown that crosses, and monuments should not be allowed on government property. This is no different in my opinion. Why can't the cross be moved to a private piece of land?
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
June is Gay Pride Month
------------------------------
All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.
Change is constant. The history of mankind is about change. One set of beliefs is pushed aside by a new set. The old order is swept away by the new. If people become attached to the old order, they see their best interest in defending it. They become the losers. They become the old order and in turn are vulnerable. People who belong to the new order are winners.
James A Belaco & Ralph C. Stayer
posted on June 13, 2004 09:56:59 AM new
Logan - here's why I find this to be ridiculous, tell me if I am wrong. It was a privately erected war memorial built in 1934 on land that was declared a Federal Reserve 60 years later in 1994.
Why should something that previous existed be moved especially when it was not erected as a religious monument?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 13, 2004 10:45:32 AM new
I am 100% behind seperationof church and state, AND I am an athiest. However, I find this case, and some others, just plain ridiculous.
____________________
We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people. -- John F. Kennedy
posted on June 13, 2004 11:41:32 AM new
The Cross in the park is now a historical part of a national monument which they plan to desecrate. At the very least I want to see an environmental impact report on it's removal. Then out of respect for the sensibilities of members of the referenced religion I expect the government to allow selected members of that religious group to be allowed to remove it with proper decorum. Of course, the expense of removing it should be shouldered by the parties filing the complaint. I expect a sufficient explanation of what became of the cross to be placed at it's former location. And for inconvenienced park visitors that come to see the Cross I expect a shuttle service, paid for by the complainants to be run to the new site for an acceptable period. It is also proper that all Nazi swastika type hate symbols be removed from all National lands and any items in museums. I feel an all-inclusive report on this issue should be provided to the court before the Cross is removed. Also, There may be some confusion in the mind of people of other religious beliefs as to the availability of red CROSS aid to them, so I feel that in the same vein it should be renamed Red Politically Correct and it should get a new symbol, possibly a question mark.
________________
You know...the best way to defeat a liberal is to let them speak.
posted on June 13, 2004 02:30:57 PM new
As I was riding through the cemetry today I was thinking about Crosses. To the elderly croses are a symbol of what they stood for. Ideals, church, god and Family. This is a city funded cemetry. Now what about Arlington Cemetry, I am sure there are a lot of crosses their also. Should they be taken down? No I don't think so because those men and women have also morals and most have religious convictions. Leave the crosses alone and as I said why don't they do good for people who can't do it for themselves. a much better way to use their money.
Need defination:
Now since I can't find my dictionary since I moved does crosses and Crosses have a different meaning like catholic and Catholic?
posted on June 13, 2004 06:18:43 PM new
The ACLU does fight for people that cannot aford to do it on their own and whose rights are being trampled upon.
Yes, some of the fights they get into a a bit tedious but to say that an organization that stands up and donates time and very expnsive lawyers to protect the contitutional rights of the common man should instead "do something good for people who can't do it for themselves" is niave.
They stand up and fight to protect the rights of the poor, the homeless, the indigent, kids, etc. The fight to protect the constitution of the country and the rights of the people within in it when our governmet decides that it is within their rights to trample upon it. You don't have to hand out blankets or soup to be doing a good thing.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 13, 2004 08:36:09 PM new
You said it NTS "Soon, though, those big crosses outside on top of Christian churchs are going to be frowned on."
Yes soon they will be complaining as it gets in the way of their vision, vision meaning, separtion of church and state.
Everyday their seems to be something that interfers with us from enjoying the day. Maybe if we take time out to see the beautiful day, green trees, Clouds in the skys, that's tough around here, rain all the time, and smell the fresh air we can turn our thoughts to something good. Just to wake up in the morning is good for me.
Yes! That is my sig line. It says EVERYBODY should have the same rights. So why don't you go there and put up a religious symbol for EVERY religion is the US??? However, there would be a problem with that too. Not all people have a religion, some are atheist. Since the atheist are included in EVERYBODY, then you CAN'T infringe on their rights either. It's pretty simple, isn't it?
Or, are you the type of person that believes (falsely) that YOUR religious beliefs are the correct ones?
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 13, 2004 08:47:32 PM new
No one cares if a Church has a Cross displayed providing it is on private property and was not done so with funds from the taxpayers.
By your logic it would be OK for the government to build Churches since you believe that this is a Christian nation and not a secular one.
posted on June 13, 2004 08:47:52 PM new
fenix, they are still fighting over that cross? that has been going on for over 8 years now, it is the one I am thinking of... famous in the area for Easter services...
I too was led to believe that the aclu was for the "little" guy... but they are not, if the case cannot get them any publicity they won't take it...
posted on June 13, 2004 08:58:46 PM new
"It's best that it be removed. Not ALL people may feel comfortable with it, as it might be offensive to some. I am sure that we all understand there is NO CORRECT RELIGION. That is why the American public has the right to have it removed."
Who says it's best that it be removed. You, and the ACLU? Well maybe the majority of the American Public don't want it removed. In that statement you also say I am sure that WE ALL, now do you have a mouse in your pocket or are you refuring to me. I sure hope not because there are Correct Religions in my eyes.
I got to thinking about this retired worker. What I would like to know if he found this Cross to be so offensive why didn't he object to the cross when he was working there but waited until he retired and got his pension. Was he afraid that he might lose his job if he started it before and lose that government pension?
posted on June 13, 2004 09:12:40 PM new
About the worker loosing his pension? I thought that very same thing when I first read that. I would have done the same thing. Why should anyone have to work for many years only to be canned by an angry boss. If he was good enough to keep his job for all those years to gain a pension, then he must of been a good employee and deserves it. Many people wait until they are out of the work place when they confront their former boss.
Who says it has to be removed??? The people represented American Constitution, that's who?
How do you know that the American Public wants it to stay? I didn't hear that. Did you take a poll on this?
On your statement, now do you have a mouse in your pocket or are you refuring to me That is rhetorical at the least. It doesn't deserve an answer.
First of all, I don't know if you have fur. And I didn't fur you in the first place. So, with this in mind, I can't refur you.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on June 13, 2004 09:19:33 PM new
Yeager I can put up a sign with Madeline Murray O'Hairs picture on it as she was the leader.
. Or, are you the type of person that believes (falsely) that YOUR religious beliefs are the correct ones? Yes according to MY religion mine are correct. According to someone else theirs is also correct. If you have No religion yours are correct. When someone can tell me that God didn't create the world and show me the proof I will believe in God...
posted on June 13, 2004 09:25:24 PM new
Well Yeager if this man would have gotten fired because of his confliction then the ACLU could and probably would have stepped in to help him.
posted on June 13, 2004 09:25:53 PM new
Libra says,
OK Yeager if you go tear the cross down I will put up the signs....
I didn't say that I was going to tear the cross down. How much of the bottle have you drank tonight anyway?
Feel free to put up any type of sign anyplace that you want to. Just make sure that it's not of a religious nature if it's going to be put on government owned property. It's cool with me.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
[ edited by yeager on Jun 13, 2004 09:26 PM ]
posted on June 13, 2004 09:31:14 PM new
So I misspelled a word is that the only comeback you have. That's a lame excuse.
I said that once to someone and they pointed out how many words I spelled wrong. Well I am not going back to check your posts as that is a petty thing.
posted on June 13, 2004 09:32:22 PM newnow do you have a mouse in your pocket
Sorry, but I just have to ask. Is that a common expression? I was wondering because I've never heard it before. I've heard the banana one...... is the mouse one a regional expression or have I been running with the wrong crowd all my life?
posted on June 13, 2004 09:38:48 PM new
Yes I think it was a regional thing. When I was in school and all of us were standing around talking someone would say "we" and someone else would say "do you have a mouse in your pocket" It was the thing to do at that moment and I just couldn't let it pass by. It brought up memories.
posted on June 13, 2004 09:56:53 PM new
Twelve - the Mount Soledad Cross? Yep - it's apparently 12 years and still going.
BTW - Is there a post missing or has Libra just gone off about being corrected for spelling when the correction was in reality a miscredited quote?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
If it's really "common" sense, why do so few people actually have it?
posted on June 13, 2004 09:56:55 PM new
Yeager this is what you said or did you forget it. "So why don't you go there and put up a religious symbol for EVERY religion is the US??? However, there would be a problem with that too. Not all people have a religion, some are atheist. Since the atheist are included in EVERYBODY, then you CAN'T infringe on their rights either. It's pretty simple, isn't it?"
I said I would if you would go tear down the cross. For the atheist's I would put a picture of Madeline Murray O'Hair there. Sorry bunnicula you have your rights to your beliefs and I didn't mean the above statement to critize you. I hope you understand. She was really the first athiest to stand up for her and your rights and even if I didn't believe them she had her right to do it.
Please you don't have to bold my statements I have had eye surgery and have 20 - 20 vision. Probably better than yours.
