WASHINGTON -- Today the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments in Salazar vs. Buono, better known as the Mojave Desert Cross case. World War I veterans erected a cross 75 years ago on land that was open range to honor those who had died serving America in the war. In 1994, the Clinton Administration federalized the land. The ACLU sued to remove the cross, which is literally in a desert and difficult to find, on behalf of a former National Park Service worker who lives in Oregon.
The case will impact all "religious displays" on federal land.
Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, stated at a press conference:
"The cross is the most profound symbol of the most humble act of service -- to lay down one's life for another. It was veterans who chose the cross to symbolize the service of their brothers and sisters in the military who laid down their lives to keep our country free.
"It's quite telling that the ACLU and atheists' response is not an alternate symbol. They have nothing to offer in place of the cross. Instead they cover up the cross with ugly plywood. They oppress, they censor, they silence the most profound message that can be offered to our country.
"So the Supreme Court has the opportunity now to do the right thing and to honor those who give their lives for our country and to respect the religious views of the majority of Americans, particularly those who founded our country. They have the opportunity to recognize that our country is in fact founded on Judeo-Christian principles. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to do the right thing and allow the cross to stand.
"If they choose otherwise, they will then have to bulldoze Arlington Cemetery. Next will be scratching off 'In God We Trust' from our coins and dollar bills and sandblasting Biblical quotes and symbols from our nation's most revered buildings and memorials."
Concerned Women for America is the nation's largest public policy women's organization.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content, so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
OPINION:Supreme Court Hears "Mojave Desert Cross" Case
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Out in the middle of the desert,
Hidden from view to anyone on any road is not hidden enough for the ACLU.
Yes, the Constitution states in clear terms that the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ". Congress did just that when they established this memorial as a national monument due to its intent. But it gets better.
The proposed solution that is being heard in SCOTUS, (and not surprisingly missing from this article) is a land trade. Congress and the parks service has agreed to trade the acre of land upon which sits this 5 to 8 foot tall cross for 5 acres elsewhere. That would make this cross private, not public, property. The private person who will make the trade with Uncle Sam has been the caretaker of this monument for many years.
The ACLU is fighting that solution as well....Even though it is constitutional. They just want that cross taken down.
- SolarSanitizer
October 7, 2009 4:32PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Right on, Solar Sanitizer!
I believe the majority of the United States men who fought in our two World Wars were Christians . If someone would like to add a Star of David or statue of Budda, I doubt if there would be a fuss made by the Christian community. I wonder if the ACLU would tolerate this either?
- ArmeeBratt
October 7, 2009 5:45PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Granfathered?
If the cross has been there for 75 years and the land wasn't federalized until 1994 the government isn't supporting anything. The government can not act for or against religion . To remove a cross that was already there would be to act against religion. Just granfather the cross.
- mike1948
October 7, 2009 11:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Um, anyone know?
Why did they Federalize this land anyway?
And compared to a lot of stuff I have seen protected as historical, how can this cross no qualify.
I don't appreciate atheist' being lumped together in this, and the OP is of course being ridiculous as well, but this is the kind of thing that makes the ACLU seem completely insane.
Incidently, I have no interest in bowling over Arlington, and leaving religious propaganda on our mostly worthless money seems fit, but I am tired of this alleged blanket endorsement for the the Christian Right from the founders. The idealized Christianity of the founders was one nearly bereft of supernaturalism and superstition, and many were very critical of the churches themselves.
And our country was not founded on Judeo-Christian principles, whatever those are. It was founded on modern liberalism, from Declaration of Independence to the Bill of Rights.
- Submariner October 8, 2009 11:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.