Supreme Court Should Stop Cross on Public Land Scheme
Americans United for Separation of Church and State has urged the Supreme Court to overturn a congressional scheme to maintain a cross on public land in California, insisting that government should refrain from displaying sectarian symbols.
Americans United made the argument in a friend-of-the-court brief filed yesterday in Salazar v. Buono, a legal battle centering on the display of a cross at the Mojave National Preserve in California. The case will come before the high court Oct. 7.
The cross at issue in the dispute was originally erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in 1934 and has since been replaced several times by private citizens.
“The cross is a powerful symbol of the Christian faith,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “It does not represent all Americans. Arguing that the cross is ‘non-sectarian’ or that it is a generic symbol for all war dead is offensive to non-Christians and many Christians as well.”
In 2003, Congress approved riders to a Defense Department bill declaring the cross a “national memorial” and mandating a land exchange that would transfer the cross and the property beneath it to private hands. Lynn said this was an obvious ploy designed to keep the Christian symbol in place.
Lynn noted that a request by another citizen to display a Buddhist symbol in the area was denied. This is evidence, he continued, of unconstitutional government favoritism toward one religion.
AU’s brief asserts, “Government-sponsored religious symbols are potent forms of speech that can have real, palpable effects on people who are subjected to them.
“The harm from them is not that they evoke distaste, displeasure, or even disgust,” the brief continues. “It is that they deprive citizens of the use and enjoyment of public lands, because using a public facility where the government has chosen to erect a monument to one faith stigmatizes nonadherents as second-class citizens, while demeaning the faith of adherents by coopting what is sacred.”
Americans United sharply disagrees with the views of Religious Right legal groups, which have filed legal documents before the Supreme Court arguing that the case is trivial because government display of the cross causes no harm.
Noting that “symbols have power,” Americans United insists, “The cross is, of course, the ‘supreme emblem of Christianity,’ and one of humanity’s most ancient, widely recognized, and deeply hallowed symbols…. To dismiss an official display of a large cross as merely passive and therefore insignificant…is to misunderstand not only the display’s purpose, but also the cross’s essential nature and abiding power, both for those who cherish it and for those who do not.”
The AU brief also urges the Supreme Court to leave intact well-established doctrine about “standing” – the right to sue.
Lynn said he hopes the court makes it clear that individuals who oppose government display of religious symbols have the right to challenge them in court.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Was this country not partly founded on the idea of religious tolerance/freedom? Why these things offend people I'm not totally sure. I personally don't mind people wearing crosses around their neck, preying together as a team before athletic events nor people on the corner telling me that the world is coming to an end. They believe what they want to believe. These are all normally due to stress and a need for someone else to take control of their lives when they are unmanageable.
Look at the times we live in.
I agree that nobody should be forced to worship any particular god or goddess or be judged differently because they do or do not worship a god. If one cross on a hill makes thousands happy to me that is reason enough to leave it where it is.
When someone starts making public school field trips up to prey at this monument then we'll talk about taking it down, but as long as it is just material at the top of a hill I really don't care.
I hope you fellow atheists can see where I'm coming from.
No, I don't see where you're coming from. Religion should not be something that people understandably go to when they are "stressed" or need to take control of their lives. Religion tells you that you are not in control of your lives. Thus, when people turn to religion , they are seeking to escape responsibility for living their own lives.
We should not allow the state to increase this evil in any form, small or large. The government 's job is not to make "people happy" but to protect their rights, and the only way it can do this is by totally divorcing itself from any subjective viewpoint, especially religion.
As an atheist , you should not just resign yourself to, "Well, I don't believe in it, but I'll accept the ethics ." Why would you do this? Shouldn't you derive your ethics from reality, and not something you don't believe in? Do not endorse religion in any way, not as a solution to certain problems or as an escape, especially if you are an atheist. Tell people that they have the right to believe whatever they want. But using public money to please religious people with religious projects is absolutely a violation of the rights of those who fund it, and an advancement of an evil made worse by the state's involvement.
Religion has been around since the beginning of written history. As has the opposition. It will continue to be so for the rest of time.
You at some point have to just deal with it.
I agree that the government shouldn't pay for the religious projects. I don't think that the government paid for this. It was just on public land right?
If the people aren't happy then there are revolts, riots and a change in leadership. So, in that sense it is up to the government to keep the people happy. If something makes 80% of the people happy then what ever that something is would be passed in any senate or house vote .
You should really look into tolerating the opposition even if they don't tolerate you. "turn the other cheek"
By proving that people can be "good" people without somebody always watching may convince more to join the free will team.
The other comment "Turning the other cheek" was accidental. Did not mean to post it here.
What I wanted to say was that I don't think the government 's job should be to make people happy. It should protect people. It is up to the individuals themselves to achieve happiness, not the government. The government's only legitimate role to protect freedom so people can achieve their own happiness.
Why should I tolerate something that I don't agree with and further think is evil? "Turning the other cheek" is never a good idea, and certainly won't fix any problems.
However, you are right that people should accept ethics not based on theistic faith but on reality.
I'm not happy when I'm at home taking a break from the toil of life and a missionary for the God they believe in tries forcing their beliefs down my neck saying it's the medicine I need. So, I don't see any reason to do the same to them.
Are you saying I shouldn't object to things that I think are wrong in a public forum? This site is called Opposing Views .
That was a strange argument. This is simply my belief on the particular subject. That is the cross on the hill and the way to live with the religious nuts.
One should just give up and tolerate "religious nuts." They are not some minor group with little influence. They have a huge amount of political influence and actively do things to change society . We cannot ignore this - we must stand up to wrongdoings. Letting them have a cross on public land will not "appease" them and stop them from inserting their harmful ideas into legislation.
I understand where you're coming from. You seem to be looking to harm the sheep rather than the shepherd.
Tearing down someones comfort is much different than letting the pope control our country and force us to go on a crusade to the holy land in search of the holy grail.
My problem is that I find religious ethics wrong and dangerous. Religion isn't just a "comfort." It is a way of life that affects how people act.