Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Archive - Caveat Emptor!

Moderator: Super Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
whskyfan
Pirate
Posts: 2767
Joined: 06-22-2006 11:27 PM

Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

Post by whskyfan » 09-06-2007 08:58 PM

Be sure to check the "UH-OH" link at the bottom of this post

Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park
Thu Sep 6, 2007 3:59PM EDT

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - The U.S. government cannot trade a parcel of land to private hands to allow a Christian cross to remain in the middle of a vast federal preserve, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.

At issue is the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from favoring any one religion, as it applies to a lone white metal Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cross on a prominent rock on public land was unconstitutional, prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land.

People have been putting crosses in the spot since the 1930s, most recently with one man drilling a metal cross into the rock a decade ago without permission. In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.

"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.

"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."


Link to story

UH-OH
1N73LL1G3NC3 15 7H3 4B1L17Y 704D4P7 70 CH4NG3.
-573PH3N H4WK1NG

User avatar
majda
Pirate
Posts: 2518
Joined: 01-09-2006 04:09 AM

Post by majda » 09-06-2007 11:50 PM

Religion is, and should remain, a private thing. Trying to shove each other's religion down the throats of others is what has brought us to this damnable place. Believe what you want, but keep it in your private life and quit trying to shove it in the lives of others... That's what I say and believe! I respect and will defend the right of anyone to worship and believe what they want. I will also defend with my life, the right NOT to have anyone else's religion shoved up my butt.
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

Joolz
Pirate
Posts: 11976
Joined: 12-25-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Joolz » 09-07-2007 02:50 AM

***Dial-up warning on the "UH-OH" link!***

I have to agree with you, majda.

I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of the "Uh-Oh" link. For those who can't get it to load, it's an image, apparently, of Arlington National Cemetery, where there are, of course, many crosses on the grave markers.

This is wholly different. The crosses are there by individual choice of the deceased as representative of their religious choice in life. But crosses are not the ONLY emblems there, nor are they the only religious emblems allowed there. The military allows a wide range of religious symbols to be placed on military headstones and grave markers: Available Emblems of Belief for Placement on Government Headstones and Markers. This is as it SHOULD be if any religious symbolism AT ALL is to be allowed on government lands.

This isn't a case (at Arlington) of the government endorsing one faith over others, nor is a placement of a single religious symbol on government land. A single cross, such as the one in this story, is a different matter entirely. If they can't/won't allow the Buddhist shrine to be erected there, the cross has to go as well.
Image Anchors Aweigh!

User avatar
whskyfan
Pirate
Posts: 2767
Joined: 06-22-2006 11:27 PM

Post by whskyfan » 09-07-2007 07:13 AM

My apologies on the link, it was inconsiderate of me to use an image of that size. And Arlington was a bad example. But I think if we look around a bit there are some other examples.

I don't want religion forced on me either, the point of this post is that we don't have to eliminate all reference to religion in government. It could turn into a full time job when there are other, more important things to consider.
1N73LL1G3NC3 15 7H3 4B1L17Y 704D4P7 70 CH4NG3.
-573PH3N H4WK1NG

User avatar
Dynja
Pirate
Posts: 317
Joined: 08-10-2005 03:09 AM

Post by Dynja » 09-07-2007 07:55 AM

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation without God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Joolz
Pirate
Posts: 11976
Joined: 12-25-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Joolz » 09-07-2007 07:59 AM

whskyfan wrote: My apologies on the link, it was inconsiderate of me to use an image of that size. And Arlington was a bad example. But I think if we look around a bit there are some other examples.

I don't want religion forced on me either, the point of this post is that we don't have to eliminate all reference to religion in government. It could turn into a full time job when there are other, more important things to consider.

No problem. There are always plenty of important things to consider, but for many of us, religious freedom is a very important issue. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but this issue is as important to some of us as gun issues are to other people. Both are a part of our Constitution. (And for some, both issues are important.)
Image Anchors Aweigh!

User avatar
majda
Pirate
Posts: 2518
Joined: 01-09-2006 04:09 AM

Post by majda » 09-07-2007 12:03 PM

whskyfan wrote: ... the point of this post is that we don't have to eliminate all reference to religion in government. It could turn into a full time job when there are other, more important things to consider.


Hey whskyfan, it could also turn into a full time job trying to satisfy each and every religion's wishes if we formally introduced religion into government. Religion is one place government definately does NOT belong in my opinion. If we went ahead with it, I could forsee endless fighting between religions as to who gets to place their respective symbols where...court battles because one religion got a 'better spot'...delays in teaching in schools because the kids were so tied up in all having the right to worship before classes...special rooms having to be built in hospitals for each religion... The list is endless. We would be opening a Pandora's box of unimaginable dire consequences! No! I reiterate...religion is a private matter, and should remain so. Too many people over the eons have died trying to shove their belief's at others. I do not want to live in a society where religion dominates. We're already in a mess with another country where religion dominates, and they are killing each other over religion everyday there, with each of them thinking theirs is the only true one. No thank you. Africa has suffered blood bath after blood bath over religion. It's the perfect way to introduce Hell on earth!
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government -- lest it come to dominate our lives and interests." ~ Patrick Henry

Joolz
Pirate
Posts: 11976
Joined: 12-25-2002 03:00 AM

Post by Joolz » 09-07-2007 03:04 PM

All good points, majda.
Image Anchors Aweigh!

Post Reply

Return to “Politics and Government Pre-2007”