• High court rules cross doesn't violate separation of church and state
    74 replies, posted
[quote]The Supreme Court narrowly ruled Wednesday that a white cross, erected as a war memorial and sitting on national parkland in the Mojave Desert, does not violate the constitutional separation of church and state. The 5-4 conservative majority said Congress acted properly when it tried to transfer land around the Mojave Memorial Cross to veterans groups, an effort to eliminate any Establishment Clause violation. The land then would have been declared a national memorial. A federal appeals panel had blocked that land swap. "It is reasonable to interpret the congressional designation as giving recognition to the historical meaning that the cross had attained," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote. "The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society." But even among the conservatives who voted to allow the cross to stand, there was strong disagreement about how similar disputes should be settled, an indication of the contentious nature of church-and-state cases. At issue before the justices was whether the display violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." More specifically, can one individual who protests the cross have legal standing to take his case to court and prevail? And do congressional efforts to minimize the appearance of a constitutional violation carry any weight? The 6-foot Latin cross was first erected in 1934 by a local Veterans of Foreign Wars unit in a remote part of the California desert to honor war dead. It has been rebuilt several times over the years, and Easter services take place on the site annually. The land now is part of the Mojave National Preserve, a unit of the National Park Service, encompassing 1.6 million acres, or 2,500 square miles. A former Park Service employee brought suit, saying such symbols represent government endorsement of the Christian faith. A federal appeals court ultimately agreed, and rejected a move by Congress in 2003 to transfer the tiny portion of land where the cross sits back to the VFW, as a privately held national memorial. The area in question is a prominent outcropping known as Sunrise Rock. Kennedy said the cross represents more than just a religion, echoing the views of the VFW. "Here one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion," he wrote. "It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten." The court sent the case back to the lower federal courts to resolve, and said the man who brought the suit, Frank Buono, could continue his legal fight over how the future land transfer is handled. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas said they would go further and end all litigation of the land transfer. The appeals court noted that the land transfer effort singled out the VFW for special treatment and that officials had rejected a proposal to erect a nearby Buddhist stupa, or shrine. Jewish and Muslim veterans groups in the U.S. say the Mojave Cross symbolizes the sacrifice of Christian veterans, excluding other faiths. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens -- who is retiring at the end of the term in June -- said the land transfer does not remedy the constitutional concerns. "Such measures would not completely end the government endorsement of this cross," he wrote, "as the land would have been transferred in a manner favoring the cross and the cross would remain designated as a national memorial." As the only war veteran on the court, Stevens, who served in World War II as an intelligence officer, added, "I certainly agree that the nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I, but it cannot lawfully do so by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message." The American Civil Liberties Union is representing Buono. Attorney Peter Eliasberg told the court "the government had favored one party to come on, contrary to the government's own regulations, and erect a permanent symbol, while not allowing others." The case is Salazar v. Buono (08-472).[/quote] [B]Source:[/B] [url]http://us.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/28/mojave.cross/index.html?hpt=T2[/url]
Ok, America should be secular, but I seriously think this is kinda going a bit far
[QUOTE=ProboardslolV2;21613625]Ok, America should be secular, but I seriously think this is kinda going a bit far[/QUOTE] What?
its just a lowercase t for "time to remember our veterans"
Who the fuck would find be offended by a cross on a memorial? It's been put there by the veterans themselves, god damn...
I think one could argue that the cross can also be seen as a secular symbol of death and sacrifice, and not solely a symbol of Christianity.
I don't see what the problem is. It's in the middle of the desert. It's not like the government is shoving it in everyone's faces.
[quote]"The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion's role in society."[/quote] Yes it does you blubbering sandy cunt read the first amendment
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21614605]Yes it does you blubbering sandy cunt[/QUOTE] I guess he's only a supreme court judge, probably doesn't know shit about the constitution, eh?
[QUOTE=O'10er;21614645]I guess he's only a supreme court judge, probably doesn't know shit about the constitution, eh?[/QUOTE] Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sanford come to mind as an example of shitty SCOTUS decisions.
Well if the veterans have no problems with this, then I see no issue with this.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21614605]Yes it does you blubbering sandy cunt[/QUOTE] Where exactly does it say that?
I would think that this ruling would be obvious. If a white cross on a memorial was a problem, all of the national cemeteries would have huge problems.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21614693]Plessy v. Ferguson and Dred Scott v. Sanford come to mind as an example of shitty SCOTUS decisions.[/QUOTE] ...Which was in 1857.
[QUOTE=lulzbocks;21614857]Where exactly does it say that?[/QUOTE] First Amendment. A Christian-oriented war memorial is respecting an establishment of religion in this case because it is public lands.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;21617300]First Amendment. A Christian-oriented war memorial is respecting an establishment of religion in this case because it is public lands.[/QUOTE] Yes, but the veterans themselves put it up. The U.S. government did not order it to be put up. That's like saying we can't have churches in cities because the government runs cities. And while I may be an atheist and think that religion makes people do stupid things, this is taking it to far, if the group that runs the memorial puts it up then it should be allowed to stay up. Also the first amendment is specific to congress making laws about religion, and it guarantees the right to freely express religion.
[QUOTE=weih;21620416]Yes, but the veterans themselves put it up. The U.S. government did not order it to be put up. That's like saying we can't have churches in cities because the government runs cities. And while I may be an atheist and think that religion makes people do stupid things, this is taking it to far, if the group that runs the memorial puts it up then it should be allowed to stay up. Also the first amendment is specific to congress making laws about religion, and it guarantees the right to freely express religion.[/QUOTE] why not make the t uppercase?
If the government payed for the Cross to be put up, then it is violating the separation of church and state, if not, then it's cool.
[QUOTE=O'10er;21614645]I guess he's only a supreme court judge, probably doesn't know shit about the constitution, eh?[/QUOTE] You'd be surprised
The surpreme court may be some of the largest dumb shits in the US. They got chosen to interpret the constitution not read the parts they agree with and ditch the rest.
I'm an atheist & hold pretty strong views on having a secular government. this was the right decision. here is the cross in question: [IMG]http://i39.tinypic.com/34xmauq.jpg[/IMG] If there were a jesus-statue nailed to the thing, then maybe that would be crossing the line, but I think this is fine. The point of it is to show respect, not to promote any views
I was against the day of national prayer. I have no problem with this, it's not a big deal.
I don't know how to feel about this, on one hand the government didn't sponsor this financially on the other hand it is on public property. And even then it was erected during a period where it wasn't government land. But now it is... Oh dear :frown:
[QUOTE=Géza!;21614532]Who the fuck would find be offended by a cross on a memorial?[/QUOTE] Atheists looking for an excuse to complain.
[QUOTE=Billiam;21620730]I don't know how to feel about this, on one hand the government didn't sponsor this financially on the other hand it is on public property. And even then it was erected during a period where it wasn't government land. But now it is... Oh dear :frown:[/QUOTE] I consider a cross symbol to symbolize more than religion. It can be solely a symbol of memorial. Think about it - if non-theists let religion own a symbol as primitive as a cross, we let religion become even more invasive by taking over the concept of a [I]shape[/I]. I consider a cross to be a Christian crucifix only when Jesus is nailed to it Maybe [URL=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_of_Sacrifice]this[/URL] is relevant? it doesn't seem to symbolize religion much in that context
For fuck's sake, this is getting stupid.
i thought that if a soldier died their religious symbol was put on their grave
We must remove the Washington Monument, as the obelisk is a symbol of Egyptian religion.
We're never going to make any real progress as long as the Republicans hold a majority on the Supreme Court. Ah, sure is nice not to deal with Lankist naively trying to assert that the Supreme Court hasn't turned into just another place for Democrats and Republicans to fight it out.
This is okay, but it's going to be used to justify that enormous waste of tax payer money being used to make that stupid religious 9/11 memorial.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.