I guess this belongs here..I'm not sure....

[pamsback]

but I've been watching this story. I think if the Supreme Court rules to tear down this monument built by a world war I veteran they are makin a HUGE mistake. This Cross has stood for over 75 years, I don't even know if the Mojave was government land in 1934 does anybody? Jewish and Muslim veterans groups are supporting the ACLU in their bid to tear it down because it "doesn't represent THEIR war dead". They should be ashamed of themselves..........for one thing you probly couldn't FIND a muslim soldier from America in the first World War. Taking it down is just plain wrong.

High Court Appears Split About Cross on Park Land

By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, October 7, 2009; 12:21 PM

The Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared split over whether lower courts were correct in deeming a 6 1/2-foot cross, built on public land as a memorial to World War I dead, an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

The case is the first major opportunity for the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to divine the meaning of the First Amendment command that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

But during oral arguments, the justices appeared to be looking for a narrow way out of the case, focusing on whether Congress's decision to transfer ownership of the land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars would cure the violation.

Justice Antonin Scalia was the only justice who seemed to want to address a broader question of when religious displays on government land violate the Establishment Clause. He said it was not automatic.

Scalia disputed an assertion by Peter Eliasberg, counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, that the cross was the essential symbol of Christianity and that a war memorial that featured only a cross by definition excluded recognition of soldiers of other faiths.

When Scalia said the cross was the "most common symbol of the resting place of the dead," Eliasberg replied that would not be the case in a Jewish cemetery.

Scalia shot back that it was an "outrageous conclusion" that the cross only honored Christian war dead.

But the justices mostly concerned themselves with the convoluted legal history of the case, Buono v. Salazar, which includes two trips before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, and two interventions by Congress intended to keep the cross in place without violating the First Amendment.

The court's decisions on religious displays have established few bright-line rules. Instead, rulings are usually narrow and case-specific.

The Mojave cross's protectors, which include veterans groups and the federal government, say the symbol is a historic, secular tribute; its original plaque from the 1930s said it was erected to honor "the dead of all wars." They argue that Congress has taken the steps to distance itself from any appearance of endorsing a religious display -- including transferring the acre of federal land on which the cross was erected to the VFW in exchange for five acres of land given to the government by the family that acts as the cross's unofficial caretaker.


But the ACLU, Jewish and Muslim veterans, and others say government actions have only deepened the problem. To avoid the lower courts' rulings that the cross must come down, Congress has designated the site the country's only official national memorial to the dead of World War I, elevating it to an exclusive group of national treasures that includes the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore

[Anmar]

I'm not sure about American muslims, but i know there were nearly a million muslims who fought with the allies as colonial conscripts or independant arab tribes against the turks in the mid-east.  It's strange how ww1 is so overshadowed in history by ww2.

[sixdogsmom]

Pam, I am glad to see these issues addressed by SCOTA, it means that there will finally be (or Not) some clarity on what is (or Not) acceptable as religious  mixed with federal. Am I making myself clear? If this cross is not acceptable, then any ancient tribal symbols may not be acceptable. In my opinion, a Christmas tree, swastika, (forward or backward moving), fish, cross, or whatever are unoffensive in themselves. It is the idea behind those symbols that people get so upset over, and our constitution says that ideas are not to be restricted, (free speech). This may also put a stop to those loonies who sue over a public display of the creche or the commandments. I would think that this particular cross would be covered by free speech, wouldn't it?

[pamsback]

  I think it would be considered a war memorial and left alone. I really think the whole question is retarded but that's just me. I don't see why it's a problem to start with. Religious symbols don't offend me ..ANY religious symbols because I don't base my faith on symbols so other religions symbols don't diminish my faith in my mind. Does that make any sense? Hell I don't know if it does or not.

The whole point is a man put that monument up as a remembrance of the guys he knew that didn't make it back AND all the others, he tended it till he died. It stood there since 1934 and it took till now for somebody to get "offended"??....it's like spittin on those guys sacrifice.....it's just a stupid lawsuit and the people who are all for it need to look to their OWN symbols and remember theres gonna be SOMEbody who ain't gonna like em or want to have to look at em no matter what they stand for. I'm a pretty lenient person as most of yall on here keep pointin out but all this "demanding of rights" and "taking down what's offensive" to SOME just drives me insane. I DO NOT see why it always has to be either /or.....................................if I don't like something I just don't pay attention to it, but GOD why would anybody just do that that would be too easy.

[srkruzich]

theres one thing we all should remember.  You do not have any right to not be offended.   

[Teresa]

Couldn't find an embedding code.. so I will post the link to the video here..

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=4226712&cl=15967346&src=news

[redcliffsw]

The Federal gov't ought not to own land or property except post offices,
Federal courts, or military posts.   In the first place, it was never intended for the
Fed's to be in the land business, or any other business for that matter.  Instead,
it ought to be state land or privately owned.

[Varmit]

ACLU = Freakin Morons....

You know, if it wasn't for the sacrifice of the men that cross was there for, the ACLU wouldn't have the ground to stand on.  Our veterans, the bulk of which are of a christian faith, paid the price for the freedoms that we enjoy.  Taking down that cross would be akin to spitting on their graves. 

[Wilma]

As to the federal government owning land:  Who paid for the Louisiana Purchase and who owned it until it was settled? 

[srkruzich]

As to the federal government owning land:  Who paid for the Louisiana Purchase and who owned it until it was settled? 

Then it was divided up into state lands.  Land was granted to people back then, in large chunks.  It was called land grants.  the 13 colonies were originally formed using these grants.  Same thing happened as the nation aquired land. 

The feds are not supposed to own any lands.