Today the Supreme Court heard the case of the Desert Cross. Some background: In 1934, some veterans of WWI got together and erected a cross, made of white metal pipes, in the Mojave Desert. The desert has since become national park land. The cross has been covered up as a result of the court cases. An older couple kept the cross up for the now deceased vets. According to the Washington Post:
In 1934, veterans erected a cross on a rock in a remote part of the Mojave Desert on what is now national park land — and for the next 65 years, pretty much nobody but the odd rattlesnake noticed. But over the past decade, this 6 1/2 -foot-high cross, made from four-inch white metal pipe, has become the subject of no fewer than four acts of Congress, two district court rulings, three appellate court actions — and Wednesday, arguments before the nine justices of the Supreme Court.
The case was heard and gave an opportunity for Justice Anthony Scalia and Attorney Peter Eliasberg of the American Civil Liberties Union to get in the proverbial pissing contest with each other. It went something like this:
“The cross doesn’t honor non-Christians who fought in the war?” the Catholic justice asked with incredulity.
“I believe that’s actually correct,” said Peter Eliasberg of the American Civil Liberties Union, the son and grandson of Jewish war Pveterans.
“Where does it say that?” Scalia demanded to know.
“It doesn’t say that,” Eliasberg admitted, “but a cross is the predominant symbol of Christianity, and it signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.”
This news enraged Scalia. “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead,” he declared. “What would you have them erect . . . some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half-moon and star?”
“The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians,” Eliasberg corrected. “I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew.”
The audience laughed. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion,” Scalia hissed
.
I am embarrassed for Justice Scalia. How ….unseemly.
How will the case be settled? Will the cross have to taken down? After all, it is out in the middle of nowhere, erected by men who are now dead; to honor those who died over 80 years ago, in a war barely remembered. Who is it hurting? Does it show state supported religion? What of the crosses on tombstones in federal cemetaries here and abroad?
Solutions have been suggested. One that seems to make the most sense is to give the land the cross is erected on to the Veterans of Foreign Wars and let them put the cross back up. That works. Or we could not worry about a lone cross, honoring soldiers from a century ago. Sometimes we just have to suck it up and not be so ‘correct.’
Washington Post: Court Wades Shallowly Into Church and State
I agree with you 1000%! This whole PC thing has gotten way out of hand. So, the next thing you know some non-Christian will move in across the street from a Catholic church and expect the church to be torn down because it doesn’t reflect their religion? This is what it is amounting to. Freedom of religion means freedom to practice your faith. It doesn’t mean you have to include every religion on the face of the earth! If there are more Christians in an area, and therefore they erect a cross, then so be it. What, are we now going to rip up Arlington Cemetery because a couple of people whine that they are offended as they drive by? I’m offended that people come to this country that has “IN GOD WE TRUST” clearly written on all its currency, and then bitch about it. My solution, go back to where you came from, and don’t let the door hit you in the $ss on the way out!
That is terrible!!! How dare anyone take down a tribute to veterans??
Here’s what I think: let other religions place their tributes next to the cross. Since wars are international, it would make a global statement that all people of faith honor their dead soldiers.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution; Veterans have fought and died to protect the Constitution. While I agree with the larger point and believe that crosses, start, crescents, etc. shouldn’t be built on Federal land in the future, I believe legacy memorials should be grandfathered and left alone (perhaps with a small plaque giving the background).
For those folks who have not served and complain, let them sign up in the service of their choice for a hitch… then I’ll listen. Ironically, I don’t think we have any veterans on the Supreme Court (although I haven’t done a rigorous fact check) so they just “don’t get it”.
That’s just my opinion.
“The Honorable Chief Justice and the Associate Justices of the
Supreme Court of the United States. Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! All persons
having business before the Honorable, the Supreme Court of the
United States are admonished to draw near and give their attention,
for the Court is now sitting. God save the United States and
this Honorable Court.” (Isn’t the last phrase a violation of
the First Amendment separation of church and state? – Wonder when
they will rule on that.)
Too often a great bedrock concept can be chipped away at by
frivolous interpretations. The Cross stays.
I see both points, but at this juncture, let the cross stay. Scalia sounded ridiculous and the attorney’s point that you won’t find a cross at a Jewish cemetary was correct. However, the intent of the cross was meant to honor and during that time in history, there simply wasn’t the same respect for other religions.
I think the cross should be left alone, for historical reasons at the very least. However I am not sure why Second Alamo seems to want to make this an issue of people coming to this country who he thinks should go back to where they came from. SA, do you believe that the people who sued in this case or in most such church-state cases are not native-born Americans? What makes you think that? In this suit, the original plaintif was:
“Frank Buono, a Roman Catholic who worked with the National Park Service at the federal preserve in California where the cross was placed, complained because other displays were not permitted around the cross.”
The objection in this case is not along the lines of the “In God We Trust,” slogan, which theoretically at least does not favor one single religion. The objection was to the privileging of Christianity, which some would claim is unconstitutional given the First Amendment. Again I do think the cross should be left alone.
Why did you want to make this an issue of foreigners? And do you think all non-Christians in America (Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, etc.) who might join such a suit are foreign born? And If they are foreign born, do they somehow lose the right to petition their new country’s court system on church-state issues in the exact same way native-born atheists, Christians, Jews, etc., do?