A lone cross built to honor the dead of World War I, bolted to a desert rock on public land, raises a host of complicated issues about which religious displays violate the Constitution’s ban on establishment of religion and who may challenge them. But the Supreme Court yesterday seemed disinclined to answer most of them.
Justices spent nearly half of the oral argument deciding what they were deciding about the 61/2-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California and appeared to settle on a rather narrow question: whether Congress solved the problem by trying to transfer the land on which the cross sits to private ownership.
[...]
The case was the first major opportunity for the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to delve into the meaning of the First Amendment command that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” Previous court rulings on religious displays have been mostly narrow and case-specific, producing few rules on who may challenge government actions or what violates the Establishment Clause.Justices seemed uninterested in reviewing the lower court’s decision, which found that a former park superintendent who objects to religious displays on public land is entitled to bring the lawsuit. Only Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to want to decide the more basic question of whether the cross was unconstitutional in the first place.
#60–Fusion==you are too kind. I already see 7 errors I would correct if I didn’t have to repost and mostly just repeat myself as too many here tend to do.
Even #58–TheOne repeats. Not himself directly as ((you know who)) does. He just repeats previous posts as if the rejoinders did not exist. Just as if he has no conception of the dialectic.
Sad. “I see retards.”
#56 I agree with you. Actually, you agreed with me. They didn’ fight for any civil liberty.
But your conFusion keeps you from seeing your own error.
You were the one who brought the absurd notion of equating that cross with a civil right on the scale of those fought during the 50′s, 60′s & 70′s
Here’s a quote from your (in your own words) absurd involvement of actual civil right fights with this cross you did back then on post #17:
“This country embraced slavery for centuries before it was banned. We denied the vote to women and minorities.”
Glad you acknowledged how stupid you were doing that connection.
If I were you, I’d take a deep breath before you go into those lefty rant trances. Maybe you wouldn’t be so conFused all the time. Oh, and have a good read at what you’ve written, you know, so you not make the mistake of not understanding your own words. It’s embarrasing.
Everything has a context, and in this case I’d be inclined to say that the religious significance of the cross is less than its civil significance, so the cross should stay.
The cross isn’t always a religious symbol. If it were, they’d be allowed to teach subtraction and division in Arithmetic classes but not addition (+) or multiplication (a tilted cross).
The park area is about dead people. In books, they use * for dates of birth and + (or dagger † ampersand dagger; or ampersand # 8224; if their typewriter supports it (and html does)) for death dates. It might be argued that this standard had a religious significance at one time, but now it does not. Or at least not much. When they chose * for birth, were they worshipping some pagan god? No, not at all. Equally, the religious content of a cross, or dagger, in the ground, when used as a symbol of remembrance for the dead, is negligible. When used for other purposes–well, that’s not what we’re discussing.
#63–jbellies==and the context here is the defendants said it was a religious cross and we fixed it by buying the land we put it on.
Winning arguments made after the trial gathered different facts is pretty heavy context.
I hike the deserts and mountains around Las Vegas and I’ve found many examples of religious expression on public lands–usually in the form of rocks piled together in a pattern, the most common being crosses and pentagrams.
#62, pedro,
Only your warped mind could equate my post with a “memoriam” to those who fought for civil rights. Only you didn’t read that part where the cross was erected to those who lost their lives during WWI, you just blindly posted.
You claimed that because the cross had been there for so long it should stay. I retorted that historical wrong are no reason to continue to being wrong. Only I forgot, you are an idiot who thinks slavery was a good thing, women shouldn’t vote, …
BTW, WWI was fought for Imperial supremacy among the main combatants, not civil rights. When America joined the war it was for Commercial rights. That several countries won their independence had more to do with crumbling Empires than a conscience attempt to “liberate” or give them “civil rights”.
Maybe you shouldn’t write posts when you are on drugs.
#63, jbellies,
the religious content of a cross, or dagger, in the ground, when used as a symbol of remembrance for the dead, is negligible. When used for other purposes–well, that’s not what we’re discussing.
Welllll, not quite.
“The cross does not represent Christianity”
“O.K. But can we replace it with another memorial symbol?”
“You’re attacking Christianity!”
If anybody can make sense of the Christian right, will you please contact me?
the Government didn’t set it up therefore they did not establish religion.
then it is trash left there and like an empty soda pop can should be picked up and thrown away.
Just tear it down and put up a fucking menorah, for chrissakes. And we are at war with Islam because? Goddamn jews.
#66 Are you gonna keep on harping that civil rights thing you brought up here in that brain fart of yours?
You’re very bad when you lose an argument. Word of advice, when you lose one, quit while you’re behind. You really look like a fool.
time to update this, the cross is so 1st century.
Let’s put a guillotine, a noose, an electric chair, a lethal injection needle, and a replica firing squad on the site and every whacko will be happy.
Pedro–I don’t “care” but I do read the posts so for an exercise, I went thru your current dispute with Fusion. YOU were the one who first raised the issue of “civil rights.” Its hard to tell but it looks like YOU analogized some issue with the cross over the grave with some aspect of civil rights==I can’t tell if you meant it to be associative, or dissociative but it is clear right from the start that Fusion could not tell what you were refering to either.
You are blaming Fusion for not being able to discern which of several various meanings were ambiguously presented by yourself.
Fusion asked you for clarity early on and you just lambast him for being “conFused.” I know its fun but you are taking a joke too far==like LOSER and his kill 10 people hypothetical.
Those things are funny/interesting only the first 20 times, then they kind of fizzle out.
I’m just saying.
#67 Mr. Fusion. I think you’ve rather proven my point. If the + is a symbol in so many philosophies and world-views and sciences and yes religions, in the 21st century it has no particular religious significance when taken out of a particular context. A cross means dead guy. And it’s not a reach for a big cross to mean lots of dead guys.
#73–Jbellies==Fusion posted about crosses with arms of equal length. The subject cross is the Christian Cross with unequal lengths given the crossarm is closer to the top.
My retarded sister on screwing up yet another phone message said “Communication is an art.” and I said “not if you aren’t retarded.”
I’m an agnostic.
People whom have such a volatile concern about this simple cross out in the middle of the desert erected by survivors of WWI need to get a grip.
These same people would have probably gone hand-in-hand with the Taliban to destroy the ancient Buddhist symbols in Afghanistan as well.
Really now, who is the crazy zealot?
Leave the damn memorial for the WWI dead alone. They should be remembered, and this cross (as much as some of you hate it), have brought their memory back. Amazing, eh?
All of you internet jockeys sitting behind the keyboard with your Satanism and whatever other nonsense, you didn’t suffer like those men in the trenches. Shut the hell up and go play Warcraft, and waste you life as you do normally.
The object is a historical monument as is. That’s what the local WW I vets stuck up and messing with it is rewriting history.
I’m not in favor of messing with the native American religious iconography of bygone years within the park to make it inclusive nor any old Spanish items that might turn up and I’m not in favoring of messing with this.
If you were doing it today stick in whatever means something to the locals even if that includes a few prayer sticks, Jewish stars, crescents, three headed frogs, or whatever.
Isn’t anyone shocked that this case made it to the Supreme Court in the first place? Given how much effort they expended to avoid the “Under God” Pledge case (but still had to take it), I’m shocked they didn’t stick this one under the bottom of the pile given its controversial nature.
I happen to be an atheist and frankly this one seems petty to me. Other religions should be allowed to their symbol around the same area if they like. There are greater issues in this country than determining which superstitious symbol should be allowed to be near dead people.
Well, the Supremes ruled against the 10 Commandments Monument in the Court House, so if they are consistent, they will also rule against the Cross !
It would appear that most of you are just like the supreme court justices, nothing better to do than to haggle over knitpicking little bullshit like this. Attention! The world is going to hell in a handbasket and the end is near, please find something useful to do.