Federal Appeals Court Upholds ACLU Charge - Cross in Mojave Federal Preserve Violates Constitution

ACLU Website ^ | 06/07/2004 | ACLU

[kdot]

LOS ANGELES - A federal appeals court today upheld a lower court’s ruling that the presence of a large Christian cross on the federal Mojave Desert Preserve is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.

“The court took a look at this issue and concluded that the case couldn't be clearer: a religious symbol on government property violates the U.S. Constitution," said Peter Eliasberg, a managing attorney with the ACLU of Southern California, which brought the challenge. "At every level the courts have rightly agreed with this principle and there's no reason to believe that any amount of political grandstanding is going to impact years of established jurisprudence on these matters."

Ruling unanimously, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a July 2002 opinion that the "primary effect of the presence of the cross" was to "advance religion" and therefore violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment.

[kdot]

This article is several days old and I hope it's okay to post from the ACLU website. This is another outrageous example of incremental destruction of our culture. The ACLU is right up there with enemy #1.

[Always Right]

By this standard the Reagan funeral was unconstitutional and should have been stopped. Wonder why the ACLU did not try....

[Wissa]

...right up there with enemy #1.

Meaning the Ninth Circuit?

[millefleur]

It occurs to me that not only are the opposers of the cross ANTI-christs, that they are trying to engage in actions that will put fear into Christians.

When I read the book of Acts in the Bible I see numerous references to people being in ".. fear of the jews...".

Since they are always concerned about anti-semitism why do they insist on riling up trouble ?

[TexasGreg]

By this standard the Reagan funeral was unconstitutional and should have been stopped. Wonder why the ACLU did not try.... You can go ahead and hold your breath ... you won't turn blue before they launch a protest. Regean's State and National Funerals are the last such we will see ... to our nation's great loss. Oh, there will be State "Funerals" in the future, but they won't be even remotely Christian ... or in ANY way reflective of the faith of the person be eulogized. That ... or, they'll demand that the networks bleep the "J" word, while allowing the "F" word to go through un-touched.

[ex 98C MI Dude]

When will these 'justices' learn what the clause in the First really means? State created religion is what is prohibited, not already established religions!!! And the word endorsment appears not at all in said Amendment. So where in God's green earth do they get THAT bit of nonsense?! The government can't create its own religion. Not that the government can't recognize religion in any form!

[xrp]

Who was being forced to pray in front of the cross in the Mojave Federal Preserve?

[Ironsman]

The ACLU had better get on the ball. They are worried about this one cross on Federal land when there are thousands of crosses all over Federal lands. Of course they are over the graves of fallen soldiers in National cemeteries. But, you can't have that kind expression now can we? It could undermine freedom.
Of course this cross it is not expressing belief in religion. Symbols like that cross express something much more dangerous to the ACLU. A belief in God. It expresses faith in something bigger than ourselves. It shows we are answerable to a greater power other than man's law. That is the real threat to the secularists.

[4integrity]

The liberal justices will NEVER learn. It is up to the people of our great country to make sure these "judges" are not elected and let those who appoint judges know that they will not be reelected if they appoint a liberal, anti-American judge. If we, Americans, do not begin to speak out, we can kiss our country good bye.

[muawiyah]

Cows are, after all, a tad more than just a religious symbol for one of the great world religions.

Our public lands are filled with cows.

Failure to ban those cows while banning a single cross certainly sends a message to the rest of us, eh?!

[kdot]

We need an anti-ACLU group of laywers who will fight onward. It seems like the threat of litigation makes many groups settle because they can't afford to fight. A possible approach is to call their bluff and make it an expensive process for them. How do we make them pick their battles wisely? Their bottom line is a number and their funds are finite.

I know. I'm not a laywer and have already run out of $$$ until my next paycheck. But I'm still steamed!

[philetus]

When will these 'justices' learn what the clause in the First really means?


You really think they don't know?

[Susannah]

Gee, when will the ACLU take note of the hundreds of white crosses on Santa Monica Pier (not private land).

Those crosses are okay because they are being used as a display of the mounting losses of lives in Iraq by the "Veterans for Peace"?

It was shown on local news and they have a loudspeaker set up and read off the names of each lost soldier every hour. A reporter asked a man there about whether he thought the war was justified.....reply "it's about oil."

[ex 98C MI Dude]

OK, ya got me!

They do know, but don't care. They ascribe their own sick interpretation to the words, what our Founding Fathers meant be damned.

[4integrity]

.....group of anti-ACLU lawyers......

Maybe it's beginning to happen......recently the people of LosAngeles took to the streets to protest ACLU's trying to take a cross off of LA County's seal. Bill O'Reilly of Foxnews also has been publicizing the antics of the ACLU. I've shared your post with a woman lawyer who works on these type of issues. The ACLU wants to protect the rights of some people at the expense of others. And our disgraceful judges are happy to go along with them. If we let them continue to do this, Christians may soon have no rights.

[momfirst]

Are they doing a google search for crosses only? Next I can't wear one on my necklace....crimeny...

[kdot]

I'm sorry to say that the Los Angeles council gave into the ACLU. The cross is to be removed. original article

I hope your friend is successful in her work.

[Congressman Billybob]

When I read about such decisions, my first question is, What court? It is the Ninth Circus (excuse me, Circuit) Court of Appeals. That court is by a wide margin the most reversed court of appeals in the United States.

From long experience with the ACLU's write-ups, I know they tend to fudge the facts, both in their legal pleadings and in their press releases and related articles. I am fairly certain that this cross is located on private property, not public property. And that makes a critical difference in legal analysis -- except to the Ninth Circus.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "Three Americans: Ronald Reagan, George Soros, Aurel deHollan."

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.

[tahiti]

"At every level the courts have rightly agreed with this principle and there's no reason to believe that any amount of political grandstanding is going to impact years of established jurisprudence on these matters."

Obviously, the "courts" cannot read the Amendment I of the U.s. Constituttion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

[goldstategop]

The Nine Circus ruling was to be expected. This is the court that two years ago declared the phrase "under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance to be unconstitutional. More than ever, rulings like this one underscore the need to restrain the activism of liberal judges.