How did Bono know it wasn't a Celtic Cross?
Posted on 06/17/2004 1:55:04 AM PDT by risk
9th Circuit topples Mojave desert cross SAN FRANCISCO — A federal appeals court ruled yesterday that an 8-foot cross in the Mojave National Preserve is an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion.
Ruling 3-0 in Buono v. Norton, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court that had ruled against the cross, which has become both a war memorial and a place of worship at a Southern California desert site known as Sunrise Rock.
The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a retired National Park Service employee who objected to the religious symbolism of the steel-pipe structure, which sits about 10 miles south of Interstate 15 between Las Vegas and Barstow. The cross, the subject of constant attack by vandals, was constructed in 1934 by a group of World War I veterans. According to a plaque they placed nearby, the cross was intended as a memorial, but has since attracted Christian worshipers. The cross has been covered by a heavy tarp after a federal judge in Riverside sided with the ACLU in 2002, ruling that the "primary effect of the presence of the cross" was to "advance religion." The San Francisco-based appeals court, however, did not indicate whether the cross must be immediately removed or whether it can remain covered pending new appeals. "We think this opinion makes it clear that the government has an obligation to take down the cross as soon as possible," said Peter Eliasberg, an ACLU attorney.
The park service did not return calls seeking comment yesterday on whether it would ask the 9th Circuit to reconsider, appeal to the Supreme Court or drop its appeals and remove the cross. Sixty years after the cross was constructed, Congress in 1994 declared the 1.6 million-acre area, which is covered with Joshua trees, a national preserve under the National Park Service's jurisdiction. The park service, however, defended the cross in court, saying the outcropping it rests on was being transferred to a local Veterans of Foreign Wars post in exchange for five acres of privately held land near the preserve, which is in San Bernardino County. Congress has also declared the site a war memorial. The government told the court that the pending land transfer made the case moot. But the appeals court said the transfer could take years, meaning that the cross was still on public land. Judge Alex Kozinski, a Reagan appointee, said that, even if the land was transferred, the cross may still be a government endorsement of religion. In ruling against the government, Kozinski noted that the park service has not opened the cross site to other permanent displays, religious or not. In 1999, the park service rejected an application for a monument to Buddha near the cross. Previous
By The Associated Press
06.08.04
Park Service covers California desert cross
Justice Department recommended action while it appeals federal judge's ruling ordering removal of Christian symbol from Mojave National Preserve site. 03.15.03
This is the culture war's front line. It doesn't get any hotter than what these people are bringing on. This should offend the hell out of every living American, every Commonwealth member, and every free soul in Europe, Africa, and Israel.
People everywhere should be outraged by this despicable effort to bring down one of the most beautiful and unique memorials to our fallen in the war that started the wars that we are still fighting today.
The people desecrating and lobbying to bring down this memorial are trying to pull some of our most powerful moments in the history of liberty under the waters of neglect and revisionism. It's like trying to tear down the plaque erected at Thermopylae which says "Go and tell the Spartans, stranger passing by, That here, obedient to their laws, we lie."
Are these "Americans" choosing sides against our freedom by asking us to forget those who fought and died preserving it? Those dead men, the thin gray line, would have wanted a cross to be erected in memoriam to their honor. Isn't preserving it the least we can do? And our duty to them is so much greater than that. Words fail me. They've given their all so that we can be free, and these "citizens" put sackcloth on their beloved symbol of sacrifice and hope.
This is unspeakable.
A tiny minority of leftists called the aclu (nothing American about them) once more has decided to impose its will on the vast majority.
And when are the ACLU bastards going to put a stop to the nearby annual "Burning Man" event? Not only is is it clearly a pagan religious ritual, but it's an environmental disaster too. Oh, that's right: the ACLU is only opposed to Christianity.
The members of the ACLU need to join their imprisoned comrades at Gitmo.
The Golden Arches are not on state land. But hundreds of thousands of crosses on the graves of Christian soldiers who died for this country, or who died as veterans after serving in combat -- they all stand as a reminder of the Christian faith. Eventually, every one of them will be torn down and smashed into fine powder if this ruling stands.
WWI Veterans are now criminals.. what is wrong with this country?
The first ammendment does not decry no religion shall exist in public life!
This is a sacralage.
The Cross was there waaaaaay before the "The Mojave Preserve" was!! The Preserve is a Bill Clinton invention. First the famous "Mojave Phone Booth", now this!
See: http://www.deuceofclubs.com/moj/mojave.htm
for Mojave Phone Booth info.
Also this:
http://www.geocaching.com/seek/cache_details.aspx?ID=2273
How did Bono know it wasn't a Celtic Cross?
It was under the BLM's jurisdiction before that, and was evidently a sore spot with the environmentalists. Apparently the BLM was granted the land immediately after new territory was aquired from Mexico, but this is murky in what I've been able to find.
I don't want to start a "food fight" but I'm curious about the backlash you allude to. Exactly who and what are you referring to? These, to use your words, BASTARDS, are ingrained throughout the fabric of our society and nothing short of "social cleansing" is going to stop them. They become more emboldened with each victory and to quote someone famous "you ain't seen nothin' yet."
No..they won't..and neither will their buddies, the islamonazis.
We need to start a serious judge impeachment movement in this country and remove these godless, unelected tyrants from their dictatorships.
Someday soon Christians in America won't be able to wear cross jewelry because it might "offend" someone, or be visible in the "public square" (thus inferring government endorsement). Maybe the government should make Christians wear little stars or something, to warn others who might talk to them and be made to feel uncomfortable (oh, uh, in the "public square"). Wonder where the ACLU gets its money.
These people are the American Taliban.
If they had constructed a cross on public ground, they might have an argument.
BUT this cross was erected privately, and later the government took over the land as public ground. So essentially the government took over private land with a church memorial--i.e. church land, which it had no right to do.
FYI, Gallipoli was an Australian film.
Why you pinged that to a Brit (whose countrymen, no offence Ivan, were largely responsible for that unneccessary massacre - I'm including WW2 "hero" Winston Churchill amongst those guilty) is beyond me. Australia and New Zealand lost far more men per head of population than any other allied country in that disastrous campaign.
Back on topic... this cross has me in tears for a number of reasons (and I'm not even a Christian, except perhaps nominally). I hiked across part of the Mojave with my late husband last year, I resent the "liberal left" trying to make things "fair" for everyone by offending the majority, and I weep for the soldiers memorialised by this "controversial" (if you believe the ACLU) cross.
I have an idea, let's tie a couple of the ACLU's most vocal supporters on this issue to the cross for a few days - hmm, right about now would be a perfect time, in the Mojave... (*evil, only half-kidding grin*)...
Jacqui, I want to thank you and your fellow Aussies and Kiwis for their service in ANZAC. One of the most touching stories is how the surviving men from one regiment simply told the wives and mothers of their fallen buddies that they simply vanished into a cloud of mist. We'll never fight good wars. Nothing good ever comes out of war. They are nasty, brutal, random, and merciless. Incompetence and heroism combine in one sad moment after another until far too many good people on both sides of the conflict are either gone, or horribly disfigured. I can't defend the incompetence of which you write, but I can say that it happens in all conflicts. The sadness and appreciation we all feel when friendly fire or battlefield leadership drives men into the fire is beyond words. But in the long run, I blame that enemy of life and liberty that is always lurking nearby freedom loving peoples: the tyranny of men's wicked ambition for power over others. That's what started WW1, and it's what we fight in the terror war today. And I dare say that the men who worked to gain this ruling against the cross in the desert are dangerously close to being among our enemies.
I don't know anything about the facts of this case, but Kozinski is generally a pretty good conservative judge.
I've read a lot of 9th circuit decisions, and he's generally one of the few voices of sanity. Can't remember the name of the case now, but I recall he wrote a blistering dissent in a 9th circuit case brought by the ACLU which challenged a law regulating abortion in Guam a few years ago. His dissent in that case was worthy of Scalia, and was anything but pro-ACLU. As is often true when a case is appealed, there is likely more to this than the article discusses.
On the other hand, there is a general tendency by the liberals to try to remove any reference to religion from public life. If they succeed, we're toast.
Crosses are put on the graves of our troops every day -- on public land. We're losing about 1,100 WWII veterans per day now. Many of them ache to have a cross placed at the head of their humble plots. Row after row of crosses in our national military cemeteries cry out for us to remember why those men fought and how they sacrificed. Many of them were praying when they died.
Crosses on public ground are not an establishment of religion, they are a recognition of it. The ACLU has been attempting to prevent the merest glimmer of religious recognition on public land, and they are nearly done with their work.
We can turn it around, but it is going to require a new way of arguing, a new alliance between the secular and the religious in our country. We have to be more intelligent than our foes. They have framed the arguments. It is our turn. This cross can serve as our vanguard -- for some it is Celtic. For others, it is Christian. To many, it is a personal symbol of freedom. But it is most of all a memorial to heroes fallen during the Great War. That's why we should keep it. And if someone wants to erect another cross in memoriam to our fallen in Iraq, why shouldn't they be able to do so?
I know there are arguments on both sides, and I agree with you that the public adoption of this land should have come with an agreement that the cross could never be removed on the basis of the first amendment.
Enemies of America United.
Has anyone ever noticed the vollyball game that has been set up between the courts. The 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court, especially. What happen to what the people actually want. Are we just spectators?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.