Mojave Cross Under Attack – Supreme Court will decide, you take the poll!

4 comments
Mojave Cross Covered up by Government

[UPDATE: SUPREME COURT DECISION ON THIS CASE]

The Mojave Cross is a veteran’s memorial located on the Mojave National Preserve. That’s the problem, though – at least for one person and the ACLU. They believe that such an expression of religion (a cross) on public land is unconstitutional. It’s an increasingly annoying conflict that continues to rear its confusing, ugly head. And this time it’s going to be decided by the United States Supreme Court. What do think about it? (check out the poll below.)

The picture to the right shows the cross, but the government covered it with a box so as not to offend anyone – naturally.  Anyone offended yet? (photo credit)

Here is a report from PBS.org (your public dollars at work). It’s informative, but slightly biased towards the ACLU position (who’d of thunk). I guess it’s okay to use public resources to advance liberal ideology…just not traditional theology. I see.

Of course cries of separation of church and State (which is not in the constitution at all) come up in this discussion. The more appropriate and constitutional appeal would be to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment which states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.”

So which law did congress make here? And even more importantly how does it respect an establishment of religion? Mmmhhmm. Exactly.

Of course such details are not important to those who simply don’t want God in any part of our public life. They continue to twist the laws and some gross misinterpretation of the “separation of Church and State” to push their secular agenda. So we either end up with silly things like celebrations of the winter solstice or removal of any trace of God in public life.  How ridiculous can we get?  Is this really about being constitutional or is it about something else?

Further, this is one more example of the expansion of Government Kingdom and its intrusion on religious freedom.  It’s a scary trend, indeed.  This decision by the Supreme Court will be significant.

What do you think about this issue?

Should the Mojave Cross be removed from public land?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

4 comments Add comment

Patrick Oden October 8, 2009 at 8:38 am

For clarification, what does “respecting an establishment” mean, in your opinion? The exact same thing as “to establish”? Do you see respecting as a meaningful word or meaningless word? Thanks for the read. Oh, and thanks for the link to the PBS vid. I hadn’t seen that one yet.

Mary October 16, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Here we go again with playing the martyr card! There’s six trillion crosses proudly displayed throughout this country of ours, but let’s all focus on plight of the one placed in the middle of nowhere in the California desert! Please! You talk about an increasingly annoying conflict, and I completely agree. This is annoying.

What’s also annoying is people that have forgotten history. People that have forgotten why our founders drew the line between church and state. Was it to eradicate religion? No. It was to protect it from political greed.

And given that you’re a CATHOLIC, I’d think you’d have a better memory of the lessons from the 16th and 17th century in England (our mother country) that lead to the 18th century adoption of SCS, given that MOST of the persecution that started with Henry VIII and progressed through to the Georges (with the exception of Mary I) was done by Protestants against Catholics. The 16th century was bloody beyond belief and religious conflict nearly destroyed England in the 17th century by instigating a civil war and countless unspeakable atrocities surrounding it. The protestants deposed James II because he was Catholic, leading to SIXTY YEARS of conflict between the Catholic Scottish highlanders and the Protestant English with the lowlanders caught helplessly in between.

Bottom line, for 200 YEARS (NOT TO BE TAKEN LIGHTLY), most of the bloodshed in England was the result of one religion trying to obtain the upper hand in government over another religion. First just Catholics v. Anglicans, then Presbys v. Catholics, then Anglicans v. Presbys, then Anglicans v. Puritans, etc. There are still conflicts to this day in Ireland that started in this period!!! And this says nothing about the even worse violence in Europe (many of the atrocities there going the other direction, so I won’t mention them here).

It was because SCS was adopted in the USA that we haven’t seen religious violence like we saw in England. SCS is not a threat to religion. It is a good thing for religion, and it really isn’t asking much of anybody! That’s what makes people’s reaction to it absurd. Very simply: NO NATIONAL RELIGION – which, part of that I take quite *obviously* to indicate that federally owned property should not be adorned with any one religious symbol or another, as it would seem to indicate the nation’s preference for one religion over the other. That would open a can of worms. Recall that most of the conflict was between Christians (yes, i know you like the storyline of atheist v. christian, but that storyline is mostly imagined given the tiny population of atheists). So even if a cross was allowed, there could still be conflict between religions… afterall, the crosses of Catholics and Protestants are different, not to mention the LDS abandonment of the cross. Of course, now-a-days, Catholics and Protestants don’t hate each other as much as they did in the 18th century, thanks in large part to SCS.

Like I said, it’s not asking much. The way these wannabe martyrs panic about these types of stories, you’d think the government was tearing crosses from the roofs of chapels. Not so. Just restricting their placement on federally owned land… and HOW is that a threat to any religion?? It’s not, and if it is, I’d argue that you must not have very strong religious convictions to have them weakened by something so utterly superficial.

C.P. May 2, 2010 at 12:19 am

Are you kidding me? Did you even read the post? This whole thing is ridiculous.

4 comments Add comment

Previous post:

Next post: