Thursday, September 6, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version

Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park

by Reuters

Reposted from:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070906/us_nm/usa_religion_cross_dc

The U.S. government cannot trade a parcel of land to private hands to allow a Christian cross to remain in the middle of a vast federal preserve, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday.

At issue is the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars the government from favoring any one religion, as it applies to a lone white metal Latin cross in the Mojave National Preserve in southern California between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

In 2004, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a cross on a prominent rock on public land was unconstitutional, prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land.

People have been putting crosses in the spot since the 1930s, most recently with one man drilling a metal cross into the rock a decade ago without permission. In 1999, a man requested and was denied permission to build a Buddhist shrine there, setting the stage for a tangled legal fight.

"A grave constitutional injury already exists," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote for a three-judge panel that upheld a lower court ruling. "The permitting display of the Sunrise Rock cross in the Preserve is an impermissible governmental endorsement of religion.

"The government's long-standing efforts to preserve and maintain the cross atop Sunrise Rock lead us to the undeniable conclusion that the government's purpose in this case is to evade the injunction and keep the cross in place," the judge said. "Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve - like a donut hole with the cross atop it - will do nothing to minimize the impermissible governmental endorsement."

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Thursday, September 6, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 28 of 28 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #68329 by DarwinsPitbull on September 6, 2007 at 9:08 pm

Score one for the good guys.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

2. Comment #68334 by 82abhilash on September 6, 2007 at 10:06 pm

I have a feeling this will make all its way to the Supreme court if it could.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

3. Comment #68345 by Happy Hominid on September 6, 2007 at 11:55 pm

Just so our friends from over-seas understand - this is an aberration when it comes to a U.S. Court of Appeals decision.

The 9th Circuit is probably the only consistently liberal circuit court in the judicial. There has even, supposedly, been talk of the Bush administration DISBANDING the court! Hey, it wouldn't be any surprise would it? It's no more outrageous than the firing of the federal prosecutors who didn't "play ball" with the Bush administration.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but let's hope nothing worse than that happens to it in the remaining 18 months of the Bush presidency. There's enough other mischief that they are sure to be up to during that time (See this video I posted. I don't think Brits get "Countdown", do you?)
http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/2007/09/bush-playing-at-war.html

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

4. Comment #68359 by gcdavis on September 7, 2007 at 2:08 am

Happy Hominid

We don't get countdown, thanks for the link, its powerfull stuff!

Other Comments by gcdavis

5. Comment #68361 by irate_atheist on September 7, 2007 at 2:11 am

Mr. President, tear down that cross.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

6. Comment #68369 by scooternyc on September 7, 2007 at 2:38 am

Mr.Jefferson, build up that wall!

Other Comments by scooternyc

7. Comment #68379 by nickthelight on September 7, 2007 at 3:26 am

No doubt the separation of Church and State is a constitutional issue insofar as teaching and preaching is concerned, but I must say that If some 'Church Fete' Christians wanted to erect a cross on a hilltop over Easter I wouldn't object.

In fact they do, next to Cherhill Monument in Wilshire.

I fail to see how erecting a cross is unconstitutional? I think a lot of people object and complain just because they can - rather than having a genuine grievance.

Other Comments by nickthelight

8. Comment #68382 by Yorker on September 7, 2007 at 3:37 am

7. Comment #68379 by nickthelight

It's unconstitutional because the U.S. Constitution says it is...and rightly so!

The old story, give an inch...they'll take a mile.

Other Comments by Yorker

9. Comment #68384 by hungarianelephant on September 7, 2007 at 3:48 am

nickthelight - I think there are two points here. The first is whether it is unconstitutional, which it is. The second is whether it's worth complaining about.

I'm with you on this, up to a point. In Ireland, the national television station plays "The Angelus" at 6pm, and it attracts occasional complaints in the media. This stuff makes me cringe. I totally don't care about The Angelus, or An Evening Prayer, or televised Mass on Sunday. If we don't want to listen, there are dozens of other channels, including "Off".

But this case is something quite different. This is the state appropriating public land for a permanent religious purpose. It's not at all the same as your "Easter" example. There's a huge difference between enabling people to celebrate festivals (religious or not) and dedicating land on a permanent basis.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

10. Comment #68390 by wendelin on September 7, 2007 at 3:59 am

Anybody notice the religious tilt of the headline? "Court bans cross on PRIVATE LAND in public park", when it should have read, "Court bans CREATION of private land in public park to keep cross."

Other Comments by wendelin

11. Comment #68400 by CJ22 on September 7, 2007 at 4:30 am

Agreed, wendelin. The article writer clearly took a stance on the issue.

Other Comments by CJ22

12. Comment #68406 by scooternyc on September 7, 2007 at 5:03 am

This issue isn't placing the cross, but WHERE the cross is being placed.

Since government within a democracy is to represent ALL people then the discriminatory act of endorsing any one religion, in this case the one who thinks that executions by nailing someone to a cross and utilizing this as a symbol of love(their precept, not mine)is prohibited when that symbol is placed on government property.

Now, if the government wants to sell the property to an individual for the fair market value, then that person(s) can do as they wish on private property.

Anything that is non-profit, if supported by government funds or any government property itself is off limits.

Other Comments by scooternyc

13. Comment #68408 by aitchkay on September 7, 2007 at 5:07 am

wendelin - good point, and well-spotted. Rather than applaud the upholding of the secular constitution, the title implies that Christians are being discriminated against and victimised. My FSM, how the faithful seem to cherish their victimhood.

Other Comments by aitchkay

14. Comment #68419 by Tyler Durden on September 7, 2007 at 6:09 am

"Countdown" with Keith Olbermann is a superb news program. Worth watching if only for his "Special Comments" where he regularly rips Dubya a new one :)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/

or watch clips up on:
http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?f=msnhome
Click on: "News", then "Comment & Analysis"

"Good night, and good luck!"

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

15. Comment #68426 by Russell Blackford on September 7, 2007 at 6:53 am

LOL, Countdown has a very different meaning in Australia.

Anyway, it's good to see this judgment which deals with the substance of what happened, rather than the form of it, which was an obvious contrivance.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

16. Comment #68428 by richard67 on September 7, 2007 at 6:57 am

A photo of the rock is at:

http://www.irreligious.net/files/sunriserock.jpg

Other Comments by richard67

17. Comment #68436 by Icculus on September 7, 2007 at 7:21 am

Happy Hominid - while Bush would certainly like to disband the Ninth Circuit, if he read his Constitution as much as his Bible, he'd see that he can't. That power is explicitly given to Congress. So, while someone may break it up, it's not the Executive's perogative to do so.

Other Comments by Icculus

18. Comment #68475 by Happy Hominid on September 7, 2007 at 8:31 am

Icculus -

Not disagreeing with your knowledge of the Constitution, but I will note the following:

It's not the Executive's prerogative to go to war.

It's not the Executive's prerogative to use torture.

It's not the Executive's prerogative to arrest U.S. citizens without due process.

It's not the Executive's prerogative to create a massive data base with the phone records of U.S. citizens.

Etc.

So while I agree with your constitutional analysis, I urge you to be highly suspicious of every possible violation of the Constitution right now. Bush is the worst thing to happen to America in the 54 years of my life, and I suspect Gore Vidal (quite a knowledgeable source) is correct when he says that "W" is worst ever.

http://evolutionarymiddleman.blogspot.com/search?q=gore+vidal

I've never been paranoid. I've laughed at conspiracy theorists. I'm being duly rewarded for my arrogance.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

19. Comment #68496 by bluebird on September 7, 2007 at 10:05 am

richard67, thanks for that photo.....not a pretty sight.
As Mother Nature intended:
http://www.nps.gov/archive/moja/home.htm

Other Comments by bluebird

20. Comment #68568 by ChrisMcL on September 7, 2007 at 4:00 pm

There must be gene that makes christians want to put crosses on perfectly good rocks. And it may be related to the gene that makes women want to put sea shells on the back of toilets.

Other Comments by ChrisMcL

21. Comment #68586 by HappyPrimate on September 7, 2007 at 5:03 pm

There are several private homes in my neighborhood that have religious symbols promiently placed in their front yard (or gardens as they call them in the UK) and I am perfectly fine with that. Also the numerous churches in my city have huge crosses on their property and signs avertizing their programs and services. Again, I'm fine with that. But when they post them on public ground or government owned property, I am NOT fine with that. Public and government property belongs partly to me and to other people who do not suscribe to the Xian religion and it is therefore an affront to us and our Constitution guarantees that we should not be subjected to such. I also must note that should I feel the desire to display an atheist symbol on my private property, I would have to suffer fear of having my house burned and/or bodily harm done to me. How's that for Xian Love!

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

22. Comment #68605 by Dr Benway on September 7, 2007 at 8:30 pm

It's not the Executive's prerogative to create a massive data base with the phone records of U.S. citizens.

Or emails. The feds appear to have our emails, or some subset of them, perhaps filtered by keywords.

No, take that back: they must have all our emails.

Quite depressing. Play this out: some mid-level bureaucrat gets pissed at you and does some data-mining and cherry-picking, to impress others that you're a jerk not to be trusted

Other Comments by Dr Benway

23. Comment #68608 by sabre_truth on September 7, 2007 at 9:36 pm

Until 1997, in that hotbed of liberalism Eugene, Oregon, a 51-foot concrete cross with inset neon lights stood atop Skinner Butte at the northern end of downtown. It was originally put there when the ownership of the land was not clearly designated, but when the Butte became part of a public city park, the people who erected the cross donated it to the city as a "war veterans' memorial". In 1997 the 9th Federal Circuit Court ruled that the maintenance of the cross on public land was in violation of the U.S. constitution, in accordance with an early ruling by the Supreme Court of the State of Oregon in 1969.

I would not be surprised if the legal counsel on the side supporting the maintenance of the cross in the Mojave Preserve had looked to the Eugene case as a legal precedent. By trying to get the land deeded into private hands, they thought they could evade the establishment clause, when in fact acting on behalf of the preservation of one particular religious symbol was just another example of favoring an establishment of religion.

I hope that this case serves to solidify that precedent to help close loopholes which might otherwise have roadblocked the exertion of eminent domain in cases of genuine public benefit on the basis of religion.

Other Comments by sabre_truth

24. Comment #68613 by Shuggy on September 7, 2007 at 10:15 pm

a lone white metal Latin cross

There's something about that "lone" that adds to the bias of the headline. Are they suggesting three would be intolerable but one is all right? Am I paranoid in thinking they are trying to suggest loneliness? (Poor little cross, not harming anyone.)

The bigger question for me - ignoring the constitutional issue - is, how big is it, how high up is it, from how far away can it be seen? IE, in a National Park, how much of an eyesore is it?

In two of our main cities we have them on prominent hills, lit up at night, visible for miles in all directions, but only, thank Minerva, around Easter. In another, flat, city, we have an illuminated cross at the top of a clock tower in the central square, all year round. In all three cases, protests fall on deaf ears, probably because christians and the apathetic outnumber opponents, and we have no constitutional separation of church and state.

Other Comments by Shuggy

25. Comment #68616 by Happy Hominid on September 7, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Dr. Benway said: "Quite depressing. Play this out: some mid-level bureaucrat gets pissed at you and does some data-mining and cherry-picking, to impress others that you're a jerk not to be trusted"

and he's so right. I cringe whenever I hear someone saying "what's the big deal? I'm not a terrorist. I never do ANYTHING illegal. I don't have anything to fear". Uh, yeah, you do. When you give up your Constitutional rights (or have them taken from you without a fight) you are in trouble. You just don't know it yet.

Other Comments by Happy Hominid

26. Comment #68662 by k1mgy on September 8, 2007 at 3:23 am

It's them against us and Them is winning by default:
Us don't know the battle was joined quite some time ago. It's inconceivable that our own government would come to hate us so. Katrina, IRAQ, and all the other malfeasance let the cat out of the bag.

Kinda sucks when there are but a few in the theatre crying "Fire!" while the masses snore.

What to do? What of our families? What of our world?

Other Comments by k1mgy

27. Comment #68679 by kev_s on September 8, 2007 at 5:41 am

In the Alps there are crosses on almost every peak and shrines every few metres on the way up. No chance of getting these removed but they are often ugly rusting messes and are always irritating to me. However they do serve as good supports for cameras so you don't need to carry up a tripod to get the sunrise/sunset shot. Just because we have to suffer these all over the place in Europe is no reason to allow the same to happen in the US so I think keeping the US parks clean is a worthwhile effort.

Other Comments by kev_s

28. Comment #68794 by Rational_G on September 8, 2007 at 3:36 pm

"prompting Congress to pass a law allowing a trade so its immediate area would become private land."

Politicians will do anything if they think it will win them votes. They are despicable.

Other Comments by Rational_G