November 12, 2012

"In California, a war memorial cross that once stood on a rocky hilltop in a national park before being deemed unconstitutional and ordered removed was being resurrected..."

"... in the stunningly stark Mojave desert, marking the end of a longstanding legal dispute that had become entangled in patriotism and religion...."
The settlement approved by a federal judge in April permitted the Park Service to turn over the acre of land known as Sunrise Rock to a Veteran of Foreign Wars post in Barstow and the Veterans Home of California-Barstow in exchange for five acres of donated property elsewhere in the 1.6 million acre preserve, about a four-hour drive east of Los Angeles.

The donated land was owned by [Henry] Sandoz and his wife, Wanda, of Yucca Valley.

Sandoz has cared for the memorial as a promise to World War I veteran Riley Bembry, who with other shell-shocked vets went to the desert to help heal and erected a wooden cross on Sunrise Rock in 1934....
Sunrise Rock wasn't part of the Mojave National Preserve until 1994, putting the Christian symbol on public land. The ACLU brought its lawsuit in 2001.

30 comments:

TWM said...

Good news in a bad news world these days. I fear they'll be less and less of it in the coming days. Good, that is. They'll be plenty of bad for everyone.

Paul Zrimsek said...

At the time of the deal, the cross on public land had worked its way up to rank 2,312th on the waiting list for promotion to #FirstWorldProblem.

Maguro said...

I guess the ACLU was so preoccupied battling this sign of the impending Christianist theocracy that they couldn't be bothered to put in a word for the Innocence of Muslims guy.

EDH said...

The government came to the land with its existing memorial and religious symbol.

Then Sunrise Rock became part of the Mojave National Preserve in 1994, putting the Christian symbol on public land.

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2001 on behalf of a retired Park Service employee who argued the cross was unconstitutional on government property because of the separation of church and state, and federal courts ordered it removed.


Perhaps the Taliban should have propounded that kind of legalistic argument before destroying the Bamiyan Buddha Statues?

Chip S. said...

Free speech isn't free.

It's 5 acres a pop.

Scott said...

Honestly, doesn't the ACLU have better things to do with their resources? I hate the left's bullying.

EDH said...

The government came to the memorial that existed before it was public land, yet...

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in 2001 on behalf of a retired Park Service employee who argued the cross was unconstitutional on government property because of the separation of church and state, and federal courts ordered it removed.

Maybe the Taliban should have propounded a similarly legalistic justification before destroying the Bamiyan Buddha Statues?

William said...

The ACLU sometimes advocates for an unpopular viewpoint, but here the viewpoint is unpopular because it is so intolerant and wrong. It's a case of the religious left trying to force their opinion on the rest of us.....If you wish to win an argument about abortion, don't commence by arguing for the rights of rapists' embyros. If you wish to win an argument about church/state seperation, don't commence by arguing for the destruction of a hallowed cross in the middle of the desert.

William said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

The most important ceremony in state religion of the US is kowtowing to the ACLU.

Maguro said...

I guess the ACLU was so preoccupied battling this sign of the impending Christianist theocracy that they couldn't be bothered to put in a word for the Innocence of Muslims guy.

But, you don't understand, he was an obstacle to the Messiah.

He had to be sacrificed.

edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
SGT Ted said...

It's a shame that a group in America calling itself the ACLU has a problem with religious expression.

hombre said...

Another blow struck in the left's petty war of attrition against the First Amendment.

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam L. said...

Whw we despise the ACLU, #5645965785648549685959.

Seeing Red said...

Utopia!

rcocean said...

Just reminding us that the constitution is anything Federal Judge says it is. No matter how crazy - or nonsensical.

Fr Martin Fox said...

Let me offer a case from our ordinary situation here in Cincinnati.

If you drive through Cincinnati on I 75, you'll pass through the old West End, and going north, on your left you'll see an old convent, yellow brick, that now has the words "Jobs Corps" on it. I'm pretty sure that involves tax money, and maybe it's all tax-funded.

And yet, the old convent still has, at the apex of the roof, a cross. It's part of the building's design. It was entirely sensible to leave it there. It's part of the building, and whatever money it would cost to remove it could surely be better spent?

I've often wondered how it will be before the ACLU demands that cross--and all other religious imagery which those dastardly Christians who built that edifice deviously imbedded all over the structure--be effaced, eradicated, obliterated?

In this case, the cross--horrors!--must be removed, cast out, into the wilderness.

Baron Zemo said...

This is just another step in the drive of the secular world to destroy religion.

You must be prepared for the end of tax exempt status for religious institutions. The government is going to bring all them under it's control. The demand that they provide contraceptives and abortion is just one of the first steps. Soon any religion that does not conform to the dictates of the secular norms established by the government will lose it's tax exempt status.

They will have to go underground as they do in China. Or as it was in Rome.

Don't kid yourself. That day is coming. And it is coming soon.

Baron Zemo said...

When Obama finds out that millionaries are not enough to pay off the bill he is going to look around to see where he can get more tax money.

Churchs are just sitting there. Ripe targets for redistribution.

Don't you think he would love to rape the Mormons. The Catholic Church. The Jews.

Baron Zemo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mamie said...

Dang, Fr. Fox, did you have to bring that cross to the attention of, say, O Ritmo Segundo or one of his comrades who prowl this precinct? They’re probably right now on the line with the ACLU!

Methadras said...

SGT Ted said...

It's a shame that a group in America calling itself the ACLU has a problem with religious expression.


Oh, it has no problem with religious expression. As long as that religious expression comes from their side of their beliefs. Hence, their marxism in the name of what they think is civil liberties. The ACLU is a long standing marxist organization. They always have been, they always will be. The fact that they sometimes take on tiny, minor 'conservative' cases of free speech is nothing but a marketing ploy. The rest of the time they are busy trying to dismantle the Constitution and one of their main thrusts is to attack Christianity wherever it may exist.

Chip S. said...

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dirty Filthy AntiMohammed Movieguy, right?

Oh, wait. No need of that. Obama's got DFAMM's back, totally, in their view:

At a time when the anger abroad over the Innocence of Muslims video shows no signs of abating, President Obama gave an impassioned speech Tuesday at the United Nations that was a full-throated, unqualified defense of the American tradition of free expression.

EMD said...

"In any event, say what you will about the Innocence video—and folks should say lots—but it is clearly constitutionally protected speech. President Obama took a firm stand on the right side of the First Amendment this week, and may have reminded many overseas that American-style freedom of speech isn’t their enemy, and may even be their friend. He deserves much credit for this."

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

EMD said...

The ACLU has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Dirty Filthy AntiMohammed Movieguy, right?

I'm sincerely trying to figure out on what grounds they would sue.

He was arrested for his probation violation ... fine.

Could they bring an anti-defamation case against his character? Unlikely.

Chip S. said...

If his jail time is standard for a probation violation like his, then obviously nothing can be done.

It's my impression that his case is nonstandard.

Pretty much any attempt at something other than presidential ballwashing would be an improvement.

Fr Martin Fox said...

EMD:

And P----y Riot's arrest and conviction in Russia wasn't about expression or political either, right?

Birkel said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PHILLIP KUHN said...

MyGardenCross.Com designs and builds garden and memorial crosses for private use to honor your loved ones that have passed. We have our signature pictured memorial crosses where a picture is worth a thousand words.Crosses that are unique as your loved one. God will prevail. The wrath of God will be mighty.