Beliefnet
Lynn v. Sekulow

So, the Supreme Court has accepted the case of Salazar v. Buono involving cross erected on public land.

The first and foremost point which we must not lose sight of in this case is that this cross was a religious symbol when it was put up over 70 years ago and it remains a religious symbol today. Moreover, it was and is a Christian religious symbol.

Jay, as you correctly point out, one federal court found the
placement of this cross on federal land unconstitutional.  (I have a
sneaking suspicion you did not agree with that ruling.)  Then, an
appeals court found the transparently phoney effort by Congress to
“transfer” ownership of the one acre surrounding the cross to the
Veterans of Foreign Wars also unconstitutional.
Americans
United is also preparing an amicus brief in this case — and it will not
be on the side of the VFW.  The cross can and should be moved to an
appropriate location on truly private property.  The cross will not
have be “bulldozed” into oblivion (although I’m sure some of your
allies will use this phrase).  However, so long as it sits in the
middle of the Mojave National Preserve, a federal park, it will be
viewed by any reasonable observer as something embraced and promoted by
the government.
And, please, spare us from the
claim that this is merely a “war memorial.”  Men and women of many
faiths and those with no spiritual interests at all, have long served
our nation with honor. No one symbol from any religious tradition can
memorialize the beliefs of all of them.

To subscribe to Lynn v. Sekulow, click here.

Previous Posts
Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus