On the Front Lines of the Culture Wars

On the Front Lines of the Culture Wars


Why do they despise America’s crosses?

The disputed Utah crosses

Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff asked the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday to intervene in a case deciding the constitutionality of memorial crosses honoring fallen state troopers. 

Shurtleff requested that the high court issue an opinion on the case after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 14 crosses bearing the name of a fallen state troopers violate the U. S. Constitution.

Prior to the 10th Circuit Court’s ruling, the court had upheld the cross as a non-religious display for fallen employees.

“With two simple lines, the highway crosses remind us of the ultimate sacrifice made by troopers while trying to protect us,” said Shurtleff. “The crosses only establish a trooper died in the line of duty.”

The lawsuit against the 12-foot crosses was filed by American Atheists, Inc. in 2005. The group sued the Utah Highway Patrol Association, arguing that the cross is a universal symbol of Christianity and that the crosses’ placement on government property – highway right-of-way – violates the Constitution.

The Mojave Cross before the vandalism

Meanwhile, a $125,000 reward has been posted by the Veterans of Foreign Wars and an anonymous veteran for the return of an 8-foot cross that has stood on top of a 30-foot rock outcropping in the Mojave Desert for 75 years. 

The cross had been the object of an eight-year battle that made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court last year. In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that the cross could stand.

The cross covered up by the National Park Service

Within hours of the ruling, the cross disappeared. The National Park Service, which had covered up the cross with a wooden box, claims that vandals had stolen the cross.

A veterans group that had spent millions of dollars to finally win approval for the cross by the Supreme Court then put up a duplicate cross – which the park service removed, claiming that the duplicate was not the historic cross protected by the court decision. 

Park rangers at the Mojave National Preserve removed the replica replacement cross – declaring it was not covered by the Supreme Court decision. 

The landmark ruling protecting the Mojave Desert cross was hailed as a severe defeat for the American Civil Liberties Union and other atheist groups attempting to remove all Christian symbols from the American landscape. 

The Mojave Cross as it looked for decades

Now, allowing the vandals to win is unacceptable, said spokesmen for a number of Christian legal groups fighting to overturn the National Park Service’s refusal to allow a replacement.

“It’s appalling that vandals would remove a cross that has survived a constitutional challenge at the nation’s highest court,” declared Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the ACLJ. “What’s even more troubling is the fact that the federal government is opposed to permitting a replica cross to be put in place. We’re calling on the Department of Justice to take the appropriate action without delay and permit the replica cross to be put up on Sunrise Rock.”

“This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families,” said VFW National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell, Sr.

Veterans erected the cross in 1934 with a plaque stating, “The Cross, Erected in Memory of the Dead of All Wars.” Another plaque read, “Erected 1934 by Members of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884.”

In 2001, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of Frank Buono, a former National Park Services employee. A district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the cross and the land transfer violated the Establishment Clause and ordered it removed.

The cross was covered with a canvas bag, then a plywood box. On July 24, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California found the presence of the cross on federal land to be a violation of separation of church and state and ordered  it removed.

In 2003, the U.S. Congress moved to preserve the cross by enacting a one-acre land exchange that transferred the cross from federal to private ownership. Congressman Jerry Lewis (R-California) inserted the land exchange as an amendment to the 2004 Defense Appropriations Act.

On April 5, 2005, the very same U.S. District Court for the Central District of California held that the land exchange had been a “sham” amounting to an “attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin cross” on federal land.

On April 28, 2010, six of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices wrote separate opinions in the case. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced the court’s decision and gave his opinion, which Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito Jr. supported.

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented along with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.

“Americans want memorials to our nation’s fallen heroes protected,” said American Defense Fund Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. “Congress was doing just that when it transferred the land under this memorial to the veterans’ group that cares for it.”

Looking at the pictures of the site where the cross once was, VFW spokesman Joe Davis said he was amazed at the serious planning and execution that went into the theft.

The cutting of the thick, metal pipes set in concrete was a serious undertaking, he says. When he first saw photos of the vandalized cross site, Davis says he was “in shock and disbelief. How could anyone have the audacity to tear down a war memorial to the dead?”

Davis says that the original constructors erected the cross out of respect for Americans who died during World War I.

“Three of the highest medals in our armed forces use the cross – the Distinguished Service Cross, the Air Force Cross, and the Navy Cross – and no one has ever returned one of those,” says Davis. “This memorial meant a lot to those veterans.” 

A number of Christian legal groups, including the ACLJ and the Liberty Legal Institute have protested the park service’s refusal to allow anyone to replace the stolen cross that has long stood on an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock.

“Passive displays like the World War I Memorial, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, or statements like the National Motto do not force anyone to participate in a religious exercise and, thus, do not establish religion,” commented Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel. 

Ranger Linda Slater, a spokeswoman for the Mojave National Preserve, said a maintenance worker spotted the replacement replica cross, which was a half-inch larger than the original one, she said.

Slater said the new cross wasn’t covered by the Supreme Court ruling, so it was removed.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(49)
post a comment
Grumpy Old Person

posted April 22, 2011 at 1:30 pm


It isn’t that “they” (who is “they”, anyway?) “despise” crosses; it’s that the cross is a Christian symbol. The Constitution forbids the “establishment” of any one religion. Would Christians be okay with hammer & scicle (sp?) displays? With Star of David displays? With pentagram displays? Etc.

Thought not.

This isn’t rocket science to figure out.



report abuse
 

Joseph B

posted April 23, 2011 at 4:21 am


This is not suprising since Christians don’t get even with people that oppose them. If another organization or other Religions had a Sacred Object Vandalized, then the Supreme Court and all other Liberal Leaders would have been first to Critize the actions and give the people that belong to their beliefs to reconstruct the object and probably donate to their cause. You must remember this new change in America Makes me sick of my stomach. I don’t like these people with a don’t care attitude. Christians don’t Kill, harm, or Steal. Without violence makes our People Weak, and that’s the opinion of Law-Makers.



report abuse
 

TLCMommaof5

posted April 23, 2011 at 4:29 am


This country was founded on freedom of religion. As Christian, a Catholic to be more specific, I would be ok with any religion displaying things they believed in for a memorial to their loved ones. This is a free county if the atheists don’t like the crosses, don’t look at them!



report abuse
 

Not a Grumpy Old Man

posted April 23, 2011 at 7:18 am


re: Grumpy Old Man The Constitution says the govt. won’t establish a national church that everyone would have to belong to. It does not forbid people from putting religious symbols up, even on “public” land. The progressive interpretation of the Constitution is shameful and untruthful.



report abuse
 

Old One Eye

posted April 23, 2011 at 7:35 am


Most people do not know that the first Bible was printed by the US government. Also church services were originally held in the US Capital building.
So much for the separation of church and state.
Any other religion would not have been ruled against.
America is going the way of other fallen countries.
We need to get back to our basic Christian beliefs



report abuse
 

ihunna ihekwaba

posted April 23, 2011 at 8:28 am


There is definitely something great about him that scares/terrifies the devil and his cohorts.his light shines for evermore -they see it more than the human eyes can see.They know that he is God and indeed our Saviour and nothing can change that.take it anyway-supreme courts or anywhere he remains God.And i love him so.



report abuse
 

Retired Military

posted April 23, 2011 at 8:42 am


Grumpy Old Person – you had better re-read the Constitution. It DOES NOT contain any words, phrases or expresses in any way that there will be a ‘separation of church and state.’ You have been drinking too much of the ‘lamestream’ media and Liberal Left Kool Aid.



report abuse
 

irma

posted April 23, 2011 at 10:14 am


Sickening! Bullies will be bullies so long as they wish to remain ignorant, arrogant, stupid, self-centered, and selfish. If only they knew; by their actions our cross gets bigger causing us to grow stronger and closer to Him. Due to ignorance they have no idea; if they knew this they would walk away (better yet run) into their comfortable darkness and let us be. Sad how this generation has willingly worked so had to become so stupid. Supreme Court bring it on! Each time you are unjust you strengthen our spiritual walk. He (our GOD) is forever true LOVE and with that comes JUSTICE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! God bless those fighting this unjust war!



report abuse
 

Patrick Miller

posted April 23, 2011 at 10:31 am


Am I the only one weary of feeling as if 9-year olds have hijacked this country?
This debate-which it isn’t, really, since the ability to debate is a cognitive difficulty for the typical 9-year old brain!-is just as infantile as almost every other so called debate in this country.
Children should play with symbols anymore than they should play with matches, and those crosses are symbols, which means they are symbolic, which means they are potent. Symbols pack a wallop, this is why corporations, religions, and every other form of power, uses them.Crucifix, adze, smiley face, swastika, swoosh- they all stir emotions, one way or the other.
If the goal is to win, then that’s one thing. But in this case, since these symbolic crucifixes are allegedly about not spreading the faith but about paying secular tribute to fallen police officers, perhaps the 9 year olds running the show in Utah can at least choose a different symbol. A circle, a disk, a cairn, obelisk, something that doesn’t inflame passions. That is, of course, if the 9 year olds want to share the playground. It doesn’t sound like they want to.
And so poor, weary America goes right down the tubes because, simply, we just refuse to grow up.



report abuse
 

ihubaby

posted April 23, 2011 at 10:33 am


perfectly said–if only they know.But thats the most interesting thing— they know,they already know(about his power and the end)hence this war..But he is still God-the great one.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

President Obama fails key test for Antichrists: confesses Jesus is Lord
President Barack Obama passed a key test Monday night in case anybody is worried that he is the Antichrist. Speaking at a campaign fundraiser at the House of Blues in Los Angeles, Obama was interrupted by a man identified as David Serrano who repeatedly yelled that "Jesus is God." As Se

posted 7:53:12pm Sep. 28, 2011 | read full post »

Michael Moore: America would welcome a fat president such as Chris Christie
Asked by Joy Behar onHeadline News whether America would vote for a "fat" candidate for President, controversial film-maker Michael Moore, who has never been accused of being too skinny, responded that most of America is fat and would probably identify with an overweight Commander-in-Chief. Histo

posted 10:27:30am Sep. 28, 2011 | read full post »

ACLU, Planned Parenthood combine to fight Mississippi constitutional amendment
Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union have joined forces to create the pro-abortion “Mississippians for Healthy Families” with a goal of defeating a constitutional amendment limiting abortion in the Magnolia State. Christine Dhanagom of LifeSiteNews writes that "Yes on

posted 11:55:16am Sep. 27, 2011 | read full post »

Scientists tell pollsters religion and science not irreconcilable
Are there irreconcilable differences between faith and science? Not in the opinion of prominent scientists who participated in a five-year study by Rice University. Researchers there found that only a minority of scientists questioned at major research universities say that religion and scien

posted 3:13:07pm Sep. 23, 2011 | read full post »

Wikileaks: U.S. Embassy criticized Catholic influences on Poland
U.S. Embassy officials in Warsaw, Poland, under the Obama administration complained that Catholic Church doctrine is a major source of “homophobia” in the heavily Catholic country, according to diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks. The messages from the American embassy in Poland's capit

posted 3:51:00pm Sep. 08, 2011 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.