{"id":278,"date":"2010-04-29T11:08:15","date_gmt":"2010-04-29T11:08:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blog.beliefnet.com\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html"},"modified":"2010-04-29T11:08:15","modified_gmt":"2010-04-29T11:08:15","slug":"supreme-court-gets-it-right-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Gets it Right in Memorial Cross Case"},"content":{"rendered":"

Barry,  <\/span><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n

<\/span><\/font><\/span>Now, this<\/i> is a significant victory worth celebrating. In a very closely-watched case, the Supreme Court ruled that a World War I memorial <\/a>in California’s Mojave Desert that features a memorial cross can remain in place.  <\/span><\/font><\/span> <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/p>\n

<\/span>The high court said <\/a>that the Constitution “does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.” The court also stated: “The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society. . . . Rather, it leaves room to accommodate divergent values within a constitutionally permissible framework.” <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/p>\n

<\/span>The plurality opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy correctly concluded that “a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The war memorial in question was erected more than 75 years ago by Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) to honor fallen service members in a remote area that is now part of a federal preserve. After the National Park Service denied a request to build a Buddhist shrine near the cross in 1999 and declared its intent to remove the cross, Congress designated the cross and an area of adjoining property as a national World War I memorial. Congress directed the Department of the Interior to convey one acre of property that included the memorial to the VFW in exchange for a five-acre parcel of equal value. The land could revert back to the federal government if the site ever ceases to be used as a war memorial.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n

It’s unfortunate that the high court stopped short of declaring the statute clearing the way for the land transfer constitutional. Justice Samuel Alito argued that the Court should have taken that action and wrote in a concurring opinion:<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

“If Congress had done nothing, the Government would have been required to take down the cross, which had stood on Sunrise Rock for nearly 70 years, and this removal would have been viewed by many as a sign of disrespect for the brave soldiers whom the cross was meant to honor. The demolition of this venerable, if unsophisticated, monument would also have been interpreted by some as an arresting symbol of a Government that is not neutral but hostile on matters of religion and is bent on eliminating from all public places and symbols any trace of our country’s religious heritage.”<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

We represented 15 members of Congress in our amicus brief <\/a>in this case.  <\/span><\/font>And, the decision upholding the display of the war memorial cross is an important one and represents a victory against anti-religious hysteria.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span> <\/p>\n

<\/span>Barry, this decision also sent a message that the mere existence of a religious symbol in a public place does not create a constitutional crisis. The decision signals that other longstanding public war memorials that include crosses–such as the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, and the Argonne Cross and Canadian Cross of Sacrifice at Arlington National Cemetery in Washington, D.C.–are constitutionally sound.<\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click <\/font>here<\/font><\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/font><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/span><\/span> <\/span> <\/font><\/span> <\/span><\/font><\/span><\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

 <\/font><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/font><\/span> <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Barry,    Now, this is a significant victory worth celebrating. In a very closely-watched case, the Supreme Court ruled that a World War I memorial in California’s Mojave Desert that features a memorial cross can remain in place.      The high court said that the Constitution “does not require the eradication of all religious symbols…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":163,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[66,5,69],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-278","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-religious-displays","category-separation-of-church-and-state","category-supreme-court"],"yoast_head":"\nSupreme Court Gets it Right in Memorial Cross Case - Lynn v. Sekulow<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Supreme Court Gets it Right in Memorial Cross Case - Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Barry,    Now, this is a significant victory worth celebrating. In a very closely-watched case, the Supreme Court ruled that a World War I memorial in California’s Mojave Desert that features a memorial cross can remain in place.      The high court said that the Constitution “does not require the eradication of all religious symbols…\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Lynn v. Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-04-29T11:08:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Jay Sekulow\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Supreme Court Gets it Right in Memorial Cross Case - Lynn v. Sekulow","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Supreme Court Gets it Right in Memorial Cross Case - Lynn v. Sekulow","og_description":"Barry,    Now, this is a significant victory worth celebrating. In a very closely-watched case, the Supreme Court ruled that a World War I memorial in California’s Mojave Desert that features a memorial cross can remain in place.      The high court said that the Constitution “does not require the eradication of all religious symbols…","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html","og_site_name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","article_published_time":"2010-04-29T11:08:15+00:00","author":"Jay Sekulow","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html","name":"Supreme Court Gets it Right in Memorial Cross Case - Lynn v. Sekulow","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-04-29T11:08:15+00:00","dateModified":"2010-04-29T11:08:15+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/2010\/04\/supreme-court-gets-it-right-in.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Supreme Court Gets it Right in Memorial Cross Case"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/","name":"Lynn v. Sekulow","description":"A debate blog about church, state, faith and politics with Jay Sekulow and Barry W. Lynn","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/d09bc4c4bba2ac87034ee529f100fbaf","name":"Jay Sekulow","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/574\/574bc7f1605fea9a78a1b3bac65ceb15x96.jpg","caption":"Jay Sekulow"},"description":"Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that focuses on constitutional law.  He is also Chief Counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Jay Sekulow has also served as a faculty member for the Office of Legal Education at the United States Department of Justice.  As a member of the faculty he instructed Assistant United States Attorneys and investigators in the First Amendment issues associated with prosecution of obscenity. An accomplished and respected judicial advocate, Sekulow has presented oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in numerous cases in defense of constitutional freedoms. Several landmark cases argued by Sekulow before the U.S. Supreme Court have become part of the legal landscape in the area of religious liberty litigation.  In the Mergens case, Sekulow cleared the way for public school students to form Bible clubs and religious organizations on their school campuses.  In the Lamb's Chapel case, Sekulow defended the free speech rights of religious groups, ensuring that they be treated equally with respect to the use of public facilities.  And, most recently, in McConnell v. FEC, Sekulow ensured that the constitutional rights of young people remain protected with a unanimous decision by the high court guaranteeing that minors can participate in political campaigns. A nationally recognized and respected defender of religious freedom, Sekulow has assembled one of the most prestigious law firms in the nation.  Founded in 1990, the American Center for Law and Justice focuses in constitutional law.  The ACLJ, under Sekulow's direction, is involved in public interest and public policy issues working to protect religious and constitutional liberties. In 2007, the Chicago Tribune concluded that the ACLJ has \"led the way\" in Christian legal advocacy.  In 2005, TIME Magazine named Sekulow one of the \"25 Most Influential Evangelicals\" in America and called the ACLJ \"a powerful counterweight\" to the ACLU.  Business Week said the ACLJ is \"the leading advocacy group for religious freedom.\"  Sekulow's work on the issue of judicial nominees - including possible vacancies at the Supreme Court - has received extensive news coverage including a front page story in The Wall Street Journal.  In addition, The National Law Journal has twice named Sekulow one of the \"100 Most Influential Lawyers\" in the United States (1994, 1997).  He is also among a distinguished group of attorneys known as \"The Public Sector 45\" named by The American Lawyer (January\/February 1997).  The magazine said the designation represents \"45 young lawyers outside the private sector whose vision and commitment are changing lives.\" Sekulow brings insight and education to listeners daily with his national call-in radio program, Jay Sekulow Live!, which is broadcast throughout the country on nearly 850 radio stations.  Sekulow also hosts a weekly television program, ACLJ This Week, which tackles the tough issues of the day and is broadcast on a number of networks nationwide including the Trinity Broadcasting Network and FamilyNet.  Sekulow is also a popular guest on nationally televised news programs on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CNBC, and PBS.  He frequently contributes articles and commentary to national publications and is often quoted in the nation's leading newspapers including USA Today, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, and Washington Times. A graduate of Mercer University, Sekulow graduated cum laude receiving both a bachelor's degree and doctor of jurisprudence from Mercer University where he served on the Mercer Law Review as an editorial staff member.  Following graduation, Sekulow served as a tax trial attorney in the Office of Chief Counsel for the Internal Revenue Service.  In that capacity, Sekulow prepared and brought to trial tax cases on behalf of the United States Department of Treasury in United States Tax Court. He also received a Ph.D. from Regent University, with a dissertation on American Legal History, and is the author of numerous publications and law articles. Sekulow serves as a member of the Board of Trustees for The Supreme Court Historical Society in Washington, DC.","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/author\/jsekulow"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/163"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=278"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/278\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=278"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=278"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/lynnvsekulow\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=278"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}