Skip to comments.Court bans Christian cross on private land in public park
Posted on 09/06/2007 1:24:08 PM PDT by Paige
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
9th Circus again
Uh, no it does not. It bars the government from establishing a national religion. Big effing difference, but nice try at propaganda and rewriting history, Reuters
OK for star and crescent.
“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.
YEAH, SO WHAT? THE CONSTITUTION DOESN’T PRECLUDE THE GOVERNMENT FROM ALLOWING PRIVATE PERSONS TO BUILD A CROSS ON PRIVATE LAND. IN FACT, THE CONSTITUTION REQUIRES THE GOVERNMENT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND FACILITATE THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE PERSONS TO PRACTICE THEIR RELIGION.
As opposed to the Jewish kind of cross?
Allowing a cross is not Establishing and forcing religion on anyone regardless of how much you may or may not look upon it.
Ignore this anti-American court.
That's where they went wrong. I don't see a problem with people putting up their religious icons. Preventing them from doing it specifically because it's religious would be a restriction on freedom of religion. But here the government essentially said it allowed only expression of the Christian religion. IOW, the government recognizes only Christianity. That is a dangerous road, not only between religions, but within them, as we've seen with the various persecutions of one Christian sect by another that is in power.
Second-hand religion ban ping.
Let’s see...no cross on private land...but Islamic prayer footbaths in public bathrooms at the University of Michigan are just fine.
Is their something wrong with this picture? Does this add up?
Then why are we allowing the courts to dictate to us?
The courts are solely for agenda and special interest groups.
Well there’s the Hakenkreuz.....
“...which bars the government from favoring any one religion...”
I caught that too. NOTHING bars the “favoring” of any religion, just the “establishment” of one.
” As opposed to the Jewish kind of cross?”
If there was a crescent and star the ACLU would be protecting their right to keep it. I’d bet the farm on that one.
The Land of the Freaks and the Home of the Craven!
Paid for by public dollars, most likely. If anything, that constitutes “establishment”. Here we have private individuals acting at their own expense on private land. But the Circus sees that as “establishment”. I don’t see it, myself. Then again, I’m just a layman when it comes to the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.