Sotomayor May Rule On ACLU Lawsuit To Remove “Soldier’s Cross”
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- 
One of the first cases Sotomayor rules on should she be confirmed as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court could be a American Civil Liberties Union 2001 suit demanding that a seven-foot cross erected in the California desert in 1934 commemorating sacrifices endured by our soldiers in World War I be taken down.
In 1934, a gritty prospector named J. Riley Bembry gathered a couple of his fellow World War I veterans at Sunrise Rock. Together they erected a simple wooden cross in honor of their fallen comrades. The memorial has been privately maintained ever since….
A wrinkle developed in 1994, when the federal government declared the surrounding area a national preserve. With the cross now located on newly public land, .the ACLU demanded that the National Park Service tear down the cross.
The creation of this World War I monument was part of a 1930s medical program to help World War I veterans recover from “shellshock”. Physicians treating them thought that their work in the desert heat would be therapeutic. In 2004 the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals agreed with the ACLU, but veterans groups objected — thus the case’s journey to the U. S. Supreme Court.
Now it would seem to that the cross is a historic monument that need not be subject to contemporary fashions in thought, to wit, the fashion of hunting down religious symbols and eliminating them from government property. The cross simply represents the feelings of soldiers from a bygone era. There are religious symbols on public display from the past elsewhere. For instance, there are religious symbols on the Supreme Court building. carved in the Court’s chamber of Moses receiving the Ten Commandments from God. There may even be a picture of God up there. Viewing the 1934 cross today might give curious Americans a sense of what our country was like back in those days before the ACLU was spreading goodwill around the country by harassing people of faith.
Yet that is not the way the battleaxes at the ACLU see it. One of its lawyers, Peter Eliasberg, told the Washington Times, and as reported in American Spectator “For us to choose the principal symbol of one religion that says Jesus is the Son of God and He is divine and say that is an appropriate way to reflect the sacrifice of people who don’t believe that is excluding by its very nature.” Well, “we” did not choose the symbol. Veterans from what was once called the Great War did, apparently with the consent of their physicians. This is an interesting historic memorial that the ACLU would deny us.
Veterans groups that are opposing the removal of the cross disagree with Eliasberg. Their members argue that the cross represents the “Fallen Soldier Battle Cross.” That is a rifle and crossed bayonet that is driven into the ground to honor a fallen comrade. Will the ACLU oppose this too? Jim Sims, of the Military Order of the Purple Heart, told the Times the controversy is “about thousands of veteran memorials and monuments around the country. This is about the issue of honoring veterans.”
It is trendy in our noisy public discourse to see “the right” being accused of injecting religion into politics. Actually very often “the right” or more specifically “the Christian right” is merely defending settled manifestations of religion that go back decades in our history, occasionally centuries. As I see it the ACLU would have us rewrite American history, eliminating all references to God, the Bible, and other such artifacts. Of course, for people of faith these artifacts are reminders of faith. So maybe the ACLU could begin a campaign to disallow people of faith from lapsing into prayer in front of such reminders. Possibly the ACLU’s next campaign will be to eliminate religious symbols from public buildings, starting with the Supreme Court. As Luigi noticed, some Americanos are too disputatious.
In 2007 the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with removing the cross saying, “Carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve — like a donut (sic) hole with the cross atop it — will do nothing to minimize the impermissible government endorsement,” the opinion said. The 9th Circuit is the most overturned Appeals panel in US history. One of its justices Eisenberg notoriously said when ask about the repeated rejections of his and the panels decision, “They can’t catch everything.”
Comment by Liz Briggs on 27 June 2009:
What is the ACLU afraid of? Many brave men died so that they could bring these frivolous suits without fear of reprisal and yet they would throw their sacrifices to the winds. Frankly, I feel the courts and this country should throw the ACLU to the winds all the way to Hell.
Comment by Richard on 28 June 2009:
A recovering ACLU lawyer/admin type descrube it to me as a group of angry power addicts. I have religiously stayed away and can’t explain more.
Comment by Calvin on 25 August 2009:
I can see using the historical argument to justify having the cross there may be the best defense against the lawsuit, but I’m sure you know that having any religious symbols as a monument on government property goes against our constitution. I think the only way to win is not to portray the cross as a monument, but as a marker for specific service members, the ACLU has previously support individual service members religious rights, I think that is the only way to legally justify the cross.
Comment by Denise on 7 October 2009:
Doesn’t the government have more important things to worry about than this. Soldiers from every war should be honored and remembered. What about decendents of these men who fought in WWI? How would taking down this memorial make them feel? And, 100 years from now, will memorials to desert storm, iraqi freedom or the war in afganistan, be removed because of where they are placed now? I completely agree with Liz’s comment above — ACLU is ridiculous.
Comment by Brian on 7 October 2009:
I am so tired of the ACLU sticking up for issues that are purely anti-american. I know you have all heard it but what about my rights, and the rights of all AMERICANS! When we have to start converting to others (usually the minority of a groups) beliefs and not what the majority wants, then are they not doing a dis-service to all of us. I am sick to my stomach that school districts get sued by the ACLU for not allowing the Pledge of Allegiance. It is time that we all stand up as AMERICANS (no religion/color/race involved) and tell the ACLU that enough is enough. If the cross is taken down, then we should continue to replace it….over….and over….and over….again. What will the ACLU do…sue us? Pathetic!!!!!!!!! Time to stand up for the United States of America. Brian
Comment by Richard on 8 October 2009:
Denise and Brian et. al: The photo in my article is now wrong because the cross is fully conseiled inside a plywood box, and unless you know it is inside it looks like an unpainted sheet of plywood. It is difficult then to see a religious protest or constitutional issue over a plywood box. Nevertheless the complaint is before the US Supreme Court in what is become the latest travesty.
Comment by kenwood on 8 October 2009:
We are in a war of values. Symbols like the cross, money, or the American flag are creations born from the imaginations of those who wish to sell us their version of a value system, to us, and there are value systems that we might deem to be more worthy than others.
All symbols of value are used as a method to control human behaviour, to divide us, and are not based at all on providing the physical necessities of man.
Comment by Jamie on 8 October 2009:
Our country no longer seems to represent values or morality. Symbols are no longer symbols but punch lines at parties. Why has our country come to this and how so in less that 100 years???
Groups like the ACLU are more interested in getting their names published and in the news for something like this that trying to actually do something that would be useful. Instead of trying to tear down this “historical symbol” why not look for another way to represent the memory of the people who sacrificed. I would not want the cross moved but if putting the cross back on private land away from the “government land” would allow these peoples memory to be supported and shut these lawyers up, maybe this is what should be done.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 8 October 2009:
First, the A.C.L.U. is an organization concerned mostly with making it’s presence known–unconcerned with values, very ego-driven. Second, they tend to “bombsight” Christian people & values. They donot like Christians, & we’ve all seen the results of that point of view many times.
Comment by kenwood on 8 October 2009:
Values and symbols are fine, it’s how we use them to control people through the myth of our power that divides us. Yes, , Jamie I agree with your assessment that symbols have become like punch lines that we use at parties, for what meaning do they have to us as they continue to be interpreted as serving one cause over all others?
The universal symbol should represent all of mankind, and what better symbol is there than the circular earth floating so delicatley in space, an earth to which we are all connected, not through the divisiveness of conflicting symbology but rather through our knowledge of our world and how it can be used for the betterment of ALL.
Comment by Richard on 8 October 2009:
Jamie: Symbolism can be just another “ism” but symbols can nonetheless be very meaningful because they represent greater thought in brevity and one can often carry what they mean along as a reminder.
Something scrathed on a rock can represent all the good or evil those who did so could summmon at that particular time including morality, and values.
Anarcist ideas and conspiracy theorist labor under the enormous misapprehension that only they “know” and their “knowing” is superior to the collective knowledge, wisdom and experience of the thousand generations gone before.
To argue otherwise hazards losing all such experential knowledge and values and having the reinvet all that again and again. Granted anyone can tote a symbol as evidence of what it represents whle having no connection to that experience, knowledge or value.
Comment by kenwood on 8 October 2009:
That’s just it, what do these symbols such as the cross or the ACLU’s disgust with the cross represent whilst having no connection to that experience, knowledge or value?
These symbols such as the cross are not universally accepted and because of this we will always observe conflicts btween various groups of people who don’t value the same symbols.
What are some universally accepted symbols that are easily observable that will lead to a resolution to conflicts between such groups as the A.C.L.U. and Christian etc..?
I thought of one such symbol, how about the sun?
Comment by Calvin on 8 October 2009:
People seem to be really missing the point, you can hate the ACLU all you want, but that doesn’t change the first amendment of our Constitution “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. If they can establish it as a historical thing and not as a religious symbol, they may be able to save it, but if they can’t convince the court that it’s historical, it is a religious symbol on government property and will probably be removed.
If they do lose the case, Congress can make a bill to put a secular monument there. I don’t know about you all, but I think a monument with an American flag flying over it would be another fitting way to honor our fellow Vets.
Comment by kenwood on 8 October 2009:
The flag is another symbol that people hate, because people around the world see the flag as being a symbol of American imperialism, and American veterans here in the US hate the flag because they see it as being a symbol of fascism.
How about a flag of the monad, a symbol representing balance between polar opposites in nature, yes, a harmonious balance in nature. That’s the universal symbol I’ve been looking for to put up on my roof top.
Comment by Richard on 8 October 2009:
CALVIN: CONGRESS HAS ALREADY DECLARED THIS A NATIONAL MONUMENT. Your arguement fails.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 9 October 2009:
Actually, the Constitution(you know, the national restraining order against the government?)makes it clear that our government will have NOTHING to do with religious issues, period. We’re a young country. When we have a better understanding of our own laws, it’s going to be a refreshing break from the troublemakers who continuously agitate us with contrived issues.
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 9 October 2009:
Allen Jay Posey: Actually your argument is a contortion of what the Constitution or more specifically the body of laws represents. That is what the U. S. Supreme court is considsering so soon we shall all have a little clearer idea.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 9 October 2009:
The American government does not enjoy the privilege of talking about, supporting, condemning or opining on religious matters. How does the government refer to the general population? It refers to “the people.” I hope to see within my lifetime the awakening of Americans to the fact that, in America, government is the SERVANT of the people. We have a very good system here, and we are at a crossroads. Let’s see which fork we take.
Comment by Richard on 9 October 2009:
Allen Jay Posey:
What does the “American government” have to do with it? The law is the law and that is what the Supreme Court is determining — the law. That’s the way we do business. We disagree; the courts decide, and if we do not like that we can change then law.
It can be noisy; seldom violent, and seldom definitive.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 9 October 2009:
Richard: Again, the Supreme Court has nothing to do with religious views of the people-at-large, as also applies to the Executive & Legislative branches. Our government is required by national law(the Constitution)to do certain things and to REFRAIN from doing other things. Our Constitution is different from those of other nations, and that caused quite a stir when it was promulgated…for example, in America, government is required by law to support, promote & advance the progress & success of business. Government obedience to that command seems to have suffered a bit in the last 75 years or so.
Thank you for your response. It is appreciated.
Comment by kenwood on 9 October 2009:
This following link is an example of the rule of law and how it may apply to any preceding argument since the final judgement was made.
http://www.lawlibrary.state.mn.us/CreditRiver/1969-01-23findingsoffactconclusionsoflawandjudgment.pdf
Comment by Richard Cochrane on 9 October 2009:
Allen Jay Posey: Again, I didn’t say the court did. I said it will decide the law- not make it. If the majority believe it decides wrongly the law can be changed. This is a question of exisiting law - not religion - contrary to what the ACLU and the 4% who call themselves athiest contend.
Comment by kenwood on 9 October 2009:
Laws, religion and money, what’s the difference in Alice’s Political Wonderland? Seperating beliefs by attempting to guise them in relative truths is insanity. It’s like saying, hey lets settle this argument by demonstrating how our faith alone can be used to send the space shuttle piloted by catholic nuns using no more than the power of their rosary beads to land it safely back down to earth.
Children, when are you going to wake up to the REAL WORLD!
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 9 October 2009:
The people are the masters & our government is our servant. I like to keep things simple. My servants do not involve themselves in religious speculation or controversy. If they do, they have to leave my house.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 9 October 2009:
Kenwood: They’re your servants, too, and the access you have is intensified & strengthened by your knowledge of the Constitution. It’s our tool box, and the best one devised up to this point. Example: “The President, Vice-President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This only keeps them in line when we are aware of it(knowledge really IS power!). So, imagine yourself living in a home with yourself as the owner of the home, and a staff of servants. I kept this as simple as possible; if it helps, that’s the main goal.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 12 October 2009:
I just want to wish everyone a “Mega Monday!” A day of possibility, opportunity & potential! A brand-new day(still got the label on it!)
Comment by Chief Hypocrite on 12 October 2009:
And a happy Columbus Day to you too!
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 13 October 2009:
The people of the United States of America are the masters, & our government is our servant. It seemed worth repeating. We are the most interesting nation yet to emerge from the crucible of history.
Comment by Richard on 13 October 2009:
Allen Jay Posey: I agree. We are afterall a nation of laws and the U. S, Supreme Court will decide the issue of the “Soldier’s Cross.”
Comment by John Bauer on 13 October 2009:
Nice controversial topic Richard
Comment by Richard on 13 October 2009:
John Bauer:
Yes, I suppose that’s why it’s before the Supreme Court to decide.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 13 October 2009:
Could this cross situation be affected by the “grandfather clause”? It was there before the government assumed ownership of the land. It appears to be in a place unaffected by a lot of traffic, tourist or otherwise. Now I’m curious about what would happen if someone put a star of David or a statue of Ganesha or a native American totem out there.
Comment by Richard on 13 October 2009:
Allen Jay Posey: Good question. I erased the brief and I do not recall that point. But, you can bet whatever the Supreme Court ruiles the debate will continue. Someone somewhere has pointed out almost all such cases have dealt with complaints against Christianity. Likely that’s because the Christian faith is so dominant in the USA. So much of this sems rather silly compared to other issues.
But, we shall soon see.
Comment by John Bauer on 13 October 2009:
The cross signifys a predominant American belief in the value of Christian faith, since the 1930’s until the present time, and sits upon government land, a land of, by and for the people. In this case the majority of Christian Americans over-rules the ACLU, and therefore the cross will remain as it is, that will probably be the popular opinion of the Supreme Court.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 13 October 2009:
Before the day officially ends, I want to run this up the flagpole: is it actually legal for Barack Obama to accept the Nobel Prize, since the person who occupies the Oval Office of the White House is not allowed to receive incentives from foreign powers(or pay increases from us) during the term of service to the American people? I’m just curious. Your input is gratefully accepted.
Comment by John Bauer on 14 October 2009:
Yes, it may be considered to be legal most likely because the Nobel Prize is not perceived to be a “foreign power” by the US government, but rather an independent body of humanitarians whose objective is to recognize and reward individual achievments towards peace.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 14 October 2009:
John Bauer: welcome to the current state of our world. A violent man sets up a trust to reward people who think like he did. It’s hard for me to criticize people who have a sense of humor. Item 2: Barack Obama receives four hundred thousnd dollars per year to carry out the wishes of the American people. Now he’s 1.4 million dollars closer to where he wants to be, courtesy of a well-known third party which deals consistently in hypocrisy. Whew! The patience of the American people is very elastic.
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 14 October 2009:
Footnote: the money talks & the bovine waste walks.
Comment by John Bauer on 14 October 2009:
Allen Jay Posey: Yes, hypocrisy rules! It’s quite humorous, especially when one contemplates the patience of the American people…
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 15 October 2009:
You’re either with us or you’re against us!! Unless you’re doing dishes, mowing the lawn, painting the bathroom, changing the catbox, listening to talkradio or watching t.v., in which case we understand & hopefully we’ll see you at our next meeting.
Comment by John Bauer on 15 October 2009:
I’m with us!
Comment by Allen Jay Posey on 16 October 2009:
Brian: the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Is that the most beautiful set of words ever written on paper or spoken by human beings, or what? Being born here is like starting our lives as kings & queens. Talk about the “luck of the draw”!
Comment by gean on 26 October 2009:
ACLU maybe a headache, but ACORN, SEIU and OBAMA and his administration of CZARS have no intentions of being SERVANTS of the People and that is an EPIDEMIC!
That is CHANGE to Fascism and no HOPE for us.