Apr 29th, 2010
Posted by Robyn Shepherd, ACLU at 3:15pm	Government-Funded Religion

Mojave Cross: The Fight Goes On

Yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling in the case Salazar vs. Buono — concerning a cross in the Mojave National Preserve that has been designated as a national memorial — wasn’t quite what we were hoping for, but was also encouraging in some respects. The question of whether or not the government’s sale of the land on which the cross sits to a private veterans’ organization remedies a violation of the Establishment Clause has been sent back to district court. The Supreme Court found that the lower court used the wrong legal standard in deciding to invalidate a transfer of the land on which the cross stands to private ownership. But the opinion does leave the door open to reaching a favorable outcome in the case, and, more importantly, does not preclude private citizens from challenging the constitutionality of religious displays on government property in the future.

The case, Salazar v. Buono, stems from a complaint raised by veteran and former National Park Service employee Frank Buono, who claimed that the presence of an overtly religious symbol on federal land represented unconstitutional favoritism toward a specific religion.

In 2002, while the federal district court case was pending, Congress designated the cross as a national memorial. In an apparent attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause violation, Congress also transferred one acre of land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, with the provision that the VFW continue to maintain it as a war memorial.

The ACLU, which represented Buono in the case, will continue to argue that the transfer does not remedy the government’s unconstitutional endorsement of one particular religion. “The cross is unquestionably a sectarian symbol,” said the ACLU of Southern California’s Peter Eliasberg, who argued the case before the Court, “and we respectfully but strongly disagree with the suggestion by some members of the Court that the cross does not favor one religion.”

Permalink |	Government-Funded Religion

1. Anonymous Says:
   Apr 29th, 2010 at 5:32pm

   ACLU is the downfall of the USA

2. Anonymous Says:
   Apr 29th, 2010 at 6:49pm

   ACLU = American Communist League of the Unalienable

3. Maggie Says:
   Apr 30th, 2010 at 11:57am

   If the land was being sold to a private owner why go through with this case. This was apparently put up a long time ago. Money wasted.

4. Anonymous Says:
   Apr 30th, 2010 at 12:31pm

   Chillax people, there are worse people than the ACLU

5. Anonymous Says:
   Apr 30th, 2010 at 1:55pm

   ACLU NEEDS TO BE SUED FOR TAKING OUR FEEDOM AWY

6. Moi Says:
   Apr 30th, 2010 at 2:06pm

   Once again the right wingers show that they know about as much about Communism as a dog knows about algebra.

7. roald Says:
   Apr 30th, 2010 at 2:44pm

   I hope that you are successful in stopping the end run around our Constitution. My membership renewal went into the mail this morning.

8. Arnold J. Rimmer Says:
   Apr 30th, 2010 at 7:27pm

   Hey, #1 & #2 - if you don't agree with the upholding of the US Constitution, leave!

9. Anonymous Says:
   Apr 30th, 2010 at 9:40pm

   1.Anonymous Says:
   Apr 29th, 2010 at 6:32pm

   ACLU is the downfall of the USA

   2.Anonymous Says:
   Apr 29th, 2010 at 7:49pm

   ACLU = American Communist League of the Unalienable

   3. ACLU is an embarrASSment to the USA!

10. Anonymous Says:
    May 4th, 2010 at 4:05am

    There really are only two possibilities for someone who claims that the Christian cross is not a religious symbol—that person is not mentally competent, or that person is lying.

11. Anonymous Says:
    May 4th, 2010 at 2:13pm

    @Anon1:

    So, because the ACLU wants to protect the separation of church and state, it's apparently an evil, godless organization that will lead to the end of the US?

12. Anonymous Says:
    May 5th, 2010 at 4:27pm

    Thank you ACLU for watching out for everyone's freedom of or from religion!

13. roald Says:
    May 5th, 2010 at 8:49pm

    Maggie, the sale was done for no other purpose than to try to make this appear to be legal. Therefore the sale is itself a violation of the Constitution.

14. Steve Says:
    May 8th, 2010 at 10:34pm

    Roald, if the ACLU can stop this, what's to stop them from preventing a family from erecting a small cross on the side of a road to mourn the victims of traffic accidents?

15. I Says:
    May 11th, 2010 at 12:12pm

    ACLU just another Westboro Baptist church. How is a cross that has been standing since 1930's effecting my freedom? Holy s**t pull ur head out of ur ars people

16. Anonymous Says:
    May 11th, 2010 at 2:21pm

    I thought this country was based on religious persecution. As the contributors above seem to feel that the placing of a cross on public land is against the constitution why don't we meet up at Arlington and remove all the religious signs there.

17. Anonymous Says:
    May 11th, 2010 at 2:42pm

    So do we need to remove teh crosses from Arlington National Cemetary next? This nation was founded because of religion, now we want to do away church.

18. Anonymous Says:
    May 13th, 2010 at 5:43am

    So to get your own way you now decide to steal the cross is that right?

19. Anonymous Says:
    Jun 14th, 2010 at 2:42am

    There's controversy over crosses on public land, yet the nation's capitol is allowed to be turned into an edifice of papal temporal power? Take a look at this: http://forums.myspace.com/t/4797448.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewthread The Holy Roman Empire Resurrected In America