Supreme Court to rule on cross memorial

The Mojave cross

The future of a monument erected in the remote Mojave National Preserve in California in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to honor those who defend the United States in military actions will be determined by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The American Civil Liberties Union challenged the monument – because it features a cross – and drew a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that it must be destroyed.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, today said it would review the decision. Arguments are expected this fall, and the verdict could have a far-reaching impact on monuments across the nation, according to lawyers working to defend it.

The Liberty Legal Institute calls the case a “microcosm” of the trend of hostility towards veterans’ memorials in the U.S. The non-profit group has set up a SaveOurMemorials.com website to warn about the situation.

Liberty also is working on the case Pleasant Grove et al. v. Summum over related issues. The case arose when a group called Summum sued the city of Pleasant Grove, Utah, for refusing to erect a monument bearing its “seven aphorisms” in a public park that also displayed a Ten Commandments monument.

Summum claimed its First Amendment rights were violated.

Liberty’s website warns, “Imagine if we were constitutionally required to accept and erect a large bust of Ho Chin Minh, the Vietnamese dictator fighting against democratic principles and human rights, alongside our Vietnam Veterans Memorial.

The Mojave cross, encased in plywood to prevent people from seeing the symbol

“Sound extreme? Sadly, this kind of attack is becoming the norm in today’s religiously-biased climate where rogue courts and liberal activists work to remove every vestige of our Judeo-Christian heritage from the public square.”

The Mojave cross is one such case, Liberty said. The group noted the VFW even had tried to reach a resolution by asking that the memorial, which it originally donated, be returned.

“The VFW erected the memorial and originally
owned the land on which the memorial sits, and had donated it to the
government in 1934. The ACLU sued for removal of the veterans’ memorial on
the grounds that it is unconstitutional, and the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed and ordered the memorial and cross dismantled,” the case synopsis says.

“After that decision, the VFW gave five acres of land in exchange for the
retrieval of their monument. The 9th Circuit ruled that was
unconstitutional and ordered the monument and cross dismantled instead. The
cross is currently covered by a plywood box, awaiting The Supreme Court’s
decision,” it said.

Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute and
attorney for the veterans groups, said,
“It is bad enough to say that the veterans’ memorial is unconstitutional,
but it is outrageous to say that the government cannot give the monument
back to the people who spilled their blood and put it there in the first
place.”

The high court’s record on issues of the nation’s Christian heritage has been spotty.

More than a decade ago, the court affirmed a Christmas display in Rhode Island because it was part of an assortment of ornaments, but five years later it determined a similar Pittsburgh display couldn’t be allowed.

Then in 2005, the court issued contradictory rulings over displays of the Ten Commandements, affirming a display on state grounds but striking down the references on county property.

“This is a critical case that will once again put the spotlight on the constitutionality of religious displays and the proper role of the government and its actions,” said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the the American Center for Law and Justice,.

“The fact is that the land transfer in this case is appropriate and constitutional. There’s nothing wrong with the government transferring property containing symbols with religious significance to private parties. We’re hopeful that the high court will conclude that the long-standing display of this cross does not create a constitutional crisis and that the action by the federal government represented a constitutionally-sound solution,” Sekulow said.

In a commentary on WND, Rees Lloyd, a longtime California civil rights attorney, veteran and director of the Defense of Veterans Memorials Project, said the same issues also were involved in a longrunning court battle over the Mt. Soledad Memorial, also in California.

Lloyd said judges who are not accountable to the people should not be able to overrule want people want. In the Mt. Soledad case, not only was the memorial approved by voters, Congress and the president agreed to protect it, only to be overruled by a single judge.

In the 17-year-long Mt. Soledad case, a judge eventually said the veterans memorial near San Diego is constitutional and can remain.

Mt. Soledad cross near San Diego

“When the cross is considered in the context of the larger memorial and especially the numerous other secular elements, the primary effect is patriotic and nationalistic, not religious,” wrote U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns.

“The Court finds the memorial at Mt. Soledad, including its Latin cross, communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice,” he said.

Richard Thompson, chief of the Thomas More Law Center, a nonprofit legal group active in the case, called that decision a “wonderful victory” for the families of veterans memorialized under the cross and “for all Americans who care about our young men and women who have sacrificed their lives in defense of our country.”

“Sadly, I fully expect the ACLU attorneys to appeal this decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. So this fight is not over,” he said.

 

 

---