Brace yourself, I'm about to delve into one of those public conversation taboos. You know, you don't talk sex, politics, or religion in public.
But at times I find the debates spurred by symbols fascinating. And, of course, religious symbols seem to spur the most debates. The one I want to focus on involves Mojave National Preserve, where a federal judge has ruled that a cross can no longer stand atop Sunrise Rock.
The cross, a simple unadorned one, dates to 1934, when a wooden one was raised in honor of Americans who died during World War I. It later was replaced by a more enduring metal cross. As you look at it, it seems like a simple tribute. And yet in 2001 Frank Buono, a former National Park Service assistant superintendent at the preserve, filed a lawsuit, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, to have the cross removed.
Court papers from an earlier stage in the case noted that Buono was "deeply offended by the display of a Latin Cross on government-owned property," reads a story from the San Bernardino Sun.
Look at the picture. Are you "deeply offended" by the cross?
In her ruling, Judge M. Margaret McKeown held that the cross's location within the national preserve is an unconstitutional federal endorsement of Christianity.
This case has me wondering if there's a point when a symbol, religious or otherwise, becomes more a part of our country's history, of our social fabric, our culture, than it does a symbol of what it was initially viewed as? Beyond that, will this ruling lead the Park Service to remove any and all symbols or structures located within its properties that can be construed as religious? Should it prohibit any and all religious services?
Why did the judge in this case rule against the federal government, and yet back in 2000 a court dismissed a lawsuit claiming the federal government was endorsing a Native American religion by restricting access to Rainbow Bridge at Rainbow Bridge National Monument?
Of course, in the Rainbow Bridge case the court held that the couple that brought the lawsuit had suffered no personal injury and so had no standing. But what personal injury did Mr. Buono suffer in the Mojave Preserve matter?
Look elsewhere in the park system. The Park Service earlier this year designated a synagogue designed by Frank Lloyd Wright as a National Historic Landmark. Could someone argue that means the government endorses Judaism?
At Devil's Tower National Monument in Wyoming conflicts arise when Native Americans want to hold ceremonies at the tower and ask that climbing be restricted.
And then there's the Christian Ministry In the National Parks, which holds non-denominational services every Sunday during the summer in more than 35 national parks. By permitting these services, does the Park Service tacitly endorse religion in general?
As these cases reflect, there are no quick, clearcut answers to these questions. Judges seemingly have different standards when weighing the merits of the cases before them. Across the country, different segments of our population hold different values.
Where do you draw the line? How do you decide what should be allowed, and what should not? Should the parks be so aseptic of some segments of America's culture? How do you decide which symbols are offensive and which are not? If the cross in question were taken down and replaced by a monument, would that be OK?
Religion long has played a role in this country's evolution. The Founding Fathers were pious men, the explorers who opened up the West often talked of the majesty "He" created. Even John Muir referred to God in his writings about nature:
In God's wildness lies the hope of the world - the great fresh unblighted, unredeemed wilderness. The galling harness of civilization drops off, and wounds heal ere we are aware.
- John of the Mountains, (1938) page 317.
I've long viewed myself as a secularist, and certainly don't want to see crosses and other symbols, religious or otherwise, sprouting on hills and mountaintops across the park system. And yet, are there times when you wonder whether we go too far in striving to be politically correct?
Frankly, perhaps it would have been best if the judge in the Mojave case simply ruled that the cross did not belong in the preserve, regardless of whether it had any religious connotations.
Comments
I neglected to mention in my initial post that the cross long pre-dates arrival of the Park Service, as the preserve wasn't created until 1994. Of course, prior to that year the land was managed by the BLM.
What if the erection on this hilltop were a Swastika, put there in 1939, well before the NPS was on the scene.
What if some person in the dark of night decided that the Al Queda symbol should dominate the hilltop.
What would the reaction be?
The cross was not the result of any official memorialization, it received no permission at the time. Was allowed to stand only because of neglect. It has no place on public lands. It should go. At least that's how I see it.
Art Allen
Pardon me for sustaining this rather heated and emotional debate....
I don't understand the responses.. How can you relate to the cross on the missions to my argument? The crosses, and star of david and crescents on the gravestones aren't at issue either. Those arguments are just silly.
Would you have it so that just anyone, at anytime, could erect some sort of symbol on public land, anywhere he or she wanted it? Not even a government anarchist would tolerate that! The mountaintops could become the billboards for the religion or politics of the day!
AA
There's a "Christ of the Abyss" on a coral reef in John Pennekamp State Park in Florida. It has been there since the early 60's and is a popular sight for snorkelers and scuba divers. The ACLU tried to get it removed also, but to remove it would have disturbed the reef and destroyed coral so it's still there. (A reasonable decision since it is the mandate of parks to protect nature first and foremost).
This case could go to the U. S. Supreme Court and whatever decision they make must be content neutral--that is it should treat all religious symbols on public land in the same way. If they are historic, that is they've been there for a number of years, they are undisturbed whether they are Hopi, Hawaiian, Tlinglit, or Christian. If Hawaiians can perform religious services on Kilaeua and have their rock memorials protected on federal lands, even if they were put up yesterday, then the same should hold true for all other religions. People just want all religions treated equally, no special preferences.
It's too bad there are lots of Christians out there giving Christianity a bad name, but that's what it's come to. Too many "arrogant prosletizers" trying to drum up "business" and "followers" and let it be said -- "money". And now that religious leaders are putting their paws into politics, people are lashing out against it. While I'm sure the guy claiming to be offended probably wasn't, you can bet that if any other religious symbol was up on that hill, Christians would be lined up around the block to cast stones at it.
But hey, this topic has opened up a tanker trucks full of worms. Do we remove the crosses from Arlington Cemetery? Remove the bible from Jimmy Carter's National Historic Site? Remove the doorknobs, gateposts, and steeple tops from San Antonio Missions? Take down all the roadside memorials to dead commuters along the interstate? Require that the Whitman Mission NHS visitor center be sensitive to Jewish and Islamic folk? Remove the Bible from the presidential swearing-in ceremony? Take the David Berger Memorial off the roster of NPS sites?
Of course not. But it's very interesting to see where the government draws these lines of distinction. One administration does one thing and the next administration, if they feel strongly enough about it, can attempt to undo it. If you look around, it's easy to find inconsistencies in application of these types of decisions, and that will always be the case so long as the pendulum swings in the oval office and the supreme court grows older, wiser, and occasionally brings in fresh blood. One administration made a huge chunk of Alaska a National Park and the next breaks it into pieces to allow mining, drilling, etc. Our government is a flip-flopper.
I find it interesting that no one has bothered to read the actual court opinion, which just affirms my earlier point that “the public debate has been poorly informed and relies more on opinion than historical fact.”
A quick reading of the opinion reveals that this case is not about religious symbols at all, but about whether national parks can be sliced up to allow special zones where private interest groups can avoid federal regulation. The federal judges of have said no, and anyone who values our parks and opposes the growing tide of privatization should applaud this ruling. I have posted more details at my site.
Tom, I appreciate your diligence in tracking down the court order. But I would disagree with your analysis that this case is "not about religious symbols at all."
Indeed, had Mr. Buono not initially complained about the cross in the first place this case would not have taken root. That the latest legal twist stems from an attempt by Congress to have the Park Service divvy up the preserve so as to place the cross on private late is merely an aside that sprung from efforts to keep the cross in place.
The case's collision over separation of state and church clearly is laid out in the court's initial paragraph:
It's tricky to respond posts like this (but watch me try anyway :) ). The best I can do I suppose is keep it personal. I'm an atheist. I'm also an occasional visitor to the Mojave preserve and have seen the cross. Am I deeply offended the cross is there? No. I'm regaled by Christian imagery everywhere I look, and quite honestly a bit numb to it.
Am I offended? Yes.
Like it or not the Latin cross is a symbol that carries many deep emotions across the entire spectrum, both positive and negative. For me when I see the Latin cross I feel frustration with what I consider to be an irrational, unreasonable, and unsustainable world view. I see crusades and wars. I see witch burnings, intolerance, hypocrisy, bigotry, racism and molestation. This is what I feel and can't be argued. Do I want references to religion (all religions) removed from money, pledges, government facilities and services? Yes. Do I honestly expect to see that? No.
From a very personal point of view crosses like this bother more than some of the other things because I go to places like the Mojave preserve to get away and recharge, and I don't like the reminder. If it's a war memorial that's wanted let's compromise and put something else up there like a nice black stone obelisk. Or better yet carve one from the native stone that both blends in and stands out. I'll help.
Longish indulgent personal answer to a short non-personal legal-type question, an essential part of a successful democracy.
e.