Arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday held the prospect of being extremely interesting, or boringly technical, in a case that arose over a simple white cross at Mojave National Preserve.
The arguments could be extremely interesting if the justices wade into the subject of whether, by allowing the cross, the federal government is endorsing one religion while overlooking all others. They could be largely boring if instead the justices focus into whether Frank Buono, a former National Park Service assistant superintendent at the preserve, had "standing" to sue over the placement of the cross on park lands. In other words, was Mr. Buono somehow personally injured by the presence of the cross.
The cross, a simple unadorned one dates to 1934, when a wooden one was raised atop Sunrise Rock 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 Mr. Buono filed a lawsuit, supported by the American Civil Liberties Union, to have the cross removed because it offended him. In a lower court ruling on the matter, a U.S. District judge ordered the cross removed, saying that it was indeed an unconstitutional federal endorsement of Christianity.
Congress became involved in the case at various times by prohibiting the National Park Service from spending money to move the cross, by designating it a national memorial in 1994, and by trying to transfer the acre of land it stood upon to a private Veterans of Foreign Wars group.
The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from favoring specific religions. Now, if the Supreme Court decides to delve into the more ticklish issue of whether the government in this case is endorsing one religion over all others, how it ultimately rules might "provide additional guidance on when religious displays on public land violate the Establishment Clause, as well as by what methods the government may use to cure violations," notes the Cornell University Law School.
And how the Supreme Court handles this case could send a message to the Park Service regarding how it treats other symbols or structures located within its properties that could be construed as religious. And it also could lead to more lawsuits.
Back in 2000, for instance, the Supreme 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, that ruling, in which the justices held that the couple that brought the lawsuit had suffered no personal injury and so had no standing to bring the lawsuit, could be brought back to the surface in this case.
But look elsewhere in the Park System:
* The Park Service in 2007 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?
Comments
If we are going to throw a hissy fit over a memorial on federal land, then maybe we should also go and take down every cross at Antietam, Gettysburg, etc. I am an atheist, but in no way does a cross placed as a memorial in an area that was not even federal land at the time offend me.The cross has existed as a symbol long before Jesus' birth. Maybe we should say it's a cross to represent September Equinox =)
Ranger Holly
http://web.me.com/hollyberry
Please take down the cross, to allow others to place their symbols there invites spaceship memorials from scientology people etc. And that would be silliness. However, leave the native americans to practice their historical ways. They were here before this load of paper pushing was thought up. In place of the cross there can be a flag flown, or a statue of a large eagle flying (as long as the blue birds dont sue). Something to honor the people originally meant to be honored.
The most offensive people are those who make claims of being offended by symbols of others' religions. Buono has the freedom to look away from anything he finds offensive and should not be allowed to impede on others' freedom of expression in this manner.
I think that the Supreme Court should not side with the man in this case for a couple of reasons:
1. The cross is symbolic and isn't necessarily of major religious importance. If a Buddhist did go to the park in 1934 and put up a Buddhist memorial, nobody would complain today really. It would have been there 75 years now, and frankly it's just a symbol. If it was a Buddhist monument commemorating war veterans, nobody would really care about the religion part. They'd just care about them commemorating war veterans.
2. Though the cross does represent Christianity, it does not exclude other religions from what I've seen in this case. The American Legion will recognize all fallen soldiers, not just Christian ones. All people, regardless of religion, are welcome in the park to look at the memorial and do whatever they want. It's just a cross, nobody's forcing a religion on the people.
3. The Federal Government wasn't really involved in my opinion in the placing of the cross. The land was given by the government to the American Legion, a private organization of veterans, so that they could do what they want with it. The American Legion decided to put up a cross, big deal! It's not like the Federal Government themselves is putting the cross there as a religious symbol. If the American Legion can't put a cross up, then a senator shouldn't be able to keep a Bible in display in his office because it's Federal Land that he's on. I just don't see how the Federal Government is really directly involved.
4. On it directly dealing with the First Amendment, I don't believe it violates that. The first part of the Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Obviously they're not making a law establishing a religion, they're just putting a religion's symbol up. That's not a law. So does it "prohibit the free exercise thereof"? I believe that putting up a Christian symbol does not violate that part of the Amendment. I know that the Buddhist guy has a good argument that they did prohibit the free exercise thereof of Buddhism by denying their right to put up a memorial, but unless he can prove they discriminated against him because of the memorial's religion, I don't think he has a case. And even if they did discriminate against him because of that, obviously he should have the right to put up a Buddhist memorial, but the Christians should have a right to keep theirs up to.
I find it a bit funny that the guy who brought the case to the Supreme Court is saying that the cross violated the establishment part of the Amendment, but he's still OK with keeping both the Buddhist and Christian memorial up: But it's not OK to have just the Christian one up.
PEOPLE you all have way too much time on your hands !! go volunteer too feed the hungry or something worth while..
I've seen many cemeteries and gravesites in Shenandoah and the Great Smokies, both ancient and recent. Most have religious symbols or script on them. I don't know of anyone who is "offended" by them. This country was founded on the premise of freedom of religion, and we would be wise to respect it. Those who claim offense at "pagan" names for landmarks should be reminded of what Jesus said about wearing one's religion on his sleeve. I don't think the Supremes will be fooled by phony piety either. Mr. Buono should have paid more attention to his job. This whole thing is really very silly.
Having said all that, if I ever make it to a Hawaii NP I will be sure to leave an offering to Pele. It's my opinion this country needs all the help it can get!
for what its worth, Brian's #3 is not accurate.
It was federal land (but not NPS) when the first cross was erected by a private party.
The congressional transfer to VFW (not American Legion) was not "so that they could do what they want with it". The condition is that if they don't keep the cross up and keep it a memorial to WW1 veterans, the land reverts to federal ownership.
Ranger Holly: I believe that we can say its a cross to celebrate the first Sunday after the first full moon after the March equinox.
Any tribute to a veteran who has fought to keep this country free is fine with me.
Ed: This comment was edited.