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
I don't believe in the separation of Church and state. Christianity and all its values should be the official religion of the United States and Europe, too, with tolerance for all the religions of others, including those who have migrated legally and illegally to our shores. Any other position is just contradictory and has resulted in an unavoidable state atheism and failure of our systems across the board, but most notably recently, in our economic platform. Our word is no longer our bond, because we have no 'official' standard outside of those we can vote to change at any time. Not good enough, not strong enough. Let India do the same. Let the Islamic countries do the same.
I don't really have an opinion either way on whether or not the cross should go down, but the reading of more details on the case are interesting.
It appears rather clear that the land was transferred to the VFW to get around the currently standing court order mandating that the cross come down. If it's federal land it comes down. The question before the court is whether or not the transfer was a legal means of getting around the court order and if it's legal for the federal government to transfer land with the implied purpose of erecting or maintaining a religious symbol. Part of it was that there were no competitive bids and that the VFW was clearly given preferential treatment in the land swap. Apparently in arguments, the primary concern seems to be about the legality of the transfer and Frank Buono's standing to protest the transfer.
I'd note that part of the arguments involved discussions about national cemeteries. I've actually been in the San Francisco National Cemetery, which is in Golden Gate National Recreation Area as part of the Presidio of San Francisco. I think they get around some of the thorny issues of having crosses on grave markers or memorial by actually allowing different religious symbols to be displayed. The occasional grave marker does have a Star of David or no religious symbol at all.
In addition, some sources have noted that Frank Buono is a practicing Catholic.
Jan,
A moral and ethical society need not be a religious society. While it is true that many morals, norms, and values have been passed down through religions, that is not and should not be relied upon as the official means. Additionally, where did you hear that the recession was caused by people not being christians!? And by the way, the "official" standard of christian religion has, and continues to change as it adjusts to an ever changing society. So in a sense, religious beliefs are voted on and changed all the time. For proof look at how many different flavors christian churches there are around the world. Would just one be picked to be the real one or would they all be represented? If you really wanted stability and predictability maybe shoot for something like Catholicism or Buddhism.... Religion is far too personal for the government to become involved in. The government should work to show that it is officially neutral when it comes to beliefs (or disbelief) in a higher power.
-A. Nony-Mous
GOD BLESS US ALL AND BE THANKFULL THAT WE HAVE THIS BEAUTIFULL LAND. (so i can't spell )
If the cross was there when the park became a national preserve, it should stay there. It is part of our national heritage. Just look around people, and learn to appreciate our diversity that makes us a better nation. Get over it, will ya!
I am 23 years old and I practice no religion and this story just pisses me off! Buono should ... be ashamed. I'm glad he was a former NPS employee; who knows what else he would have tried to change or remove. I have realized that it is the people who try to sue over religious intolerance that are the most insecure in their beliefs and religion. If they were truly happy and content with what they believed then they would not be "offended" so easily by other religions. This cross was put up in 1934. That makes it historical and it should in no way be removed and I bet our veterans of WWI are turning over in their graves at what has happened to this country....to take that down would mean they died in vain!!! What's next people??? Are we going to spend more money this country doesn't have on trying to remove "IN GOD WE TRUST" off the back of our money??? This is ridiculous!
This comment was edited. While we appreciate all comments, we also try to toe the line on decency and respect for views and won't hesitate to use the delete button when those lines are crossed. It's not hard to make your point without being insulting. -- Ed.
In visiting Carlsbad NP, we saw many things in the caves left from the mining days. These things aren't pretty and can make the cave look less attractive in places. However, because they have been there more than 50 years, they are considered "historic artifacts" and cannot and will not be removed. In other words, they are part of the history and they stay. So, why is a similar argument not allowed here? If people are offended by it's religious association, can they not look at it as a historic marker? I don't like seeing some of the "graffiti" and other litter in the caves but looking at them as historic makes them more tolerable.
Again - no big deal either way for me how this goes down. However - in this case Frank Buono is not necessarily being offended by *other* religions. He is a practicing Catholic himself; some articles on him describe him as a rather devout Catholic. His argument has been that there is a sole religious marker at the site and that the NPS had denied requests to install markers representing other religions before the transfer. In many ways the question is about equal opportunity. When the government provides chaplains, they must do so for different religions. In the US military there are Jewish and now even Islamic chaplains.