Supreme Court overturns objection to war memorial cross on public land

[Berkut]

Leave the WWI veterans alone. Fucking political correctness.

It actually is no longer used by WW1 veterans, and hasn't for a long time. The original cross and inscription are long gone. Now it is used for Sunday services, and is just a big ass cross sitting on public private land.

Of course, if you ask the park service if you can put up a giant Star of David on their private land the Federal government may have once owned , the answer will be "no" "of course."

Fixed.  The original idea (that the cross should be allowed on federal land) isn't supported by anyone involved in this any more, so that is a total red herring.

No fix necessary, since in fact plenty of people claim - even in this very thread - that they should just allow the cross on public land to begin with.

I would even agree with them - if in fact it is ok to just make this meaningless sale for strictly religious expression reasons, then they should just allow religious symbols on public land to begin with.

[Berkut]

The principle of not having religious symbols on federal property is a sound one, if you hate Christianity. But I suspect the idea was to prevent overt displays of Christianity on public buildings. Bitching about a cross in a desert just makes you come across like a huge dick.

Of course, it is a pretty meaningless issue. Who really cares?

But someone is going to be that huge dick - in this case, somsone else asked the park service if they could put a similar buddhist symbol up, and of course the Park Service said no, which is what drove the entire thing.

The NPS, knowing that this made no sense, decided to take down the giant cross. But then of course the Christians who hold services there got all up in arms, and since there are precious few Buddhists in Congress, they passed a law as part of an appropriations bill protecting the cross.

No similar law allowing the giant Buddhist shrine has been forthcoming.

And hence the entire reason the Feds should stay out of the religion business entirely. If you want to put up a non-religious memorial to WW1 vets, knock yourself out. If you want to put up a religious symbol on public property, that should not be allowed, because inevitably some OTHER religious person is going to want one as well.

[Berkut]

IMO, the problem with the swap is that it is a blatant attempt to simply get around the Constitutional issue. If you cannot put sectarian symbols up on public lands, and there is some good reason for this, simply waving a wand and calling the land no longer public while changing absolutely nothing else means there probably should not be such a restriction to begin with, and you should just allow religious symbols on public land to begin with.

Wow, this is slippery-slopism at its worst!

Your conclusion does not follow from your premise at all.  What can be done on Federal property and what can be done on private property are different things, as Federal powers are limited to those articulated, while private powers are unlimited except where exceptions are articulated

...and the government giving or selling land for the express and only purpose of avoiding the Establishment Clause, is violating it anyway.

My conclusion certainly does follow from my premise. If in fact there is some good reason to not allow giant crosses on public property, giving away public property for the purpose of putting giant crosses on it is the same thing.

Your hypothesized trillion dollar sale, would, presumably, at least be for the purpose of generating a trillion dollars. That is not the case here - the only purpose for the "land swap" is to allow someone to place a religious symbol where a court had already said one was not allowed.

[grumbler]

Nope. Of course, in this case, the price was basically zero dollars. But the price isn't really the point, except that it illustrates that the reason for the swap was not any desire by the government to make some money - simply a means to avoid a Court ruling they did not like, praise Jesus.

I presume you have evidence that the government official (whom you don't name, but need to) who decided to make the swap was motivated by religious impulses... otherwise, this is mere blackguarding.

No, the government cannot sell land if the purpose of the sale is to allow the land to be used for something that has already been determined to be unconstitutional for the state to do itself.

Sorry, I need proof that the US government must ensure that land it sells can only be used for purposes consistent with the federal government's powers under the Constitution.  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 does not contain this limitation (quite the reverse, it says that "a tract of the public lands... may be sold under this Act where... disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development...").  Good luck finding any legal basis for your assertion.

[Slargos]

Of course, it is a pretty meaningless issue. Who really cares?

But someone is going to be that huge dick - in this case, somsone else asked the park service if they could put a similar buddhist symbol up, and of course the Park Service said no, which is what drove the entire thing.

The NPS, knowing that this made no sense, decided to take down the giant cross. But then of course the Christians who hold services there got all up in arms, and since there are precious few Buddhists in Congress, they passed a law as part of an appropriations bill protecting the cross.

No similar law allowing the giant Buddhist shrine has been forthcoming.

And hence the entire reason the Feds should stay out of the religion business entirely. If you want to put up a non-religious memorial to WW1 vets, knock yourself out. If you want to put up a religious symbol on public property, that should not be allowed, because inevitably some OTHER religious person is going to want one as well.

I suspect the request to put up a Buddhist symbol was simply made by another huge dick to make a point.

In this case, with a 75 year old memorial site, there's two ways to go about the problem. Either you do what's already been done, or you can make a huge stink about it because you can.

Assholes are always going to pick alternative #2 because, well, they are assholes.

Do you really want to be an asshole?

[Barrister]

I al always pleased when Berkut (or Martinus for that matter) gets all riled up about the evils of religion.   

[Berkut]

I al always pleased when Berkut (or Martinus for that matter) gets all riled up about the evils of religion.  

This thread has nothing to do with the evils of religion though.

[Berkut]

Of course, it is a pretty meaningless issue. Who really cares?

But someone is going to be that huge dick - in this case, somsone else asked the park service if they could put a similar buddhist symbol up, and of course the Park Service said no, which is what drove the entire thing.

The NPS, knowing that this made no sense, decided to take down the giant cross. But then of course the Christians who hold services there got all up in arms, and since there are precious few Buddhists in Congress, they passed a law as part of an appropriations bill protecting the cross.

No similar law allowing the giant Buddhist shrine has been forthcoming.

And hence the entire reason the Feds should stay out of the religion business entirely. If you want to put up a non-religious memorial to WW1 vets, knock yourself out. If you want to put up a religious symbol on public property, that should not be allowed, because inevitably some OTHER religious person is going to want one as well.

I suspect the request to put up a Buddhist symbol was simply made by another huge dick to make a point.

Probably, but so what? I suspect that the reason people want giant crosses out in the middle of public land is to "make a point" as well.

In this case, with a 75 year old memorial site, there's two ways to go about the problem. Either you do what's already been done, or you can make a huge stink about it because you can.

But it isn't a memorial site - it is just a big giant cross out on public land. There is nothing there that makes it a memorial site at all.

Assholes are always going to pick alternative #2 because, well, they are assholes.

Do you really want to be an asshole?

I don't really care, but I do think the cross should be removed, for obvious reasons.

Plenty of private land out there to put up giant crosses on.

[Barrister]

I al always pleased when Berkut (or Martinus for that matter) gets all riled up about the evils of religion.   

This thread has nothing to do with the evils of religion though.

Oh, I strongly suspect that for you it does. 

You'll deny it of course, and there's no way to prove it, but that is nevertheless my strong suspicion.   

[Slargos]

I al always pleased when Berkut (or Martinus for that matter) gets all riled up about the evils of religion.   

This thread has nothing to do with the evils of religion though.

Indeed. Much like a ban on firearms has nothing to do with the evils of school shootings.

[grumbler]

...and the government giving or selling land for the express and only purpose of avoiding the Establishment Clause, is violating it anyway.

Mere argument by assertion.

My conclusion certainly does follow from my premise. If in fact there is some good reason to not allow giant crosses on public property, giving away public property for the purpose of putting giant crosses on it is the same thing.

This a red herring.  No one is giving away any land for any purpose, let alone "giving away public property for the purpose of putting giant crosses on it."

Your hypothesized trillion dollar sale, would, presumably, at least be for the purpose of generating a trillion dollars. That is not the case here - the only purpose for the "land swap" is to allow someone to place a religious symbol where a court had already said one was not allowed.

The purpose of the land swap is to resolve the problem created when the National Park Service allowed the vets to put up the cross originally.  The land is of equal value, so the US public does not lose anything.  The cross stays, legally, so the people who put it up and maintain it lose nothing.  It is a win-win, except for those who think that somehow crosses must be destroyed for some reason.  There isn't a constitutional issue in the land swap, as the court has found.  the issue was with the cross on public property, which is what the land swap took care of.

That seems to me to be a very reasonable position for the Court to take.  If a problem can be resolved to the satisfaction of all actual parties and without violating the constitution, why object to that resolution?

[Berkut]

Nope. Of course, in this case, the price was basically zero dollars. But the price isn't really the point, except that it illustrates that the reason for the swap was not any desire by the government to make some money - simply a means to avoid a Court ruling they did not like, praise Jesus.

I presume you have evidence that the government official (whom you don't name, but need to) who decided to make the swap was motivated by religious impulses... otherwise, this is mere blackguarding.

It was Congress, actually. The NPS decided that the cross should be removed.

And if you don't believe they were motivated by religious impulses, I can live with your lack of belief.

The fact that the "swap" had no *other* benefit beyond letting people have their giant cross on public land is plenty of evidence for me.

No, the government cannot sell land if the purpose of the sale is to allow the land to be used for something that has already been determined to be unconstitutional for the state to do itself.

Sorry, I need proof that the US government must ensure that land it sells can only be used for purposes consistent with the federal government's powers under the Constitution.  The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 does not contain this limitation (quite the reverse, it says that "a tract of the public lands... may be sold under this Act where... disposal of such tract will serve important public objectives, including but not limited to, expansion of communities and economic development...").  Good luck finding any legal basis for your assertion.

My assertion is the same as that used by the ACLU, and held up by a lower court. Presumably there is some kind of basis for it.

[Strix]

Of course not. But there is nothing inherently religious about a memorial to WW1 victims, and you don't need to put up a giant 7 foot cross that, by the way, says nothing about WW1, veterans, wars, memorials, or anything else. It is just a big cross sitting there.

So no - I don't think you can avoid Establishment issues by calling your religious symbols a "memorial".

Apparently you can, at least in this instance.

If someone wants to add a Star of David to it for Jewish veterans of WWI than I would be fine with that as well.

Nope, can't do it - National Park Service won't allow it.

It doesn't appear anyone has tried. Adding a Shrine to Buddha is a lot different than adding a Star of David for fallen soldiers.

You make a false argument that the Star of David would be rejected because if the cross is allowed than it's very unlikely a lower court would go against the Supreme Court and not allow it.

Actually, no, someone asked to place a Buddhist shrine near there, and it was not allowed, because the NPS said religious symbols on public land was a no-no. It was the NPS, btw, that also decided that this cross was not really a WW1 memorial, and should be removed.

Then Congress got involved.

It would appear to be a case of apples and oranges. Whomever argued the case in court appears to have done a terrible job of establishing the fact that the cross was not a WWI memorial but was now a place of worship. I can understand your objection if it is a place of worship but that isn't the basis for this case. Going on the premise that it is a WWI memorial explains why a Buddhist Shrine was denied.

[Berkut]

I al always pleased when Berkut (or Martinus for that matter) gets all riled up about the evils of religion.  

This thread has nothing to do with the evils of religion though.

Oh, I strongly suspect that for you it does. 

You'll deny it of course, and there's no way to prove it, but that is nevertheless my strong suspicion.  

Nice BB. I am sure you do in fact no better than I what I think about topics like this.

I do in fact feel rather strongly about the importance of NOT favoring particular religions over others. One can feel that is important without being motivated by finding religion evil.

In fact, and I know this may come as a huge surprise to you - many religious people actually think that the State should not be playing favorites with religion! I know, crazy, isn't it?

[The Larch]

Here is what the "WW1 Memorial" looks like, btw:

Pffft, amateurs, now this is an offensive cross.



Built with forced labour by POWs, to boot!

You can go back at your regular debate now.