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 land.

Of course, if you ask the park service if you can put up a giant Star of David on their land, the answer will be "no".

[Grey Fox]

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 land.

Of course, if you ask the park service if you can put up a giant Star of David on their land, the answer will be "no".

Then, I don't understand whats wrong with the swap.

[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 land.

Of course, if you ask the park service if you can put up a giant Star of David on their land, the answer will be "no".

Then, I don't understand whats wrong with the swap.

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.

Presumably, if allowing crosses on public land is a violation of the Establishment Clause, then selling land specifically for the purpose of putting up religious symbols on them is also a violation. It is a pointless distinction if in fact you can just establish government favoritism of some particular faith by means of simply swapping land for the purpose of some religious expression, but not others.

This is especially true when in fact you are swapping land to protect a religious symbol that has *already* been defined as being in violation.

Will the park service agree to land swaps for any other religious symbols people want to prop up on public land?

[Berkut]

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

[Grey Fox]

I see the point.

[garbon]

That cross is so offensive...

[derspiess]

I just can't believe that the multitudes of people who drive by there every day have to view such an egregious display of our National Religion.

[grumbler]

So you would be ok with the Federal government selling a plot of land on the Mall to some private church so they can erect some gigantic cross on it? 

For enough money (say, a trillion dollars)?  You betcha!  Wouldn't you?

I don't buy the idea that you can get around the Establishment clause simply by selling off custom fitted chunks of public land to private individuals so they can do what presumably is not Constitutional to do otherwise.

So the government cannot sell land if the land will be used for purposes (e.g. setting up a local grocery store) that the Federal government lacks the Constitutional power to do itself? I don't buy that at all.

[Strix]

Too bad for any non-Christians that feel left out. They can create their own memorials.

...which inevitably some Christian will come along and erect a giant cross on.

Perhaps I miss understand you?

So, now you are arguing that non-Christians should have a right to exclusivity when creating memorials such as this one i.e. a monument to an event that effected a variety of religions and cultures?

I am fine with the cross. 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. 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.

[grumbler]

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.

[Berkut]

So you would be ok with the Federal government selling a plot of land on the Mall to some private church so they can erect some gigantic cross on it? 

For enough money (say, a trillion dollars)?  You betcha!  Wouldn't you?

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 don't buy the idea that you can get around the Establishment clause simply by selling off custom fitted chunks of public land to private individuals so they can do what presumably is not Constitutional to do otherwise.

So the government cannot sell land if the land will be used for purposes (e.g. setting up a local grocery store) that the Federal government lacks the Constitutional power to do itself? I don't buy that at all.

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.

Otherwise, there is no practical purpose to the ruling to begin with, and they should just allow it. Having public land with a cross on it is no worse than having public land surrounding a section of "private" land that was sold so that someone could have a religious symbol on public land.

[grumbler]

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

Presumably, if allowing crosses on public land is a violation of the Establishment Clause, then selling land specifically for the purpose of putting up religious symbols on them is also a violation.

This is an assumption, not a presumption.

It is a pointless distinction if in fact you can just establish government favoritism of some particular faith by means of simply swapping land for the purpose of some religious expression, but not others.

In what cases of other religions has the federal government not offered to resolve Establishment Clause controversies by a land swap?  You cannot argue favoritism without evidence of, you know, actual favoritism.

This is especially true when in fact you are swapping land to protect a religious symbol that has *already* been defined as being in violation.

Actually, it is less true where a long-standing memorial has recently been challenged successfully, and the land swap will end the Establishment Clause controversy with no value being lost to either side.

Will the park service agree to land swaps for any other religious symbols people want to prop up on public land?

If the deal is good enough, I hope so!

[Berkut]

Too bad for any non-Christians that feel left out. They can create their own memorials.

...which inevitably some Christian will come along and erect a giant cross on.

Perhaps I miss understand you?

So, now you are arguing that non-Christians should have a right to exclusivity when creating memorials such as this one i.e. a monument to an event that effected a variety of religions and cultures?

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".

I am fine with the cross.

Of course you are. Most people are perfectly fine with it.

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.

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.

[Slargos]

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.

[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

Presumably, if allowing crosses on public land is a violation of the Establishment Clause, then selling land specifically for the purpose of putting up religious symbols on them is also a violation.

This is an assumption, not a presumption.

It is a pointless distinction if in fact you can just establish government favoritism of some particular faith by means of simply swapping land for the purpose of some religious expression, but not others.

In what cases of other religions has the federal government not offered to resolve Establishment Clause controversies by a land swap?  You cannot argue favoritism without evidence of, you know, actual favoritism.

This is especially true when in fact you are swapping land to protect a religious symbol that has *already* been defined as being in violation.

Actually, it is less true where a long-standing memorial has recently been challenged successfully, and the land swap will end the Establishment Clause controversy with no value being lost to either side.

Will the park service agree to land swaps for any other religious symbols people want to prop up on public land?

If the deal is good enough, I hope so!

Shrug. The deal in this case was not "good enough" and in fact the deal was nothing - a swap of meaningless land somewhere for an acre where the cross sits. The deal was not about "good enough" the deal was about allowing a big cross to sit in the middle of public land.

If it is ok for the government to allow the same practical thing (a big cross on public land) by simply deciding that the land is now not public, then they should just allow the cross on public land to begin with - clearly there is no practical difference, therefore there is no practical impact to the Establishment clause to begin with by parking it on public land.