The Sunrise Rock Cross and the First Amendment
The Mojave National Preserve covers 1.6 million acres in Southern California and is managed by the National Park Service (NPS). In 1934 the local chapter of the Veterans of Foreign Wars erected a cross at Sunrise Rock in the Mojave to honor Americans who died in combat in World War 1. The cross was replaced several times over the years as the harsh desert weather took its toll with
the last one built eleven years ago. It stands about 5 feet tall and is constructed of 4 inch pipe painted white. At present it is enclosed in a makeshift plywood box while the Supreme Court determines whether its presence on federal land is a violation of the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion.
That seems like a simple story but there are significant implications for this case and it should be watched very closely. I’ll say from the outset that I would like to see the cross remain in place. Congress declared it a national monument (akin to the Lincoln Memorial!) and its long history argues for protection. But there are significant issues that need to be addressed by the Court to keep the decision from establishing dangerous precedent.
The case, Salazar v. Buono, was brought by Frank Buono a retired NPS employee and a Roman Catholic. Buono objected to the park service’s refusal to allow other religious symbols at Sunrise Rock. On review, the park service agreed with him and ordered the cross removed. Congress intervened and designated the cross a national memorial. The case continued, however, and Congress proposed to transfer the land around the cross to the VFW thereby removing it from public domain and avoiding the constitutional question of establishment. They would create a 1-acre doughnut hole in the middle of a 1.6 million acre desert preserve and post signs around it essentially saying “this land is owned by the VFW so please don’t mistake the cross as an expression of a national religious preference.” The idea is more than a little absurd, don’t you think? But the alternatives may be even worse. The VFW will be required to keep a memorial on the property (not necessarily the cross) otherwise it will revert to the federal government. Hmmmmm….dicey. Whose land is it anyway?
There are two major issues for the Court to address: 1) does Frank Buono have “standing” to bring the case, and 2) can Congress get around the constitutional issue by the transfer of property to the VFW.
“Standing” means the plaintiff must demonstrate direct involvement with and personal harm from the situation being challenged. In this case, Buono must prove he has been personally harmed by the presence of the cross on public property or the Court can rule he does not have “standing” and dismiss the case on technical grounds. An abstract, general objection will not do. I suppose the suit would be more convincing if Buono was Jewish or Muslim. Nevertheless, if the Court determines that Buono has no standing, and then fails to articulate acceptable conditions of “standing,” then it opens all public property to the whims of state and local government. If a concerned, offended citizen cannot challenge the placement of religious symbols on public property then nobody can and it will become open season for new religious displays in public squares across the country….bad idea!
Assuming Buono is found to have standing the Court will then have to decide whether the “fix” created by Congress, transferring the property to the VFW, is valid. I can’t see how that logic can stand. The transfer is clearly a sham. The restrictions on VFW use and the location within a vast desert preserve negate any alternatives and the NPS will continue to maintain the site as they do all national memorials. If they deny the transfer then they will have to decide whether the cross is a religious symbol or a memorial. Sadly, and amazingly, this cross is the only national memorial commemorating soldiers who served and died in WW1. (That is a national embarrassment that demands fixing). But a cross is a cross and the specific religious implication is difficult to ignore.
Personally I hope the Court will recognize Buono’s standing and then issue a narrow ruling denying the transfer of property to the VFW but recognizing the cross as a national memorial outside the purview of First Amendment establishment clause objections. The alternative, supporting the lower court rulings against the transfer, opens the door to the removal of numerous religious displays on federal grounds across the country including the Argonne Cross at Arlington National Cemetery. Let’s hope it doesn’t come to such a distasteful conclusion.
Larry, I hope this story as a good outcome and that the vets retain their cross. This is a simple issue and I just hate it when the courts and others get down in the grass on such a basic issue. When ones get involved in the many details of such a case one loses sight of what really important. Many people and most judges like to wade into the murky waters of platitudes and half-truths. I have little use for this gray world, a world with no right or wrong, a world with no good or evil, a world for me that just doesn’t exist and one that I’ll never be a part of.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..The MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator)
Sorry Mike, I thought Larry wrote the above post. Didn’t notice until after I posted comment.
Ron Russell´s last blog ..The MOP (Massive Ordnance Penetrator)
Good article, Mike. I hope the Supreme Court can see it’s way to allowing the cross to remain as a memorial to those who died in WWI. I do have one question for you.
It seems that you believe placing any kind of religious symbol on public property, such as a public square or other property owned by a town or city would be a bad idea. I was wondering if I have misunderstood your meaning or if that is what you believe? Personally, I do not see how allowing such symbols on public property constitutes the favoring or establishment of a particular religion. Many towns in our area have decorations up around Christmas time and most of of them are on public property. These decorations consist of crosses, manger scenes, and the like. It would be a shame to see some concerned and/or offended citizen object and have them all removed.
The article says in the second paragraph from the bottom that the cross is the only national memorial for WWI vets. I believe that the Liberty Memorial in Kansas City, MO is there for WWI.
I would like to see the court say that crosses can be put anywhere anyplace on public or private land.
We do not need the federals to say what people can or can not do.
Warren
Thanks for stopping by and taking time to comment on Political Realities, Warren. I did a quick Google search and you are right about the Liberty Memorial. It is for WWI also. Mike may want to update the post to clarify.
As I said in my earlier comment, I do not see how displaying a cross or other such symbol constitutes the favoring or establishment of one particular religion. It remains to be seen if the Supreme Court will agree.
Thanks for your comment Warren. I checked on Liberty Memorial and found that in fact there is a National World War 1 Museum at Liberty Memorial (I didn’t know that — it looks fantastic!) but Liberty Memorial itself is not one of the 46 designated national memorials in our country.
I’m sorry to take exception to your comment about the federals not telling us what we can or cannot do but the First Amendment has served our country pretty well these 220 years and I’m content to accept its interpretation by the Supreme Court.
Fair question and it requires two answers. First, I absolutely have no objection at all to holiday decorations in public squares as long as all religions are treated fairly — and here’s where we will inevitably run into problems. So by all means put up a Christmas tree and allow the Jews to put up a menorah. But now come Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc. It’s a problem that will have to be dealth with and the answer is beyond me.
Second, I would like to see all memorials of a certain age grandfathered in so cases like the Sunrise Rock Cross and the Argonne Cross can be put to rest. Let’s say any memorial more than 50 years old cannot be challenged on First Amendment grounds. The issue I raised in the post was that if nobody has standing to challenge the placement of a cross in a public square then what is to prevent every locality in a country dominated by Christians from doing so, and is not that effectively establishing a national religion? I am not actually worried about this happening because it is so clearly unconstitutional but it’s the logical result if Buono is found not to have standing and the Court doesn’t clarify what would be required for him to have standing. As I said, if he was Jewish or Muslim if would be an easier call to give him standing but he’s not personally offended by the cross. I neglected to add in my post that the case reallt got its start when a Muslim group asked to put up a memorial in the Mojave and they were denied by the NPS!
I have been very interested in what the outcome of this story will be. I just don’t understand how honoring people who died for this country can be considered an attempt by the government to establish a religion.
Mr Pink Eyes´s last blog ..Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner’s aides made millions on Wall Street
Our nation can honor the dead and the living without a cross. Its presence on federal land may be a violation of the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion, i s’pose it depends on who you ask.
The slightly more conservative court will likely side with the christian dominionists, throwing them a bone, making them think this is a “Christian” nation. But for the vets, the greatest honor we can bestow upon them is to not commit their great-great grandchildren to needless wars, and to take care of the survivors of all our wars.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..http://davidwwalters.stumbleupon.com/review/36858503/
David,
Please explain to me how honoring the dead with a cross on federal land could constitute an establishment of a religion. It is a simple wooden cross with no words on it. No one is suggesting anyone else attend a particular church or anything like that. This cross has been in place for decades, as Mike points out in the article. If it was an attempt to establish a religion, do you not think it would have taken affect by now?
To be honest, I do not understand your use of the term “Christian dominionists”. No Christian that I know of is trying to establish dominion over America. To suggest the Supreme Court would be throwing Christians a bone if they rule in the Mojave Cross’ behalf is more than just a little absurd.
I agree that our vets need to be taken care of and that we have done a poor job of it. Hopefully, we can do better in the future.
“…….If it was an attempt to establish a religion, do you not think it would have taken affect by now?-”LDJackson
It seems to me that Christianity is kinda taken for granted in many areas, particularly in the south. An unspoken establishment of Christianity that is nearly universal (….except for a few Jews) seems to be the norm. Not a particular church,mind you, just some form of christian church. There is a real need for some to identify with one or the other of these denominations. For others who eschew religion, this constant public reaffirmation that many Christians feel compelled to project in other peoples names, can feel intrusive. So, in this sense, christianity has “taken effect”.
Christian reconstruction, or christian dominionists take their cues from Rousas John Rushdoony. Most christians probably don’t know much of him, but i bet their preacher knows of him. It isn’t all that absurd to see how large a part of the republican party is controlled by fundamentalist christian political action committees….and with every election that is marked by a republican success, to be sure, a bit of quid pro quo is expected.
David W. Walters´s last blog ..http://davidwwalters.stumbleupon.com/review/36858503/
Mike,
Your idea about grandfathering in memorials of a certain age might be a good solution. I’d like it better if we had no independently established memorials in our national parks, as we wouldn’t have to be going through this at all.
As far as the cross as the symbol…It has stood for decades and isn’t necessarily an attemppt to establish a religion. But it definitely is assumptive, and I’m not sure it’s very respectful to the estimated 250,000 Jewish soldiers who fought for America in World War 1. WW1 was a one for which many foreign soldiers were recruited, militarily assimilated and trained by our country, but never was the ethnicity or religious preference trod upon. I think that’s a tradition that deserves a more universal symbol. Perhaps, if the memorial continues to stand, different statuary could be erected.
I would tend to agree with David on his point about Christian dominionists, and it speaks directly to what, exactly, the First Amendment represents. As soon as Christian groups agree that all religions have the right to represent their faiths on public land, I’ll retract. But something tells me that we won’t soon have groups fighting for the right of Muslims to erect statues of Mohammed in our public squares, even in the areas of the country in which Islam is the predominant faith.
Thanks for all your comments. The very difficulty of the question is why I am hoping the Court will come out with a narrow decision specific to the Sunrise Rock Cross. I look at the time and place and consider that the VFW in 1934 probably had great difficulty in finding two nickels to rub together not to mention affording money for a memorial. But they wanted to honor their fallen comrades and a cross was an inexpensive way to do so. Would that work today to honor soldiers who’ve fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan? Absolutely not. But history is relevant to this story and I accept, without hesitation, that this cross has no religious implications and is not disrespectful to any non-Christians it intends to honor.