A memorial to World War I veterans that was erected on federal land in the Mojave Desert 75 years ago is in danger of being removed. The memorial, a large cross, may be a violation of the First Amendment. As a staunch opponent of any form of government support or intervention in religion, I urge Congress and the Supreme Court to find a solution that protects this monument and all existing monuments erected to memorialize America’s war veterans.
In 2000, Presidential candidate Al Gore nominated Senator Joe Lieberman, a Jew, as his running mate. A short time later I saw a Southern Baptist minister tell an Atlanta television audience that while he disagreed with Lieberman’s politics, he respected Lieberman for his devotion to his faith. He said that Lieberman would be welcome to speak to his church at any time.
Americans have come a long way in accepting religious freedoms. I find friends, neighbors, and colleagues far more accommodating of my beliefs, and the beliefs of others, than I did years ago. In some sense, I think this is actually due to an increase religious belief around the country. I believe that people who are comfortable with their faith are not afraid of the faiths of others.
Still, we have some work to do in this country. Just as there are people in this country that outwardly oppose any beliefs other than strict adherence to their religious viewpoint, there are those that go to extremes to remove any religious sentiment from anything that is in any way public. These are the people that want to remove “In God We Trust,” from our coinage and take, “Under God,” out of the Pledge of Allegiance.
I oppose just about any government involvement in religion. I think it’s bad for religion and bad for freedom of religion. I believe that as individuals, and as a society, our religious beliefs are so deeply embedded into our way of thinking that we fail to comprehend that we are imposing our views or insulting someone else through our actions. Often, the imposition or insult is unintended. Still, it is an imposition and an insult.
According to NPR, the Supreme Court justices appear divided over the legality of a seven foot cross that serves as a World War I memorial erected on federal land in the Mojave Desert. The Veterans of Foreign Wars originally erected the cross in 1934, without permission of the government. In 1999, a Buddhist asked the National Park Service for permission to build a Buddhist Shrine near the cross. That request was refused and led to an ACLU suit to remove the cross. The ACLU claims the cross violates the First Amendment. The cross is now hidden inside a plywood box.
The lawsuit has caused people to say some things that to me sound just plain wrong. According to NPR, advocates claim the cross is not a religious symbol. “For many, many years, we have used the symbol of a Latin cross to memorialize fallen veterans,” says Ted Cruz, who represents the Veterans of Foreign Wars and the American Legion.
I disagree. A cross is a Christian symbol and it seems to me that claiming otherwise is an insult to those that hold the cross dear. Further, because the cross is a religious symbol it can not memorialize Jewish or Moslem vets, though I believe Cruz is sincere in his belief that it does honor everyone.
The Wall Street Journal points out this case “could presage the destruction of thousands of similar memorials nationwide.” Crosses and stars are found in cemeteries and on memorials throughout the nation. “War memorials embody the very best traditions of our nation,” the Journal adds.
I oppose just about any government involvement in religion. I also oppose removing religious symbols from the memorials to our fallen soldiers. There has to be a better way. Maybe Congress can declare the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial a national historic site; the place is almost 100 years old. Perhaps the memorial is entitled to squatters rights. Perhaps the veterans can erect symbols to honor the WWI veterans of other faiths. Perhaps the Supreme Court could find that removing existing religious symbols constitutes prohibiting the free expression thereof. Without proof that the veterans who built the monument 75 years ago deliberately excluded or attempted to insult non-Christians, I want to see the monument stay.
This is important. Congress and the Court need to refuse to accept simply removing the cross. They need to find a solution.
—–
Thanks to reader Bill for the tip
{ 4 comments }
As if we didn’t have enough on our plate as it is. This country was created as a Christian nation. Therefore, Christianity trumps other religions in this country just as Judaism does in Israel and Islam does in Iran. And I say this as someone who questions religion in general.
Your historic site idea is a good one as is your point on squatters rights.
Out of respect for the dead (and their loved ones) we should leave existing grave markers alone. However, your argument is based on the typical confusion between statements by individuals in public and statements-by-the-government. The First Amendment to the US Constitution requires that individual expression of religious faith out in public must be defended, but at the same time congressional expressions establishing a preference for one religion over another must be silenced. The congressional act which stuck “under God” in the pledge is an example. In that phrase “God” with its capital G is a proper noun, the name of the judeo-christian Almighty. Congress did not insert the phrase “one nation founded with a historical belief in the judeo-christian deity”. No, Congress said we are a nation under that deity, i.e., under God (capital G). This places American citizens who are Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans, Pantheists, Wiccans, Taoists, Sangriists, etc on the outside. They can either mumble the pledge or be accused of lack of patriotism. This is a violation of their constitutional rights BY CONGRESS since it was congress that established the preference for judeo-christian monotheism in the pledge. The Supreme court of course says the phrase is permissible as a theologically empty expression of “ceremonial deism” which is nothing more than well, window dressing with a nod to history. Thus the court concludes that the phrase under God (with its capital G) takes the Lords name in vain, which is a sin. Meanwhile, many Christians defend that phrase in the pledge by citing the court’s ruling while privately thinking that the pledge is NOT a theologically empty statement. These folks are bearing false witness, which is also a sin. The phrase is unconstitutional as either civil strife or a braver court will someday conclude.
In sum, existing graves should be left alone, I agree.
But there is a grave difference between individuals expressing their religion in public and government establishing a preference for one religion over another. If we don’t understand that, then the next cross we erect will be over the tomb of the First Amendment, and the rest of our Republic will soon join it in the hereafter.
Steve:
You state: “This places American citizens who are Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, Pagans, Pantheists, Wiccans, Taoists, Sangriists, etc on the outside.”
I am not a religious person, however I do believe in God, a higher power. While anyone is free to practice any religion here, our nation was founded as a Christian nation and should not be required to bow to the practices that other religions Americans follow.
All religions think they have the answer. In the end, it will not matter what religion you practice.
Your site theme looks cool. What template did you use ?
Comments on this entry are closed.