ACLU vs. Veterans
Somewhere in a desolate part of the Mojave Desert, on a craggy hill is a war memorial, a single, simple cross, the existence of which somehow threatens the rights of people who didn’t even know it was there until the American Civil Liberties Union filed a law suit to have it removed. The Washington Times recounts a bit of the memorial’s history;
The cross was first erected in 1934 in what is now the federally protected Mojave Desert Preserve by a group of veterans whose doctors advised them that the desert heat would help them recover from shell shock.
The ACLU explains why this memorial is so offensive to the hundreds of millions of Americans who have never seen it;
“People of every faith have fought and died for this country,” says Peter Eliasberg, counsel for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California. “Yet we will have veterans divided about the idea of how you reflect the sacrifice of American veterans.”
“For us to choose the principal symbol of one religion that says Jesus is the Son of God and He is divine and say that is an appropriate way to reflect the sacrifice of people who don’t believe that … is excluding by its very nature,” Mr. Eliasberg said.
“What we would like done, it is appropriate to have a war memorial and to choose a symbol that reflects everyone, and not a symbol that divides veterans by their faith,” Mr. Eliasberg said.
Yeah, the ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of a former National Parks Service employee who was offended by the cross all the way up in Oregon – he’s not even a veteran, so how does he know what divides veterans?
Some Veterans Service Organizations held a press conference at the National Press Club and expressed their displeasure;
Veterans today say this war memorial and others like it across the country that use religious symbols are under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
“They are not the enemy; they are just dead wrong,” says Joe Davis, spokesman for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW).
It is our opinion this case is not about a single cross,” said Jim Sims, senior vice president of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. “It’s about thousands of veteran memorials and monuments around the country. This is about the issue of honoring veterans.”
“If the plaintiff is so offended that he might possibly come across this cross someday, will the plaintiff be offended when he drives by Arlington Cemetery?” Mr. Sims asked.
Someone you might know was quoted in PR Newswire;
The American Legion is also concerned about the fate of the memorial. “If you don’t think this is not the first domino in a series, you’re not paying attention,” said Mark Seavey, Assistant National Legislative Director for The Legion. “The cross is emblematic of sacrifice, not religion.”
Personally, I’m offended that the memorial looks like it does in the picture at the top of this post – what could be more offensive than a nasty-looking plywood box constructed to block a memorial from view as if we’re ashamed of the sacrifice veterans make for this country?
This is just more grievance theater from the Left – manufactured outrage to employ lawyers and attack the last two groups of Americans who are acceptable targets of bias – Christians and veterans. I suppose that veterans are expected to fight for the rights of the ACLU lawyers, but they are not allowed to take part in those rights.
Category: Politics
No, plywood with cockeyed wood screws is a very fitting tribute to veterans. Recognition of the shoddy conditions and lack of resources every branch has to deal with.
Well I think that the best representation of those fallen is the solder’s cross. The one with the boots and the upright rifle. I know that the majority of Veterans are of the Christian faith but saying that the Cross is a sign of universal sacrifice is a bit of a stretch. If that was the case then for example all of the graves that are in Normandy and such would be crosses. But several have the Star of David to reflect that persons beliefs.
For me I am a atheist and believe that I signed up to defend and serve our country. Am I offended by this? No, but I would like a footnote that background of the commons soldier is varied with the unified belief that this Country is worth all to keep alive.
Sporkmaster,
With your garbled grammar, I’m not sure what your message is and would like to verify. You do or you do not think this country is worth all to keep alive? Just checking.
Also, with the problem of someone using other people’s screen names, could you please verify if you are or are not the one who’s been posting to my blog? (I’m guessing by the writing style that it is, but wanted to make sure.)
I do. I know my writing can get it the way sometime. Yep I am the one and the same.
Sporkmaster….
When someone dies on a highway, they put up a cross. Because the person was Christian, or died? When we lose pets, we generally put up a cross, because the animal was Christian, or because that is what we do? The unknown graves in Normandy are under crosses. Because all the unknowns were christians? The WWI memorial cross in Arlington, should be torn down?
I actually commented during my statement that I agreed with the boots and rifle thing, but that the cross during WWI was simply the same manifestation of that. That is was a focal point, not a sign of a religion.
Just a thought, but wondering what people think of this:
The obelisk symbolized the sun god Amon Re, and during the brief religious reformation of Akhenaten was said to be a petrified ray of the Aten, the sundisk. It was also thought that the god existed within the structure.
As such is the case, can I assume that those supporting the removal of the Cross in the middle of the desert will also help me remove the Washington Monument? The Mohave cross was originally erected by a atheist to memorialize his fallen comrades, yet it is religious by virtue of the symbolism alone. Therefore, regardless of the reason for erecting the so called Washington Monument, it seems clear that this pallic erection in downtown DC is instead meant to turn me into a Ra worshipper.
Well to me the assumption that cross implies a belief in the Christian faith. As far as the tomb of the unknowns and cemeteries it implies a Christian faith. I am not asking them to remove them just should be noted that a Christian faith is not a prerequisite to believe that this nation is worth fighting for. I have been allowed to put atheist on my dog tags and would think that one could request one’s personal religious views or lack there off on their headstone if it was known before hand.
I have not read that about ww1 but as in the saving private Ryan movie shows that there where more then just crosses and that for cemeteries that have yet to be built that a person can request changes accordingly.
You make a point with the obelisk and its past religious references, but reason what this get attention is that there are certain programs that try to push religion while pretending to be something else. The main one is the attempt to use the idea of intelligent design as science when it relies religious beliefs as it’s only support. I would say that the reason that the issues over accused sun god worship is not being looked into is that there is no lobby trying to push that religious view back into modern society. No one is claiming that a lack of belief in this religion is a leading cause of moral decay that we face today. Also no one has interrupted the prayer before a session of congress when it was lead by a religious leader from a different religion. By itself would not have been a issue but because of everything else that has happened is the reason why it is being brought up at all.
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/07/12/832867-hindu-prayer-in-senate-disrupted
“The WWI memorial cross in Arlington, should be torn down?” And the chaplains will have to remove the Cross and Star of David? Because, you know, they’re federal employees.
The ACLU needs to add Anti to the front of their name. That sums them up real well.
The ACLU has been a thorn in the side of true Americans for a long time. They do not care about the “majority rules” part of Americana, they just care if some poor soul, who most likely they pay for, says that something offends them. Like the memorial cross in San Diego or this little cross that most no one has ever seen or knows exists. The comment saying “anti” should be added to their name is appropriate. Because they are the Antiamerican (un)civil liberties (e)unichs.
Great post.
But on the other side just because one side has a majority does not mean that the action is by default justified.
C’mon, is anyone really surprised? This is the same organization which pisses and moans about the cross (barely visible) in the LA City emblem, and the city, dutiful idiots they are, spent millions removing it from everything. Amazing how they want to remove any mention of religion from there, but what about Santa Fe, or the Sangre de Christo Mountains, etc., etc?
Well, Jonn, we can’t forget that the ACLU was founded by a draft dodger and proud communist.
The ACLU is hard to read in that they pick and choose which fights they will take and which ones they won’t, based on which part of the Bill of Rights is being threatened on that particular day. There is no pattern to follow with them. Their overall trend is to the left, however I have seen them stand up for a conservative, or two, before.
In a nutshell, they aren’t very consistant.
re: “whose doctors advised them that the desert heat would help them recover from shell shock.”
ott, but my grandfather allegedly was assigned to sing in military hospitals during WWI to help calm shell shock victims. I never knew how to confirm or deny this story & always wondered how he managed to swing such an assignment.
[…] Photo courtesy of http://valorguardians.com/blog/?p=10878 […]
We who live in Boise went through the same thing with a Cross on a Hill overlooking the city & a display of the Ten Commandments. I was taught to respect all faiths & opinions.
If my neighbor puts up a Star of David or a Cresent Moon on their lawn, no problem here There are a lot more pressing problems we need to work on in this great country of ours. Let that cross alone, Those WW1 Vets put that up to respect fallen brothers in arms that they knew and cared for. and because the WW1 vet’s are almost all gone now , we a generation who have served after them ,should always support what they hvae left behid for us, a legacy of freedom and peace.
Yeah, I think “the cross is a universal symbol of sacrifice” is a bit of a stretch there, bucko. I mean, I don’t want to go around tearing down memorials. I would suggest that /future/ memorials to large groups of soldiers not include any one religion’s symbolism, but don’t think we need to have a retroactive hissy fit.
this is ashame. the monument serves as a memorial for those who have died for our rights. If it wasn’t for the people that are supposed to be honored by this monument you bosos at ACLU would not have the right to free speech without veterans. Honor those who have sacrificed for the betterment of our country.
I’m not sure why you think that a remote location, or that the lawyers involved aren’t veterans, has anything to do with this case at all. Obviously our civil liberties extend to all citizens, not just veterans. If a war memorial was constructed with a pentagram or Islamic crescent, would it matter to you if it was in the desert?
In case you hadn’t noticed, separation of church and state has become a serious issue in our country. Christianity is being taught in public schools, stem-cell research was blocked on religious grounds, we even had serious presidential candidates who wanted to put the Ten Commandments into the Constitution. We’ve got to put a stop to this somewhere, and this as a good a place as anywhere.
I just finished doing the most basic online research and found that this has been an issue since 2000, when a Republican congress made it law that the cross be protected.
The story that this is “manufactured grievance theater from the Left” is simply false. A guy wanted to build a Buddhist stupa and was denied. The religious Right escalated this by passing laws, in clear constitutional violation, to protect the cross. The only place left was the supreme court.
It never ceases to amaze me how some christians think they are somehow persecuted in this country. It’s self-pitying nonsense.
Mejdrich;
First, I think you need to add “The Amazing” to your screen name since you think you know what’s in my mind.
Second, since the plaintiff in this case has claimed that he’s offended by the sight of this cross in the middle of the desert, I think the chances that he might actually see the cross limits the potential for him to be offended by the sight of it. So the remoteness of the location seems important here.
Trust me, the Christians won’t come in the middle of the night and baptize you while you’re sleeping. I doubt they’re even interested in your worthless soul.
My name is Czech.
The plaintiff is Roman Catholic and has a similar cross in his own home. What he actually says is that the government (his tax dollars) shouldn’t be sponsoring religion, which it shouldn’t.
Thanks for the comment about my soul. It helps me put into context the rest of your comment. 🙂
And, how is the government “sponsoring religion”? Hmmm, bucky? The government spent no money on that cross, until un-ACLU decided to make this an issue. The government went so far as to try to deed the 5 or so acres the cross stands on to a private entity, in exchange for a like amount of land, to avoid the entire song and dance that the un-ACLU insisted upon. The un-ACLU went to court to obtain an injunction to stop the transfer. So, they could force the dismantling of the cross, which will inevitably lead said plaintiff to be offended by crosses in cemeteries, memorial crosses anywhere and chaplains with crosses on their uniforms.
@UpNorth,
It’s government owned land maintained by government paid federal employees, like the former park ranger that filed the suit. The court is currently trying to decide whether a deal cut to give the 1 acre the cross is on to the local chapter of the vets would get around the establishment clause, because the land would return to the Federal Preserve if they stop maintaining the cross.
If you read up on the case, you’ll see that the park was planning on taking the cross down 9 years ago, until the Republican led congress passed four pieces of legislation (2000-2003) trying to protect the cross.
It’s also worth noting that, while there was a plaque back in ’34, there is no long any indication that the cross is in honor of veterans. It was denied status as a historical site because of it’s religious nature, as there are regular Easter church services at the cross.
@UpNorth
Again, the plaintiff didn’t say he was offended. He’s Roman Catholic. He doesn’t want his own religion is his government, as the Constitution guarantees.
Could you indicate which line in the Constitution “guarantees” separation of church and state? I think our interpretations of the Constitution differ slightly.
im a law student at a junior high school, i think that the veterans have a right to build that cross and let it remain there, they paid for it. this is a case being held up to the US supreme Court. what a stupidity. the fact that they have built a box covering the cross is disrespect towards catholics and christians! they have made a huge deal put of a rarely seen cross that lies randomly in a remote place inside a hude preserve. this cross is only 8 feet. buono(the worker who complained about the cross) muust have no life to decide to sue VETERANS of WW1, for commemorating the people who gavce their lifes for us, and for our freedom!
What about all the atheists and non-believers, or believers of other faiths who have served in our military. I am a veteran and an atheist and I drive past this cross on a regular basis. Vets should be paid tribute to, but not with a obviously religious symbol. No religious symbols on public lands–period. One more step in dismantling the 1st Amendment. Jefferson, Franklin and Adams are turning in their graves about this. The only thing that protects our freedom and rights in this country is to keep a separation of church and state, without that we may as well go back to the dark ages, The Inquisition, Salem Witch burnings, The Crusades just to name a few. How many people have died in the name of God and Religion too many to count and we are still fighting over these stupid fairytales…..