The Cross Memorial

by

By now most of you are familiar with the Supreme Court case, Salazar vs. Buono, that will be argued soon concerning the cross that was erected in the 1930s by the VFW on what became Federal land in the Mojave desert to memorialize the fallen soldiers of World War I.  The usual suspects are gearing up on both sides to get rid of it, or keep it, depending on one’s point of view. In the meantime, it remains wrapped in plywood pending Supreme Court review this term.

The lower courts have ruled that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause, and have found it to be unconstitutional. The government did not appeal that, so that’s not the issue. What the government did is try to transfer the land to a private veterans organization, while retaining its National Memorial status. The issue before the Court now is whether that’s enough to protect it from unconstitutional status. There are compelling arguments on both sides.

It clearly is a Christian symbol on federal land, that promotes exclusion of non-Christian military casualties of WWI. By omission it excludes the 11% of non-Christian faiths represented in the military, along with the other 21% of atheists there. That’s 32% of the military who are impliedly told that if they die in the course of defending their country, they won’t be as appreciated as their Christian colleagues.

Of course, that’s not what the VFW intended when they erected the cross, and no one would accuse them of being so callous. In fact, it wasn’t even federal land at the time it was erected, and wasn’t transferred until 1994. Most people at the time would not have given it much thought. But that’s the overarching mentality of religion, that most people really don’t think about the consequences of such a decision, because the mentality was predominantly theist. That’s not criticism, just fact. Religion has always been a prevalent factor in majority rule, and the majority has always been religious.

But it doesn’t excuse the tendency to want to perpetuate the slight, unintentional that it was.  Saying “well, it’s been there for over 70 years, so what’s the harm in leaving it there” doesn’t cut it. Saying it’s not religious, it’s a secular memorial for fallen soldiers who happened to be Christian ignores the non- Christians, and underscores the exclusivity inherent in that excuse. And carving out a small plot of land in the middle of the Federal preserve doesn’t seem right either.

I say it goes. Anyone else?

add to del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg itreddit Stumble It!

45 thoughts on “The Cross Memorial”

  1. Put another sign up behind it, with the caption:

    “In honor of all those duped by Darwin who bravely fought in rich men’s wars, to no avail, and may they rest in their Godless graves.”

    Then, behind that one, put another one up with the caption:

    “This is for all the rest of whatever faith or belief, and maybe this will satisfy all of the fucking politically-correct ASSHOLES so that the dead truly CAN rest in peace!”

    Then, they can put THIS ONE up in honor of all the men that start wars, i.e. the super-rich, and sign my name to it!

  2. I think that the cross is more symbolic and ornamental than anything else and I don’t think that anyone was trying to make a religious statement by putting it there. Having it removed, in my mind, would do little but prove our feelings of intellectual superiority over those who have come before us. France is one of those countries who puts a lot of effort into keeping religion and government separate yet, if you go to the French National Cemetery in Douaumont, you’ll see about 15,000 crosses standing in representation of the 15,000 French soldiers who died there in WWI. I guess we know better than the French though, right? Do we honestly have nothing better to do with our lives than go on self righteous and McCarthyistic witch hunts for things like this?

  3. My guess is they’ll simply open the land up for alternative symbols, and it’ll become a crazy mess of symbols everywhere just like it is in many City Halls in December.

    Here’s a crazy question: What if the Veterans put up a big pair of tits to look at instead of a cross all those years ago? Would there be an argument over grandfathering those babies in? I’m guessing no. So if what the thing is suddenly changes your opinion, then your opinion isn’t very objective, is it?

    Nom nom nom

  4. You into child porn now, Chief?

    What, those bums at the train station wearing chastity belts, now?

    😆

  5. Replacing it with a national symbol, like an American flag, might be a nice way to include all who died and better represent what they fought and died for.

  7. I don’t have an opinion on the cross at the moment. I just wanted to say that this post stands out from the others that you’ve written over the past couple months. It’s not vitriolic, it’s not an opinion disguised as an argument, it’s not you boring us to death with your online laments and inabilities. Instead of clobbering us over the head with your view, you presented a nuanced issue, explained both sides of the argument, and asked your readers what we thought.

    Bravo SI. That’s reasoned writing, and I like it 10X better than your usual drivel.

  8. cl – It’s a blog. Remember that. It isn’t meant to be academic or contain perfect arguments or any of that. Actually, the entire blogging ordeal is meant for a person to get their opinions and thoughts on matters out to people.

    I’ve never once heard SI say that his posts contained great arguments against God. Only his thoughts and opinions on matters surrounding it meant to spark a discussion. Maybe you need to approach this in another way.

  9. Oh, damn. That last one was me. For some reason it had defaulted another name and I didn’t bother checking.

  10. Shad,

    Listen, I had an interesting and cordial conversation with you the first time around. I like your style, and you’re the type that could really help in the arguments around here, and anywhere. But..

    cl – It’s a blog. Remember that. It isn’t meant to be academic or contain perfect arguments or any of that. Actually, the entire blogging ordeal is meant for a person to get their opinions and thoughts on matters out to people.

    Correct – this is a blog – a blog where SI claims we should sustain our arguments with intelligence and reason, right?

    Besides, nobody was talking to you anyways. If my comment offended you such that you felt to address it, maybe you need to approach this in another way. There’s nothing wrong with me giving SI both a genuine compliment and some direct criticism at the same time.

    Fair?

    • Besides, nobody was talking to you anyways.

      I appreciate the rare compliment, but this is another area where I just don’t think you get the blog concept, cl.

      I frankly don’t appreciate you admonishing commenters to essentially “butt out”. This isn’t the first time. I wholly endorse the ability of anyone to say anything to anybody about anything. There are no private conversations here. If you want to have a private conversation, take it to email.

      There’s nothing wrong with me giving SI both a genuine compliment and some direct criticism at the same time.

      I agree with that, but I also agree that you should be amenable to some constructive criticism yourself, criticism that I agree with BTW.

      This is neither an academic journal or a newspaper. It is inherently a blog about opinions. Call me on the basis for my opinions, but don’t try to tell anyone that their opinions shouldn’t be given in the first place.

      Your comments are full of opinions, cl, so unless your kettle is blacker than my pot, loosen up.

  11. I appreciate the rare compliment, but this is another area where I just don’t think you get the blog concept, cl.

    I get the blog concept buddy: there isn’t any preset one. Blogs are for whatever. Some people express opinions. Others share music. Others video. Believe me, I get it.

    I frankly don’t appreciate you admonishing commenters to essentially “butt out”.

    I frankly don’t care what you appreciate and I’ll tell your commenters whatever I want, SI.

    I wholly endorse the ability of anyone to say anything to anybody about anything.

    So do I: that’s why I told Shad to butt out. I’m not here to kiss your ass or adhere to some imagined decorum, SI. If you proceeded a bit differently, things would be a bit different.

    I also agree that you should be amenable to some constructive criticism yourself, criticism that I agree with BTW.

    There was no constructive criticism given. Shad just complained on the assumption that I didn’t understand what blogging is for.

    It is inherently a blog about opinions. Call me on the basis for my opinions, but don’t try to tell anyone that their opinions shouldn’t be given in the first place.

    I’m not saying opinions shouldn’t be given – I’m saying opinions shouldn’t be proffered as cogency. Huge difference. Yes, my comments are full of opinions. No, I generally don’t use opinions to sustain arguments, and I welcome anyone to prove that wrong.

    I’m loose. Skateboarders have to be.

    • I wholly endorse the ability of anyone to say anything to anybody about anything.

      So do I: that’s why I told Shad to butt out.

      Another irony meter busted.

      Would you like me to change the name of the blog too?

  12. cl – Maybe you just missed the point. While, yes, if we get into an argument/discussion within comments then it is expected to reason them. That’s the reason he created this blog. To spark debate. But to admonish a post because it doesn’t follow strictly to the argument format (which, no blog I’ve visited to date has) is a bit ridiculous. Especially since he’s never claimed to want to write posts that are so strictly analyzed.

    What he’s asked his readers to do is to follow a basic protocol when discussing the things he writes of. Which is perfectly reasonable in my mind. But I still don’t expect any of his posts, let alone every single one of them, to be formatted into argument.

    I do, however, expect his comments to follow what he expects his readers to follow. He isn’t a 100% on that. Not one person who has commented has been.

    This is all to say: it’s a blog; it’s the internet; don’t take arguments/insults/what-have-you so seriously.

  13. Another irony meter busted.

    Apparently you didn’t get that, SI. I endorse my ability to say anything to anybody about anything. So I did.

    Would you like me to change the name of the blog too?

    I don’t care what you name your blog. I would like you to support the claim you made against Gideon, though – #4. Or not. But if not, then, well… you know. Don’t write checks your mouth can’t cash.

    Shad,

    What can I do to convince you that I understand where you’re coming from here? Seriously. Your argument ain’t rocket science. I understand that bloggers aren’t required to be cogent in every sentence. That’s not what I’m complaining about. What I’m saying is this: when somebody makes a rather vocal appeal to rationalism, I take that seriously. SI tells me I need to sustain my arguments with reason; surely the same goes for him, right?

    I do, however, expect his comments to follow what he expects his readers to follow. He isn’t a 100% on that. Not one person who has commented has been.

    Of course, and I’ve misapprehended comments at times, too – just like anyone else.

    This is all to say: it’s a blog; it’s the internet; don’t take arguments/insults/what-have-you so seriously.

    Just because I get into it with SI doesn’t mean I don’t know that. And, although I take the arguments seriously, I don’t take the insults seriously at all. They don’t hurt my feelings, they obscure a good debate. That’s why I don’t like them. They provide a cover to hide behind.

  14. I’m very surprised to hear about this development! I didn’t even know the thing existed in the first place, and somehow my life has continued on apace, the world has turned, and entropy has proceeded apace.

    Personally, it doesn’t give me a headache to look at a picture of it, and it seems a shame that so much money and irretrieveable time will be spent on this question.

    I guess, no real opinion…which is rare for me, I admit it.

  15. On second thought, put it on the agenda for later…after they clean up the mess from these idiotic wars, the care of the people who have had to endure them and fight them, seeing that there’s a livelihood for them, figuring out how to round up the American fingernail pullers and make them realize that eye-gouging is a no-no and give them a good time out, get people working at something that does more than take their time and kill their souls, end ‘trickle down’ representation at our ruler’s convenience, and figure out some way for every registered voter to deliver a head-punch or ball kick to every one of the ‘financial community’ which has given us this ‘economy’…whatever that turns out to mean or have meant.

    Put it on the back burner for now.

  16. Put it on the back burner for now.

    Right on, Sarge. Right on! [cl salutes] Much more important things that need our address, besides some stupid idol censored by plywood.

  17. I don’t know. I say let it stay, and then add an additional more inclusive monument to WWI dead alongside it.

    The house I live in was purchased from a Jewish couple. There was a mezuza affixed to the front doorway. Even though I am an atheist, I left it there because I felt it was part of the history of the house. I guess I look at the cross as being part of the history of the place. Taking it down would be like the Taliban blowing up the Buddha statues at Bamiyan because the statues offended them.

    As an aside, the mezuza is gone now, because when I had a new front door installed earlier this year, the old door frame had to be ripped out.

  19. If you go to Arlington you will see privately purchased markers ( a cousins’ is among them) which do, in fact, prominently display some christian religious symbol. Some are quite large and very much in sight.

    There are other memorials which display such things as well, they’ve been there for years.

    Would a ruling on the Arizona monument have some effect on such markers in Arlington or other gov’t cemetaries?

  20. I really have no problem myself with the cross, per se. My problem with it is not so much that it’s a cross, but that it is imposed exclusivity. I believe a Buddhist tried to put up some memorial there also, and was rebuffed. Apparently, the Christians in charge think it should only be a Christian memorial, and nothing else. That’s offensive to the 32% (if that % is accurate) in the military who are not Christian.

    Why put it on the back burner? The courts are going to deal with it anyway, no matter what else is going on in the world. The government doesn’t deal with one problem at a time. With over 300 million Americans, surely we can spare a few to deal with this admittedly minor problem, and get it resolved.

    It’s a metal cross. With the money being used to litigate the principle, they could have taken a hack saw to it, cut it down, and put up a more appropriate memorial, that could include a cross, if they wanted to. Something inclusive of all American servicemen.

    We are a melting pot. Not a bunch of insoluble groups floating in the liquid.

    • “We are a melting pot. Not a bunch of insoluble groups floating in the liquid.”

      Tell that to your buddy, Dawkins, who wants to eradicate Christianity. Anyway, I agree with Tricky Dick that we are separate, and, there never can be a true resolution had between the two ideologies. They are inexorably antithetical.

      But, aside from any ‘playful’ head-crushing 😉 that goes on in places like this, we are better off getting along… as long as we can… and, while I see no threat to your religion from that cross, you seem to, so, if a piece of plywood will soothe your nerves, fine. I can point out a lot of places where humanism seems to have the sway, but, that is a fact of life, and, Christ’s assertion that we will always be on the shit end by accepting Him as our Savior, tends to reinforce that concept in my thought.

    • “Something inclusive of all American servicemen.”

      Yes… like a FLAG maybe.

      I agree that we have bigger fish to fry as a nation, but it seems silly that the litigants can’t simply agree to a reasonable compromise that honors the dead without offending anyone.

  21. According to NPR:

    The Veterans of Foreign Wars’ Death Valley post first built the cross at Sunrise Rock in 1934 to honor Americans who died in combat in World War I. The most recent version of the cross was erected 11 years ago by a man named Henry Sandoz.

    Neither the VFW nor Sandoz ever owned the land where the cross is located — nor did they have permission to build on the land.

    But in 1999, a Buddhist asked the National Park Service for permission to erect a Buddhist shrine on federal land near the cross. The agency refused, setting in motion a series of events in the courts and Congress, culminating in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing.

    Frank Buono, a retired assistant park service superintendent, was assigned to the Mojave preserve when it first opened. He drove by the cross often, and although a veteran himself and an observant Catholic with crosses in his own home, he was troubled. When he retired, he went to the American Civil Liberties Union with his concerns.

    I guess the big decision pending is whether he had standing to bring the lawsuit, since he is himself a Christian?

    • Why would a Christian be deprived of standing? Christians can object to clear Establishment Clause violations. It’s his status as a citizen that gives him standing.

      Or was your question tongue in cheek? 8)

  22. No, I’m serious! From the same article:

    On Wednesday, Obama administration attorneys contended that Buono did not have legal standing to file the suit in the first place because he’s a Christian and was not harmed by the cross’ presence.

    Nina Totenberg went into detail about this on Morning Edition, but I can’t find the transcript for it, so here’s this from another article:

    The government appealed, contending that there is no live lawsuit here, that the man who challenged the land give-away cannot demonstrate any harm and therefore can’t get into court.

    If the government wins, it will likely make it considerably more difficult to challenge other religious displays on public property.

    • Wow. That’s just dumb. Do they still have Bush lawyers working in Justice?

      That’s basically saying that even though the offense is actually against the Constitution, and hence against all citizens, the offense must be shown to be against the religion that’s excluded?

      Yeah. Dumb.

  23. I agree that we have bigger fish to fry as a nation…

    Ignoring for a moment what I would hope would be obvious that NO Constitutional violation is too small to be worth the effort to address, in terms of looking at this as making a mountain out of a molehill, it’s more like a preemptive strike to prevent the Christians from being able to later make a mountain from this molehill. What I mean is, having this cross on government property will be used by them to get more and more of their shit on government property. It’s the issue of precedent, something I would expect a lawyer to understand, but then I would expect the issue of no constitutional violation being too small to address to be understood as well. C’est la vie.

    And frankly, a time like this is precisely the time for these people to pull this shit, because they’re hoping to exploit the “we have bigger fish to fry” belief to take pressure and attention off their actions to get them through. I’d say in times of turmoil, it’s all the more important to stand firm and vigilant, regardless of how much harder it may seem because if a bad precedent is set, it’ll be that much harder later (ie- National motto, changing the the Pledge, etc).

  24. “By omission it excludes the 11% of non-Christian faiths represented in the military, along with the other 21% of atheists there.”

    Wait…so there are atheists in foxholes?

  26. Also, the atheists are the ones actually out of the foxholes fighting whereas the Christians are burying their heads in the foxholes praying for their lives. Of course that didn’t work out so well for Tillman.

  27. Interesting developments. ildi’s contribution actually rebuts half of SI’s implication of discrimination: we learn that the VFW and Sandoz did not seek permission, but the Buddhists did. It follows then that the Buddhists weren’t discriminated against; just that the VFW and Sandoz didn’t ask. The half of SI’s implication ildi’s contribution doesn’t rebut is SI’s claim that the cross is exclusive of 32% of the soldiers. I can agree with SI there, I think.

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but the fact that the VFW and Sandoz didn’t ask for permission is legal grounds to yank the idol outta the ground. By analogy, whenever a few skateboarders get together and add some concrete to some pre-existing urban element without permission, it gets torn out. Why should the cross be any different, if no permission was granted?

    Obama’s administration attorneys seem like the real fascists here: as SI asks, why in the world should we deny a Christian the right to press an Establishment Clause case? Absurd. That right there is discrimination on behalf of religion.

    And, like Lifeguard said – why not an American flag? That would be the most foolproof and appropriate designation possible.

    SI,

    That’s basically saying that even though the offense is actually against the Constitution, and hence against all citizens, the offense must be shown to be against the religion that’s excluded?

    Yes sir, and that’s wrong.

    MouthChief,

    ..it’s more like a preemptive strike to prevent the Christians from being able to later make a mountain from this molehill.

    The ‘preemptive strike’ is exactly what’s going to make this a mountain out of a molehill. If the cross goes, the Christians will be up in arms, and you know that. It might be productive to avoid all that mess by focusing the objection on the fact that the VFW and Sandoz didn’t get permission. Nobody – Christian or otherwise – can really object to that. Property rights are among the most intuitively understood, and it’s really a no-brainer: “Oh, they didn’t ask? Yank it!”

    • Property rights are among the most intuitively understood, and it’s really a no-brainer: “Oh, they didn’t ask? Yank it!”

      Oddly enough, I agree with cl. I missed that on the stuff I read and cited. It does kind of irritate me that the Obama administration is still trying to keep the cross. It has the ability to simply agree with the plaintiff, take it down, and give everyone the opportunity to come up with something else, or better yet, leave the space untouched. It’s the Mojave desert, for Crissake. Simply exercise the right as the landowner, claim trespass, and tear it down.

      And it’s true, Chappie, you did mention the flag first, but as a memorial, I’m not sure the flag is the best thing. As an accessory to a memorial, maybe, but not as the memorial itself. Shit, the flag already flies over all federal land, one more flag doesn’t seem like an adequate memorial to fallen soldiers.

  28. If there was no permission in the first place, that puts a different turn on it.

    I have been an atheist since age five and was so during my time in bunkers, tracks, on point, and in fox holes.

    I’ve been told that Diego Garcia, while tranquil, gets very, very old very, very fast. Heat, bright sun, and the continual stink of jet fuel can wear you down. On the other hand, one can either throw himself into one’s job and/or immerse yourself in college courses. Others find the bottle to be a substitue for life.

    I know four people have been there, one of whom was an airforce weather observer. He was sent from Adak, Alaska to Diego Garcia. Couldn’t help it, none of my business or what, I asked, “What did you DO to piss off The Man”? He never has said, just shudders and vows he’ll never do anything like it again.

  29. I don’t intend to slight Lifey, but I suggested the flag idea two days ago, in the fifth comment in the thread.

    • Whoa– no slight to me, Chappy. I didn’t intend to slight YOU, and I apologize for the oversight.

      I actually read your comment two days ago, and erroneously believed I’d spontaneously “thought” of it myself when I came back to the thread yesterday and read SI’s comment.

      My bad.

  31. I agree that something in addition to a flag, a plaque or monument would be nice. A flag by itself would be pretty mundane, unless, as cl suggested, a special sort of flag were developed for this purpose. I’d just rather see something simple and inclusive instead of a collection of religious symbols. The memorial is about people’s service to their country; that’s where its focus should be.

Comments are closed.