Question for ACLU supporters

The Coffee Shop
1

There is a story (below) about the ACLU challenging a cross in the Mohave desert, a Federal Reserve. The story goes on to ask how long before the ACLU demands all of the crosses be removed from Arlington National Cemetary. My question is when that happens have they gone too far or do you support that action too?

The Mojave Desert (search) is not the kind of hard-scrapple place you’d expect to find the latest battle in the culture wars.

But that’s exactly where the ACLU is battling with locals to tear down a cross that was erected as a tribute to World War I veterans.

In 1934, a tough old prospector named J. Riley Bembry (search) put up a steel cross on Sunrise Rock at a time when the Mojave Desert truly was God’s country.

But in 1994, President Clinton declared the area around Sunrise Rock a federal reserve, and that’s when the ACLU moved in. A former park ranger named Frank Buono (search) hooked up with the ACLU, demanding that the National Park Service tear down the cross. Mr. Buono says he’s offended by seeing the cross, and since it’s now on federal property, the feds should tear it down.

2

I’m not a ACLU supporter (or detractor), but I replied to this type of question on another board. I think that article misstates the ACLU’s position and the holding of the case. I don’t think the ACLU has any problem with religious symbols on public lands as long as those public lands are open to religious symbols from all religions. I read the 9th Circuit’s opinion, and they seemed to put a lot of weight on the fact that the National Park Service would not allow any other religious symbols in the same area. The court specifically pointed to the NPS’s denial of a request to erect a Buddhist monument near the cross.

Now, I could be wrong… perhaps the ACLU wants to banish all religious symbols of any kind from any public lands. But I think they’ll have their hands full if they tackle Arlington National Cemetery.

First, you’re talking about gravestones, which are highly personal to the inividual(s) buried in the graves marked with the crosses. Sunrise Rock is a collective memorial, and thus (rightly or wrongly) less “personal” (perhaps a bad choice of words). I would certainly hope the courts would not defile the memorials of the persons buried in Arlington by making the government remove the symbols of their faith in life.

Second, I believe that Arlington has many different religious symbols associated with the many different religions of the persons buried there. So, I’m not aware that the same argument applies to Arlington as to Sunrise Rock. In other words, I’m not aware of any evidence suggesting that Arlington forbids the display of religious symbols other than Christian symbols. As long as all religions have access, the issue is different, and I think the ACLU has difficult case.

3

The Mojave Desert (search) is not the kind of hard-scrapple place you’d expect to find the latest battle in the culture wars.

(off-topic)

I think you should upgrade your choice of sources. The term is hardscrabble, not “hard-scrapple”, which refers to the mysterious breakfast meat popular in Philly. Also, putting up a strawman argument about the ACLU going after crosses in Arlington is a bit over-the-top.

4

Ken,

It is a stawman argument but it is my opinion that the ACLU has been gathering alot of momentum over the years and I simply asked “what if.” They are very powerful and have a pretty clear agenda, ensuring the separation of Church and State. Obviously I do not have a crystal ball but it is not too far fetched to see that being a fight they would take on.

As ofr the “hard scrapple” I have never heard of the mystry meat but think I will pass;)

5

Thank you for clarifying this. I am no lawyer and have not read the 9th circuits opinion but wonder if it is the NPS policy to not allow any** new** buildings or monuments? To me this would matter because they would not be discriminating against anyone (not allowing the Buddhist monument) but simply following their rules or regulations. We went through this when I was stationed in Hawaii at Schofield Barracks. There was a cross sitting high on Kole Kole pass erected in memory of those who died there during the Pearl Harbor attack. It was on Federal property (Schofield) and a local group, supported by the ACLU, fought and argued successfully to have it removed. Kolekole Pass cross
ordered dismantled
The Army says that fighting
a lawsuit against the religious icon
is too costly and impracticalBy Gregg K. Kakesako
Star-Bulletin

http://starbulletin.com/97/10/20/news/tapa.gif

Citing the severe economic impact in maintaining the 35-year-old, 35-ton white steel cross at Schofield Barrack’s Kolekole Pass, the Army today ordered it dismantled.

The Army has been under fire from the Hawaii Citizens for the Separation of State and Church, which filed a federal lawsuit Sept. 11 charging the 37-foot cross, built with taxpayers’ dollars in 1962, was a “blatant and obvious violation” of the First Amendment.

Maj. Gen. James T. Hill, 25th Infantry Division and U.S. Army Hawaii commander, said cost and practicality in fighting the lawsuit were reasons for taking down the cross.

Evan Shirley, attorney for Hawaii Citizens, said he hasn’t been told of the Army’s decision but the group is “genuinely pleased” to hear that the Army will remove the Christian icon.

“If this is true,” Shirley said, “the action sends a strong message that the wall between state and church stands tall and forbids government from endorsing Christianity in particular over other religions.”

The Army said it will cost as much as $60,000 this year to maintain the cross, which is no longer used for Easter Sunday sunrise services. The area is too small, and the services are now held on Cannoneer Field at Schofield Barracks.

The cross is just one of several military facilities that will have to be demolished because of severe cuts in the Army’s local budget.

This is the second religious symbol it has had to give up.

A nearly identical lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Jewish War Veterans in 1988 resulted in a 65-foot cross at Camp Smith being removed.

That cross was dismantled after a federal court ruled that it violated the constitutional separation of church and state.

It was replaced with an 80-foot flagpole which still flies a 38-foot-by-20-foot American flag. A slab of the cross is preserved in a framed glass box on the wall near the entrance to Camp Smith headquarters.

The Kolekole cross was erected in 1962 and cost $4,413. Earlier versions of the cross were made of wood and were erected as early as the 1920s.

Shortly after World War II, a 25-foot wooden cross was erected, and the steel replacement has been up since 1962.

6

Another note on the 9th circuit court. This is not the first time they have ruled favorably with the ACLU on crosses on public lands.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/op-ed/editorial1/20040411-9999-lz1ed11top.html

7

**To me this would matter because they would not be discriminating against anyone (not allowing **the Buddhist monument) but simply following their rules or regulations.

You would think so, wouldn’t you? Makes perfect sense, right? No intent to discriminate means no discrimination.

Unfortunately, Justice O’Connor outlined a test (I think in the 80s) that discusses a discriminatory effect, not just a discriminatory purpose. If the effect of the policy is that the government appears to favor one religion over another, then the religious icon comes down. In this case, the pre-existence of the cross coupled with the policy of not allowing any new constructions has the effect of indicating that the government endorses Christianity over other religions, regardless of the intent.

8

Sounds like what the 9th Circuit objected to in the Mt. Soledad sale was that in offering the land for sale, the city favored Christian organizations over non-Christian ones.

9

Again thanks for the clarification. You are obviously an attorney and well versed on the topic.

10

the idea is stop church and state from even looking at each other, thats a lot easier than trying to get them apart when theyre in bed together
.

11

Would it surprise you that the ACLU has joined suit with Rush Limbaugh to keep his medical records private and away from prosecutors during his trial on “doctor shopping” charges?

It seems to me that a good test of any organization is whether their principles will lead them to defend inconvenient causes, perhaps even those across ideological divides. The ACLU vigorously defends the constitution - for everybody.

“The story goes on to ask how long before the ACLU demands all of the crosses be removed from Arlington National Cemetary.”

This is a logical fallacy called Slippery Slope. The idea is to extrapolate a position to something ridiculous and than tar the original argument by association. It is a rhetorical dirty trick. Many people can spot these fallacies a mile away and tend to discount, or at least look more closely at, the arguments (and motives) of those who make them. See http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ss.htm

The ACLU has long been a favorite target of those who construe freedom to mean “you are free to be exactly like me.” Because the ACLU has a broader take on the meaning of “freedom” they are often painted as obstructionist.

12

I love the ACLU. I love the constitution. The ACLU doesnt care about opinions, they just try to get the country to adhere to the rules set by our founding fathers. They will defend the KKKs right to assemble. They will defend Rush Limbaughs right to privacy. They defend all of us in the immoral minority from seeing the 10 commandments in courthouses.

13

Its not a slippery slope argument and its not a rhetorical dirty trick. The ACLU has a decades long history of twisting the first amendment to fit there agenda. Just because they support Rush Limbaugh doesn’t mean they are all of a sudden main stream. YOur comment about them being supportewrs of the KKK is way off base as this article points out.

www.boulderweekly.com/archive/092602/waynesword.html

14

If taking the constitution from a standpoint of protection of the rights of citizens (regardless of who they are protecting) is twisting the 1st amendment, I guess you are right.

This is the problem with the ACLU… they don’t take sides base so much on political issues… they simply side with the Bill of Rights… and, that may or may not fit the constitutional side of the political equation. As a result, they have many friends and enemies on both sides of political groups.

It’s easy to pick and choose what the ACLU protects from a political aspect. However, from a “protection of rights” aspect there is only one choice… they typically defend laws that protect the rights of individuals.

Is it way off base to sight “who” the ACLU truely has represented in the past? … I don’t think so. In fact, it shows a more open minded approach to a multi-faceted issue such as church and state. To omit that history only indicates a narrow scope of attention to the issues at large. The **“what” **of the ACLU issues seems to be the biggest aspect of their direction and scope. And, the “what” is mostly regarding the “rights of citizens”.

FWIW Joe Moya

15

This may not be what you are asking for, but what crosses would you accuse the ACLU of trying to get rid of at Arlington? The markers aren’t crosses.

16

You are correct that “most” of the headstones are in fact white marble rounded at the top and not crosses. Theyare inscribed with the soldiers name, rank, regiment, division, date of death and state he is from. They can also have a cross or Star of David included. There are still crosses however as honoring soldiers from the Civil and Spanish American Wars.

17

Some of the markers are crosses. RFK’s grave, for instance, has a cross on it.