The 9th Circuit Court decided to remove a cross from a World War I veterans memorial in California’s Mojave Desert. In 2004 Congress passed legislation that would transfer an acre of the Mojave Desert Memorial (the part that the cross sits on) to private ownership in exchange for five acres. This was to remove it from federal jurisdiction. The circuit court then said that the federal government couldn’t exchange federal lands for private lands in order to maintain the cross. This cross has been the center of the Mojave Desert Veterans Memorial for three quarters of a century.
What do you think of all this?
2007-09-17 05:33:53 · 15 answers · asked by Jasmine 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Everyone in the 9th Circus Court sit on their brains.
2007-09-17 05:40:32 · answer #1 · answered by regerugged 7 · 5⤊ 2⤋
I think it's a small issue and there are better things to worry about. Anyway, the Roberts court will reverse the 9th Circuit.
Edit: This is not quite the assault on Christianity that it appears to be. The ACLU brought the case on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans of the US and three individuals, a Jew, an atheist and a Muslim.
The cross is 43 feet high and is visible for several miles because it is located on a hill. For the first 38 years of its existence, it was called the "Easter Cross" and there was no war memorial designation. The war memorial plaque appeared 2 years after the suit began.
Heart & Troll's comment below, however, is an assault on our judicial system. The Court of Appeals decided the case within the law and the constitution. The Supreme Court may reverse. Judges are not removed from the federal bench because a certain group of citizens does not like a ruling. That's the way it's done. We are a nation of laws.
2007-09-17 05:42:42 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 3⤋
I couldn't answer that without knowing who's objecting to the cross, and why.
In general, I believe religious symbols should not be on anything paid for by taxpayers, and that business about removing that part of the land from federal jurisdiction sounds fishy to me.
If one religious symbol is allowed to be displayed on taxpayer-funded property, then ALL religious symbols must be allowed to be displayed. That's the only way it's fair.
2007-09-17 05:57:08 · answer #3 · answered by catrionn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I shouldn't have been put there in the first place. And giving away government property to maintain a religious symbol is just plain wrong. WWI had nothing to do with Christianity. The cross is missed placed and needs to be gone. There are plenty of churches around were it can go without violating the constitution.
2007-09-17 05:52:51 · answer #4 · answered by Holy Cow! 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think the 9th court has too much time on it's hands. Then again they are overturned 80% of the time.
I think that the cross should stay. That is how that original builders meant it and only they have the moral right to change it.
2007-09-17 05:51:48 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
1st Amendment
It prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that establish religion
or prohibit free exercise of religion
I think a cross on a tomb is acceptable since they cannot prohibit the exercise of it. The Constitution says that the feds cannot make law involving religion, it doesn't say anything about religioius displays on gov't property.
2007-09-17 05:43:18 · answer #6 · answered by civil_av8r 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Being your a US American and doubtless by no ability have traveled exterior america to renowned. That it somewhat is an extremely rude and offensive distant places taboo to reveal non secular symbols or communicate faith or very own ideals in front of distant places persons. in basic terms because it rather is for distant places persons to brazenly communicate approximately intercourse in public in america that's amazingly offensive to the U. S. American peoples. 579 persons killed in the worldwide commerce midsection on 9/eleven have been distant places nationals, it may be very undesirable and tasteless distant places protocol for america. To have this, or the different of there affiliated non secular symbols publicly exhibiting. no longer basically to the households of the 579 distant places nationals, additionally to the peoples of the worldwide, regardless of there non or different very own ideals. Who will globally be staring at this 10 year anniversary experience, via there distant places media supplies. in case you spotted with the modern tragedy in Norway there have been no non secular symbols association displayed on the streets, or in public places. Memorial web content are a place for mirrored image and remembering, each of the folk who fell and lost there lives via tragedy. no longer a place for one accompanied faith to brazenly reveal there affiliated icons, or publicly panhandle and pontificate there very own ideals.
2017-01-02 07:34:24 · answer #7 · answered by bremme 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The display of the cross is perfectly legal.
Some big-time Libs think that they have a right to be free from religious expression, when our Constitution actually says just the opposite.
The judge is flat out wrong that the government cannot engage in the land swap. Judges have no right to second guess the government in land matters, unless the judge feels that the transfer violates a law...which it does not.
The judge should be impeached.
2007-09-17 05:42:52 · answer #8 · answered by ? 6 · 4⤊ 4⤋
It most certainly should. The 9th circuit is the most overruled in the entire nation. I'm sure if they took this to the Supreme Court they could win..............
2007-09-17 05:44:14 · answer #9 · answered by Brian 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
i think that a cross should be allowed, because it displays the belief of a religion, but it does not force the religion upon others. also, this country, although it allowes freedom of religion, is based mainly off of christianity, and that fact should help to shape this nation, not be denied and fought against
2007-09-17 05:45:56 · answer #10 · answered by dbogdan4school 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋