This article from the LA Times, Supreme Court debates legality of Mojave cross (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-cross8-2009oct08,0,2065193.story?track=rss), discusses the Supreme Court’s dilemma on determining whether the cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California violates the first amendment or not. Congress was sneaky in that they transferred the land on which the cross stands to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, so the cross is on a part of the preserve that is not government owned anymore.
What Congress did was sneaky, but I think the cross should be left alone since it’s not on government property anymore. The government is always giving money to special interest groups who do just about anything they want with the money, so I think that it’s okay for them to give a small unprofitable piece of land to another organization just to maintain a cross. Also, the cross is somewhat a historical figure, dating back to 1934. If it wasn’t a religious figure, some national historical organization might have tried to ensure its preservation somehow.
One of the arguments posed in the article is that the cross only honors Christian soldiers, but the article also mentions that there are other religious symbols in the cemetery other than the cross like the Star of David(for Jewish soldiers). The article also mentions a request to have a Buddhist symbol was denied, but it doesn’t mention if it was proposed to be on government or private property. I think that they should just leave the cross alone since it is on private property. But they should allow the families of the soldiers to be able to put little signs of symbols of their faith in the individual areas of their loved ones or the designated areas commemorating a certain troop.
No comments:
Post a Comment