Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave C...

Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave Cross

There are 91 comments on the ABC News story from Apr 28, 2010, titled Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave Cross. In it, ABC News reports that:

A divided Supreme Court ruled today that a lower court failed to conduct an appropriate analysis when it ordered a white cross removed from California's Mojave National Preserve.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at ABC News.

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“Truth to Power!”

Since: Apr 07

Raleigh, NC

#1 Apr 28, 2010
Good ruling.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#2 Apr 28, 2010
So it goes to the lower court which will do the proper analysis and then send someone out to cut down the cross.

“Image Not Available”

Since: Mar 10

Lawndale, CA

#3 Apr 28, 2010
This ruling seems appropriate, considering that Veterans Cross was placed there by the VFW to honor veterans. The irony here is that the people who are so much against the display are the ones who have actually turned it into a religious symbol.
Rose

Panorama City, CA

#4 Apr 28, 2010
Christian teachings are absurd.
We have a separation of church and state.
But that doesn't mean there can't/shouldn't be any public display of religious symbols.

The cross was not put upby the government. It's not saying you have to be a Christian.

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#5 Apr 28, 2010
The cross is on private property owned by the VFW. The government needs to stay the hell out of it.

“Image Not Available”

Since: Mar 10

Lawndale, CA

#6 Apr 28, 2010
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
The cross is on private property owned by the VFW. The government needs to stay the hell out of it.
Actually I can see the opponents' side on this part of it. The land once belonged to the government and Congress gave it to the VFW in order to sidestep the cross issue. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

But the cross itself, I don't see it as religious. Maybe because I'm *not* religious, and because I could care less about religion, I can see it for what it is - a memorial to our Veterans who have served in wars overseas. That's all it is. What else could they have placed there? A statue of Iwo Jima?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#7 Apr 28, 2010
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
The cross is on private property owned by the VFW. The government needs to stay the hell out of it.
The cross is on public property improperly given away to private interests in order to circumvent the law, a fact of which all were aware at the time and which nobody denies. It is, therefore, a fraud which was perpetrated in order to do something against the law. If you did it you would be in jail. It makes no difference that there are veterans involved, they are subject to the law as well.

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#8 Apr 28, 2010
Stedenko wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I can see the opponents' side on this part of it. The land once belonged to the government and Congress gave it to the VFW in order to sidestep the cross issue. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.
But the cross itself, I don't see it as religious. Maybe because I'm *not* religious, and because I could care less about religion, I can see it for what it is - a memorial to our Veterans who have served in wars overseas. That's all it is. What else could they have placed there? A statue of Iwo Jima?
It was put up in the 1930's for WWI vets. Iwo was WWII. Should we take all the crosses down at Arlington Cemetary also? That's government land!

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#9 Apr 28, 2010
laojim wrote:
<quoted text>
The cross is on public property improperly given away to private interests in order to circumvent the law, a fact of which all were aware at the time and which nobody denies. It is, therefore, a fraud which was perpetrated in order to do something against the law. If you did it you would be in jail. It makes no difference that there are veterans involved, they are subject to the law as well.
Nothing improper about it. Congress has the right to sell or trade land. It's part of the constitution. Those vets gave you the right to diss them. Congrats.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#10 Apr 28, 2010
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing improper about it. Congress has the right to sell or trade land. It's part of the constitution. Those vets gave you the right to diss them. Congrats.
Bull.

Fraud is fraud and vets are vets, not saviors.
morons united

Seattle, WA

#11 Apr 28, 2010
Did that keep them out of mischief?

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#12 Apr 28, 2010
laojim wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull.
Fraud is fraud and vets are vets, not saviors.
The SC said it wasn't fraud. The vets have saved the free world multiple times. Even your one sided butt.

Since: Dec 07

Spring, TX

#13 Apr 28, 2010
laojim wrote:
<quoted text>
Bull.
Fraud is fraud and vets are vets, not saviors.
You didn't answer my question. What about the crosses at Arlington?

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#14 Apr 28, 2010
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
The SC said it wasn't fraud. The vets have saved the free world multiple times. Even your one sided butt.
You obviously didn't read the article.

Any vet who tells you that is drunk. Your vet worship is all out of proportion to the point of silliness.
acorn obama

Lutz, FL

#15 Apr 28, 2010
not surprising that the liberal democrat court HATES Americans & Christians!!!!!

thank God & Jesus that the SC told them to shove it up theirs (& presidunce odumba's) socialist ass!

scout

Since: Feb 07

Martinez, CA

#16 Apr 28, 2010
Only the Marxist 'judges/rulers' voted against the cross.

Guess they think Christ is a myth, like all the other heathens.

What happened, America? We've sunk so low. When Christ comes back, your own blood on your own hands.

Not my program.

scout

Since: Feb 07

Martinez, CA

#17 Apr 28, 2010
laojim wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously didn't read the article.
Any vet who tells you that is drunk. Your vet worship is all out of proportion to the point of silliness.
A Marxist Speaks.

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#18 Apr 28, 2010
The person who brought the suit is a practicing Roman Catholic himself, who felt it is un-American that no other religious symbols are allowed on the public land:
The cross stood peacefully for years until the Park Service was asked if a Buddhist Shrine could also be built near the cross.

When the Park Service declined the request, Frank Buono, a retired National Park Service employee, expressed his dismay that the government was showing favoritism of one religious symbol over another.
But Catholics aren't "real" Christians, right?

scout

Since: Feb 07

Martinez, CA

#19 Apr 28, 2010
Bluebonnets-Thistle wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't answer my question. What about the crosses at Arlington?
This one makes the Marxist tool's blood boil, like all other demons.

“Angry Antlers ”

Since: Sep 08

Miami

#20 Apr 28, 2010
Stedenko wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I can see the opponents' side on this part of it. The land once belonged to the government and Congress gave it to the VFW in order to sidestep the cross issue. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.
But the cross itself, I don't see it as religious. Maybe because I'm *not* religious, and because I could care less about religion, I can see it for what it is - a memorial to our Veterans who have served in wars overseas. That's all it is. What else could they have placed there? A statue of Iwo Jima?
I agree, as an atheist I view crosses, such as those in Arlington, and overseas in France at military cemeteries, as generic.

They honor the dead, and since religion has been exposed and discredited worldwide, then it's all OK as far as I'm concerned.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Mojave National Preserve Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News This short, scenic Mojave train tour was a long... (Oct '10) Oct '10 Christopher Keller 1
News Mojave Cross battle (Sep '10) Sep '10 Jack Corsaut 1
News A cross in a national park in the Mojave Desert... (Sep '10) Sep '10 Jack Corsaut 1
News Disputed Mojave cross honoring U.S. war dead st... (May '10) May '10 Tamerlane 28
News Supreme Court Refuses to Ban Mojave Cross (Apr '10) May '10 Lucys_Fur_Coat 51
News Thieves take controversial Mojave Desert cross (May '10) May '10 laojim 37
News 'Mojave Cross' Stolen; Was Subject Of Recent Su... (May '10) May '10 laojim 1
More from around the web