Video
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feed
Mojave cross 'replaced,' removed
The controversial Mojave cross remains missing, but the mystery surrounding it continues to grow.
Last week, National Park Service personnel removed a replica of the cross that had been bolted to a concrete pad early one morning.
"Technically, it's illegal," Slater said. "The Park Service has regulations about people putting up memorials. You can't just go to a park and put a memorial to a family member."
Not even if the family member if your Father in heaven.
The original Mojave cross (actually, it was a replacement for the original original cross erected in the 1930s), erected as a war memorial, was stolen earlier this month. A few days later, a California newspaper received an anonymous email claiming the cross was stolen to protect the U.S. Supreme Court's April ruling in the case.
In April, the Court blocked the removal of the congressionally endorsed war memorial cross, saying separation of church and state "does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."
The ruling said nothing about the theft of those symbols or the removal of replicas.
David Waters
| May 25, 2010; 8:46 AM ET | Category: Under God Save & Share:
Previous: Jesus prayer opens Texas textbook meeting | Next: Is God an Orlando Magic fan?
Posted by: Alferd | May 25, 2010 3:56 PM
Report Offensive Comment
ALFERD ~ you're the only one to post in the 7 days this article has been on the Warshpost site.
Guess you went looking for it, or you wanted to put a Coda to it ~ because you know something secret about its removal.
Here's the deal, we all think the ACLU did it. I suspect you are with the ACLU and involved.
If you people continue to act up this way it is time to dispose of public land entirely.
Posted by: muawiyah | May 30, 2010 4:53 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
Several points need to be made.
The ORIGINAL cross deteriorated decades ago. It was replaced ILEGALY back in the ‘90s. That illegal replacement cross is the one that was stolen.
The establishment clause of the first amendment prohibits the cross from being there. That ruling was made by the lower court and that ruling STILL STANDS. The supreme court rejected the injunction against the land swap, they DID NOT nullify the first amendment.
If this were truly about a war memorial, then a new, non-secular monument honoring those that died in WWI would be ok, wouldn’t it? Why do you insist on a cross?
The fact that the religious right demands that a cross and only a cross will satisfy them clearly makes this a first amendment, establishment clause issue. As such, it has no place on public land.