Cross on Government Land Must Come Down

Cross on Government Land Must Come Down

SAN FRANCISCO – A cross that stands 8 feet tall in the vast Mojave National Preserve must come down, a federal appeals court ruled in invalidating a congressionally endorsed land exchange that sought to preserve it. The Christian symbol was built in 1934 by a group of World War I veterans. Congress in 1994 created the national preserve, which put the land under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. It has been at the center of a long-running legal battle, reaching the appeals court three times. [emphasis added] It also was the subject of language in a defense appropriations bill that transferred government ownership of an acre of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in an effort to end government sponsorship of religious symbols on public land. But Thursday’s ruling by the 9th U.S. District Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision that the land transfer was a sham. The appeals court had ruled before the land transfer that the cross was unconstitutional.

They appealed and appealed and appealed and they lost. Every such battle won is a victory for common sense and reason. Good riddance to state sponsorship of another symbol of religious torture.

Comments (7 comments)

Epiphanist / September 7th, 2007, 5:09 am / #1

They could put up a nice Coca Cola sign instead.

BlackSun / September 7th, 2007, 9:48 am / #2


I don’t think corporate use of government land would be any more legal than religious. But if it were, I’d gladly rather have a Coca-Cola sign, or for that matter any advertising for companies engaged in legitimate commerce.

The cross is a symbol for a corrupt institution that begs for a living, promotes fraudulent doctrines about original sin, the propitiation of all sins by the death of one man, and generally subservient, self-effacing, and anti-human philosophies that are too numerous to elaborate.

So, yes. Coca-Cola over the cross any day of the week.

Epiphanist / September 7th, 2007, 5:22 pm / #3

The world belongs to corporations that can pay for it. Good thinking Black Sun!

BlackSun / September 7th, 2007, 6:28 pm / #4


Without a trace of irony, I’ll say that as institutions that have organized and supported human progress, corporations have far more moral authority than churches. Without corporations, we’d still be making all of our clothes by hand, working 16-hour days living on farms and having a life expectancy of about 37.

So once again, you fail to support your point, which (having been to your site) is clearly to privilege worship of the supernatural and the afterlife (Jee-zus) over real human needs in the here and now. And also a hopelessly unsophisticated world view based on a patine of mile-wide and inch-deep assumptions about “luv”and idealized religious morality. Furthermore, you seem by implication to support a dominionist agenda which would allow state-sponsored religion.

I noticed your photo of cupped and empty hands. That’s the basic symbol of everything that’s wrong with religion: That you would rather stand with hands outstretched to an invisible and non-existent being than put those same hands together and produce whatever it is you were praying for. It’s delusional and pathetic. God will provide. Yeah, right.

Strictly secular government is foundational for any and all human progress. You live in a pluralistic society. Worship all you want in private but stop expecting ‘respect’ and special privileges for your religious opinions and delusions. Especially on public lands.

Kanaio / September 8th, 2007, 2:46 am / #5

Hmmm. Death by crucifixtion or by Coca Cola. I wonder how many bottles it would take before one keeled over.

Please don’t tell me Sean that you don’t believe in “luv”, or is it just the mile-wide kind? What kind is that anyway? Truth without compassion can be needlessly cruel.


David / September 8th, 2007, 6:21 am / #6

Could we not just plant some trees there and leave it at that?

BlackSun / September 8th, 2007, 7:56 am / #7


Please don’t tell me Sean that you don’t believe in “luv”, or is it just the mile-wide kind? What kind is that anyway?

The kind of hypocritical “unconditional” love glassy-eyed believers profess you should have for “everyone” like Jee-zus did.

The kind of love I think is realistic is a form of profound and deep exchange that happens between people who have personal and self-interested reasons to care about each other. Not out of some sense of scriptural obligation. And also, where the love is shared between the human people involved, not them plus an imaginary supernatural 3rd party.


Good idea.

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this post.