U.S. Supreme Court says Mojave Desert Cross can stay--it is a War Memorial by Peter Menkin
A World War I memorial will be allowed to stay in the Mojave Desert, and though covered since 2002 because it offended some people as a religious symbol is now unveiled again. It was the United States Supreme Court that allowed the Cross, on private land owned by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to stay after a protracted controversy. The Cross has stood for about 75 years in the desert. The question came to, Is the Cross religious symbol for Christians solely, or War Memorial for American dead?
In California and even San Francisco’s Bay Area the subject of a cross in a remote desert spot in the Mojave was a highly controversial matter. What about the cross on public land? Does this not violate separation of Church and State? was hotly asked.
A religious symbol cannot be on public land, said Frank Buono who is now retired from the Park Service. He brought the case to The Supreme Court over a ten year period with the help of The American Civil Liberties Union. According to The New York Times, “The white wooden cross, roughly 5 feet tall, stands atop Sunrise Rock in California's San Bernardino County.” It is actually made of pipe today. The Supreme Court did not say whether this was a simple, dignified, and even popular War Memorial of little note but some popularity among the private individuals who visited it, and those who built it. The Court took on this almost humble case that to some appeared overblown.
The announcement of the Court’s result was made and reported in major newspapers April 28, 2010. Writing for the Supreme Court in Salazar v. Buono, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said:
"The District Court concentrated solely on the religious aspects of the cross, divorced from its background and context. But a Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts, noble contributions, and patient striving help secure an honored place in history for this Nation and its people. Here, one Latin cross in the desert evokes far more than religion. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies are compounded if the fallen are forgotten."
The Veterans of Foreign Wars agreed. One could easily surmise that’s the real issue, the real case from their vantage point. Many veterans agreed.
Gabriel Nelson, writing in his blog in The New York Times, said, “The Supreme Court ruled today that Congress and the Interior Department acted properly when they used a land transfer to solve a dispute over a cross on display in the federal Mojave National Preserve.”
There was no big hullaballoo, but a minimal statement with dissent by the Supreme Court. Gabriel Nelson put it well in his low key remark on how the Interior Department had acted properly. This writer has taken some snippets from other newspaper reports that demonstrate all are in accord in their reporting of the facts, and as the Supreme Court noted it was the facts that led them to their conclusions on the decision.
In its brief on behalf of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Solicitor General Elena Kagan said the cross did not imply government sponsorship. The transfer of land to the Veterans of Foreign Wars that required the installation of a plaque dissociating the statue from the federal government, she wrote, satisfied the problem of Church/State religion (Christian).
The Christian Post said in its report, “The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy. “This cross,” he wrote, “evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles.”
As a taste of the real argument in differences on the United States Supreme Court, it appears to this writer that Justice Anthony Kennedy caught the essence of the issue separating Justices. The Wall Street Journal noted in their report, Justice Stevens’s dissent argued that Congress wasn't taking action to memorialize veterans, but rather using their memory to justify maintenance of a religious symbol. He noted that the Mojave cross little resembles the prominent and nonsectarian markers erected for those who served in World War II, Korea or Vietnam.
JESS BRAVIN Wall Street Journal writer pointed out in his article, The cross—estimated at five to seven feet tall—stands on Sunrise Rock in a remote patch of desert. Veterans, some of whom had moved to the region for health reasons, first erected a cross at the site in 1934 and it was often used for Easter services. The current version was assembled from painted metal pipes in 1998 by Henry Sandoz of Yucca Valley, Calif.
Though The Wall Street Journal called the decision one whereby the Cross was determined more war memorial than religious symbol, the grass roots battle in California called for many statements that: Yes, it was significantly and first a war memorial, but it was a religious statement for the war dead. There the Supreme Court did not necessarily agree, but it did not make sweeping decisions. Justice Kennedy wrote, Because of the "highly fact-specific nature" of the case, it is "unsuited for announcing categorical rules."
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined Justice Stevens's dissent. Justice Stephen Breyer dissented separately.
Images: (1) Mojave Desert Cross, by Associated Press; (2) Mojave Desert Cross, by unknown.
This article appeared originally in The Church of England Newspaper, London
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Devotion to the Cross... poem by Peter Menkin ________________________________________
The Kingdom of heaven
is like a mustard seed.
So this parable leads these
two worshipers to seek their treasure in God.
Their emotions for the cross,
they carry, not so evident.
No displays in public,
one wouldn't know this couple's devotion.
The cross: thing of torture, ignomious end,
horrible death, mean judgment;
their lives embrace even this part of living.
Gaining a meaning from Christ,
saying "yes" in worship,
church by attendance
a statement for living their lives.
So startling large looms faith.
The couple kneel
with bowed head.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Mojave Desert Cross a journalistic report by Peter Menkin
About the Desert Cross and its controversial court debate:
A white steel pipe cross that stands off a lone highway route by about 10 miles in the California Mojave Desert has become the subject of a legal case. The legal case regarding the cross will be heard before the U.S. Supreme Court in October, 2009. This is a unique case of Church/State separation in the United States.
The Christian cross has in one form or another been in this location since 1934, and was originally a war memorial to American First World War veterans. (The lonely road is between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.) The cross is now claimed by veteran’s organizations and by the individual who privately erected it. It is located on the public parkland, erected without permission.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represents the Plaintiff—who is a “practicing Catholic” by his own definition, and a retired Assistant Superintendent of the desert park district. The Plaintiff’s argument goes, according to the ACLU: "The [9th Circuit] said this case is really quite simple. Using a sectarian religious symbol is not permissible on federal land.” Peter Eliasberg, managing attorney for the ACLU of Southern California, so states the argument in a report by B.A. Robinson of the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. The government argues the cross is a war memorial.
Attorney Eliasberg states, "…[The Christian cross] doesn't honor Muslim veterans, Jewish veterans, Atheist veterans or Agnostic veterans. It's a preeminent symbol of a [single] religion. If we want to have a war memorial on federal land, the government certainly knows how to do that without using a divisive sectarian religious symbol."
In a telephone interview lasting half an hour from his office in Arizona, the attorney Joe Infranco retorts, “One person’s agenda (Mr. Buono’s, Plaintiff) should not diminish the sacrifices (of) Americans and their families. The legal theory used in these cases is offended observer.” Mr. Infranco argues, “It bothers people that one person’s offence causes the destruction of a memorial that millions of veterans want to see maintained.” Mr. Infranco, who has talked about this issue for a long time, says in a verbal headline during the interview: “Two American veteran’s organizations, the American Legion, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (among others) weighed in against by lone atheist: Frank Buono.”
Mr. Buono, says he is a “practicing Catholic,” and has not talked to his parish priest or bishop about the subject. Mr. Buono continues in explanation, and adds in argument: “If open and available to all religious symbols, and all religious beliefs, [the memorial would be okay], but the park service originally rejected a request to put a Buddhist symbol there. To me this (Christian cross) was an (act of) endorsement of a specific religious view of tolerating and accepting a trespass on federal land.”
Explaining his 10-year cause, Plaintiff Mr. Buono remarks about the use of a cross or religious symbol, in this specific case the white cross of iron pipe: Is this a war memorial by intent? he was asked in the interview: “When a private person erects a religious symbol on federal land, no matter what they call it…in the case of the cross it (is) improper. That it is a war memorial is not relevant to the case.”
Continuing by phone, Mr. Buono reports with emphatic emphasis, the federal park service asked Henry Sandoz to remove the cross, (another in a long serious of replacements of the originally erected one by numers of private persons). It was Mary Martin, Superintendent of Mojave National Preserve who asked. Henry Sandoz refused. “Mr. Sandoz erected the cross that is now there with no permit or authority for the purpose to serve religious purposes for sunrise (services). Henry Sandoz did not remove it.”
U.S. Congressman Jerry Lewis, Redlands, California sponsored a vote by the U.S. Congress to allow a private purchase of the park property on which the cross stands. Mr. Buono says, this was, “his error.” After the private purchase, the American Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Congressional measure, and the cross remains standing, but covered.
Mr. Buono claims this erection of the cross is an, “illegal act by a private individual which led to the erection of permanent display of a religious symbol on public lands.” “What is my concern? It doesn’t make me happy (because) I know that what guarantees freedom of religion in America is strict separation of Church/State. Strife occurs elsewhere in the world is in places where religion is not separated from State. The best guarantee by government neutrality towards religion.”
Congressman Jerry Lewis (not the actor/comedian) did not respond to an inquiry by email on his measure to save the cross from removal.
Mr. Infranco, the attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, who is defending the cross, will make the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. He says he is not aware of any organized American Church position on the issue at this time.
Correction to article by Mr. Joe Giles, Alliance Defense Fund (May 7, 2009) sent via email. He writes: Important clarification we might want to make – our role was only in filing the amicus (or “friend of the court”) brief with the Supreme Court. The Solicitor General office of the U.S. Department of Justice will be the Counsel of Record for the Department of the Interior (thus, Joe Infranco wouldn’t be arguing before the S. Ct.).
This report was written for the website, Religious Intelligence, London.
Friday, August 04, 2006
Baby baptized in the church: witness
People post all kinds of personal things on the web. When writing something, even a poem, it is better not to be too personal. Afterall, what is written about becomes something of a story. So it is with this poem about a baptism at the Church I attended. This is a revised version from the original, written in 2000 from when the baptism occurred. I hope you like it.
Baptism: a Witness
by Peter Menkin Silver sea shell: he pours
[the baby waits, spirit come]
water dearly upon head
[what stirs here now]
and brow of annointed
[gentle stroke finger signs]
child held in white lace.
[fabric hung as treasure shroud]
the congregation with all
[on his body, wonderful ceremony]
the children in attendance.
[sustained with the spirit]t
o greet with awe the new
[a prize of gold, shining cross]
arrival amid awakenings
[panaroma in light waiting]
to promises in vows uplifting.
[all say we will, renounce evil]
towards love's hand,
[the baby is sealed]
held forever ours and mine.
[infant cradled, this dear time]
"I hear the sound of angel's
wings," comes Christening
for you are His forever ours.
Imaginary People in the imaginary Church--poems...
My file name for this small set of poems, fictitious Church attendees, reads "People for blog poems." This unusual construct leads the reader to recognize that these are imaginary Church people, people-ing my Church. Any similarities are in the mind of the reader, should you know these people.
The first poem is about a man who prays, in fact yearns for gifts from God to grant him the ability to read the scriptures, and asks for the blessing of the presence of the Holy Spirit. This means that the Holy Spirit will become a part of his life.
I found this to be happily in accord with one of the many definitions by Rowan Williams in his essay"Word and Spirit" in the book "Christian Theology," a collection of his writings. He says this: "We can recognize perhaps more clearly the disturbing confusion of theological language in the New Testament under the pressure of the figure of the crucified Messiah: we can accept more readily the breaking of certain kinds of sacral barrier, so that 'Spirit' ceases to be confined to the extraordinary but becomes a qualificantion of Christian human being." There isn't room in this entry form for more on the poems. So, here they are:
A Man Finds He Yearns for God, the Word by Peter Menkin
Shall I be personal
about it.
He said, "I have begged
the holy spirit..."Lead me in reading
the Bible."
He said, "I have implored
the spirit of truth..."Reveal to me the Word
of God in the Bible.
I yearn, was this man's
truth.to live the life--so it is called. The promise
goes,
He said, "I want to have
this language
in my heart,
in my mind,on my lips."Is this an earnestness?
A need?
He says, "yearn."God chooses us
first.
Then we go to his
call.
Devotion to the Cross...
By Peter Menkin The Kingdom of heaven
is like
a mustard seed.
So this parable
leads these two
worshipers to seek
their treasure in God.
Their emotions for the
cross, they carry,
not so evident. No
displays in public, one
wouldn't know
this couple's devotion.
The cross: thing of torture,ignomious end, horrible
death, mean judgment;
their lives embrace eventhis part of living.
Gaining a meaning from
Christ,
saying "yes" in worship.
By attendance
a statement for living
their lives.
So startling large
looms faith.The couple kneel
with bowed head.
The Doctor who asks God...
By Peter Menkin Dr. P., medical
researcher,
prays questionsto God.
On Sundays he wears
a suit, brings his family,
and sits in the same pew.
A tall man, quiet,
he wonders, queryingt
he Lord with the needs
of his searching mind.
When it comes to Church,
he knows few things
besides the catechism,
which he teaches. Most
of what he know
he learns from his talks
with God.
In the morning, he
and his wife
sing with their small
children before school,
in a circle. This
is preparation for prayer
these days.
So startling large
looms faith.
The couple kneel
with bowed head.
Neatly dressed
in tailored suit, she
takes the Eucharist:
"The blood of our Lord
Jesus Christ, Keep you
in Eternal Life.
"Quietly so, she prays,
something uniquely
fervent in her practice,
giving a dignity
and good humor shared
with others.
Church is a regular Sunday time, with Christ,
and we are together
in communion, raised
hearts by hymn and liturgy
imploring a meeting
in the spirit. She shares,
as we all, in the mystery
of the words and music.
There is work of devotion
in her life. Was she one
of those who wait in vigil
before Easter?
At home,
quietly devoted, still.
T.J. is old,
perhaps 85; she
arrives early to Church
with an attendant.
Blue eyes hopeful.
Infirm, but willing,
what brings her every
Sundayto worship?
Some of it:
can she make it,
did a demon pursue
the Doctor in her youth?
Does she wish
for everlasting life?
The answer is probably
she believes in the Triune God,
wishes to worship
long as she can
in the Church.
The old hold secrets
even to the almost so old,
making us observe
her studied presence.
Many years in following
the seasons havegone by.
T.J. continues
the journey.
