Judge Orders Removal of Cross From Veteran's Memorial

Last week, I posted a story about a Satanist group that intends to erect a monument near a monument of the Ten Commandments in Oklahoma City. For those interested in church and state issues, the case of the cross on top of Mt. Soledad in La Jolla, California, might be of interest. The cross was erected in 1954. In 2006, the federal government took the property and everything on it, including the cross, through the power of eminent domain. Thereafter, the cross was declared a national war memorial. No doubt many veterans appreciated it.


But, in 2006, after the cross was declared a national memorial, the cross was challenged in a lawsuit brought by the ACLU on behalf of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America and various local residents. In 2011, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the cross violated the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the case in 2012, kicking it back down to the 9th Circuit, which ordered the cross removed.


I suppose this illustrates the point that those tempted to blame the issue on the Satanists in the case in Oklahoma should consider that other religions may object just as well to apparent government entanglement or endorsement of one religion. It personally doesn't bother me to see religious symbols of any kind in public places. I do recognize, however, that there are many who want a completely secular society. Certainly, the framers specifically prohibited entanglement and endorsement of religion by the state. It is just as certain that the Supreme Court of the United States will never be done interpreting what exactly those two words mean.

What a Tangled Web We Weave

When first we practice to deceive....  The AP reports that a private group in Oklahoma City paid to have a monument made.  Said monument is a large stone on which the Ten Commandments are etched.  While privately funded, the monument was placed adjacent to the steps of the Statehouse.  This was done in order to educate and remind the populace of the "judeo-Christian history" of the area.

Problem is, while one might make the assumption that the area has been primarily populated by those of the Judeo-Christian faith, the idea that the area's history is owed to such faith is quite a leap.  No doubt there are many in the area of other faiths and indeed probably many that have no faith in anything at all.  Doubtless this is why the American Civil Liberties Union filed suit.  But this classic fight over First Amendment rights does not end there.

Enter the Satanic Temple of New York.  The Satanists want a monument too.  Right next to the Ten Commandments.  The argument is, of course, that in order to avoid the peril of government entanglement with or endorsement of religion, those who allowed the Christian monument to be installed must also permit other faiths to do the same.  Before you laugh out loud or get pissed, ask yourself this question.  If one were to replace the Satanists in this scenario with, say, a Jewish group - would you buy the argument?  And before you blame the Satanists, consider that they are simply taking advantage of an opportunity.  Those who erected the Ten Commandments monument started this mess by blindly assuming that everyone in the area would either 1)approve of the monument or 2)accept that the majority rules.

At any rate, it will be an interesting case.  I wouldn't mind reading the arguments, although I wonder whether the Christian funders will voluntarily pull their monument, rather than allowing the Satanists to cramp their style.