The Mojave Cross

THE MOJAVE CROSS

Mojave Cross (mojavechristainchurch.com)

On the 30-foot high Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve sits a Latin cross that has been dubbed, The Mojave Cross. It is unclear whether or not the cross has been in continuous existence since it was first erected; it has been replaced several times and has, at various times, included a memorial plaque. The site is regularly used for Easter sunrise services and, although there are no buildings, it is the location of the Mojave Cross Christian Church. The current version of the cross is 8-feet tall, made of pipes, and painted white. The cross has become a separation of church and state battleground.

In an attempt to better understand the history of the issue, I’ve used a variety of sources—secular, religious, and veterans—to construct a timeline of the events regarding the Mojave cross.

• 1934: A cross was erected as a WWI memorial by the Barstow VFW Post 385 with a sign that reportedly said, “The Cross. Erected in memory of the dead of all wars”. At the time the land was managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
• 1934-1984: The memorial (probably several different crosses during this time) was cared for by John Bembry (a veteran) until his death. The original cross and sign were eventually torn down. The cross was occasionally replaced and repaired. The cross has been the site of Easter sunrise services nearly every year since it was erected and is the site of the Mojave Cross Christian Church.
• 1984-1994: At the request of Mr. Bembry, Henry Sandoz (who is not a veteran) agreed to take over care of the memorial; it is not clear if the memorial was in continuous existence during this time.
• 1994: The site of the cross became part of the 1.6 million acre Mojave National Preserve administered by the National Park Service (NPS); maintenance of the site became the task of the NPS.
• 1998: The current cross was built by Mr. Sandoz and bolted and cemented to the rock; there was no communication with, or permission from, the NPS to erect the cross.
• 1999: The NPS denied a request to erect a Buddhist stupa (a hemispherical shrine or monument) near the site. Frank Buono (former deputy superintendent of the Mojave National Preserve and self-professed Catholic) brought the cross and the denial of the Buddhist shrine to the attention of the ACLU. The ACLU contacted the NPS and asked them to remove the cross since it violated the establishment clause of the constitution. The NPS asked Mr. Sandoz to remove the cross; he refused and threatened to put it back if NPS removed it.
• Oct 2000: The NPS sent a letter to the ACLU announcing that it would remove the cross within the next few months.
• Dec 2000: Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Redlands, CA) added a rider to a House appropriations bill specifying that Federal funds could not be used to move (or remove) the cross.
• March 2001: The ACLU filed a lawsuit (Buono v. Norton) on behalf of Frank Buono seeking removal of the cross.
• July 2002: US District Court (Central District of California) found that the presence of the cross on federal land was in violation of the First Amendment since the “presence of the cross on federal land conveys a message of endorsement of religion” and ordered the cross removed. For the District and Circuit Courts, there was no question of unconstitutional conduct, in part, because the NPS restricted the site to religious symbols of only one religion
• 2003: Rep. Jerry Lewis inserted an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Act to designate the “five-foot tall white cross first erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States in 1934 as well as a limited amount of adjoining Preserve property” as a “national memorial commemorating United States participation in World War I and honoring the American veterans of that war”, allocate $10,000 for a plaque, and to exchange 1-acre of the Mojave National Preserve around the cross with a 5-acre private parcel located elsewhere in the preserve. The land exchange would effectively remove the cross from federal land. [Note that the "five-foot tall white cross" that was erected in 1934 no longer existed]
• June 2004: The US 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the 2002 District court decision and declared the cross was in violation of the establishment clause and that “…carving out a tiny parcel of property in the midst of this vast Preserve-like a donut hole with the cross atop of it-will do nothing to minimize the impermissible government endorsement [of a particular religion].”
• April 2005: US District Court (Central District of California) found that the land exchange was a “scam” and “an attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin cross” on federal land.
• February 2009: The US Supreme Court said it would decide on the case (Salazar v. Buono) and will begin hearing arguments in October. Interior Secretary, Ken Salazar will defend the Interior Department’s right to maintain the cross. The ACLU will represent Buono (as they have done previously). Currently the cross is covered by a plywood box.

The Mojave cross has become a rallying point for several groups—some of whom want it removed and some who want it to remain—and has been a source of hysterical hyperbole on both sides of the issue.

One commentator claimed that the attempt to keep the cross is part of a “new, illegal and pernicious trend: the conversion of magnificent secular spaces into fundamentalist religious sites,” and includes it in a movement by the religious right to “turn natural wonders into faith-based parks.” This view seems to be overstated, at best.

Campaigns in support of the cross have attempted to rally public opinion and often include emotional pleas intermingled with facts and half-truths. Some of these claim that the ACLU is also trying to have crosses removed from personal gravestone in national cemeteries and Normandy Beach. In fact, it is because of lawsuits filed by the ACLU and the Americans United for Separation of Church and State on behalf of veterans and their families that the Department of Veterans Affairs agreed to allow family members to continue to include religious symbols on headstones. Others argue that “if the Supreme Court strikes down this memorial, tens of thousands of memorials around the country stand at risk.” However, this is impossible since there are not “tens of thousands” such memorials—if there were this many, there would be approximately one memorial for every 100 square miles of the federal land. Nevertheless, it is not clear what effect, if any, this may have on other memorials since each must be dealt with individually. For example, on the same day in 2005 the US Supreme court decided that the display of the Ten Commandments was legal in one case (Texas) and illegal in another (Kentucky).

While some have portrayed this as a battle between patriotic Christians and unpatriotic atheists (or some similar opposing forces of good and evil), this is not the case: neither camp is necessarily unpatriotic and there are believers and non-believers on both sides of the issue. Regardless of the rhetoric, what the Mojave cross may symbolize to individuals, or the emotions that this issue as raised, the legal question is whether or not the presence of the cross on federal land violates the First Amendment of the US Constitution which states that:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first part of the amendment is commonly referred to as the Establishment and is the source for concept of the separation of church and state. “The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment in generally interpreted to prohibit the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.” This interpretation is based largely on Supreme Court decisions beginning with the 1878 Supreme Court Decision in Reynolds v. United States in which Thomas Jefferson is quoted regarding the constitution “building a wall of separation between Church & State”.

If the presence of the cross on federal land violates the establishment clause, then regardless of emotional arguments and public sentiment, the cross must be removed; if not, the cross can remain. Regardless of their effect on public opinion, campaigns on either side issue are totally irrelevant—they serve only to get people worked up. While we may have opinions regarding this issue and we can (and should) discussion such issues, it is ultimately the courts who must decide. So far, all courts have ruled that the cross violates the First Amendment and must be removed. The next and final step is the Supreme Court. The decision by the Supreme Court justices will be based on their interpretation of the law and the arguments presented by the legal teams representing the petitioner and respondent and not on the result of internet polls, emotive videos, angry rhetoric, etc.

The core of petitioners’ argument seems to be that the federal lands belong to all Americans and are not the appropriate place for the display of religious symbols. Men and women of many faiths and none have served our country honorably…A Christian symbol cannot memorialize them all. This, along with the NPS’s rejection of a request to place a non-Christian religious memorial alongside the cross points to preference toward a single religion.

The respondents’ position seems to center around the argument that every person who fought our nation’s wars and died in service is remembered in local, state, and national war memorials and that the cross has universally honored the choice our soldiers made to lay down their lives for the good of the rest of us.

For good or ill, our constitution insures that there is no state-sponsored religion. In my opinion, the constitution is not intended to support only one group of citizens or even the majority of citizens-is for all Americans. It is contradictory to constitution, unpatriotic, and un-American to honor those who served to defend the constitution, but only if they are of a particular creed. Many people would be upset if a non-Christian memorial (like the one that was denied by the NPS) or a memorial honoring only veterans of a particular race, gender, etc. were erected on federal land; I don’t see how the Mojave cross is any less discriminatory. More importantly, since the cross is on federal land, it is an implicit (if not explicit) endorsement of one particular religion by the government. The fact that some have turned this memorial into a regular place of worship—even listing the address of the cross on their church’s website—only serves to prove the point.

According to Wikipedia, there are more than 40 forms for crosses. The Latin cross is one with a longer descending arm. Along with the Greek cross, it is the most common form and represents the cross of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Mojave Cross Christian Church, 59218 Cima Rd. Newberry-Baker, CA 92364 (mojavecrosschristianchurch.com; Google map)

Alliance Defense Fund Amicus Brief (www.alliancedefensefund.org/UserDocs/SalazarAmicus.pdf)
Center for Inquiry Amicus Brief (www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/CFI-Salazar-v-Buono-Amicus.pdf),
Christian Examiner (www.christianexaminer.com/Articles/Articles%20Jul09/Art_Jul09_09.html),
Don’t Tear Me Down (www.donttearmedown.com/),
LA Times (articles.latimes.com/2009/feb/24/nation/na-supreme-court-cross24),
Liberty Legal (www.libertylegal.org/),
Mojave Cross Christian Church (mojavecrosschristianchurch.com)
Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (www.commondreams.org/news2008/0523-08.htm),
Stop the ACLU (www.stoptheaclu.com/2009/07/15/help-save-mojave-cross/)
usgovinfo.about.com (usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/a/mojavecross.htm),
VFW Amicus Brief (thelibertyminute.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/salazar-v-buono.pdf),
Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment)

Jane Holtz Kay (www.janeholtzkay.com/Articles/religiousity.html)

American Legion PERA 2007 Speech (www.legion.org/documents/legion/word/pera_speech.doc/)

www.aclu.org/religion/frb/29459prs20070423.html

Eric Rassbach, National Litigation Director of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty (www.salem-news.com/articles/june032009/desert_cross_6-1-09.php)

McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) [display of Ten Commandments in county courthouses is unconstitutional], Van Orden V. Perry (2005) [display of Ten commandments at the Texas state capitol was constitutional]

The phrase separation between church and state is from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson (3^rd US President and a principle author of the constitution) to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. The Danbury Baptists were concerned that, because they were a minority in their state (Connecticut), another sect would become the established religion. Jefferson reassured them that this was not the case: “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” James Madison (4^th US President, “father of the constitution” and one of its principle authors, and responsible for the first ten amendments) held that that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.The phrase was also used by President John Tyler (10^th US President): “The United States have adventured upon a great and noble experiment, which is believed to have been hazarded in the absence of all previous precedent—that of total separation of Church and State. No religious establishment by law exists among us. The conscience is left free from all restraint and each is permitted to worship his Maker after his own judgment. The offices of the Government are open alike to all.”

This is largely based on the Supreme Court decision in Everson V. Board of Education (1947) in which they said, “The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between Church and State.’”

First Amendment Center, 24 Feb 2009

Christian Examiner, July 2009