Facts: The cross was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign War explicitly as a memorial to those servicemen and -women who died in World War I. It was built on what was, at that time, private property.
Speculation: It would, I expect, be incorrect to believe there was even a tiny hint of religious exclusion when a cross was chosen as the symbol for the memorial. I expect, rather, that it was chosen because it was a meaningful symbol to those who built it.
There is no issue with your first fact. It is what it is.
The speculation is not yours to make. It was chosen, most likely, by VFW Christians, and while they may not have had a conscious exclusion of other religions, there also was no conscious
inclusion. Regardless, it was erected privately on privately owned property, so the overtly religious symbolism needs to be overlooked until such time as the land is no longer privately owned...
Facts: The cross stood as a memorial, and was recognized as a memorial, for 60 years before the federal government acquired the land. (I keep using the word "acquired" because I haven't taken the time to determine the method of acquisition. It is not used pejoratively in my use in this context.) People had been holding frequent worship services at the memorial, including Easter services, for several decades before it became part of the National Park Service.
Speculation: Given the popularity and meaningfulness of the memorial, I cannot envision that the NPS did not know of its existence when the land was acquired.
Fact: People can erect and worship whatever monuments they want to on private land and hold as many ceremonies of whatever type they choose(within reason and legal boundaries). Fior 60 years this happened on private land, with nary a complaint.
Speculation: you cannot know that, nor does it matter. Whether they knew about it at the time of acquisition or not is bseides the point. They know about it now, and something should be done to make the area fall in line with the Constitution.
Point of clarification: I also choose to use "acquired" because I've no idea how the property transferred ownership from private to public. I speculate that the means are unimportant, as the status of the land does not change due to cthe circumstances of acquisition.
Facts: Despite what has been described as normal NPS procedure of removing all manmade structures from acquired land, the memorial remained. Easter services continued to be held every year.
Speculation: It appears logical to believe that the NPS viewed the memorial as "grandfathered in", simply from the fact that nothing was ever done about it.
Fact: I never said "all man-made structures", I said the man-made structures it deemed unnecessary or insignificant, or simply did not want to maintain. Big difference.
As for your speculation..."noting ever done about it" is a VERY slippery road to travel. Leave it be, just because it's always been? What if, while wandering through Yosemite National Park, in one of it's isolated hunmdreds of thousands of acres of forest land, someone discovered a KKK lynching circle that dated back to the 1800s, and was used than, and now, as a grounds of worship and memorial for those soldiers lost in during the American Revolution or the Civil War? Should that be left there as historically significant or "grandfathered in" by your clause? This is the precedent you are seeking to establish...
Facts: The first attempt to force the removal was in 2001, seven years after the acquisition of the property. The ACLU filed suit on behalf of a single individual. Things went back and forth, with a court ordering the cross removed, the VFW appealing and being denied, several members of Congress arranging to have the land surrounding the cross sold to the VFW, an injunction being filed with and granted by the 9th Circuit blocking the sale, and the case being moved to the Supreme Court for final determination. Easter services continue to be held every year.
Speculation: If the NPS had removed the memorial as part of a cleansing ritual (or whatever terminology you choose to apply), I doubt the VFW would have done anything about it other than mourn the loss. If they did rebuild, they'd have had their hands slapped, and it wouldn't be done more than once. Furthermore, if nobody had ever raised a stink about it, given that the NPS hadn't done anything about a very popular site in seven years, I'd bet the memorial would have stayed.
Your facts are accurate. But quite simply, it WAS ruled unconstituional in the original case. "Several members of Congress" than decided to arrange a transfer of the land(which is illegal and unconstituional), which has been blocked. Your fact seems more supportive of the cry that it is unconstitutional since, at every turn, the Supreme Court has blocked the continued assistance of these individuals in their endeavor.
Your speculation is just that, and neither supported nor supportable. It also doesn't argue against the unConstituionality of the situation. Therefor, I can't understand why you would suly a well thought post with such a wild speculation. Your fact clearly shows that there IS a reason for it be declared unconstituional and fully supports the actions of the ACLU in this endeavor.
My problem with the whole mess stems from how I was reared. If a display or memorial is deeply meaningful to someone else, and it is not based in malice or with the intent to inflame, incite, or harm, then it makes not a whit of difference how I feel about it. If it brings comfort to another human being, then in my world view I have a moral right to let them gain the comfort from whatever it is. To me, it smacks of narcissism and a deep lack of respect to expect other people to give up something meaningful to them simply because one doesn't like the symbolism used. If there's even an iota of a chance of ignoring it, then decency and respect for others means ignore it and move on. The U.S. (and the Mojave Preserve) are danged big places, with lots of places to look that don't have crosses.
I understand where you're coming from. Believe it or not, I do. I even agree with you on the sentiments behind erecting this particular memorial by the original VFW members.
From my standpoint...it's not really about this specific monument and this specific symbol. It's about not alowing that doorway to be opened for anyone elese. There are people and groups in this country that will quickly and effectively exploit this precedent should it be set. I don't think it's about being "picky". It's about not allowing it to happen, period. It doesn't matter what the symbol is, which religion it represents or who put it there. It's about preventing private groups from erecting symbols on public land. That's it. We cannot allow that become a precedent.
Forget the religous symbolism. Forget the war memorial sentiment. Forget who put it up, or why. The bottom line is that this is a private memorial erected by private citizens and should NOT be allowed to remain on public land. Remove all of the emotional value, and look at it from a purely logical position. The symbolism and sentiment does NOT matter. What matters is that privatre individuals cannot erect private memorials on public land, and private memorials in place on public land should be removed. Period. Everything else just clouds it up and makes it foggy.
The Constituionality of the situation cannot be judged by it's intentions, and that's what you are trying to do. The U.S. Consitution does not and SHOULD not operate that way.
