Wall Off the Mojave Cross
Charles Hicks | Oct 11, 2009 | Comments 10
By Emily Ling
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution includes the simple words: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This sentence is commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause. It has been used again and again to argue against government support of religious institutions or doctrines.
It will undoubtedly be used again in Salazar v. Buono, one of the fifty-plus cases to be heard during the 2009-10 term of the U.S. Supreme Court, which opened last week.
In Salazar v. Buono, the Court will have to decide whether a crucifix erected on government property violates the Establishment Clause. The eight-foot-tall cross, a war memorial, has stood in the Mojave Desert since 1934.
The case has already been heard in several lower courts. The result has always been the same. Each court has consistently ruled that the crucifix must be removed from the site. The only reason we’re still talking about the “Mojave Cross” is that loopholes are constantly being exploited to keep it standing. While the Republican congressional majority governed during the 1990s, the government transferred the land to a private group of veterans for the express purpose of keeping the cross there.
Before going any further, it is important to point out a few things about the site itself. First of all, the government never gave initial permission to erect the cross at all. Secondly, the cross has been replaced several times, most recently in 1998. Third, the government has denied several requests from non-Christian religious groups to put their own religious symbols on federal property — most recently by denying a similar request by a Buddhist group in 1999.
Should the cross be taken down? Of course it should be. It is against the Constitution for the government to favor a specific religion, and in the case of the Mojave Cross, the government is doing just that.
Clearly, we live in a nation in which Christianity is the religion of the majority. Judeo-Christian ethical principles have certainly been vital to the foundation of some of our most important laws. But there is a fundamental difference between being “a nation populated mostly by Christians,” and being “a Christian nation.” We are the former, but we are not the latter. It would be one thing to allow everyone to erect religious displays on government property, but to favor one religion over others violates the Establishment Clause.
In truth, I don’t think an eight-foot-tall cross in the middle of the desert is really that important in my personal life. Whether it stands or falls, I’m still getting the same amount of sleep each night. I could not care less about the cross itself. But what does bother me is the blurring of the line between church and state. Government endorsement of one religion over others is a regressive policy that alienates many Americans.
The most recent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that 16 percent of Americans are not religious and over 20 percent are not Christian. This pluralism is a vital part of the American identity and experience. When we legitimize the beliefs of one group, while refusing to legitimize the beliefs of other groups, we are respecting an establishment of religion. We are also ignoring the valuable contributions of all religions, which are beneficial to everyone.
Many Americans consider the common church-state issues to be relatively unimportant. Whether it be the legality of endorsing God on our currency, referring to God in our Pledge of Allegiance or erecting crucifixes on federal land, many people simply don’t care one way or another. I think they should care, because there is more at stake than just coins and crosses.
When we let one religion have its way whenever it wants, we contribute to a tone of apathy that damages our entire framework of government. When we elect politicians because they believe certain things about God that we like, we undermine our political process. This all leads to more victories for the Christian majority, whether the issues at stake are gay rights, abortion policies, stem cell research funding or the teaching of evolution to our children. When those with dissenting opinions don’t speak up about it, part of the blame for “the way things are” falls upon them.
Salazar v. Buono is a small case with relatively insignificant direct consequences. I’ve never seen the Mojave Cross, and I don’t like the desert climate enough to change that. But I recognize that while this one small case doesn’t affect me, the larger issue of church-state separation does. Let’s hope our highest court upholds the Bill of Rights by finally getting rid of the cross in the desert.
Charles Hicks is third-year religious studies major. He can be reached at cbhicks@uci.edu.
Filed Under: Opinion
In the third graph you refer to the cross as a crucifix. The terms are not interchangeable for obvious reasons.
Thank you.
Alexandra – I didn’t mean to paint an insulting picture of anyone. I don’t even necessarily think faith is an invalid reason for someone to feel a certain way about a political issue. Obviously, people should not be expected to ignore their beliefs when they participate in society or enter a voting booth. If I came off as insulting to Christianity, I apologize.
I believe you paint an insulting picture of who Christians are and what kind of effect it would have on government to have Christian leaders. Christianity presents a moral code that does not necessarily mandate that you reject evolution, homosexuality or scientific research. The so called ‘blurring’ of the separation between church and state has existed since the founding of the nation and has only persisted through time. A solid moral code, whether it be guided by a Christian faith or otherwise, is not going to have a negative effect on American life. As a religious studies major I would expect more grace from you in terms of your respect for who Christians are. If the very diverse majority really believes in a certain issue and we provide the necessary protection for the minority, who are you to condemn that belief because it is inspired by a faith in a god?
It’s important to recognise that Jesus of Nazareth (the Saviour and coming King of God’s earthly Kingdom), died, took His last breath, “gave up the ghost”, was on a Roman cross NOT a “Latin cross.” Without the Titulus(sign) which bore the crime, believers and followers of Christ Jesus are worshipping in vain and claiming a “Christianity” without Jesus The Christ!
The prophet Isaiah tells us all: “Wherefore the LORD said, Forasmuch as this people draw near ME with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:” (29:13).
Years ago, the identical issue was raised regarding a cross erected on Skinner Butte near Eugene, Oregon. My opinion published in the Eugene Register-Guard back then has remained unchanged. Here it is.
I am not now nor have I ever been a Christian. But I would like to ask a question of every person protesting the existence of the cross. Have you ever accepted, cashed, and spent a paycheck including Christmas holiday pay? If so, you’re a hypocrite who wants to have their cake and eat it too.
You can’t have it both ways without being a hypocrite. Either you protest both the cross and Christmas holiday pay you receive … or protest neither. As a non-Christian, I’ve come to terms with the inescapable fact that I live in a largely Judeo-Christian culture. And rather than live in denial of that fact, I’ve chosen to “go with the flow.”
As the old saying goes, “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.” Even though I’m a non-Christian, I’ll continue to accept Christmas holiday pay – and continue to indulge Christians in their desire to erect silly structures to give them peace of mind.
[…] Religious-Studies Major Not Losing Sleep Over Mojave-Cross Case […]
Hi Paqid! Thanks for your comment.
I don’t particularly like the word “Judeo-Christian” either. You’re right, Judaism and Christianity are theologically very different. There are fundamental disagreements between the two religions, and so the term may not apply in a doctrinal discussion. I do, however, find the term useful when discussing some of the moral and ethical principles of the two religious traditions.
I was using the term in context with a statement about the basis of American law. Certainly, much of the historical tradition that Judaism and Christianity share has been a large part of the basis of our legal system. There are many examples of this throughout local, state, and federal laws in America. I’d love to share some of these examples if you’re interested.
Thanks!
Charles
GLORY BE TO GOD . THIS IS GREAT.
That is one whacked out comment.
Not even religious studies majors (or their professors) are addressing the oxymoronic nature of the phrase “Judeo-Christian” that you use. Christianity depends upon supersession and displacement theology–invalidating Judaism with its “Old Testament”–as THE essential element of validating itself with its “New Testament.” They are intractably mutually contradictory. Thus, “Judeo-Christian” is a meaningless gloss over an intractable contradiction.
That is part of the reason why every time the subject of “Judeo-Christian” values arises, its different and contradictory meanings to different people spark differences rather than harmony.
There are a myriad of historical aspects that still continue to be ignored, not only by the clergy but even the scholarly Christian world remain oblivious to the authentic Judaic historical aspects while the scholarly Jewish world remains oblivious to the authentic Christian–Hellenist Roman–historical aspects.
Challenge your professors to deal with the information compiled at
http://www.netzarim.co.il (particularly, click on their History Museum pages in the left panel of their home page).