Tolerant Atheists Steal Court-Sanctioned Cross

[JoltinJoe]

A really rich dude named Sam HIll built a mansion and a replica of Stonehenge to commemorate WWI veterans of Klickitat County in the Columbia River Gorge of Washington State.

The key point being he built this replica of a Pagan site on his own property. There's plenty of places for relgious symbols. Public lands are not one of them.

I agree a cross should not be displayed in isolation on federal land.

But what's the problem with the land exchange?

[JoltinJoe]

silly joe, there's no such thing as a true atheist. They just live their lives in open rebellion against the One who've given them that life but rest assured, they WILL bow one day.

The list of gods that you and me don't believe in is nearly identical.

Why do atheists think this statement is something profound?

[dbackjon]

A really rich dude named Sam HIll built a mansion and a replica of Stonehenge to commemorate WWI veterans of Klickitat County in the Columbia River Gorge of Washington State.

The key point being he built this replica of a Pagan site on his own property. There's plenty of places for relgious symbols. Public lands are not one of them.

I agree a cross should not be displayed in isolation on federal land.

But what's the problem with the land exchange?

Because it was federal land to begin with, surrounds by millions of square miles of public land.

Under your logic, someone could Helicopter a Hundred Foot tall cross to the top of Half Dome in Yosemite, get Congress to do a land exchange for the few square yards of the top of Half Dome it sits on, and under your and the SCOTUS FLAWED reasoning, it would be legal. It is BULLSHIT, and you know it.

[JoltinJoe]

I agree a cross should not be displayed in isolation on federal land.

But what's the problem with the land exchange?

Because it was federal land to begin with, surrounds by millions of square miles of public land.

Under your logic, someone could Helicopter a Hundred Foot tall cross to the top of Half Dome in Yosemite, get Congress to do a land exchange for the few square yards of the top of Half Dome it sits on, and under your and the SCOTUS FLAWED reasoning, it would be legal. It is BULLSHIT, and you know it.

No, that's my not my logic at all.

First, it was not federal land to begin with. The memorial was built before it was federal land and has stood for seven decades.

I agree that to built a cross/memorial on existing federal land and then demand a lnad transfer would be BS.

That's not what happned here.

What makes this case unique -- and which also makes the land transfer a reasonable way to address the concern of the appearance of establishment of religion weighed against the veterans' desire that a war memorial not be destroyed -- is to transfer the land.

[dbackjon]

Joe - the land has ALWAYS been federal land. Mojave National Preserve was created after the Cross was in place, but the Preserve was created from Federal BLM land.


So you AGREE that this was BS.

Thanks!!

[andy7171]

Time will be my proof. You will see.

Atheists abide by the courts, so long as they get their way.

it could very well be. Or environmentalists that don't want it on a National Park.

Or someone looking to make money off of scrap metal

Or someone pulling a prank.

Or the Pope

It can't be the Pope, JJ can account for his every move.

What do the Environmentalist have against this war memorial?

[JoltinJoe]

Joe - the land has ALWAYS been federal land. Mojave National Preserve was created after the Cross was in place, but the Preserve was created from Federal BLM land.


So you AGREE that this was BS.

Thanks!!

Are you sure it was federal land when the memorial was built? I know that the preserve was created from a federal bureau of land management trust, but the Bureau of Land Management, according to a story I read, was not created until 1946. The memorial has existed since 1934. And it was definitely was not always federal land. Even after the Mexican War, it was claimed by the Mojave Indians and other Native American groups and the US never signed a treay with the Mojave nation. Thus, it seems that to the extent that the US first legally claimed sovereignty over the land, at least as "federal land," it was when it was claimed as part of land placed in trust with the BLM. And that had to be after 1946.

Also, I mentioned the fact that the memorial/cross has stood for seven decades. This is from Justice Kennedy's opinion:

Time also has played its role. The cross had stood on Sunrise Rock for nearly seven decades before the statute was enacted. By then, the cross and the cause it commemorated had become entwined in the public consciousness. See ibid. Members of the public gathered regularly at Sunrise Rock to pay their respects. Rather than let the cross deteriorate, community members repeatedly took it upon themselves to replace it. Congress ultimately designated the cross as a national memorial, ranking it among those monuments honoring the noble sacrifices that constitute our national heritage. See note following 16 U. S. C. §431 (listing officially designated national memorials, including the National D-Day Memorial and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial). Research discloses no other national memorial honoring American soldiers—more than 300,000 of them—who were killed or wounded in World War I. See generally A. Leland & M. Oboroceanu, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, American War and Military Operations Casualties: Lists and Statistics 2 (2009). It is reasonable to interpret the congressional designation as giving recognition to the historical meaning that the cross had attained. Cf. Van Orden v. Perry , 545 U. S. 677, 702–703 (2005) ( Breyer , J., concurring in judgment) (“40 years” without legal challenge to a Ten Commandments display “suggest that the public visiting the [surrounding] grounds has considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural heritage”).

[dbackjon]

Yes, I am sure. You are incorrect.

The BLM was created in 1946 by the merger of the US Grazing Service with the General Land Office, which administered undesignated Federal Lands. No NEW Federal Land was used, but existing Federal Land.

The Mojave Indians were moved to a Reservation on the Colorado River in the late 1800's. Present Reservation was established in 1911.

[JoltinJoe]

Yes, I am sure. You are incorrect.

The BLM was created in 1946 by the merger of the US Grazing Service with the General Land Office, which administered undesignated Federal Lands. No NEW Federal Land was used, but existing Federal Land.

The Mojave Indians were moved to a Reservation on the Colorado River in the late 1800's. Present Reservation was established in 1911.

Did the Mojave relinquish their claim to this land in 1911? As far as I understand it, the Mojave nation has never signed a treaty with the US.

I did find a source on line that suggested that this has been federal land since the admission of California to the union. But I get the feeling though we essentially took this land as a spoils of war with Mexico and ignored all other claims to it.

Funny that the Mojave Preserve website begs the question of when the land became federal land. I was sure I would find the answer there. Maybe that's a discussion they would rather avoid.

[dbackjon]

Yes, I am sure. You are incorrect.

The BLM was created in 1946 by the merger of the US Grazing Service with the General Land Office, which administered undesignated Federal Lands. No NEW Federal Land was used, but existing Federal Land.

The Mojave Indians were moved to a Reservation on the Colorado River in the late 1800's. Present Reservation was established in 1911.

Did the Mojave relinquish their claim to this land in 1911? As far as I understand it, the Mojave nation has never signed a treaty with the US.

I did find a source on line that suggested that this has been federal land since the admission of California to the union. But I get the feeling though we essentially took this land as a spoils of war with Mexico and ignored all other claims to it.

Funny that the Mojave Preserve website begs the question of when the land became federal land. I was sure I would find the answer there. Maybe that's a discussion they would rather avoid.

They may have never gave up the claim, but the US took it anyways.

Joe - some times the best course is to give up when you are beaten. The land was owned and administered by the Federal Government when the cross was put up. End of story.

[JoltinJoe]

Did the Mojave relinquish their claim to this land in 1911? As far as I understand it, the Mojave nation has never signed a treaty with the US.

I did find a source on line that suggested that this has been federal land since the admission of California to the union. But I get the feeling though we essentially took this land as a spoils of war with Mexico and ignored all other claims to it.

Funny that the Mojave Preserve website begs the question of when the land became federal land. I was sure I would find the answer there. Maybe that's a discussion they would rather avoid.

They may have never gave up the claim, but the US took it anyways.

Joe - some times the best course is to give up when you are beaten. The land was owned and administered by the Federal Government when the cross was put up. End of story.

And what about the part of my statement dealing with the fact that the cross was there since 1934 -- and Justice Kennedy's discussion about the signifiance of that fact, and that it had become a nationally registered federal memorial?

I suspect that there was really nothing "federal" about this land in 1934. Today federal land is plainly and clearly designated; before the BLM, the distinction between open land and federal land was not always so clearly designated. It was an open desert without any federal designs on it. That is precisely why the BLM was formed.

I do find it ironic though, that in order to claim victory, you have become jingoistic about US land claims. I suspect in another context you wouldexpress more reservation about usurping land without an appropriate treaty.

The land tranfsr is a reasonable solution under the circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court.

[dbackjon]

They may have never gave up the claim, but the US took it anyways.

Joe - some times the best course is to give up when you are beaten. The land was owned and administered by the Federal Government when the cross was put up. End of story.

And what about the part of my statement dealing with the fact that the cross was there since 1934 -- and Justice Kennedy's discussion about the signifiance of that fact, and that it had become a nationally registered federal memorial?

The land tranfsr is a reasonable solution under the circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court.

So that makes it ok? Again, based on this precedence, what is to stop someone from erecting a cross on Half Dome, claim it is a War Memorial, and demand the land be transfered?

[JoltinJoe]

And what about the part of my statement dealing with the fact that the cross was there since 1934 -- and Justice Kennedy's discussion about the signifiance of that fact, and that it had become a nationally registered federal memorial?

The land tranfsr is a reasonable solution under the circumstances, as held by the Supreme Court.

So that makes it ok? Again, based on this precedence, what is to stop someone from erecting a cross on Half Dome, claim it is a War Memorial, and demand the land be transfered?

I wasn't done. I had to take a phone call. I went back and added more.

In sum, what happened here is not going to happen again, because "federal" land is more plainly designated today than in 1934.

[dbackjon]

So that makes it ok? Again, based on this precedence, what is to stop someone from erecting a cross on Half Dome, claim it is a War Memorial, and demand the land be transfered?

I wasn't done. I had to take a phone call. I went back and added more.

In sum, what happened here is not going to happen again, because "federal" land is more plainly designated today than in 1934.

No, that is incorrect as well, at least in the West. Federal Land was Federal Land. Hence bills like the Homestead Act of 1864, The Mining Act of 1872 that dealt with this very type of land. The BLM was merely a reorganization.

And as far as the tribes go - what happened, happened. We can't go back on history, unless you are willing to give your office back to the indians. I do support reasonable claims (like making sure the land designated as reservations have recognized water claims, etc.

[JoltinJoe]

I wasn't done. I had to take a phone call. I went back and added more.

In sum, what happened here is not going to happen again, because "federal" land is more plainly designated today than in 1934.

No, that is incorrect as well, at least in the West. Federal Land was Federal Land. Hence bills like the Homestead Act of 1864, The Mining Act of 1872 that dealt with this very type of land. The BLM was merely a reorganization.

And as far as the tribes go - what happened, happened. We can't go back on history, unless you are willing to give your office back to the indians. I do support reasonable claims (like making sure the land designated as reservations have recognized water claims, etc.

The acts you mentioned dealt with public lands under federal control, but which it sought to divest itself or possession or control. I don't think the federal government treated the subject land as federal "property" within the meaning of Art. IV, Section III of the Constitution. The way the government handled land at that time is pretty murky, which is why the BLM was formed in the first place. I don't know when you would say that it started treating Mojave lands as federal "property."

Incidentally it would not have been a violation of then-existing constitutional law to erect a cross on federal property in 1934.

[dbackjon]

Not sure why you are not understanding that the Mojave land was Federal Land, since 1848.

[D1B]

Not sure why you are not understanding that the Mojave land was Federal Land, since 1848.

Cuz he's wrong and got beat again. His post defeat strategy is to muddy the argument so much that nobody knows what the fuck is going on, or at least give the impression there is a minute sliver of doubt for people not paying close attention to the argument. Trust me, even though he's wrong, he will use this in couple months against you, when everyone has completely forgotten about this thread. He's a lawyer.

BTW, nice ass whipping Jon.

[D1B]

it could very well be. Or environmentalists that don't want it on a National Park.

Or someone looking to make money off of scrap metal

Or someone pulling a prank.

Or the Pope

It can't be the Pope, JJ can account for his every move.


Jolt, probably knows what he's wearing today too.

What do the Environmentalist have against this war memorial?

[JoltinJoe]

Not sure why you are not understanding that the Mojave land was Federal Land, since 1848.

Because the way are trying to phrase it exports a modern-day usage of the term to another time -- to a time when it was even debated whether the federal government even had the right to acquire "federal property." For example, recalll that President Jefferson expressly disavowed that the Louisiana Purchase created federal property; indicating instead that it was public lands, because he believed that the federal government did not have the power to acquire property. In time it became accepted that the government could acquire property, but the stated intent of the federal government, for most of the 1800s, was that any land it acquired was public land to be turned over for public use, and were thus public domain lands -- frequently called "public lands."

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/c ... 032007.pdf

The discussion of what is federal property and what religious symbols, if any, may be displayed on federal property is a 20th and 21st century constitutional discussion. You can use modern-day terminology to address issues from the 19th century.

[JoltinJoe]

Not sure why you are not understanding that the Mojave land was Federal Land, since 1848.

Cuz he's wrong and got beat again. His post defeat strategy is to muddy the argument so much that nobody knows what the **** is going on, or at least give the impression there is a minute sliver of doubt for people not paying close attention to the argument. Trust me, even though he's wrong, he will use this in couple months against you, when everyone has completely forgotten about this thread. He's a lawyer.

BTW, nice ass whipping Jon.

You don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Another subject you know nothing about, but you express strident opinions nonetheless.

D1B -- constitutional scholar.

[JMU DJ]

For a guy who berates others for 'twisting' the facts/story, I'm surprised at your thread title Joe. Where does it say the atheists was responsible? Time will tell?


Time will tell the church murdered scientist too.

[dbackjon]

Not sure why you are not understanding that the Mojave land was Federal Land, since 1848.

Because the way are trying to phrase it exports a modern-day usage of the term to another time -- to a time when it was even debated whether the federal government even had the right to acquire "federal property." For example, recalll that President Jefferson expressly disavowed that the Louisiana Purchase created federal property; indicating instead that it was public lands, because he believed that the federal government did not have the power to acquire property. In time it became accepted that the government could acquire property, but the stated intent of the federal government, for most of the 1800s, was that any land it acquired was public land to be turned over for public use, and were thus public domain lands -- frequently called "public lands."

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/c ... 032007.pdf

The discussion of what is federal property and what religious symbols, if any, may be displayed on federal property is a 20th and 21st century constitutional discussion. You can use modern-day terminology to address issues from the 19th century.

Your link proves my point - thanks Joe!

Question - if the Federal Government did not own the public lands, how could they give it away to the railroads, homesteaders or miners?

[JoltinJoe]

Because the way are trying to phrase it exports a modern-day usage of the term to another time -- to a time when it was even debated whether the federal government even had the right to acquire "federal property." For example, recalll that President Jefferson expressly disavowed that the Louisiana Purchase created federal property; indicating instead that it was public lands, because he believed that the federal government did not have the power to acquire property. In time it became accepted that the government could acquire property, but the stated intent of the federal government, for most of the 1800s, was that any land it acquired was public land to be turned over for public use, and were thus public domain lands -- frequently called "public lands."

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/marshall/c ... 032007.pdf

The discussion of what is federal property and what religious symbols, if any, may be displayed on federal property is a 20th and 21st century constitutional discussion. You can use modern-day terminology to address issues from the 19th century.

Your link proves my point - thanks Joe!

Question - if the Federal Government did not own the public lands, how could they give it away to the railroads, homesteaders or miners?

The link does not prove your point. Now you are using the term "public lands" interchangeably with "federal property" ? Each of those words has some constitutional significance, at least in the 1800s. Public lands were lands acquired to be turned over to private use; federal property was propert used or to be used for federal government purposes.

[dbackjon]

Your link proves my point - thanks Joe!

Question - if the Federal Government did not own the public lands, how could they give it away to the railroads, homesteaders or miners?

The link does not prove your point. Now you are using the term "public lands" interchangeably with "federal property" ? Each of those words has some constitutional significance.

The link clearly indicates that the "public lands" ARE the property of the Federal Government.

Again, how could the Federal Government give away the lands if it did not belong to them?

[D1B]

Cuz he's wrong and got beat again. His post defeat strategy is to muddy the argument so much that nobody knows what the **** is going on, or at least give the impression there is a minute sliver of doubt for people not paying close attention to the argument. Trust me, even though he's wrong, he will use this in couple months against you, when everyone has completely forgotten about this thread. He's a lawyer.

BTW, nice ass whipping Jon.

You don't have the foggiest idea of what you are talking about. Another subject you know nothing about, but you express strident opinions nonetheless.

D1B -- constitutional scholar.

Joe, what wrong with you? Seriously, you are making an ass out of yourself lately.

You used to be a worthy adversary.