Washington D.C. (5/21/2009)--Seventy years ago, a group of World War I veterans erected a seven-foot tall veterans’ memorial in the Mojave Desert Preserve. The white cross, seen by The Veterans of Foreign Wars as a universal symbol of gratitude for military service, is now under attack by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The National Press Club in Washington D.C. held a Media Advisory meeting Thursday to shed light on the issue and its upcoming Supreme Court Case, Salazar, et al. v. Buono.
According to Major Joe Davis, the director of public affairs for the Washington Office of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Frank Buono, a disgruntled former employee of the National Park Services (NPS), took offense to the cross memorial because of its presence as a religious symbol on government property. Buono joined forces with the ACLU in 2001 and filed a suit for the removal of the cross, claiming that it violated the establishment clause.
An audience of about 25 people listened to the panelists argue that the memorial should be restored to its location where they believe it belongs. There was no representation by the opposition from the ACLU or the plaintiff.
“This is something unusual,” said Kelly Shackelford, the founder of the Liberty Legal Institute in Texas. Shackelford, representing the veterans in the case, alluded to the ACLU’s attack on a war memorial as a bit out of character. The ACLU would not normally attack a historical monument. It’s “something near and dear to the hearts of veterans and their families and I believe a majority of the American people.” Historically Shackelford has fought cases to protect first amendment rights, religious freedom, and family values.
The Mojave Desert Cross was erected in 1934 and is one of five lawsuits that the Liberty Legal Institute cites as the result of recent attacks on veteran memorials. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with both sides of the argument, voting twice to allow the memorial to remain and twice to remove the religious object from public property. This upcoming vote could be a historical tiebreaker.
The solemn faces of the veterans sitting in the audience revealed little physical reaction to Shackelford's remarks, however, the continuous swallows of many of the men and women in the room revealed that they were repressing quite a bit of inner emotion.
Colonel Jim Sims, the national senior vice commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart emphasized that the issue here is not merely the removal of one memorial from federal property. It is about a much larger issue regarding the amount of honor and respect paid to those who have served our country.
For Henry and Wanda Sandoz, however, the fate of the Mojave Desert Cross has a slightly different significance. Mr. Sandoz, a small man in a wide-brimmed cowboy hat and a deep southern drawl, has been the unofficial caretaker of the memorial since 1984 when he gave his word to his dying friend Riley Bembry that he would maintain the memorial that Bembry built. The present threat to the cross does not just symbolize a lack of respect for fallen heroes, but it is also reminiscent of history.
Over the past 25 years, Sandoz said that he has watched the memorial be torn down four times-- although he considers these incidents acts of sheer vandalism and, therefore, not of the same nature as the present circumstances.
Now the U.S. government wants to take it down for good. When asked by the press if he got discouraged and why he didn’t just allow the memorial to be deconstructed, Sandoz was adamant in his reply.
“I told them ‘hell no!’ because I put it (the statue) up to stay. I am a Christian person so for me to say that, I meant it,” said Sandoz.
Colonel Sims voiced the consensus of the panel that the upcoming Supreme Court date in October will set a precedent for veteran war memorials. It could also have a large impact on the multitude of memorial sites within the region surrounding the nation’s capitol.
Colonel Sims pointed out that there are religious symbols inscribed on almost every one of the gravestones in the nearby Arlington Cemetery, to name just one of the military tributes within the Washington D.C. area.
Shackelford asked that if this particular Mojave Cross located out in the middle of nowhere is unconstitutional, then what is the federal government going to do about every other religious symbol on government memorials all over the United States? Will they be torn down as well?
Mark Seavey from The American Legion agreed that the attack does not make sense. He then accused the ACLU of attempting to ultimately “secularize all parts of American Life.” Seavey, who returned from serving in Afghanistan from 2004 to 2005, said that the Ninth Circuit of the Appeals Court has been a “keen and willing ally of the ACLU.”
In 2005, The Ninth Circuit of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision to enforce the injunction against the memorial, covering the memorial in plywood until the time of intended removal. Subsequently, Liberty Legal appealed to the Supreme Court, which is expected to hear the case this fall.
In an act of precaution, Major Davis deliberately pointed out that American veterans and Liberty Legal are not calling the ACLU or the U.S. Congress “the enemy,” per se. They are merely fighting against an ideology and not an entity.
“They (the ACLU) are just dead wrong on this particular issue,” said Davis.
Shackelford added that he believes that the ACLU is so “blinded by their fervency that they don’t care about the collateral damage to veterans.”
In the event that the Liberty Legal Institute Loses the Supreme Court Case, Shackelford felt that the results would be devastating.
“The decision will wreak incredible havoc and hostilities towards veterans,” said Shackelford.
By Catherine Moore, camoore@bu.edu
Photos Courtesy of www.christianpost.com and www.ericreedphoto.blogspot.com
