Posted: 04/30/2010 at 6:16pm | IP Logged

Before the trial, the Mojave cross was encased in plywood, so as not to offend aetheists and other sensitive people.

Supremes Raise Bar for Non-Christians 'Offended' by Faith

by Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON, DC - The US Supreme Court has raised the bar for those who express an "offense" because of the Christian faith, determining that the Mojave cross in California can remain on the knoll of rock where it has been for more than seven decades.

In the majority opinion delivered by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court said, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society."

Kennedy was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Roberts and Alito filed additional concurring opinions. Antonin Scalia filed a concurring opinion that was joined by Clarence Thomas. Opposing the ruling were John Stevens, Ruth Ginsberg, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.

According to the Alliance Defense Fund, one of the organizations that has worked on the issue, the focal point of the case was whether someone who has suffered no harm but only claims being "offended" can sue to destroy religious references on public monuments and memorials.

That could bring significant trouble, since the Supreme Court building itself contains multiple references to the Ten Commandments, and crosses in veterans cemeteries also could be targeted, among many other situations.

The ruling affirms the government is allowed to resolve such conflicts "in a way that allows the memorial to remain displayed," the ADF said.

"The ACLU and its allies should not be able to demolish war memorials based on the objection of one person who can't seriously claim to have suffered harm from it," said ADF Senior Counsel Jordan Lorence. "Americans want memorials to our nation's fallen heroes protected. Congress was doing just that when it transferred the land under this memorial to the veterans' group that cares for it."

"A passive monument acknowledging our nation's religious heritage cannot be interpreted as an establishment of religion," added ADF Senior Counsel Joseph Infranco. "To make that accusation, one must harbor both a hostility to the nation's history and a deep misunderstanding of the First Amendment."