High court to decide if war memorial violates Constitution

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/10/05/supreme.court.veterans.cross/index.html?eref=rss_politics

The Mojave Cross sits in a quiet and lonely California desert. It was put there over 75 years ago by a group of veterans to serve as a war memorial. Now, it is boxed in plywood. It is boxed in plywood because it was ordered to be by the court. After all its years of sitting there, on what is now the Mojave National Preserve; government land, it is fighting to hold its place. People who oppose the placement of the cross say that it goes against the First Amendment's provision of separation of church and state. Riley Bembry, a man who served as a medic in World War I, was one of the veterans that helped set up the cross. He says it sits on top of a 4,000 foot plateau and served as a place of reflection for many returning veterans that retreated into the desert as a way to recover from the severe lung diseases caused by mustard gas attacks during the war. And each year an Easter service is held there, but until recently only locals knew of it. When the cross was first put up, no one seemed to care that it was there. But when the land changed ownership and went from just desert land to the Mojave National Preserve, it became an issue; It was now located on government land. It isn't uncommon for war memorials to have crosses on them or be faith related, but because this one is just in the shape of a cross and is located on government land, it's a problem. The people in charge of the preserve say that they would be happy to have a war memorial located on their preserve but that it would have to be in some other shape.

Personally, I don't think that it is that big of a deal. It's a cross, yes, it's been there for years, it was there before the government was even a part, it should be left alone and respected. I don't think that the government should just be able to step in and say it can't be there because "separation of church and state." Yes, church and government should be separate because everyone has different faiths, but this cross is just located on what is now government land. When the cross was originally placed on the plateau it was just desert, it was in no one's name specifically and was not government land. So by it just sitting there it's not effecting anyone or anything. It's not playing a part in what laws are passed or how people are treated. It's just sitting on a lonely plateau just like it always has. To me, the cross has no meaning. But to many locals I'm sure it does. And because of that I think if they were to take the plateau and put it into a private party's name the issue could easily be solved. Yes, it would be located right in the middle of a government preserve, which might tick the government off a little bit having to give up land right in the middle of their property, but then they could be satisfied in knowing that they no longer have a religious symbol on their land, and the veterans would be happy because their memorial wouldn't be being destroyed. But my true feelings are that it should just be left as it always has been. It's really not hurting anything; it sits on a plateau. And why go through all the effort to divide up the land and try to keep everyone happy when it has been there for years and nobody has blinked an eye at it. This issue is obviously only being brought up to bring it up. "Separation of Church and State." What about "in God we trust" on our money then? How is that okay but not a small cross in what used to be a desert?