California Catholic Daily

Big Week For Religious Liberty! (Or, Kaine And Stevens Cut From The Same Cloth)

Just two days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a 5-4 decision to uphold the display of a Cross on a World War I Mojave Desert memorial on what had been public property (once a national park, the land now is owned privately, yet a lower court ruled the Cross still could not be displayed.) In its majority opinion, the court stated:

The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm.

The timing of the decision couldn't have been more fitting — the same day, Governor Bob McDonnell reversed the Kaine administration's discriminatory prayer policy that prohibited Virginia State Police chaplains from praying at public events according to their faith.

Religious liberty 2, ACLU 0!

This recent Supreme Court case, Salazar v. Buono, reversed the decision from a California lower court that ordered the removal of a Cross placed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars in the Mojave National Preserve in 1934 as a memorial to World War I soldiers (see California Catholic Daily). The circumstances surrounding the case, however, are far from simple.

The disagreement began in 1999 when a retired National Park Service employee sued saying that the Cross on public property constituted an unconstitutional establishment of religion. A federal court agreed and ordered that the Cross be removed. The decision was appealed and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court (the nation's most left-wing court) upheld lower court's decision. However, in 2003, before the Cross could be removed, Congress intervened and transferred the land in question to a private owner in an effort to side step the controversy.

Once again the lower courts and 9th Circuit weighed in and stated that Congress' maneuver was objectionable and did not solve the problem. In the meantime, plywood was used to cover the cross to prevent "any further harm." The U.S. Supreme Court then granted cert in the case to put the confusion to rest.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion and sent the case back to the lower court to be reassessed "in light of a policy of accommodation." The logical assumption is that the display of the Cross will now be allowed. Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with the majority, but additionally argued that the retired park employee did not have standing to sue since the property had been transferred to a private owner. In addition, while the court did not specifically rule on the display of a Cross on public property, it certainly hinted that it would find such a display acceptable in some circumstances.

However, the written dissent truly was tragic. Justice John Paul Stevens, soon to retire,  wrote that the Cross was an improper and intolerable government endorsement of a specific faith. Similar to Kaine's discriminatory chaplain prayer policy, this opinion is yet another example of growing anti-Christian sentiment (see Huffington Post for anti-Catholic hysterics). Simply the fact that four Supreme Court justices could buy into this "logic" of censorship is proof that we must do more to protect our freedom of conscience. The Family Foundation will continue to keep a pulse on this issue and work on efforts to further protect religious liberty.

Classic Case Of Liberal "Tolerance"

Thanks to our very own G.M.E. for alerting me to this. If you haven't heard about or seen this video, it is a must see. An elderly woman, Phyllis Burgess, was surrounded by and harassed by a throng of Angry Leftists and homosexuals in California simply for carrying a Cross to Palm Springs City Hall (see California Catholic Daily, here) where a rally protesting the passage of Prop 8, the California Marriage Amendment which passed on election day with 52 percent of the vote, was taking place. (By the way, Republicans, it passed with 70 percent of the black vote and 53 percent of the Hispanic vote. Want to "reach out"? Want to win elections again?) Television station KPSP was there and televised live the threatening protesters who harassed the woman and prohibited the reporter, Kimberly Cheng, from interviewing her. As the reporter says, she simply wants the woman to voice her opinion. Then a protestor in the mob grabs the woman's Cross and sacrilegiously throws it to the ground and stomps on it — and the leftists say they are the tolerant ones? 

More astounding still: Listen to the anchor at the very end of the video. After watching the threatening behavior live for several minutes with the rest of his audience — seeing his own colleague put in harm's way by the mob — he reports and decides that we have seen "anger and hate on both sides."  

Huh!?!?!?! I don't know what video was he looking at, but we (meaning anyone not legally blind) saw vile and hate from one side only.

So the unintended consequence of this story is that we see first hand not just the hate engendered in liberalism, but the removal of any doubt about the media's shameless and open advocacy and Orwellian propaganda for leftist causes. See for yourselves where the hate is coming from: