@55. Dave Surls:
Private citizens should be free to do that on lands owned by the United States. It’s our land, it doesn’t really belong to the government.
In this case, private citizens wanted to erect a Buddhist shrine in the same vicinity and were denied that right. Therefore this monument is being given special treatment based on the religion it represents.
Not a first amendment issue (i.e. Congress has made no law respecting an establishment of religion here). The SCOTUS needs to butt out.
It would not have been a first amendment issue if there were no discrimination being perpetrated by the government.
Now, if the federal govermnet had passed a bill and paid for the monument, then you might have an argument on 1A grounds.
Essentially, that is what the land trade in this case would amount to – a bill passed to provide special rights to the supporters of this monument. To establish the cross as the official memorial, to the exclusion of other religious symbols.
If private citizens are granted unrestricted rights to erect religious monuments on public land, the problems are much worse. Better to just move the cross to a private location (and not with legal maneuvering by Congress).
Peace.
DS
