of mule dung and ash

In a response almost quicker than the news of American President, Barak Obama, receiving a Nobel Peace prize, came the not unexpected announcement from Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, that the terrorist organization condemns the award.

Shortly thereafter, Rush Limbaugh, spokesman for the Teabag Taliban, is appopletic; HubBlog calls the award, “… silly and irrelevant,” The National Post’s Jonathan Kaw calls the award ridiculous, and Mary, at Freedom Eden blog, has already turned the issue into a racial thing. One Limey blogger asks, “Are you frickin' kidding me?”

Ross Chainey, writing for Reuters, asks if Obama deserves the award, and promptly interviews Hamas, while Scott at ScrappleFace uses the award to take a shot at the United Nations.

Simon Robinson, writing for Time Magazine, posits that winning the award could hurt Obama, and Stephen Medvic, posting on PolySigh, offers that the Peace Prize will be more of a headache to President Obama than an honor, recommending the President turn it down.

Geneva based correspondent, Ronald Sexton, writing for the right-of-center blog FiveThirtyEight, says “Perhaps the happiest people in the US on this one will be the centrists - and those who wanted Obama to reshape the US image abroad.” Writing for CQ’s Political Wire, Taegan Goddard offers a roundup of opinions, many of which confirm Sexton’s comments.

My blogger favorites are rather divided in their comments, with JayG intent upon pointing out Mr. Obama’s failures while crankylitprof calls it nauseating. Interestingly, TOTWTYTR has not yet revealed his views. Perhaps once his blood pressure stabilizes…

On the other side of the sphere, FDL, C&L, Stinque, EBMisfit, and BitchPHD all seem to love the award, but predicted the inevitable right wingnut explosions.

PZMeyers is unimpressed, but HufPo has gone ga-ga over the news, with writer Jacob Heilbrunn gushing, “It would be hard to think of a more electrifying and deserved recipient of this year's Nobel Peace prize than President Obama.”

Yours truly, a slightly left-of-center political observer, thinks all of this is much ado about not much of any consequence. Obama winning a Peace Prize was to be expected. The only surprise was how quickly it occurred, but considering the deadline for nominations was February 01, 2009, only 11 days into the Obama presidency, it appears obvious that the Committee did this rather off the cuff.

I’m not surprised, but neither am I impressed. Although pleased that an American is the recipient of a Nobel Peace Prize, in the end I find myself in some agreement with Simon Robinson and Steven Medvic. Although I see no reason for Mr. Obama to refuse the award, the timing is unfortunate and the Peace Prize may cause more trouble than it is worth.

At best this is just another distraction.

~~

Way back in the 1930’s, several World War I veterans suffering from the effects of battlefield exposure to mustard gas, migrated to the desert seeking relief in the dry air. At some point they formed a VFW post. In 1934, Death Valley VFW Post 2284 hired a shade tree welder to construct a simple structure out of three pieces of 4” pipe, fashioning it into the shape of a Latin cross. This fabrication was erected atop a geologic formation in the California desert, known as Sunrise Rock. The VFW championed the now rusty cross, variously described as between four and 12 feet in height, as a memorial to the dead of World War I. Once there was a sign stating as much, but it has long since disappeared.

This was not necessarily a problem at first, as the original construction was on private land. But some years later the land became part of the 1.6 million acre Mojave National Preserve in southeastern California’s San Bernardino County, and therefore part of the National Park Service’s land holdings.

The cross has undergone four changes worthy of mention. #1, it was repeatedly reconstructed and maintained by private individuals. #2, the sign commemorating WW-I veterans is now gone. #3, Congress designated Sunrise Rock a federal preserve in 1994. And #4, although the National Park service allowed the display of the cross to continue, the area was closed to others wishing to erect monuments containing other, non-christian themes. That last one became a problem.

Buono I

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from favoring specific religions, but in 1999 the NPS denied a petition to erect a memorial to Buddhist war dead. Not long afterward, in 2001, self-described practicing Catholic and retired National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, filed suit against the National Park Service [PDF] seeking removal of the cross. While the case was pending the NPS announced the intention to remove the cross. That would have settled the mess, but Congress interfered by passing a bill denying federal funds for the removal of the cross, designating the cross a national memorial, and providing funds for a memorial plaque.

Buono prevailed in district court, and the federal government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. Not unsurprisingly, the court upheld the injunction.

Buono II

Just as in Buono I, Congress attempted an end run. As Buono II was pending, our enlightened lawmakers transferred the land on which the cross sits to the VFW, trading roughly one acre for a nearby five acre parcel. The transfer was pressed through as a rider to a defense appropriations bill. The designation as a national memorial was preserved, and the legislation stipulated that the cross and the land could potentially revert back to the government.

That didn’t fly either. As the Ninth Circuit noted “a reasonable observer, even without knowing whether Sunrise Rock is federally owned, would believe — or at least suspect — that the cross rests on public land.” That did not stop the land exchange, however.

Buono III

Now we have Buono III, in which ACLU attorneys are arguing that the land transfer itself violated the Establishment Clause. The District Court again sided with Buono, writing that “the transfer of the Preserve land . . . is an attempt by the government to evade the permanent injunction enjoining the display of the Latin Cross atop Sunrise Rock.” This decision was upheld and Buono III now sits before SCOTUS.

While the wingnut sphere is ablaze with indignation, room for understanding may be found. The decision of NPS to remove the christian cross and deny religious-oriented memorials would have extinguished the controversy. It was the predominately christian component in Congress, disregarding the consequences of their actions on non-christian U.S. citizens, that fomented the uproar.

The Law of Unintended Consequences

In a joint brief filed in Salazar V. Buono, the Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran Affairs Counsel (yes, there are Muslims serving in the U.S. military) and the Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America observe “by labeling the cross . . .[a] national memorial to veterans of World War I, Salazar ignores and denigrates the service of our non-Christian veterans of that war.” Furthermore, some former military officers appear to be concerned [PDF] that the perception of government promotion of Christianity over other faiths will prove divisive, and will impair recruitment of non-christians.

Decisions, decisions

SCOTUS has now limited itself two choices. The Justices could end the controversy simply by ruling that Buono, the only challenger to the cross, cannot prove direct harm and therefore has no standing. On the surface at least, that seems to be a simple, even mundane point of court procedure, but it could have powerful impact. Such a ruling would imply that opponents of government sponsored religious symbolism anywhere must prove direct harm before being allowed to seek a remedy in the courts.

Alternately the Court could decide this case based on the property transfer question. If allowed, such a decision could affect many other monuments sitting on government property. It could have effect on national cemeteries and national parks, and even the Kennedy Memorial. As the VFW has argued in this case, “… without action by this Court, countless veterans memorials will perish.” Perhaps a bit strong, but indeed there would be effect.

In the end SCOTUS will rule on a case that will define how we will interpret the 1A Establishment Clause in future court cases. Mr. Buono and the ACLU are arguing for fairness, and even the government’s lawyers state that Buono’s case is based upon an “ideological objection that public lands on which crosses are displayed should also be public fora on which other persons may display other symbols.”

Yes, an ideology based in our Constitution… and a belief that what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. Stuffing Christian symbolism down the throats of non-christians seems to be something of which our founders might not approve.

~~