Landmark, or state-supported religious symbol?

[terranus]

A federal judge in Illinois has tossed out a Chicago-area atheist's quest to force the return of a state grant given to restoration efforts of a southern Illinois cross landmark.

Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_on_re_us/us_bald_knob_cross

[AnimatedDirt]

A federal judge in Illinois has tossed out a Chicago-area atheist's quest to force the return of a state grant given to restoration efforts of a southern Illinois cross landmark.

Here's the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110208/ap_on_re_us/us_bald_knob_cross

Seems like it is both, but I don't really know the history of it.

[Whitney]

If it's a historical landmark then I don't think it violates the wall of separation between church and state to grant funds.  It's important to preserve these landmarks and historical sites even if they happen to be religious.

[terranus]

If it's a historical landmark then I don't think it violates the wall of separation between church and state to grant funds.  It's important to preserve these landmarks and historical sites even if they happen to be religious.

I understand your interest in protecting landmarks. I used to be a pretty big history geek back in high school. But don't you think that this might be violating the 1st amendment? Even just a little bit?

[history_geek]

If it's a historical landmark then I don't think it violates the wall of separation between church and state to grant funds.  It's important to preserve these landmarks and historical sites even if they happen to be religious.

I understand your interest in protecting landmarks. I used to be a pretty big history geek back in high school. But don't you think that this might be violating the 1st amendment? Even just a little bit?

Did someone mention my name in vain?  

Now, I have to say that I don't know a lot about the laws in the U.S, but at least my logic would tell me that since it is a religious landmark, it is not something that the State should grant funds to repair, but the Church (be it Catholic, protestant, baptist, etc.) should gather the funds. That's just my two bits.

[Whitney]

If it's a historical landmark then I don't think it violates the wall of separation between church and state to grant funds.  It's important to preserve these landmarks and historical sites even if they happen to be religious.

I understand your interest in protecting landmarks. I used to be a pretty big history geek back in high school. But don't you think that this might be violating the 1st amendment? Even just a little bit?

As long as it is on the historical registry I don't see how it could be a violation of the 1st amendment.  The establishment clause does not prevent the government from providing funds to things that have historical or current ties to a religious group; it prevents them from doing so with the intent to help promote that religion.  For instance, Community and Faith Based initiatives grants are legal (though imo it was not legal when it was only for faith based groups).

To not use funds to restore a historical landmark simply because it's religious in nature would actually violate the clause at it could be considered discriminatory. Now, if it's not on the registry and is just a landmark appreciated for religious reasons, that would be a different story.

[LARA]

According to wikipedia, the Bald Knob Cross of Peace was erected in 1963.  Also a ten commandments monument in Texas that was put in place in the 50's was allowed to stand, but another monument placed around 2002 bearing the commandments plus the Mayflower Compact was moved.  So if you get a monument in your area, you'd better move to get rid of the thing in about fifty years time or so or then it will become an antique.  At least I'm guessing it's about fifty years or so that makes it historical.  Don't know if the Supreme Court has published any official guidelines as to what they consider to be 'historical' or not.

What I want to know is if someone can be fined for defacing such an emblem?  Let's say I put some tasteful grafitti on the Bald Knob Cross, such as "Jesus loves hookers!".  Can the government arrest me for defacing gov't property if it's a cross and I am exhibiting my free speech?  Because then it's more than a case of this just being gov't property and looks to be the gov't defending the cross.  Obviously if it's someone's personal property, it's something illegal...But if it's a government protected religious symbol....even an old one.....well.....

[AnimatedDirt]

What I want to know is if someone can be fined for defacing such an emblem?  Let's say I put some tasteful grafitti on the Bald Knob Cross, such as "Jesus loves hookers!".  Can the government arrest me for defacing gov't property if it's a cross and I am exhibiting my free speech?  Because then it's more than a case of this just being gov't property and looks to be the gov't defending the cross.  Obviously if it's someone's personal property, it's something illegal...But if it's a government protected religious symbol....even an old one.....well.....

I think it's called "defacing public" property...maybe even gov't property. Gov't also protects plain brick walls.
Either way, don't do the crime if you don't want to do time.  

[terranus]

As long as it is on the historical registry I don't see how it could be a violation of the 1st amendment. The establishment clause does not prevent the government from providing funds to things that have historical or current ties to a religious group; it prevents them from doing so with the intent to help promote that religion. For instance, Community and Faith Based initiatives grants are legal (though imo it was not legal when it was only for faith based groups).

To not use funds to restore a historical landmark simply because it's religious in nature would actually violate the clause at it could be considered discriminatory. Now, if it's not on the registry and is just a landmark appreciated for religious reasons, that would be a different story.

Hmm. Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But only because it is on the registry. Makes me wonder how it got on there in the first place? And if something can have it's registry status revoked?

[Whitney]

Hmm. Yeah, I guess that makes sense. But only because it is on the registry. Makes me wonder how it got on there in the first place? And if something can have it's registry status revoked?

It may not be on the registry...I can't find record of it.

What are the Listing Criteria?

The National Register's standards for evaluating the significance of properties were developed to recognize the accomplishments of all peoples who have made a significant contribution to our country's history and heritage. The criteria are designed to guide State and local governments, Federal agencies, and others in evaluating potential entries in the National Register.


Criteria for Evaluation The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.


   
   Criteria Considerations Ordinarily cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature, and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years shall not be considered eligible for the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria or if they fall within the following categories:

a. A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or

b. A building or structure removed from its original location but which is primarily significant for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or

c. A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with his or her productive life; or

d. A cemetery which derives its primary importance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or

e. A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or

f. A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or

g. A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance.


How Old does the place have to be?

Generally, properties eligible for listing in the National Register are at least 50 years old. Properties less than 50 years of age must be exceptionally important to be considered eligible for listing.

http://www.nationalregisterofhistoricpl ... m/faq.html

[LARA]

Okay.  Read a little more about the Bald Knob Cross.  It's a huge cross that is actually a functional church, at least according to Wikipedia.  Services have been held there in the past.  Apparently it is being refurbished so that services can be held there again?  So if this church is only 48 years old, if that's historical, I'm sure there are thousands of churches in the U.S. that could now claim the same status if the Supreme Court allows this.

AnimatedDirt wrote:

I think it's called "defacing public" property...maybe even gov't property. Gov't also protects plain brick walls.
Either way, don't do the crime if you don't want to do time.  

But AnimatedDirt I don't have a problem with publicly funded blank walls.     They serve a real functional purpose.  I only have a problem with religious symbols or writing placed on public property or funded with public money, although I make exceptions for religious art since it has redeeming value.  And I was talking in hypotheticals.  So I can only be put in imaginary jail.