The Congressional Prayer Caucus

After Decade of Litigation, Memorial Cross May Be Reinstated in Mojave Desert; Other Memorials Still Under Attack
Posted by The Congressional Prayer Caucus | May 01, 2012

Last week, a federal judge approved a settlement agreement for a land exchange between the National Park Service and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), allowing a World War I memorial cross to return to its place in the Mojave Desert.  The cross was erected on public land in 1934, and it was undisturbed until the ACLU sued for its removal in 2001.  When a federal court ruled that the cross’s presence on federal land was unconstitutional, Congress intervened by passing legislation that directed the U.S. Department of the Interior to give the land where the cross was located to the VFW in exchange for a parcel of equal value.  In 2010, the Supreme Court approved Congress’ action; however, the cross was then stolen by vandals.  Members of the Prayer Caucus signed on to an amicus curiae brief submitted to the Supreme Court, supporting the constitutionality of memorial crosses that honor the sacrifice of our nation’s veterans.   

This week’s decision will allow one cross memorial to be restored; however, groups are trying to remove other memorials around the country.  One organization is threatening to sue over two memorial crosses at Camp Pendleton, and another group just this week demanded that a Rhode Island city remove a 91-year-old memorial cross that was erected in honor of those who died in World Wars I and II.  The city has indicated that it may not defend the cross because it fears significant litigation costs.  Members of the Prayer Caucus will continue taking action in support of memorials to our nation’s service members.


Users are solely responsible for the opinions they post here and their comments do not necessarily reflect the views of Congressman Forbes.
  • Linda Templet commented on 5/4/2012
    So who got the VICTORY here--the ACLU OR did the Veterans win the right to display a cross which has been standing undisturbed on a piece of public property since 1934? The ACLU won this victory--Freedom of Religion LOST. A DEAL or compromise was made so ACLU could get their victory over the establishment clause. The Veterans of Foreign Wars had to DONATE TO THE GOVERNMENT 5 acres of their land in order to get ONE acre of the PEOPLES land. WOW looks like a good deal to me. 5 for 1 and guess what? This land is now considered PRIVATE OWNED LAND--it belongs to a private organization and they can put whatever they want to on their own land. The ACLU got exactly what they wanted. They wanted the CROSS removed from public grounds and the GOVERNMENT made a 5 for 1 DEAL. Nobody GAVE them the land --why didn't our government DONATE them the one acre of land instead of them DONATING 5 acres of land to the government? This just gives these 501 c 3 tax exempt organizations MORE POWER to now use against religious freedom in the court rooms by using this example of how to turn a piece of public land into a piece of private land so a religious symbol like the cross can still stand? What LAND are you going to swap next for our Arlington National Cemetary? They are comming after this piece of land Congress can't you all foresee the future ATTACK PLANS. This was an ERROR OF JUDGMENT Congress--a BIG ERROR of JUDGMENT on your part!
  • Annie Marino commented on 5/4/2012
    I don't understand why people don't respect the Constitution. The First Amendment is very clear in it's language (and Supreme Court precedent reinforces this): The government has NO BUSINESS promoting, supporting, or otherwise respecting any facet of religious anything! If you want to pray or put up a cross on your private land, that's fine. The more the merrier! But this is simply unconstitutional. Do most people even know that the words "Under God" were added to the Pledge in 1954, and only in reaction to our Cold War enemies, the Soviets. Same goes for "In God We Trust" on the money and as part of the "motto" (we had a real motto long before that). This is not a debate, so don't bother to respond directly. If you want to discuss with me privately, then email me at, otherwise if you post don't expect me to reply on here. God bless!
  • Clint Laney commented on 5/4/2012
    I support the decision 100% and will assist wherever needed. I'm glad I have someone like Congressman Forbes defending our faith and freedoms.
  • Lydia A Rodriguez commented on 5/5/2012
    ALL I CAN SAY IS: PRAISE THE LORD!!!! OUR GOD IS ALIVE AND HE WILL REIGN FOREVER AND EVER. THE LORD IS RISEN AND HE REIGNS FOREVER MORE!!!! ALL THINGS ARE POSSIBLE WITH GOD!!!!! HE IS AWESOME!!!! Let us stand for truth!!! God fights our battles. He did it in the Old Testament and He will do it today!!!! Remember the walls of Jerico when the walls came tumbllng down? God did it and He can do ALL THINGS!!! YOU THAT HAVE STRAYED AWAY FROM GOD COME BACK TO HIM HE IS WAITING FOR YOUR RETURN!!!! THANK YOU LORD. Lydia A Rodriguez
  • Linda Templet commented on 5/7/2012
    Annie, you are absolutely right. This is not a personal debate. When SOMEONE says @ so in so it causes the so in so to openly respond back to the one who is trying to PROVE how ignorant and uneducated the so in so is. Of course I was the only one who had the NERVE or the GUTS to respond back to you. To me there is no debate over Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion. Where are there LAWS which were made by Congress respecting an establishment of religion in the LAW BOOKS? Religion was never an ISSUE in our country till now. If there WERE NO LAWS MADE then how can these cases even go to court? What LAW is being broken? Courts are to make us abide by the LAW not abide by their OPINIONS, instead, our SUPREME COURT JUSTICES DECISIONS OR OPINIONS are making the LAWS of our Land NOW instead of Congress. We have the biggest MESS to clean up now that each Supreme Court Justice from all the different states have their own different OPINIONS as to what the word "RESPECTING" means in our First Amendment. We need the sentence professionally analysed. We need several English Professor's to outine this sentence that was written in the 1700's. English has changed over time the same as everything else. A comma back then meant to take a breath while reading the sentence; a semi colon meant two breaths. Respecting, according to my dictionary, is a preposistion which means concerning; about; regarding. So you see--Congress shall make NO LAW about, concerning or regarding an establishment of religion, OR prohibiting the FREE exercise thereof. Now that absolutely PROVES that religion is to be PROTECTED in our country and there is NO LAW that stops the growth of religion in this country. We have NO NATIONAL CHURCH in which We, the people, have to finacially support and THAT is what this SENTENCE is about. These Supreme Court JUSTICES are ruining our country--One JUSTICE rules one WAY and another Justice rules another WAY. These men and women don't even RULE the SAME WAY because their OPINIONS are all different--where is the JUSTICE there? Just look for a Judge who will favor your cause and you got it made. We have so many LAW SUITS over something that wasn't even made a LAW by Congress. Congress has the authority to make LAWS that everyone has to live under whether we like it or not. I am debating whether or not the SUPREME COURT JUSTICES has the RIGHT to JUDGE a LAWLESS CASE. Where there is NO LAW there is no JUDGMENT.
  • Big Tim commented on 9/18/2012
    Nice try Annie. It would behoove you and everyone that thinks as you to educate yourself about the truth of our nation and Founders beliefs, ideologies and intent before you make incorrect and personally motivated statements. Please tell me, why are 90% of the current Christian symbols under attack as we speak...on private property? Moreover, when you view the truth in the brief video'll understand the beliefs of the people that started this great nation and you'll probably disagree, or claim they were "Deists" or that "that's not what they intended" or some other ridiculous argument of denial. It is your right to not believe in any religion...but you do not have the right to prevent the free expression of it from others when they pay for it themselves. By the way, since they have been implemented from the very inception of our nation... your now going to have to knock down the Washington Monument, The Capitol Building, The Liberty Bell, The Supreme Court doors and walls, Jefferson Memorial, and Lincoln Memorial, Library of Congress, United States House and Senate Chambers...and don't forget about digging up Arlington National Cemetery!'s discrimination against Christianity, all veiled in the costume of "separation of church and state" and "equality". This designed agenda to "fundamentally transform" this nation by the obvious and prodigious attacks on anything Christian as of late, has nothing to do with honor, nobility or equality. It's just pure hate. All those who feel as you do can try as hard as they want, file all the lawsuits and protest...but they will never pervert, coverup, diminish of otherwise eradicate what this nation is based upon! Oh's your proof ma'am:
Post a Comment
We encourage you to analyze and comment on the posts featured on this blog, but please understand that comments which include campaign content, engage in personal attacks, or include vulgar, profane, obscene, or inappropriate language will be removed from the site. Please note that there may be a brief delay in the publication of your comment.


Stay Connected

Members of the Congressional
Prayer Caucus

Congressman J. Randy Forbes, Founder
& Co-Chairman

Senator James Lankford, Co-Chairman

For a complete list of Members of the Congressional

Prayer Caucus, click here.

Contact the Congressional Prayer Caucus Amy Vitale,