Monument of Grace Update

A monument of grace, a sinner saved by blood:
The streams of love I trace up to the Fountain–God!

Mohave Cross

Mohave Cross


Several months ago after using the above Google image in my post, Monument of Grace.  I received a couple of inquiries about the photo.  In order to answer those questions, I researched a bit on the photo and discovered that the ‘monument’ was being taken to court by…who else, the ACLU.  

It’s called the Mohave Cross and was built 70 years ago as a memorial for World War I veterans.  The beautiful monument was enjoyed for nearly 60 years uncontested, but now, here’s what it looks like:

What's wrong with this picture?!

Forgive us, Lord

The matter is before the US Supreme today.  Focus on the Family’s, Citizen Link  takes a hopeful tone about the case in the following article:

Mojave Cross Case Heard at Supreme Court 

“The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in the Mojave Desert cross case.  The cross is a memorial to World War I veterans.

Hiram Sasser, director of litigation for Liberty Legal Institute and one of the attorneys for the VFW in the case, said the justices asked many questions.

‘The court is probably going to say that this veterans memorial is allowed to stay and that there was never a problem to begin with,” he said, “And that the transfer of state-owned land to the veterans so they could keep the memorial was OK, and that this veterans memorial is going to continue to stand as it has for 75 years honoring those World War I veterans.'”

The photo above, and more detailed history of  Mohave Cross case, is available at ABC online–just click  HERE. 


When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of glory died,

 my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride.

12 thoughts on “Monument of Grace Update

  1. You failed, pathetically and miserably, to mention the ultimate reason behind this issue and instead glossed it over with a delusional and decidely closed minded christian perspective.

    The one and only reason this is before the courts is: Intolerance. You cannot erect christian symbols on government land and then deny that same opportunity to other religions.

    You see, what happened was a non-christian had lawfully requested to also build a non-christian monument (or whatever it was) nearby. He was flatly and outright denied. So, indeed there has always “been a problem to begin with” regarding this (completely out-of-place) christian symbol; and that is, and always has been, the religous intolerance of (so-called) christians.

    Personally, I hope it is removed and all forms of religious symbols become strictly banned from all government property as a result of this. It’ll help later in the years to come when America will have a new narrow and closed minded majority predicted by simple and indisputable statistics ..muslims.

    • Rob,
      You’re right, I didn’t cover the whole story. And neither did you. The property the cross is on is now owned by the Veteran’s of Foreign Wars–it’s personal property, not government controlled property. However, the individual still persists in his lawsuit, even though he never goes to the Mohave desert and has no personal connection to the memorial.

      This is a case of private property now. One may wish to display a cross, another a crescent moon, or nothing at all. The case before the Supreme Court is about personal property, not government, and has nothing to do with religious tolerance or “the separation of church and state.”

      I appreciate your interest and hope you find other reading on this site that may be more encouraging to you.
      Blessings, Linda

  2. This is insane! It really takes the Supreme Court THIS long to rule if a cross is constitutional or not? The constitution supports freedom of speech, religious tolerance, and definately patriotism… Seems to me like the modern world is having difficulties following these simple human laws. We all know a cross in the middle of the Majove Desert is distracting and an eyesore… it’s really not bothering anything… unless the lizards have turned into a bunch of cold-blooded athiests!!!!

    • Jeslyn,
      Thanks for commenting. The decision now is not so much about separation of church and state, but what can be expressed on personally-owned property. So it’s constitutionality is not in question as much as individual rights vs. the power of the ACLU. And they are supported by government funding. That is disturbing to me.

      I hope you can be encouraged by other posts on this site, or listen to some of the music in the blue music box 🙂 Blessings! Linda

  3. Clearly your perspective, and thus your opinion, on this case is biased due to the religious beliefs that you blindly and ignorantly follow. Therefore your argument is not only flawed and irellevent but misleading and irrational.

    The case before the court, Salazar v. Buono (08-472), has absolutely nothing at all to do with “what can be expressed on personally-owned property” or “individual rights vs. the power of the ACLU”!!
    This is ALL about the first 10 words of the Bill of Rights! “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”!!

    Additionally, the land where the cross sits IS, at present, part of the Mojave National Preserve, which IS a part of the National Park Service, which IS government property, because a federal appeals court, ultimately agreeing with Mr. Buono, the plaintiff, rejected a move by a republican controlled Congress in 2003 (in a clear effort to eliminate any Establishment Clause violation) to transfer a portion of the land to veterans groups to be a privately held national memorial by ruling that that action was a violation of the First Amendment!

    Lose the condescending attitude, get your facts straight, and keep your “Blessings!” to yourself.

    Good Day, and Goodbye!

  4. Rob,
    I’m not condescending–I’m sincere. I disagree with you on the merits and facts of the case, but differences don’t colour my attitude toward visitors to my blog. If not blessings, then prayers, Linda

  5. Update for those interested, 8 Oct:

    From The Washington Post:
    “Ira Lupu, a George Washington University Law School professor whose expertise is the First Amendment’s religion language, said it would be “no surprise” after yesterday to see a relatively brief opinion from the majority of the court. That opinion, he speculates, could say since the government transferred the land to private hands, there is no longer a government responsibility for the message in the memorial.”

    “The Obama administration, joining with the VFW, urged the high court to uphold the display now that it is in private hands. U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan said the “sensible action by Congress” to give the VFW control of the cross and the land under it solves the First Amendment problem. The cross is no longer on government land and under government control, she said.

    “It’s VFW’s choice” how to preserve it and maintain it now, she said.

    Not all of the justices sounded convinced. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens noted that the Mojave cross was designated as a national memorial and Congress said it must be preserved as a cross to honor U.S. war dead. If not, land and cross will revert to government control, they said.

    It was not clear what issue the justices will decide. They could decide whether the transfer of the cross to the VFW solved the legal problem. Or they could go further back and decide whether it was constitutional to erect the cross on public land. A ruling probably is months away.”

    All the facts:

  6. Thanks for bringing this subject up in the first place; it is greatly appreciated. I believe it is appropriate to honor our WW1 veterans in precisely the manner it was originally intended. Besides, what harm is there having a cross displayed in the desert? The answer is “no harm at all.”

    The cross is a perfect testimony displaying this one fact – many gave their lives so others would live. This is the message of the cross, which is Christ freely giving his life so others would have the opportunity to accept his gracious gift of eternal life.

    Linda, I spent 20 years in our military and certainly have no problem with the cross wherever it sits.

    • Thank you for your comments, Pastor, and for making the point about honouring veterans who have given their all. My husband and I have 30 years of combined military service and feel very strongly about the respect and honor due those who have paid the ultimate price to keep this country free and great! What a shame such matters come down to semantics over our Constitution–which was originally meant to Protect our freedoms, rather than inhibit them.

      To our nation’s shame, we are forgetting the cross.

  7. Wow, I almost missed this post. I did find the picture to be a touching one, and to find out that it has become a matter of dispute simply because of the cross symbol that was put on top of it!

    Clearly the cross continues to offend many even today.

    I admire you for the gracious response you gave.

    I’d take blessings any time, dear Linda.

    • Dear Lidj,
      Yes, the cross is a stumbling block and a rock of offense, today as always. But it’s too bad, because the Cornerstone of Life itself is rejected by so many who search everywhere else.

      I’ll be writing more soon and hopefully have some grandbaby pictures up to share! As you, seems we’re in a new season, travelling, family, and often asking the Lord, what’s next? I love your journey journalling, and feel remiss at not keeping up very well.

      Love and BLESSINGS 🙂 Linda

What do you think??

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s