Hawaii Newspaper Blasts Kahle For Bullying Landslide Victims

By Brandon Hall

(Email him at WestMiPolitics@Gmail.com)

In an editorial blasting Mitch Kahle, a Hawaii newspaper said Kahle was completely wrong in his attempt to remove crosses from the scene of a tragic mudslide inside of a Hawaii State Park on Mothers Day of 1999.

Crosses Mitch Kahle Fought To Remove

"CONSTITUTIONAL separation of church and state does not mean that government property must be devoid of any manifestation of religion. Eight wooden crosses memorializing the victims of the 1999 Mother's Day rockslide at Sacred Falls in Windward Oahu were an expression of First Amendment rights, not a violation of the same amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion. The crosses, which were erected by a grieving relative of one of the victims, should be returned."

They continued:

"Mitchell Kahle, president of Hawaii Citizens for Separation of Church and State, complained last month that the crosses created "the appearance of a government preference for the Christian religion." Kahle's deduction was mistaken, as far-fetched as concluding that a cross seen at the location of a fatal traffic accident is anything more than the sign of a family's expression of grief."

Read the editorial in full below:

Restore the crosses

 The issue: State parks officials have removed small wooden crosses from Sacred Falls after receiving a complaint that they violated the constitutional prohibition against government establishment of religion. Our view: If that was the basis for the crosses' removal, they should be returned to the site to restore protection of free speech.

CONSTITUTIONAL separation of church and state does not mean that government property must be devoid of any manifestation of religion. Eight wooden crosses memorializing the victims of the 1999 Mother's Day rockslide at Sacred Falls in Windward Oahu were an expression of First Amendment rights, not a violation of the same amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion. The crosses, which were erected by a grieving relative of one of the victims, should be returned.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that government -- the case involved a city hall Nativity scene in Pawtucket, R.I. -- could not place symbols indicating a religious preference on public property. Two years later, the American Civil Liberties Union caused the dismantlement of a large, illuminated cross at Camp H.M. Smith on Halawa Heights. The Camp Smith cross was an inappropriate memorial because it was erected and maintained by the military.

That was not the case with the eight three-foot-tall crosses at Sacred Falls. A relative of one of the eight people who were killed in the rockslide had erected the crosses at the entrance to the Punaluu landmark. Relatives went to the site periodically to replace flowers next to the crosses.

Mitchell Kahle, president of Hawaii Citizens for Separation of Church and State, complained last month that the crosses created "the appearance of a government preference for the Christian religion." Kahle's deduction was mistaken, as far-fetched as concluding that a cross seen at the location of a fatal traffic accident is anything more than the sign of a family's expression of grief.

State Parks Administrator Ralston Nagata said the crosses were removed after he received Kahle's complaint. But Nagata denied that the removal was a response to the complaint. He explained that, like the roadside crosses at sites of traffic fatalities, the crosses were considered temporary and abandoned and so were removed.

However, relatives of rockslide victims say the memorial was being maintained and object to the crosses' removal.

If government officials were mistaken in assuming the crosses had been abandoned, relatives should be allowed to retrieve the signs and return them to the Sacred Falls entrance. The government should not interfere with free speech by confiscating privately owned religious signs just because they were posted on public land.