Supreme Court seems inclined to retain cross on public land
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed inclined Wednesday to rule that a 40-foot-tall cross that stands on public land in Maryland is constitutional, but shy away from a sweeping ruling. The case is being closely watched because it involves the place of religious symbols in public life, but the particular memorial at issue in the case is a nearly 100-year-old cross that was built in a Washington, D.C., suburb as a memorial to area residents who died in World War I. Even before arguments in the case, it seemed that the memorial's supporters, including the Trump administration, had the upper hand based on the court's decision to take up the matter and the court's conservative makeup. But on Wednesday even some of the liberal justices suggested that they could join a narrow ruling upholding this particular memorial, even as they talked about the cross as a major symbol of Christianity.
Justice Elena Kagan noted that the cross became a particular symbol associated with those killed in World War I while Justice Stephen Breyer asked about the importance of historical context to this case. The bigger question might be whether there are enough votes to rule in a way that would allow governments to erect more religious symbols on public property. But several conservative justices sounded skeptical of adopting a broad approach advocated by the lawyer for The American Legion. The veterans' organization raised money for the cross and completed it in 1925. The cross's challengers include three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, a group that includes atheists and agnostics. They argue that the cross's location on public land violates the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others. They say the cross should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk. The group lost the first round in court, but in 2017 an appeals court ruled the cross unconstitutional.
In addition to The American Legion, the cross's defenders include Maryland officials who took over maintenance of the cross nearly 60 years ago to preserve it and address traffic safety concerns. Maryland officials say that the cross doesn't violate the Constitution because it has a secular purpose and meaning. Those defending the cross say a ruling against them could spell the "doom of hundreds of war memorials that use crosses to commemorate the fallen." Justice Samuel Alito picked up on that concern during arguments, telling a lawyer for the American Humanist Association that there are lots of cross memorials all over the country and asking: "Do you want them all taken down?" The Supreme Court has been criticized for being less than clear in explaining how to analyze so-called passive displays, like Maryland's cross, that are challenged as violating the Constitution's establishment clause. In 1971 the court announced a test for use in such cases, which asks whether the government's action has a secular purpose, advances or inhibits religion or fosters "an excessive government entanglement with religion." But in the decades since, the court hasn't always followed that test, and several former and current justices have criticized it.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Wednesday if it wasn't time to get rid of the test, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested that lower courts deserve more clarity from the Supreme Court. Monuments that are similar to Maryland's cross, meanwhile, have met with a mixed fate at the high court. For example, on the same day in 2005 the court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas state Capitol while striking down Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses. Justice Breyer, whose vote made the difference in the outcome in both cases, said the Texas display had a primarily nonreligious purpose while the history of the Kentucky courthouse displays demonstrated a government effort to promote religion.
A decision in the Maryland case is expected by the end of June.
Tags
Who is online
92 visitors
That's a bunch of BS! The cross is wholly recognized and used as a religious (Christian) symbol. There is nothing secular behind its purpose and meaning.
They can easily be replaced with a plaque or commemorative marker. It achieves the same effect.
Oh well, if the cross or any other religious marker can remain on public land, then there better be room next to it for any other different religious marker. Perhaps we'll see Baphomet statues next to crosses everywhere. After all, if you allow one, you have to allow them all.
While I neither believe in the Christ the cross represents nor Baphomet, I'd much rather go see a 100 ft tall Baphomet statue. After seeing the millionth cross on everything from mountain tops to tube socks it loses whatever meaning it was supposed to have.
The fact is the cross is much older than Christianity so I suppose anyone can choose instead to think of the ancient Mesopotamian god Tammuz associated with shepherds which is why his followers would carry shepherds crooks with a large "T" cross on top, virtually indistinguishable from the staves carried by todays Catholic Bishops and popes.
So next time you drive by a huge cross memorializing fallen heroes just think to yourself "Thank Tammuz they're all in Ishtar's (Tammuz's consort) underworld".
I don't see anything wrong with it. After all, no Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims or Jews fought and died in that war, eh? Majority rules - so democratic. Sorry, but I still can't get over the hilarity of the ten commandments being removed from a courthouse, while the statue of Justice, who was in fact worshiped as a god, decorates most of them.
It's all so Shakespearian - Much Ado About Nothing.
What makes you think someone can't be thinking of the soldiers while also thinking "Thank Tammuz they're all in Ishtar's (Tammuz's consort) underworld" instead of thinking "Thank God they're in heaven"...?
I wasn't suggesting taking it down, I was merely suggesting broadening its symbolism to be more inclusive. Would it diminish your faith at all if I went and prayed at or worshiped at the giant cross but were praying to Tammuz instead of Christ? Would it be ruining the cross for Christians like they believe gays have ruined marriage? Who really are the intolerant ones here? Gordy wasn't suggesting taking the cross down either, just pointing out that if you allow 100 ft tall crosses on public property don't be surprised to see some giant Baphomet statues. I don't hear anyone here saying the cross is too "offensive" to tolerate, just people reminding Christians to be careful what they wish for because "religious freedom" doesn't just mean for Christians and their iconography but all religions. You make a special place for Christians in the public space you have to allow a special place for every religion, faith or belief system.
True, although I will add that after much highway redesign over 90 plus years,
the Memorial ended up isolated on a median and one would have to risk crossing several lanes of traffic to visit it
and the names of the troops are on a relatively small plaque not visible from the main highway.
As the concrete is in need of some repair, moving the monument has not been deemed to be in its best interest.
Perhaps to assuage the feelings of those who sued and their supporters
someone should start a Go Fund Me site to put up a decent and architecturally appropriate sign
declaring it as the 1925 American Legion war memorial to Bladensburg's and Prince George County's World War 1 dead.
Interesting read and undated picture
Ya see.....there are MORE folks than not, that only reflect on the People that died than the actual "Stone" that was put up. If the "Stone" Offends, one might look within to see what is really important to them, then reflect AGAIN, as their first thought of "Stone" Offense was Fucked Up !
I wonder how Christians would take a decision that ruled the cross isn't really all that important as a religious symbol. Would they swallow it in order to keep that symbol up or actually be honest and admit it would be unacceptable to have that concept become the a legal definition of that symbol?
An obelisk is a religious symbol. At least it was to the Egyptians who invented it. It represents a ray of sunlight from the sun-god Ra.
Context matters. It's pretty simple-minded to see a cross and immediately assume the government is trying to turn people into Christians. It's partisan and closed-minded to refuse to see any other explanation.
The purpose of this or any similar memorial is not to establish or promote a religion. This is supported by the secular and patriotic large, easily seen words found on the cross: Courage. Devotion. Valor. Endurance.
The purpose of such a memorial is to remember the war service of American soldiers. That is a wholly secular purpose. It's likely that most or all of them were Christians and so the cross is used to honor them and their sacrifice because the cross was important in their lives. It is, at most, respect for their religion and the guiding principles that drove them to sacrifice themselves for others. It is a simple and respectful thing to memorialize someone using a symbol that had meaning for them. It's not an example of the government trying to show favoritism to Christianity.
It's the government recognizing or giving special consideration to a particular religion.
Then a religious symbol need not be used.
Then a plaque, monument, or some other memorial will do just as well.
Speculation.
Then they can be honored for such in cemetaries, religious institutions, or private property.
See previous statement.
Then you would be wrong.
No, it's already been explained to you what the government is recognizing and Christianity as a religion is not getting any special consideration. This is a memorial to honor people, not a religion.
"Need" is not the standard. "Respectful" and "Appropriate" are standards when you are memorializing someone. So you do what they or their surviving loved ones would best appreciate.
Obviously not in the judgment of the people who had to make the decision. Perhaps you just can't appreciate what is being honored here.
Highly likely. Get educated about religious demographics in 1917. How Christianity shaped the experience and memories of World War I
Oh, you don't think soldiers should be honored on public property? Interesting. And sad.
No, you should see my statement. Memorials are about the people being remembered. They aren't about you .
How you choose to perceive my posts is on you and of no importance to me.
Then why keep arguing against it?
It's already been explained to you that a religious symbol is not needed to honor somebody and that such a symbol is also largely recognized as religious in nature.
I've already said several times that any type of non-religious memorial can be utilized for such a purpose.
It's not about peoples judgement. it's about what is constitutional.
I didn't say it wasn't. But it doesn't matter if everyone was Christian. Individual religious beliefs is not the point.
Trying to put words in my mouth is as good as lying! Once again, I've already said several times that any type of non-religious memorial can be utilized for such a purpose.
I did. it changes nothing!
I never said they were about me. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.
What argument? The statement was that I would be upset if the cross stayed. That is an erroneous statement, which I merely pointed out as such. Nothing more.
Good. Glad that's settled.
That's right. Of course, it's also the impression it leaves on the courts too.
I never said the courts wouldn't allow it to stand. I expect they probably will.
There you go making erroneous presumptions again.
It doesn't. But it's also hard to ignore a 40 ft. cross.
Your opinion and irrelevant.
What uniformed, prejudiced people think is not relevant either.
You say it with every comment. In spite of ample evidence as to the purpose of the memorial, you insist on characterizing in a way that suits your personal bias. In your mind, the purpose and intent of the memorial is irrelevant. What you think is all that matters. So, yeah, it is all about you.
What has been your point? That it should stay? or go? You keep saying it should go. That speaks for itself.
But apparently it's super easy for you to ignore the words VALOR ENDURANCE COURAGE and DEVOTION in large print all around the sign. It's also super easy for you to ignore the very large American Legion logo placed prominently in the center of the cross on both sides of it.
None of those is a religious message, but you ignore that and pretend the whole thing is about religion. Your bias won't let you look at all the details, just the parts that allow you to be offended.
That's the argument - that somehow the Christian cooties will get on them. I can't think of a single case of that happening offered up as evidence.
Much like yours.
Most Christians would probably consider the cross a religious symbol. Are you calling them uninformed and prejudiced?
Only in your mind.
I am aware of the purpose of the monument. That doesn't change any of the facts presented.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
Not at all, despite them being largely overshadowed by the entirety of the monument itself.
Just the structure itself carries religious overtones.
Once again, you presume too much.
The purpose is critical to the significance of the facts under the law. Under the so-called Lemon Law test used by the Supreme Court to interpret alleged violations of the First Amendment, the government action violates the establishment clause unless 1) it has a significant secular purpose (everyone - including you - acknowledges that it does), 2) does not have the primary effect of advancing or inhibiting religion (again, everyone acknowledges that the primary effect is the honoring of war dead and there is no evidence that religion has been advanced or inhibited in any way), and 3) does not foster excessive entanglement between government and religion. Note that some entanglement is therefore ok. There's no evidence here of excessive entanglement of government and religion.
No need to presume. You have already declared how your prejudice allows you to ignore or dismiss key facts. Thusly:
Your inability to see or consider anything but a cross speaks to your personal bias in these matters. There is more there to see, but you refuse to see it. Those words and the American Legion emblem are prominent. Anyone can see them with a casual glance. You don't have to hunt for them. But to disregard them, you have to deliberately ignore them. That's your bias in action.
Except the government I funding the support and maintenance of a religious symbol.
You either have no clue what I said or you are lying. Which is it?
I see it for what it is: a cross. It's intention might be as a memorial. But that doesn't detract from the fact that it is a cross which is also a religious symbol.
Nice smokescreen. The emblem is not the issue here, nor have I brought it up.
Incorrect. We have already established it's a war memorial. Any support or maintenance is going to that.
You either have no clue what you have said or you are lying. Which is it?
But not a cross only. A cross with an American Legion emblem and patriotic military words. You keep ignoring that - like I have said.
As I have pointed out multiple times now, you are deliberately disregarding it because to acknowledge it would mean having to admit how wrong you are and how biased you have been. You see what you want to see and will only talk about what your bias allows.
It is still a religious symbol, regardless of its intent.
Nice deflection.
I have acknowledged the emblem, and it changes nothing.
As I pointed out, you are wrong in that regard!
Of course, everyone who isn't Christian might have a different opinion. What the first amendment to the US Constitution clearly states is that the religious majority doesn't get to make that decision simply because it's majority.
So a torture device as a memorial - makes sense to me. <s>
That reminds me of something George Carlin once said: "I would never want to be a member of a group whose symbol was a guy nailed to two pieces of wood."
Doesn't need to make sense to you. It just needs to make sense to the people who care about those being memorialized.
Don't insinuate I do not care to memorialize our vets. I just do not see the need to use a torture device to do so.
Except if my tax dollars have to go to maintenance of the torture device then I also have a nut in the game.
I didn't. Your comment was about the means of memorial, not the concept of memorializing in general, right? My response was that the means of memorial needs to make sense for those being memorialized and the people who care about them, i.e. friends, family, comrades, neighbors. If you aren't part of the culture that identifies with them, then you might not understand the design of the memorial, but - and no offense is intended - who cares what you think? The memorial isn't for you.
Memorials can vary widely in design and not everyone likes every design. So what? The point is to honor the people being memorialized.
The need is that the symbol was important to the people being memorialized. What it might have been used for in some other context is irrelevant. The cross here isn't being employed as a torture device. It's being employed as a symbol, but not of torture.
There have been many examples of people taking an object, animal, or word that could be seen as dangerous, cruel, or evil and turning it into a symbol of strength or some other good (the reverse happens, too). The cross has been that kind of thing for christians since about the 4th century, when the crucifixions stopped and christianity was elevated in its social and political status by the Emperor Constantine.
20 Widely Used (And Widely Misunderstood) Symbols
25 Modern Symbols That Have Lost Their Original Meaning
If you expect to approve of all uses of your tax dollars you will be disappointed a great deal ...... disappointed indeed
What? And not let them deflect and derail? That leaves them with nothing to use.
You've always had a real flare for the irrelevant, Tex.
I do not usually complain about my tax dollars - just throwing that argument back at those that do not want their tax dollars feeding the hungry or helping the sick. If they want to choose where their tax dollars go then I should be able to not have mine go towards maintaining a religious symbol. See what I did there? Probably not since you do not want to see it.
Totally missed the point.
I am sick of how they assume liberals are not religious, patriotic or contributing members of society.
You choose not to see my point.
As far a memorials go - I have no issue. Again you fail to bother to see things from the other side of things.
Yes, I do see what you did there and it’s a non sequitur since i’m not the one doing the complaining here.
I am truly not complaining - merely pointing out the faults that some on here fail to see in their own "side". I am all for memorials for our fallen heroes. Just sick of some that fail to see how things can be taken from the other side. They fail to even try to understand.
If all the fallen heroes are Christian then a cross would be good, but what if some them are not Christian?
We can all use a little extra perspective. In this case I think the cross should stay but I understand the legitimate reasons some oppose it. For me it comes down to the cross being erected as a memorial on private land. Then that land was donated for public use. If this were a group proposing a new 100 ft cross erected on public land I would oppose it, but one that existed when on private land and merely donated I do not have a problem with.
I agree it should stay, but I maintain my objection to those that fail to see where others are coming from & question the patriotism and support of our military of those that oppose it.
Well, in the case of Arlington. An entirely tax payer subsidized cemetery, emblems for belief of choice are already etched into each grave marker.
So you have no worries in that regard.
That said, there will always be fundamentalist crackpots on both sides. They never will represent the majority who are more moderate.
Totally agree.
A Latin cross has only one meaning today and it ain't secular.
[Removed]
[deleted]
I'm torn on this one. On one hand it is a religious symbol on public property which I don't agree with but on the other hand it is a memorial to our fallen soldiers and as a gold star mom I would not want to see it taken down. What upsets me about this when I read an article last week on it someone wanted it destroyed, that I do not agree with
My solution; all statues, monuments, crosses and similar stuff on government property stays as is and is maintained and no more put up. Anything new must be neutral.
I am not religious but what was built as a sign of respect years ago should be left
Isn't that an argument against removal of Confederate statues (which only recently became a huge issue).
Yes. And equally cogent.
Absolutely, they should stay as should all existing monuments
If it was built with private money on private lands, then what the hell is the issue?
see my 1.4.6 & and 1.4.7
it's ended up on a limited access median between major traffic lanes 6 miles outside of the DC limits.
It's not as if it were in front of a Courthouse or post office.
To make a federal lawsuit out of what's on a median is a stretch for "public property" imho
it even has it's own flag staff and someone keeps Old Glory flying.
but it needs better identification/signage
Interesting. Good to see what it looks like. Since it's hard to get to, my suggestion would be to erect podiums topped by brass plaques stating the meaning and names at both sidewalks across from the cross.
The flag flying beside it should have been a hint to people that it was more than just a religious symbol.
Fair enough.
Not maintained by public employees with public funds. Let religious institutions foot the bill and get the people to do it if they want these things up so much. I'm not talking about military cemeteries where individual markers may be religious symbols but public memorials where one religious symbols dominates the entire public space.
"I'm not talking about military cemeteries where individual markers may be religious symbols but public memorials where one religious symbols dominates the entire public space."
Did that help? As far as I know military cemeteries are not dominated by one particular religious cemetery but if there were, then that particular symbol should be removed. The only other way that might be consistent with the first amendment was to allow all religious symbols an equal place and that would lead to chaos.
I want to thank Gordy for posting this seed. I haven't enjoyed reading and contributing to the commentary this much for quite a while - a lot of fun to start my morning.
Here's a little history for people too busy to do any research... This monument was designed by John Joseph Earley and erected between 1919 (ground breaking) and 1925 (dedication) on private land. In 1961 that land was turned over to the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission . The Commission oversees maintenance. This monument was also listed on the National Register of Historic Places on 9/8/2015. (The reference number is 15000572 ) Its listed area of significance is ART; MILITARY . It is a monument to World War One Prince George's County Servicemen that died fighting for their country...their names are listed on it.
It really is a shame that some people read far too much into a monument that was designed one hundred years ago to honor those who died fighting for their country.
That argues for returning it to private hands as it was originally intended. Seems like the people of the day had the right idea to keep a religious symbol a private matter.
This is one I could actually care less. It has been there for close to 100 years.
I say let it be.
The only problem I can see will be when someone comes barreling though there and rams into it.
The Peace Cross is very near where I spent my younger years. It was just down the street from one of the best motorcycle shops ever. They had a wonderful display of Ariels, Vincent Black Shadows, early Nortons, etc.
These days it is still not that far from me. One county away. Though it is very close to the county in which I reside, I am at the extreme opposite end of my county.
I think they were called FreeState cycle? They are somewhere else and sell Harley's these days.
I learned about this shop from an interesting Jewish fell. Among other things he was a biochemist at NIH and, btw, started one of the most notorious biker gangs on the east coast. He chose an interesting name for his gang. Actually, Motorcycle Club. Just like the Hells Angels aka HAMC.
That's their patch of the day. Maybe still is. The fella who designed that patch is also a Jew and a relative of the founder.
Jews who will also shoot back, well until the founder passed in the 80s.
So what does all this have to do with anything?
I have no idea what was sold for public consumption, but I know what these fellas told me the origin of the names was. The name Pagan's was chosen for a specific reason. At the time, one definition of Pagan was, one who did not follow the Christ.
Lou was not a follower of the Christ. He was a Jew. He was a Pagan according to this definition.
These fellas introduced me to Freestate as typically a Blaylock cycle customer in those days.
How do you get there? I ask. By the Peace Cross. They say.
Was there ever angst in this reference by these fellas? Nope. To the community, the Peace Cross was a recognized memorial to those from THAT community who fell in battle. The Peace Cross was respected by all for this reason, sand SJW things.
These Jews, these Pagans who will shoot back revered the Peace Cross, for what it represented for that very community.
...and that's the way is was.
I keep thinking about all the old buildings and villages, places in Europe. All of the old architecture that has religious imagery.
What would have been lost if those old buildings/statues were not allowed to stand for centuries.
I know that this case isn't that extreme, it is just to where my mind wanders.
Along that line of thought, the first thought coming to my mind every time this subject is breached is that of the beautiful and historical artwork and structures destroyed by ISIS when running amok.
Are we going to have our own form of running amok here, based on polarized ideology?
That's quite a leap, dave. I've not seen the slightest hint that anyone wants to destroy anything.
Not a far leap at all. That topic was breached in the third paragraph of the article. Further, I don't see any comments tothe effect of "no we don't want them taken down"
Your quoted passage only contains the question from Alito and not the lawyer's response. Why is that?
Because I quoted from the article.
My comment was based on the article presented.
That's why.
I imagine if I wasted enough time I could find any commentary possible on the article. Instead i just used the article posted right here.
Gee, I wonder why I don't do a thesis paper research on this and every topic I respond to here?
Given geology or ancient history I might do that.
To satisfy an internet warrior? F' no. Go waste somebody else's time.
Don't bother. I did that and couldn't find a response recorded anywhere. So we can't assume the answer to Alito's question was yes. Don't you agree? But thanks again, dave, for showing how touchy you get to even the slightest nudge.
It's like this; assholistic question gets assholistic reply.
That short fuse of yours is getting wearisome.
Crosses are not the only tombstones in military cemeteries.
again, that is the French WWII Cemetery at Normandy
Different standards in USA military cemeteries.
RIP Hero
National cemeteries have already begun to recognize Wicken symbols on headstones.
If that's true it's as they should. No difference whatsoever between that religion and any other.
MMMMMM, I'm gonna put up a crescent moon on public property. There is a church across the road from a public park, I got my spot!
"A decision in the Maryland case is expected by the end of June."
And then it will be the law of the land!