Supreme Court: 40-foot tall, cross-shaped World War I memorial can continue to stand on public land in Maryland
WASHINGTON (AP) — A World War I memorial in the shape of a 40-foot-tall cross can continue to stand on public land in Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.
The justices, in ruling 7-2 in favor of the cross' backers, concluded that the nearly 100-year-old memorial's presence on a grassy highway median doesn't violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.
The case had been closely watched because it involves the place of religious symbols in public life. Defenders of the cross in Bladensburg had argued that a ruling against them could doom of hundreds of war memorials that use crosses to commemorate soldiers who died. "The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent," Justice Samuel Alito wrote.
"For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices to our Nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark. For many of these people, destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment. For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution," he wrote. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The cross' challengers included three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, which includes atheists and agnostics. They argued that the cross, in a suburb near the nation's capital, should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk.
Defenders included the American Legion, which raised money to build the monument honoring area residents who died in World War I. Other backers included the Trump administration and Maryland officials who took over maintenance of the cross nearly 60 years ago to preserve it and address traffic safety concerns.
Maryland officials had argued that the cross, sometimes called the "Peace Cross," doesn't violate the Constitution because it has a secular purpose and meaning. In the past, similar monuments have met with a mixed fate at the high court.
On the same day in 2005, for example, the court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol while striking down Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses.
After those rulings and others the Supreme Court has been criticized for being less than clear in explaining how to analyze so-called passive displays such as Maryland's cross, that are challenged as violating the Constitution's establishment clause.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
46 visitors
You beat me to seeding this, lol.
7-2 win for common sense.
I wish the article stated the two dissenters legal reasoning for their positions.
He beat us all!
Nice going Tex!
Source -
In my opinion the argument Justice Alito makes - saying the monument has become secular should highly piss off the religious. It dilutes their symbols of faith to the point they are meaningless.
You must hold a low opinion of people's faith then.
What someone SAYS will never deter my faith. I decide for MYSELF what is right, wrong, important and unimportant.
What others, especially people with no faith, think of symbols or religion matters not to me.
How could they possibly diminish my faith with their mere words?
If one needs a 40 ft cross to monument their faith then it must be fragile to start with. Now it's not even a symbol of Christianity it's a direction marker to find an auto parts store.
Wonderful, that's the way it should be.
Apparently it annoys you, since you make the same proclamation many times a year here.
It should not, nor does it warrant any comment. Live and let live.
Then it shouldn't bother you in the least, and you should admit that the lawsuit was frivolous to start with.
What really annoys me is the nonreligious whack-a-doodles who bring frivolous lawsuits like this one.
The memorial wasn't harming anyone, no one was being coerced into religion.
Just some nutjobs with nothing better to do, I suppose.
And you demonstrate that by commenting anyways?
Maybe people who insist that there is no God are so fragile in their beliefs that a cross existing in a place for damn near 100 years is somehow a threat to them and has to be removed to not offend their delicate sensibilities.
They don't really NEED it, it is simply a symbol of their faith. This has been going on for thousands of years....cultures and civilizations erecting monuments, temples, and even BIG ass pyramids to show respect and devotion to their gods.
Agreed
My comment questioned why you would even entertain the question of your faith being diminished by mere words.
It was in agreement, but by all means, twist it around and have the last word.
It isn't a monument to faith, but you know that don't you?
Any opportunity to bash religion, even when the monument was erected for World War 1 soldiers. Is there no low folks will go to demonize religion and act like an ass.
Then why put it up?
No longer according to the court. It's just a landmark that no one wants to fund upkeep.
For thousands of years people have been putting their egos on display and calling it any number of things. There is nothing in the Bible commanding worshipers to create monuments.
Because it is a memorial to those who gave al to this country. You got a problem with honoring dead soldiers or something?
I would love to see you actually prove that rather bizarre statement. Where did you hear that no one wants to fund the upkeep?
Is there anything in the Bible OR our laws forbidding doing such?
Good outcome. I don't look at it as a religious symbol, I see it as a memorial to the men that died in WWI. Signed, a Gold Star Mom
The scary thing is the Supreme Court had to reverse the 4th Circuit.
This should have been laughed out of Court when it was filed.
I agree on that. I wish plaintiffs had to pay the legal fees incurred because of their frivolous lawsuits.
Oh, I couldn't agree more. We should go for it every time the ACLU is involved!
Justice Samuel Alito, a conservative, wrote for the majority that although the cross is a religious symbol, “its use in the Bladensburg memorial has special significance” because it functions as a war memorial.
“For nearly a century, the Bladensburg cross has expressed the community’s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifices, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought,” he added.
To tear the cross down now could be seen as an act of hostility against religion, Alito said.
I just wish people would stop being faux-offended over such things as a cross on a memorial.
I am just surprised that one or more of the clowns hasn't sued over the Washington Monument being an obelisk-- a known religious symbol.
Just a matter of time, I suppose.
To the SCOTUS!
@SenTedCruz
"I was proud to lead the amicus brief with
on behalf of 109 Members of Congress to #SCOTUS ."
It is a beautiful memorial to our veterans and I like how it is in the public view not hidden in some park. A daily reminder of the sacrifices made.
This one just never seemed that hard to me. Thankfully, common sense has won.
But there is a small group of people out there who who have decided that they are going to get bent about every little remotely religious display and run to court over it. I don't think it really affects their lives, but like Don Quixote, it gives them a windmill to tilt at.
I'm not a Christian, and I am quite happy that (most of) the SCOTUS has applied common sense in a decision that flies in the face of the pussies who are unable to withstand REALITY. I hope it's a sign of more common sense decisions to come. Isn't it about time that Ginsburg retired? Sottomayor should stay there because AOC will need SOMEONE to defend her idiocy.
Wasn't the cross on private land when built and when the highway was widened the land ended up becoming part of the highway medium?
Nope. It was on town land from the start .. apparently the care of it was given over to the American Legion post.
Thanks. I wasn't sure about that. Do you know if some agreement was made when highway was widened?
It was actually built on private land.
From Wikipedia:
The cross was originally built on private lands, but the lands were turned over to the state's Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission in 1961.
The cross is part of a memorial park.
Other structures are there.
The land has been heavily developed over the years, with a divided highway passing by it and the memorial on its median. The Commission installed nighttime illumination to avoid this becoming a safety hazard. Additional, more war memorial structures have been erected in the same general area, creating the Veterans Memorial Park.[7]
The memorial was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2015.[1]ikipedia
I just saw that. Yet another article stated otherwise. So ... who knows. The American Legion website didn't say either way.
Here are other sources:
...
...
...
There is NO doubt it was built with private funds on private land.
Got it, thanks. Although the point of the court challenge was is that now it's public land.
To me, a historic cross as a memorial to veterans is somewhat similar to all the national cemeteries near my house; I really don't expect anyone to go around replacing all the crosses that mark the graves with little gravestones. I don't for a minute believe that they're secular, but it's not a battle I would fight.
I think it was a frivolous suit over someone faux-offended over a cross that had been standing for nearly 100 years. No government involved EVER tried to establish a religion, no one was coerced in any way because of the cross memorial and the plaintiffs should have been made to pay attorney fees to defend against this stupid-ass lawsuit.