War Memorials and Establishment of Religion

The lawsuit to remove the war memorial cross on Sunrise Rock in the Mojave Desert because it supposedly violates the First Amendment has reached the Supreme Court.  It involves the arguments against establishment of religion that we've become familiar with.  It has the potential to affect all public memorials with religious symbols on public land.  And ultimately, as these lawsuits always do, has ramifications for religion in the public square, part of public life.

Jonathan Last gives a good, brief history of the cross, the lawsuit, and explains the long term consequences if the lawsuit prevails.

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments in Buono v. Salazar, a case in which a retired National Park Service employee, Frank Buono, is demanding that the government--specifically Ken Salazar, the secretary of the Interior--take down the cross.

On the surface, Buono is a relatively straightforward Establishment Clause fight--the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment stipulates that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Sunrise Rock cross is, indisputably, a Christian symbol. It sits on land that is part of the Mojave National Preserve, which is operated by the National Park Service. But the particular facts of the case--both the origins of the suit and the course of the litigation--demonstrate how the modern machinery of civil liberties law abets a certain type of antireligious passion.

Here is Greg's comment on the philosophy and cultural trends motivating the removal of the cross when he discussed a similar lawsuit to remove the Mt. Soledad war memorial cross in San Diego.

Some people seem to think that this clause was written to protect people from public expressions of religion.  It wasn’t.  It was written to protect the right of public expressions of religion.  And if atheists don’t like the consequences, like looking at crosses, then too bad.  That’s the price of living in a pluralistic society with religious liberty.   That’s when tolerance is called for.

The present trend is different though.  It’s hostility toward religion in the public square, not freedom of religious expression in the public square as the First Amendment states.  It’s rather a freedom from religion, which is something the founders never imagined.  If the First Amendment means freedom from public displays of religion then it ends up favoring of atheism over theism because that’s what a naked public square conveys.

There is a changing view on what the First Amendment means.  This cross was dedicated on public land in 1954.  Why wasn’t it struck down then?  That’s 52 years ago.  It sat there for 35 years before some atheist got bugged about it and thought he had a case.

No one considered it a violation of the Constitution at that time.  So why now?  The reason is that there has been a change in mood.  Tolerance and religious pluralism no longer mean a full public square, it means an empty public square.  Public expressions are not encouraged, they’re discouraged.

Comments

[Dennis]

I really don't understand how a cross constitutes a law, or what Congress had to do with this.

[Damian]

Agreed Dennis.
Did congress pass a law mandating a cross be put up? No. Permission for something is not the same as prescribing that it be done. Those are different things. Also why is the last part of the first sentence of the 1st amendment always excluded in these cases in editorials and the like. The last part reads "Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So congress is bound not to either make law such as so and so is the offical church or religion of the land, but they are also bound to make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof. In other words when it come to the free expression of religion in the public square the message is clear. HANDS OFF GOVT!!!
The fact is that when religious liberty is squelched the rest of our liberites are right behind. That is a historical fact that has repeated itself over and over again. Don't believe it? It's already here and its name is political correctness. Anyone out there ever been sent to a re-education center I mean sensitivity/diveristy training at work? Get rid of religion and something else will rush in to fill the void and really even the athiests won't like it.

[KWM]

Are the cross headstones in Arlington National Cemetery next?

[Matthew]

The matter was brought to attention when the National Parks Service refused to give permission for the erection of a Buddhist monument next to the cross. Because the NPS had also determined that the cross was not a historical monument, but was in fact a religious monument, the refusal to allow a Buddhist structure shows favoritism to one religion over another.

As the NPS is a branch of the USA government, this is a violation of the 1st amendment.

Furthermore, the lawsuit was brought forth by Frank Buono. Mr. Buono is a Christian, not an atheist.

These facts refute the points in Greg's comment.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salazar_v._Buono and the references therein.

[Drew]

Having a cross does not establish a religion.

Denying the Budhist monument doesn't establish a religion.

Even if having the cross and denying a Budhist monument is favoritism, it's not establishing a religion.

Showing favoritism might be unconstitutional but you're going to have to look somewhere other than the establishment clause.

[ed]

According to a report I heard on NPR when this was first discussed in the Supreme court, places like Arlington are not affected since they display religious symbols from a variety of religions. Hence no one religion is "established."

[Pro Life]

What if this was not a Cross but some Muslim or other religious symbol instead? Shouldn't we be glad they are trying to remove it? Lets not have any religious symbols on public property.

[Drew]

i don't really care about crosses on public property. i also don't care if people are offended by crosses on public property. We don't have a right not-to-be-offended. The people can vote on it or the people's representatives can decide.

This is so trivial yet some idiot feels the need to sue.

[David Hawkins]

>>"What if this was not a Cross but some Muslim or other religious symbol instead? Shouldn't we be glad they are trying to remove it? Lets not have any religious symbols on public property."

Had this nation's governing documents been founded upon the philosophy of Gautama Buddha, the assertions of the Koran, or out of homage to Vishnu, Krishna, or Brahma, et al,...it would be quite common to see symbols denoting this throughout our nation (and probably without the freedom to question it.) On the contrary, the Holy Bible and Jesus Christ as revealed to us therein held this influence; (although now the use of the cross as a memorial is likely merely traditional now.)

We are a melting pot...not a collage.

Whatever one's opinion on the matter (sorry Pro...I usually take your side), it is appropriate - and should be expected and anticipated - to use "rememberances" of Christianity throughout this nation in such a manner as a cross as a memorial or a manger scene for Christmas or a Ten commandments display on a courthouse lawn...while simultaneously rejecting the displays of other worldviews. Doing so "establishes" nothing in the way of coerced adherence to a particular belief system, and serves to provide an accurate vestige to our history and tradition...unless of course we want to cease being the United States of America, re-write the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, and the Constitution. In this era, doing so isn't too far off the mark, either.

Those who, to this day, still claim we were founded on secular tenets (and that the Founders were all Deists) can genuinely be lumped in with the flat-earthers and people who thought Sea Monkeys were really primates.