In Fit of Sanity, Supreme Court Rebuffs Constitutional Challenge to Cross Memorial

The Supreme Court rejected a call to remove a 40-foot World War I memorial cross in Bladensburg, Maryland.

Three Maryland residents sued the parks commission in 2014 with the support of the American Humanist Association (AHA), claiming the Peace Cross as it’s called violates the First Amendment’s ban on religious favoritism.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that the Peace Cross impermissibly endorses Christianity. The so-called “reasonable observer” test provides that government displays that are perceived to endorse or disparage a particular religion violate the First Amendment.

Writing for the majority in that opinioin, Judge Stephanie Thacker wrote:

“One simply cannot ignore the fact that for thousands of years the Latin cross has represented Christianity.”

“Even in the memorial context, a Latin cross serves not simply as a generic symbol of death, but rather a Christian symbol of the death of Jesus Christ.”

But the Supreme Court was having none of that.  In a 7-2 decision, with just Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissenting, they rebuffed the challenge.

For the majority, Justice Alito wrote:

“After the First World War, the picture of row after row of plain white crosses marking the overseas graves of soldiers who had lost their lives in that horrible conflict was emblazoned on the minds of Americans at home, and the adoption of the cross as the Bladensburg memorial must be viewed in that historical context.”

“It has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of ‘a hostility toward religion.”

The decision questions the validity of a prior decision, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which included a complicated, three-part test of constitutionality.  While the justices shied away from overturning the Lemon precedent, they gave those who want to protect historical monuments a path.

 

 

See Comments (2)

Leave a Reply


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Comments (2)


  1. kathleen clark
    Reply

    if we go to war with Iran then i hope we let the military run the war and not the government,,, no restrictions ,, just go in there,,, bothe hell out of them and get out,,, no more of this 10 to 15 yrs of war run by government,,, most of those people in government have never fought in a war and have no idea how to win,,, they think sticking all kinds of restrictions on our military will help,,, the other side doesn’t pay any attention to what we say,,, they fight to win,,, and thats what we should do if we are going to war,,, get in win and get out

    • Charlie Brown
      Reply

      As the Congressman and former Marine officer from my former district said, “Go in, kick ass, and get out”. In two more years, the ones who enlisted on September 12, 2001 can retire!

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!