BLADENSBURG, Md. — The day before the U.S. Supreme Court heard
oral arguments about a cement memorial cross in a grassy median strip in an
intersection of a Washington suburb, there was no fanfare at the cross itself.
Although there was fresh mulch around it, the dark gray monument
was chipped, had some cracks and a letter on one of the four words at its base —
endurance, valor, courage and devotion — was dangling. Cars drove by in both
directions and the only pedestrians were a few reporters and people going into
the pawn shop across the street where bikes, lawn mowers and generators lined
the sidewalk.
Only by dodging traffic and approaching the monument by foot
would one see the names of the 49 local soldiers who died in battle during
World War I — which is why the monument exists. Mothers of the fallen soldiers
came up with the idea in 1919, and it was completed by the American Legion six
years later. Today it is owned by a Maryland parks commission.
The Supreme Court will now have to consider if the memorial — in
the shape of a Latin cross symbolic of the markers on graves of soldiers killed
overseas during World War I — endorses religion or is simply a secular
monument.
The monument located in Bladensburg is near a larger park
honoring veterans with memorials to the War of 1812, World War II, the Korean
and Vietnam wars and the 9/11 attacks.
A woman driving by the monument Feb. 26 was not happy about the
possibility that the 40-foot monument could be taken down and told this
reporter: "It's not about Christianity; it's about our country."
A worker at the pawn shop across the street similarly didn't see
what people found offensive about the monument known as the Peace Cross,
pointing out that that it wasn't like some monuments that are offensive.
But plaintiffs in the case — local residents who are offended by
a cross on a parcel of government property and the American Humanist
Association, a Washington-based group that represents atheists and others — say
it violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and
"discriminates against patriotic soldiers who are not Christian."
They want the state to either remove the monument or to alter it so it no
longer is in a cross shape.
The court will hear these arguments Feb. 27 and may redefine if a
symbol qualifies as a religious endorsement.
Richard Garnett, law professor at the University of Notre Dame,
said the case "presents a new opportunity for the justices to clarify the
law regarding public religious symbols."
Over the years, the court has been clear on some church-state
distinctions but not so clear on a way to evaluate religious holiday displays
or memorial crosses.
"The pending war memorial case is the first 'clean'
religious-symbols case in almost 15 years and, during that time, six new
justices have joined the court," Garnett said in Feb. 21 Notre Dame news
release.
"The court is very unlikely to say that the Constitution
forbids the display or use of religious symbols — including crosses — on public
property. Such a ruling would put the justices in stark and uncomfortable
conflict with long-standing practices. However, some of the justices will
likely be looking for a compromise solution that could 'grandfather' in older
memorials that incorporate crosses while discouraging new ones," he added.
Garnett also said another big question is if a majority of the
court can agree with an idea some justices have proposed over the years — that
memorials and displays using religious symbols do not coerce religious
activities or entangle church and state because they are not
"establishments" of religion. If the justices don't agree on that, he
said there will likely be more challenges like this and confusion about how to
resolve them.
The Trump administration has joined dozens of religious,
municipal and veterans' groups defending the cross monument and complaining
that the court's mixed messages about religious symbols have forced legal
battles on a case by case basis.
The Thomas More Society, a nonprofit law firm with a focus on
religious liberty, said in a friend-of-the-court brief that the monument's
purpose is not to advance or inhibit religion but to "honor the dead using
a historical symbol of death and sacrifice."
"The decision to destroy this memorial, which existed
without complaint for nearly a century, simply because the plaintiffs, passing
motorists, claim to be offended by the memorial's use of the Latin cross,
evidences an intolerance to religion, and Christianity in particular, that is
wholly inconsistent with our nation's history and with the purpose and meaning
of the First Amendment's Religion Clauses," it said.
The brief also said doing away with this memorial "fails to
respect the decision of the bereaved parents who 100 years ago chose to honor
their lost children with the monument as it currently exists."
An amicus brief from family members of those honored in the
monument similarly vouched for the cross to remain.
"For nearly a century, the Peace Cross has stood as a
memorial, a representative gravesite and a tribute to the men it honors. In
contrast to the 'religiously-based divisiveness' its destruction would provoke,
the Peace Cross has for many decades brought families and communities together
to remember the sacrifices and service of the soldiers of Prince George's
County," the brief said, urging the court to let it stand for future
generations.