(RNS) Does an offended observer who drives by a cross-shaped war memorial in the middle of the desert have a right to call for its removal?
And can that 7-foot cross stand without violating the constitution’s prohibition of government establishment of religion?
The Supreme Court will consider those questions in the case of a cross-shaped World War I memorial that sits in California’s Mojave National Preserve when it hears arguments next Wednesday (Oct. 7).
Church-state separationists are watching closely, along with veterans organizations concerned about how they are represented by memorials — and whether the case could lead to removal of other monuments.
The case has landed in the high court’s hands eight years after Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of the preserve, first filed suit, saying he was offended that other religions beyond his own Christian faith were not represented near the memorial site.
As Buono’s case wound its way through the courts, Congress passed laws preventing its removal, naming it a national memorial and, lastly, calling for a transfer of the surrounding property to the private ownership of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, who first erected it in 1934.
In the government’s eyes, the transfer resolved the matter in a “sensible” and constitutional manner.
But an appeals court ruled that that transfer did not solve the church-state problems that have long been at the center of the case.
“In urging this Court to destroy long-standing memorials across this nation or else place them on the auction block, (Buono) seeks not neutrality, but hostility toward religion,” argued Solicitor General Elena Kagan, in a brief submitted to the court.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which is representing Buono, said the transfer is insufficient, in part because the cross remains a national memorial even if it is on private land.
“As one of the few displays that Congress has designated a national memorial, the cross necessarily will reflect continued government association with the pre-eminent symbol of Christianity,” argued Peter Eliasberg of the ACLU Foundation of Southern California, in the ACLU’s brief before the high court.
The ACLU suggests a “neutral transfer to a private party” could undo what it considers “favoritism” to the VFW.
Beyond the Veterans of Foreign Wars, a number of other veterans groups have weighed in, including Muslim veterans organizations in a rare appeal to the high court. Douglas Laycock, a University of Michigan Law School professor of constitutional law, filed a brief on their behalf that says a “government-sponsored cross plainly takes sides between faiths.”
They note that they’re not seeking removal “of all crosses from government cemeteries,” but they want government neutrality.
“They don’t want to take anything away from the Christians but they don’t want to be ignored either,” Laycock said in an interview. “They’re over there dying for the country, too.”
Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America, likewise, said the current remedy continues to send a government-endorsed “message that non-Christian veterans are outsiders undeserving of their nation’s praise.”
Kelly Shackelford, chief counsel of Liberty Legal Institute and an attorney representing the VFW and the American Legion, said individual Jewish veterans have sent him letters of support as he works to maintain the cross.
“The cross was put up by World War I veterans, some of whom weren’t religious at all,” he said, noting that the memorial had a plaque that said it was dedicated to the “Dead of all Wars,” which was later torn down by vandals.
Shackelford said the symbol has long referred to sacrifice and he worries that crosses elsewhere — such as the Argonne Cross at Arlington National Cemetery — will be in danger if the Mojave Cross is ordered taken down.
Beyond the church-state arguments and the questions from veterans, the case could hinge on whether the high court thinks Buono has the standing to sue. Buono first raised concerns after the National Park Service rejected a request to place a Buddhist monument near the memorial.
K. Hollyn Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee, said it may be easier to grasp an atheist or Jew questioning a Christian symbol, but Christians, including Buono, care about government neutrality, too.
“It’s important for us as Christians to think, `Do you want to have government playing a role in promoting religion’ or `Are we better off when government is more neutral toward religion?”‘ she said. “We fear that this court might do further damage to standing doctrine, making it even harder to bring Establishment Clause cases.”
Until the high court rules, the cross sits atop an outcropping called Sunrise Rock, encased in plywood.
By ADELLE M. BANKS c. 2009 Religion News Service WASHINGTON
Copyright 2009 Religion News Service. All rights reserved. No part of this transmission may be distributed or reproduced without written permission.
Beliefnet
Advertisement
posted September 29, 2009 at 7:25 pm
The VFW Memorial Cross has stood in the Mojave Desert since 1934, and represented the fallen American men of all wars. Seventy-five years! People should stop dividing, calculating, fighting against each other. It should be left alone, and if other Religious groups want to have their Memorials put up, do it! The inanimate symbols can’t proselytize, and force anyone to change their beliefs, as people can. Commonsense should rule the day with the Supreme Court.
posted September 29, 2009 at 10:13 pm
I agree, Henrietta. I generally take a dim view of religious imagery on governmental facilities, but the notion of rooting out every last image is just silly and counterproductive.
posted September 29, 2009 at 10:37 pm
Good for Frank Buono! Clearly a thoughtful Christian.
The fact it stood there for so long is significant but its effect on people now is more so. And it says the Christian symbol is the way we memorialize veterans and no doubt other things. If that’s not leaning toward one religion I never saw leaning.
How about a nice statue? Say a copy of the Iwo Jima memorial?
posted September 29, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Common sense does dictate that the government erecting a Christian cross as a memorial is a violation of the First Amendment. Do you support the US Constitution? If so, then you should support complete separation of all churches and the state.
How would you feel if the government had erected a Star of David instead of a cross? Would you think this was an endorsement of Judaism? Would you think the government should erect a memorial that did not have a religious symbol?
Try to use your good sense here, folks.
posted September 30, 2009 at 7:04 am
In England, a little girl at a Church run school was forced to remove her necklace because the cross violated their policy against jewelry that held clear religious meaning. Yet, her peers were allowed to dress according to their (non-christian) faith, including the icons.
Are we far behind?
I would not advocate building a memorial today that is a government owned statement of faith. But let history stand, if for no other reason, as a testament to those it honors.
I do wonder how many years before churches across this land will be forced to remove the crosses on their lawns and steeples because someone is offended.
BTW: I’m offended by some advertising. And some of it is on public property. Can I sue too?
posted September 30, 2009 at 9:10 am
I’m told anyone can sue over anything. Getting results is harder.
posted September 30, 2009 at 12:41 pm
The fact that this cross has stood for so long without challenge is not a reason to leave it up. That would be like saying, since we owned slaves for so long, we should still be allowed to keep slaves.
The Christian cross on Government/taxpayer owned property creates the impression (one which is often alluded to as fact by Christians) that we are a “Christian nation”. It creates the illusion that the government endorses Christianity and Christians above all others. If a Christian wants a cross on property they own, so be it. But Christians don’t own our courthouses, schools, parks, etc.
posted September 30, 2009 at 12:47 pm
I think it makes sense to have a clear policy–GOING FORWARD–of No Religious Messages or Imagery on governmental facilities or publications. I don’t think it makes sense to encourage a campaign of GOING BACK and purging the nation of all such messages or images.
Does that mean that a bunch of mainstream religions get their messages and images “grandfathered in” while other religions are cut out? Yes. I don’t like it any more than atheists do, but I like the alternative even less, as it would cause tremendous widespread resentment at a time when America is already more polarized than at any time in my long memory (including the Vietnam War era) thanks to the gutter-level demagogy that has dominated politics over the past generation.
posted September 30, 2009 at 1:06 pm
Crosses have been used by other religions than Christian – in particular in Celtic nations where it was a symbol centuries before they every heard of Jesus. Most symbols have more than one meaning (for example, the iron cross of the Nazis started out as a symbol of peace and tolerance for the Hindus). We have lots of real issues to deal with in this country – if all the time that is spent arguing about religion and government were spent in actually trying to solve our nation’s serious problems, or least trying to find understanding in diversity, we would be a lot better off.
Mr. Buono, leave the cross – and the other iconography and symbols – alone. Spend your time on something worthwhile.
posted September 30, 2009 at 2:44 pm
I agree with Heretic. There’s no sense in purging our historical symbols and monuments just because somebody gets offended by it or thinks that gives the wrong “impression” about how our government relates to this or that religion. The fact of the matter is that many symbols that may have been borrowed from particular religious or cultural backgrounds have traditionally made up American culture, and culture that, historically, has been predominantly “Judaeo-Christian”; even our secularity has historically been one that is heavily indebted to certain religious cultures. If now, in our increasingly pluralistic context, we want to refrain from using such symbols in the future, that’s one thing; but to purge our history is another thing entirely. We cannot change the fact that America has traditionally had a predominantly “Christian” culture, and reasonable people shouldn’t even want to hide of change that fact.
The next thing you know, some atheist (or worse, some ultra politically-correct Christian, like this Buono fellow, who likes to feign offense at things that don’t actually affect them, just because that’s what good liberals are supposed to do) will want to strike the Declaration of Independence from our history books just because it tries to ground our liberties in reference to a Creator. That would be ridiculous, just as this case is. Let the monument stand as the men who risked their lives for their country wanted it to stand. Frankly, their feelings are worth a thousand times more than the feelings of the cry-babies who get offended by such things.
posted September 30, 2009 at 3:20 pm
So Nate you agree with H4C that “it makes sense to have a clear policy–GOING FORWARD–of No Religious Messages or Imagery on governmental facilities or publications” I trust.
I’m disappointed in your contempt for Mr. Buono, whose actions took some thought and a good chunk of courage. And as for “the men who risked their lives for their country” I doubt most of them gave it any thought. Some mucky-mucks decided the cross would be a good monument and at the time it was SOP but not so much now and better, more inclusive monuments are available.
As for the suggestion it’s historical or Celtic, if it’s decided to put a LARGE sign beside it saying it’s not a religious artifact but rather historical then I say fine. Otherwise do the upgrade.
posted September 30, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Our history of showing Christian symbols is what it is. Seventy-five years ago we didn’t have to hide being Christian from anyone. As for the people, VFW, they were proud to have this Marker as their own. Who knew that 75 years later as other faiths grew in America we would have this mud-slinging going on? History is history and shouldn’t be changed, live with it all of you who are so fearful to hear the word God. Since everyone is so conditioned to not have anyone’s faith overshadow theirs, or whatever their belief is then new laws can be lived with so everyone is comfortable with whatever their eyes might focus on. Leave History alone. The Pagan symbol Rocks that PS loves to visit when she is in England are still standing for everyones view and enjoyment, do they have a sign sticking on them to explain that the Church of England doesn’t believe in them?
posted September 30, 2009 at 8:05 pm
For the most part, nnmns, I believe that local communities should be able to display whatever kind of symbolism that community agrees upon, whether it be Christian, or Jewish, or Mormon or whatever other religious tradition/s have deeply informed the common life of that community. As for national monuments, my attitude is the same, and I acknowledge that with the increasing growth of diversity in the US as a whole, adding new religious symbols qua religious is a bad idea; in cases where those symbols have outgrown their specific religious origins and become cultural symbols, things might be different.
My point is that the cross placed in graveyards and monuments and certain other contexts long ago outgrew its direct attachment to Christian theology and became a cultural symbol even among those Americans who weren’t particularly religious, because, like it or not, America’s roots (even its secular roots) lie broadly in the Western Christian tradition. If our culture has indeed become sufficient plural that such symbols no longer have that kind of shared cultural meaning they once had, then it’s fine to seek new symbols. But tearing down old ones is doing violence to the past, and it’s a form of self-imposed ignorance embraced in the name of something as petty as not being offended.
There have been cases where petty Christians have wanted Greco-Roman pagan symbols removed from public property. Those people are being silly too. They might have had just as much “courage” as Buono in speaking out against historically-religious symbols on government land, but their “courage” was no less misplaced. Those symbols should stay. And the native American religious symbols we have a few places around the country should stay, as should anything else that’s part of our history and our culture. I have nothing but contempt for anyone who is so fanatically devoted to this new radical idea of church-state separation that they want to destroy history in order to rebuild America, George Orwell style, into a country disconnected from its past.
posted October 1, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Great post, Nate!