Will This Military Cemetery Be Desecrated?

 

Once again, the secular Left is prepared to remove a religious symbol because it believes it violates the Constitution. Does anyone else see the irony in this decision to defend the Constitution?

Of course, the decision by the three-judge panel of the Fourth US Circuit Court of Appeals to remove the cross had little to do with the Constitution and mostly to do with attacking the Christian cross specifically and attacking the symbols of religion in general.

The case addressed a cross in Bladensburg, MD that was erected to honor Corporal Milton Edward Hartman and 49 other soldiers who died in World War I. Like so many Americans who died in that war, he was buried in an American cemetery in Europe.

In 1919, many Gold Star mothers from Prince George County, MD, and the American Legion decided to honor Cpl. Hartman and the other soldiers who died, and set out to preserve their names and memories :

In 1925, these mothers and the American Legion dedicated the Bladensburg World War I Veterans Memorial to the memory of these men. Martha Redman, who lost her son William F. Redman in World War I, explained that she considered the memorial to be her son’s ‘grave stone.’

The 2-1 ruling reverses a 2015 district court decision that found the purpose of the cross is not primarily religious and that the site has been used almost exclusively for celebrating federal holidays.

As a citizen and a Jew, I honor those mothers who wanted their sons memorialized for the ultimate sacrifice they made. This court decision was intended to intimidate and offend religious people everywhere. If a Jew wants to be buried in a cemetery where there are only Jewish symbols, those cemeteries are available. Ours is a Judeo-Christian country that honors and encourages freedom of religion and freedom from tyranny. The cross should be allowed to stand. Otherwise, removing it is one more death knell to religions practiced in this country and an insult to those who served in the US military.

The Fourth Circuit was challenged on its decision, citing the existence of crosses at other cemeteries. A 24-foot granite cross, the Canadian Cross of Sacrifice, is positioned near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. The Court dismissed this point:

‘The crosses there are much smaller than the 40-foot tall monolith at issue here,’ the court wrote. ‘And, significantly, Arlington National Cemetery displays diverse religious symbols, both as monuments and on individual headstones.’

I wonder what Martha Redman, who considered the cross to be her son’s gravestone, and the other 49 mothers who erected the cross with her, would say?

Published in Religion & Philosophy
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 27 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Susan Quinn:

    The Court dismissed this point:

    ‘The crosses there are much smaller than the 40-foot tall monolith at issue here,’ the court wrote. ‘And, significantly, Arlington National Cemetery displays diverse religious symbols, both as monuments and on individual headstones.’

    Let me see if I get this correct.  The court’s ruling is based primarily on the size of the cross, not the fact it is a cross.  I wasn’t aware the First Amendment allowed freedom of religion based on size.

    Next, they’ll go after crosses on church steeples.  They may not be big, but they can be seen from quite a ways away.  The next ruling will be based on hundreds of yards in distance instead of tens of feet in height . . .

    • #1
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    Stad (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn:

    The Court dismissed this point:

    ‘The crosses there are much smaller than the 40-foot tall monolith at issue here,’ the court wrote. ‘And, significantly, Arlington National Cemetery displays diverse religious symbols, both as monuments and on individual headstones.’

    Let me see if I get this correct. The court’s ruling is based primarily on the size of the cross, not the fact it is a cross. I wasn’t aware the First Amendment allowed freedom of religion based on size.

    Next, they’ll go after crosses on church steeples. They may not be big, but they can be seen from quite a ways away. The next ruling will be based on hundreds of yards in distance instead of tens of feet in height . . .

    I wouldn’t doubt it, since the Left thinks they can make rulings where they don’t belong. In all fairness, though, part of the fuss (supposedly) is that it is a U.S. facility for which taxpayers must pay to maintain. With all the money that is wasted in government, I think we can afford to pay for it. Thanks, @stad.

    • #2
  3. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    Susan, using an “originalist ” and literal interpretation of the First Amendment, the Right seems to have the best argument.  “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . . .”  It’s hard to see why a cross honoring these First World War soldiers is the “establishment of religion.”

    However, using the evolution of the First Amendment, the Left seems to have the best argument. That is, the First Amendment has been broadened through the years to go beyond the “establishment” of a religion to mean that the U.S. Government can’t show favoritism in the slightest toward or against any sect or religion.  That essentially means that pagan Wiccan symbols carry the same weight as Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the law.  So no five-pointed stars within circles on government land!  Also no crosses anywhere on government land! 

    The problem is, one gets the feeling that the motivation behind the destruction or removal of Christian symbology is ideological rather than Constitutional.  The Left seems to take such pleasure in the removal of crosses (or Confederacy symbols) anywhere.   That gets our hackles up.  At least it gets mine up, and I’m not even a Christian. 

     

    • #3
  4. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    The problem is, one gets the feeling that the motivation behind the destruction or removal of Christian symbology is ideological rather than Constitutional. The Left seems to take such pleasure in the removal of crosses (or Confederacy symbols) anywhere. That gets our hackles up. At least it gets mine up, and I’m not even a Christian. 

    So very true. As I began to write this piece, I felt the principle was so important. But at the end, when I thought of all the mothers who had lost sons, even long after this cross was established, I got pretty upset. With the Left, it’s all about their cause. Your comment is spot on, @kentforrester!

    • #4
  5. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    However, using the evolution of the First Amendment, the Left seems to have the best argument.

    True, but their argument is invalid because their interpretation of the First Amendment is invalid – except when “validated” by liberal judges.

    • #5
  6. Miffed White Male Member
    Miffed White Male
    @MiffedWhiteMale

    Better not tell the 4th circuit about this:

     

     

    • #6
  7. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    The problem is, one gets the feeling that the motivation behind the destruction or removal of Christian symbology is ideological rather than Constitutional. The Left seems to take such pleasure in the removal of crosses (or Confederacy symbols) anywhere. That gets our hackles up. At least it gets mine up, and I’m not even a Christian. 

    We should remember the Neimoller quote.

    Everyone has something they treasure, be them religious symbols, statues, or school mascots.  However, for everything we treasure, there are a groups of people out there who hate them, and who want them banished into the ethereal void.

    If we don’t protect each other’s treasures, we’re doomed to lose all . . .

    • #7
  8. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Susan, using an “originalist ” and literal interpretation of the First Amendment, the Right seems to have the best argument. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . . .” It’s hard to see why a cross honoring these First World War soldiers is the “establishment of religion.”

    However, using the evolution of the First Amendment, the Left seems to have the best argument. That is, the First Amendment has been broadened through the years to go beyond the “establishment” of a religion to mean that the U.S. Government can’t show favoritism in the slightest toward or against any sect or religion. That essentially means that pagan Wiccan symbols carry the same weight as Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the law. So no five-pointed stars within circles on government land! Also no crosses anywhere on government land!

    The problem is, one gets the feeling that the motivation behind the destruction or removal of Christian symbology is ideological rather than Constitutional. The Left seems to take such pleasure in the removal of crosses (or Confederacy symbols) anywhere. That gets our hackles up. At least it gets mine up, and I’m not even a Christian.

     

    Kent,

    Please keep on reading that First Amendment. What you just quoted was the Establishment Clause. It’s not even a full sentence it’s just a clause. The clause immediately following is the Free Exercise Clause. This keeps Congress from passing a law that prevents the free exercise of religion. This is the clause that we must find our arguments in. If the definition of the exercise of religion is restricted to just inside someone’s home then you will be allowing Congress (the administrative state) to interfere with religion as it has been practiced for most of the last 242 years since the Declaration. We must assert that the founders would have included in their “original” interpretation of ‘the exercise of religion’ as people worshiping in large institutions that by their very design are visible to the community at large. Thus the Cross is well within our constitutional definition of the free exercise of religion even if it is quite large. The cemetery might have ruled at some point on the size of monuments but not on religious grounds but as a general aesthetic principle. However, they didn’t. Doing so at this point could, in fact, be interpreted as a veiled attack on the religious nature of the monument as it was acceptable all of this time and only now is it being critiqued this way.

    The answer to removing the monument is NO!

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #8
  9. KentForrester Coolidge
    KentForrester
    @KentForrester

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Susan, using an “originalist ” and literal interpretation of the First Amendment, the Right seems to have the best argument. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . . .” It’s hard to see why a cross honoring these First World War soldiers is the “establishment of religion.”

    However, using the evolution of the First Amendment, the Left seems to have the best argument. That is, the First Amendment has been broadened through the years to go beyond the “establishment” of a religion to mean that the U.S. Government can’t show favoritism in the slightest toward or against any sect or religion. That essentially means that pagan Wiccan symbols carry the same weight as Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the law. So no five-pointed stars within circles on government land! Also no crosses anywhere on government land!

    The problem is, one gets the feeling that the motivation behind the destruction or removal of Christian symbology is ideological rather than Constitutional. The Left seems to take such pleasure in the removal of crosses (or Confederacy symbols) anywhere. That gets our hackles up. At least it gets mine up, and I’m not even a Christian.

     

    Kent,

    Please keep on reading that First Amendment. What you just quoted was the Establishment Clause. It’s not even a full sentence it’s just a clause. The clause immediately following is the Free Exercise Clause. This keeps Congress from passing a law that prevents the free exercise of religion. This is the clause that we must find our arguments in. If the definition of the exercise of religion is restricted to just inside someone’s home then you will be allowing Congress (the administrative state) to interfere with religion as it has been practiced for most of the last 242 years since the Declaration. We must assert that the founders would have included in their “original” interpretation of ‘the exercise of religion’ as people worshiping in large institutions that by their very design are visible to the community at large. Thus the Cross is well within our constitutional definition of the free exercise of religion even if it is quite large. The cemetery might have ruled at some point on the size of monuments but not on religious grounds but as a general aesthetic principle. However, they didn’t. Doing so at this point could, in fact, be interpreted as a veiled attack on the religious nature of the monument as it was acceptable all of this time and only now is it being critiqued this way.

    The answer to removing the monument is NO!

    Regards,

    Jim

    Thanks, Jim.  I think you know more about the Constitution than I do.  However, using that same “originality” interpretation that I used above, the “free excercise of religion” part of the First Amendment has even less justification for taking out the cross.  How does a cross on government land prevent the “free exercise” of religion? 

    • #9
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Susan, using an “originalist ” and literal interpretation of the First Amendment, the Right seems to have the best argument. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . . .” It’s hard to see why a cross honoring these First World War soldiers is the “establishment of religion.”

    However, using the evolution of the First Amendment, the Left seems to have the best argument. That is, the First Amendment has been broadened through the years to go beyond the “establishment” of a religion to mean that the U.S. Government can’t show favoritism in the slightest toward or against any sect or religion. That essentially means that pagan Wiccan symbols carry the same weight as Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the law. So no five-pointed stars within circles on government land! Also no crosses anywhere on government land!

    The problem is, one gets the feeling that the motivation behind the destruction or removal of Christian symbology is ideological rather than Constitutional. The Left seems to take such pleasure in the removal of crosses (or Confederacy symbols) anywhere. That gets our hackles up. At least it gets mine up, and I’m not even a Christian.

     

    Kent,

    Please keep on reading that First Amendment. What you just quoted was the Establishment Clause. It’s not even a full sentence it’s just a clause. The clause immediately following is the Free Exercise Clause. This keeps Congress from passing a law that prevents the free exercise of religion. This is the clause that we must find our arguments in. If the definition of the exercise of religion is restricted to just inside someone’s home then you will be allowing Congress (the administrative state) to interfere with religion as it has been practiced for most of the last 242 years since the Declaration. We must assert that the founders would have included in their “original” interpretation of ‘the exercise of religion’ as people worshiping in large institutions that by their very design are visible to the community at large. Thus the Cross is well within our constitutional definition of the free exercise of religion even if it is quite large. The cemetery might have ruled at some point on the size of monuments but not on religious grounds but as a general aesthetic principle. However, they didn’t. Doing so at this point could, in fact, be interpreted as a veiled attack on the religious nature of the monument as it was acceptable all of this time and only now is it being critiqued this way.

    The answer to removing the monument is NO!

    Regards,

    Jim

    Excellent response and clarification, @jamesgawron! Thank you! And bless you.

    • #10
  11. The Great Adventure! Inactive
    The Great Adventure!
    @TheGreatAdventure

    I guess in my mind the correct decision would have been “Petitioners are welcome to erect a monument of similar size honoring the religion of choice for whichever fallen soldiers buried here that they wish to honor.”

    • #11
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The Great Adventure! (View Comment):

    I guess in my mind the correct decision would have been “Petitioners are welcome to erect a monument of similar size honoring the religion of choice for whichever fallen soldiers buried here that they wish to honor.”

    I’m not clear on why that should be necessary. I don’t think that every time we put up any kind of memorial we need to invite people to do something meaningful for them. If they are motivated to do so, they can certainly inquire. This touches on the whole question of putting religious symbols on government property. For example, when cities have put up a creche at Christmas, people have asked to put up a menorah (Chanukiah) and I don’t necessarily get that: it suggests that both holidays celebrate the same thing or need to get equal time. Then again, if people want to put it up, they can inquire. I have to add that on our street (which is not government property) we are constructing and will put up a Chanukiah (thanks to @iwe‘s awesome examples) and the neighbors will love it, as we have a beautifully decorated street. The celebration times are close together (Hanukah is very early this year) but they are completely different observations.

    • #12
  13. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    KentForrester (View Comment):

    Susan, using an “originalist ” and literal interpretation of the First Amendment, the Right seems to have the best argument. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . . .” It’s hard to see why a cross honoring these First World War soldiers is the “establishment of religion.”

    However, using the evolution of the First Amendment, the Left seems to have the best argument. That is, the First Amendment has been broadened through the years to go beyond the “establishment” of a religion to mean that the U.S. Government can’t show favoritism in the slightest toward or against any sect or religion. That essentially means that pagan Wiccan symbols carry the same weight as Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the law. So no five-pointed stars within circles on government land! Also no crosses anywhere on government land!

    The problem is, one gets the feeling that the motivation behind the destruction or removal of Christian symbology is ideological rather than Constitutional. The Left seems to take such pleasure in the removal of crosses (or Confederacy symbols) anywhere. That gets our hackles up. At least it gets mine up, and I’m not even a Christian.

     

    Kent,

    Please keep on reading that First Amendment. What you just quoted was the Establishment Clause. It’s not even a full sentence it’s just a clause. The clause immediately following is the Free Exercise Clause. This keeps Congress from passing a law that prevents the free exercise of religion. This is the clause that we must find our arguments in. If the definition of the exercise of religion is restricted to just inside someone’s home then you will be allowing Congress (the administrative state) to interfere with religion as it has been practiced for most of the last 242 years since the Declaration. We must assert that the founders would have included in their “original” interpretation of ‘the exercise of religion’ as people worshiping in large institutions that by their very design are visible to the community at large. Thus the Cross is well within our constitutional definition of the free exercise of religion even if it is quite large. The cemetery might have ruled at some point on the size of monuments but not on religious grounds but as a general aesthetic principle. However, they didn’t. Doing so at this point could, in fact, be interpreted as a veiled attack on the religious nature of the monument as it was acceptable all of this time and only now is it being critiqued this way.

    The answer to removing the monument is NO!

    Regards,

    Jim

    Thanks, Jim. I think you know more about the Constitution than I do. However, using that same “originality” interpretation that I used above, the “free excercise of religion” part of the First Amendment has even less justification for taking out the cross. How does a cross on government land prevent the “free exercise” of religion?

    Kent,

    You’re getting it backward. The Free Exercise Clause argument is for keeping the monument where it is. Removing the monument would be restricting the free exercise of religion. We need to assert an originalist interpretation of what constitutes ‘the free exercise of religion’ to do this.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #13
  14. The Great Adventure! Inactive
    The Great Adventure!
    @TheGreatAdventure

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    The Great Adventure! (View Comment):

    I guess in my mind the correct decision would have been “Petitioners are welcome to erect a monument of similar size honoring the religion of choice for whichever fallen soldiers buried here that they wish to honor.”

    I’m not clear on why that should be necessary. I don’t think that every time we put up any kind of memorial we need to invite people to do something meaningful for them. If they are motivated to do so, they can certainly inquire. This touches on the whole question of putting religious symbols on government property. For example, when cities have put up a creche at Christmas, people have asked to put up a menorah (Chanukiah) and I don’t necessarily get that: it suggests that both holidays celebrate the same thing or need to get equal time. Then again, if people want to put it up, they can inquire. I have to add that on our street (which is not government property) we are constructing and will put up a Chanukiah (thanks to @iwe‘s awesome examples) and the neighbors will love it, as we have a beautifully decorated street. The celebration times are close together (Hanukah is very early this year) but they are completely different observations.

    I don’t see my suggestion as an “invitation” – merely an affirmation that they are not barred from expressing their own thoughts.  Perhaps they should also have to go through the effort of choosing one of the fallen, studying that person’s history, and being able to express how the monument in question actually honors the hero.  Oh, and they would be solely responsible for the cost of said monument.

    I’m a Christian and  I certainly chafe at the attempts to desecrate Christian symbols.  I do not, however, feel justified in barring similar symbols of other faiths.

    • #14
  15. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    The Great Adventure! (View Comment):
    I’m a Christian and I certainly chafe at the attempts to desecrate Christian symbols. I do not, however, feel justified in barring similar symbols of other faiths.

    I guess I wasn’t clear. As a Jew, I have no problem with other symbols being set up and would not want others kept out. I think we’re probably in agreement, and caught in a semantic discussion.

    • #15
  16. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Kent,

    You’re getting it backward. The Free Exercise Clause argument is for keeping the monument where it is. Removing the monument would be restricting the free exercise of religion. We need to assert an originalist interpretation of what constitutes ‘the free exercise of religion’ to do this.

    Regards,

    Jim

    You know what the nitpickers on the left are going to say:

    “The First Amendment only says Congress can’t pass a law prohibiting free exercise of religion, but it’s perfectly Constitutional if the courts prohibit the Cross on government property.”

    • #16
  17. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Stad (View Comment):

    James Gawron (View Comment):

    Kent,

    You’re getting it backward. The Free Exercise Clause argument is for keeping the monument where it is. Removing the monument would be restricting the free exercise of religion. We need to assert an originalist interpretation of what constitutes ‘the free exercise of religion’ to do this.

    Regards,

    Jim

    You know what the nitpickers on the left are going to say:

    “The First Amendment only says Congress can’t pass a law prohibiting free exercise of religion, but it’s perfectly Constitutional if the courts prohibit the Cross on government property.”

    Stad,

    If the lower Courts, not Congress, established a state religion then I am quite sure that this would be declared unconstitutional. Thus, in the same vein, lower Courts prohibiting the free exercise of religion would also be declared unconstitutional.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if Trump and our Congressional majority were around for another two years? I’d like it.

    Regards,

    Jim 

    • #17
  18. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    James Gawron (View Comment):
    If the lower Courts, not Congress, established a state religion then I am quite sure that this would be declared unconstitutional. Thus, in the same vein, lower Courts prohibiting the free exercise of religion would also be declared unconstitutional.

    Unless all the courts up to and including the Supreme Court were packed with liberal activist judges.  Then the state religion of secularism would be entrenched, and the free exercise of Christianity and Judaism banished to the shadows.

    But yes, we need six more years of Trump and a Republican majority to ensure the courts properly interpret our laws and our Constitution when rendering their judgments . . .

    • #18
  19. tigerlily Member
    tigerlily
    @tigerlily

    Radical atheists have been pursuing this sort of strategy for several decades now. The Mount Soledad Cross in La Jolla, CA has been the subject of these sort of lawsuits since 1989.

    • #19
  20. James Gawron Inactive
    James Gawron
    @JamesGawron

    Stad (View Comment):
    But yes, we need six more years of Trump and a Republican majority to ensure the courts properly interpret our laws and our Constitution when rendering their judgments . . .

    Stad,

    Works for me.

    Regards,

    Jim

    • #20
  21. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Freedom for all, not freedom from any…What were these grieving parents to do, put a memorial in their yards at home?  :-( 

    • #21
  22. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    tigerlily (View Comment):

    Radical atheists have been pursuing this sort of strategy for several decades now. The Mount Soledad Cross in La Jolla, CA has been the subject of these sort of lawsuits since 1989.

    I would expect no less from them, @tigerlily. These actions are taking place all over the country, costing enormous legal fees, disruption and heartache. But they’re standing up for the Constitution and California law. Good grief.

    • #22
  23. Stad Coolidge
    Stad
    @Stad

    Bladensburg, MD.

    If a hundred citizens armed with AR-15s and AK-47s stood guard around this Cross, would the Republican governor call out the National Guard to forceably remove these resisters, or would he say, “Bleh, back off.  Let the Cross stand.  Make the Feds take it down.”

    Opinions?

    • #23
  24. EHerring Coolidge
    EHerring
    @EHerring

    I am tired of hearing about “original meaning” and “living Constitution.”  Either we have a Constitution or we don’t. If we do, then “original intent” is redundant.  If it is “living” in any manner outside of an amendment, then we don’t have the Constitution any more.  Instead, we are living under the dictates of those who wish to lord over us, and their wishes sometime match what is in the Constitution.

    I am tired of being preached to by those who say some fellow Americans are not our enemies, that our enemies are overseas.  People who would tear down the cross honoring those who fought and died in the service of our country are my enemies.  Just because I do not wish to take up arms against them or beat them to a pulp does not make them any less of an enemy to me.

    The open borders folks are my enemy, as are the gun grabbers, budding socialists, and militant atheists.  It would seem after Kavanaugh that the pro-abortion crowd is to be added to my list.  I don’t have to condone violence to consider any of them my enemy.   All I need is to consider their character and impact on my life and values.  If they will harm either, they are my enemies.

    • #24
  25. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn
    @SusanQuinn

    EHerring (View Comment):
    I don’t have to condone violence to consider any of them my enemy

    I’m with you, @eherring. But I abhor living in a society where there seem to be so many who are prepared to rip a way at the foundations of this country, piece by piece. I refuse to cave in to them and will stand up to them every chance I get.

    • #25
  26. Nanda Panjandrum Member
    Nanda Panjandrum
    @

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    EHerring (View Comment):
    I don’t have to condone violence to consider any of them my enemy

    I’m with you, @eherring. But I abhor living in a society where there seem to be so many who are prepared to rip a way at the foundations of this country, piece by piece. I refuse to cave in to them and will stand up to them every chance I get.

    They don’t even know what/why they’re tearing at something they’ve never heard of/seen.

    • #26
  27. Ray Gunner Coolidge
    Ray Gunner
    @RayGunner

    KentForrester (View Comment):
    Susan, using an “originalist ” and literal interpretation of the First Amendment, the Right seems to have the best argument. “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion. . . .” It’s hard to see why a cross honoring these First World War soldiers is the “establishment of religion.”

    Respectfully, KF, the 1stA is even more restrictive than that.  “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….”  Not the establishment of religion–an establishment.  “The establishment of” is more general.  “An establishment of” is particular. 

    So what did people take “an establishment” of religion to mean when 1st A was adopted?  It meant “establishments”  of religion, such as the Church of England, the Society of Friends, the Lutheran Church.  Each one of these is an establishment of the Christian religion. 

    To me, as long as this cross is not uniquely Methodist or Lutheran–that is, not affiliated with a particular  establishment of religion, there is nothing unlawful about it being on federal land.

    More generally, as long  a statute doesn’t have the word “Episcopalian” or “Seventh Day Adventist” in it, it’s probably constitutional. (The corporate income tax exemption for religious corporations, for example.)

    The Supreme Court court case you allude to in your discussion is Lemon v. Kurtzman–a decision that is particularly obnoxious because it grants federal judges enormously broad discretion to decide what is and what is not permissible religious expression. 

    • #27
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.