Supreme Court rules 40-foot cross memorial can stand on public land in Maryland

Visitors walk around the 40-foot Maryland Peace Cross dedicated to World War I soldiers on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2019 in Bladensburg, Md. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)Visitors walk around the 40-foot Maryland Peace Cross dedicated to World War I soldiers on Wednesday, Feb. 13, 2019 in Bladensburg, Md. (AP Photo/Kevin Wolf)

WASHINGTON (AP) — A World War I memorial in the shape of a 40-foot-tall cross can continue to stand on public land in Maryland, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

The justices, in ruling 7-2 in favor of the cross' backers, concluded that the nearly 100-year-old memorial's presence on a grassy highway median doesn't violate the First Amendment's establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.

Advertisement

The case had been closely watched because it involves the place of religious symbols in public life. Defenders of the cross in Bladensburg had argued that a ruling against them could doom of hundreds of war memorials that use crosses to commemorate soldiers who died.

"The cross is undoubtedly a Christian symbol, but that fact should not blind us to everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent," Justice Samuel Alito wrote.

[Don’t miss the latest news from the church and the world. Sign up for our daily newsletter.]

"For some, that monument is a symbolic resting place for ancestors who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community to gather and honor all veterans and their sacrifices to our Nation. For others still, it is a historical landmark. For many of these people, destroying or defacing the Cross that has stood undisturbed for nearly a century would not be neutral and would not further the ideals of respect and tolerance embodied in the First Amendment. For all these reasons, the Cross does not offend the Constitution," he wrote.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.

The cross' challengers included three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, which includes atheists and agnostics. They argued that the cross, in a suburb near the nation's capital, should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk.

Defenders included the American Legion, which raised money to build the monument honoring area residents who died in World War I. Other backers included the Trump administration and Maryland officials who took over maintenance of the cross nearly 60 years ago to preserve it and address traffic safety concerns.

[Want to discuss politics with other America readers? Join our Facebook discussion group, moderated by America’s writers and editors.]

Maryland officials had argued that the cross, sometimes called the "Peace Cross," doesn't violate the Constitution because it has a secular purpose and meaning.

In the past, similar monuments have met with a mixed fate at the high court.

On the same day in 2005, for example, the court upheld a Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas Capitol while striking down Ten Commandments displays in Kentucky courthouses.

After those rulings and others the Supreme Court has been criticized for being less than clear in explaining how to analyze so-called passive displays such as Maryland's cross, that are challenged as violating the Constitution's establishment clause.

This story will be updated. 

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
Randal Agostini
2 months 3 weeks ago

I am pleased for this ruling as it could be used as a stepping stone on the road to a more acceptable society. The concept of political correctness has given license to those who believe that discrimination should be abolished and that the means for doing so should be in the courts, but this concept defies and denies human nature. Discrimination is a natural defense tool for human beings. It is the first reaction to recognize that something is different, which could mean danger. The attempt to remove discrimination as a natural tool flies in the face of natural law and can only lead to confusion, which poses additional threats. There is another natural way to overcome the harm that discrimination may cause and that is to recognize the dignity of each human being. That does not mean that we have to agree with everyone we come into contact with, but it does mean that everyone else has the same dignity rights as we do. Such rights must be protected, unless they cause more harm than good. There is also a growing belief that individual rights are a private matter, but this also challenges natural law. Human beings, by nature, are supposed to coexist, a negligence that has probably caused all the wars that we have known. A challenge that is the root of salvation for society and the Second Christian commandment.

Advertisement

The latest from america

Ciaran Freeman spent last summer, after his year as an O’Hare fellow at America Media, combing through movies about Catholic schools and ranking them. The findings were published here. Since then, readers have written in to let Mr. Freeman know what films he overlooked in his top-10 ranking.
Our readersSeptember 13, 2019
I had never truly experienced what representation in media felt like until I watched Hulu’s “Ramy.”
Mansur ShaheenSeptember 13, 2019
Photo: AP/America
Published in 1953, the children’s book can act a parable for coming to grips with climate change.
Christopher PramukSeptember 13, 2019