Controversial memorials have become a flashpoint in the American political realm over the past few years.
Whether it be a Confederate flag flying in an old Confederate state or, a giant cross in Maryland commemorating World War 1, memorials and other symbols have been pushed to the forefront of social issues.
The giant cross in question, known as the “peace cross”, has caused such a stir that the Supreme Court heard an argument by the American Humanist Association (AHA) this month, according to Bloomberg. The AHA argued that the cross’s existence on public land violates the separation of church and state.
To me, this is an argument that shouldn’t be heard by the Supreme Court. The existence of a cross commemorating WWI should be dealt with at the local level. The federal government, in my opinion, would be overreaching if they decided to crack down and have this memorial demolished.
There are more important legal issues that the highest court in the U.S. should be hearing and making decisions on.
As mentioned before, the existence of the cross is to commemorate a war and probably isn’t meant to establish or push a religion. If the AHA wanted to pursue an issue where the establishment of religion is an issue, then they should focus on actual instances where the federal government or a state government has gone out of their way to push a religion on their constituents. This is not one of those instances.
The peace cross is merely a memorial and should be maintained and upheld by the locality it exists in.
American culture was much different back then, and I doubt anyone meant for this memorial to push Christianity down people’s throats.
On the other hand, according to Bloomberg, Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted that the WWI cemeteries and graves she had visited were marked with the Star of David, reasonably concluding that the cross was not a generic memorial symbol.
Ginsburg is right in this conclusion, and I can see how critics of the memorial take offense to the existence of such a religious symbol, as innocent as it may seem.
The Supreme Court can’t win in situations like these. Ruling against the cross would displease traditionalists and ruling in favor of the cross might allow for future infractions upon the separation of church and state.
Seeing as how the Supreme Court has their hands tied on this issue, I believe that this is a matter best resolved by a democratic vote of the people who live in the town of the memorial and not by legal action.
The separation of church and state is a great principle and one of the ideals that makes American government different in a good way.
However, I don’t see the cross as an infraction on this principle solely because of its purpose as a WWI memorial. I’m sure there are other more serious issues that the AHA can bring to court.
