A possible compromise. Comments on the
cross & lawsuit by individuals and groups

"The cross is a powerful symbol of the Christian faith. It does not represent all Americans who have died protecting our country. It does not represent the 29% of our current service members in the military who are not Christian." ₃

We are unable to determine precisely to which memorials Rassbach is referring. He couldn't be referring to religious symbols on individual veteran's gravestones because those symbols are considered religious speech and are protected by the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. He could not refer to those veterans' cemeteries owned by non-profit groups; the establishment clause would not apply to them, because the cemeteries are not government-owned.

During the oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice Ginsberg asked whether "... there any other national memorial that consists of a solitary cross, just that one symbol and no other?" U.S. Solicitor General Elana Kagan, representing the petitioners who favor preservation of the cross, responded:

"I don't believe that there is, Justice Ginsburg. There are national memorials that have some religious content to them. There is, for example, a statue of a Catholic priest holding a very large cross, but most national memorials are -- are not religious. Some are." ₄

 

	"A cross is a common symbol honoring the courage and sacrifice of veterans..."
	"Religious imagery such as a cross is deeply entrenched in American military culture"
	To remove the cross after 75 years is "an unreasonably hostile decision contrary to the requirements of the Establishment Clause."
	If the court order the removal of the cross, countless veteran's memorials would be effected. 5

"... part of the fabric of the military. ... The military should be totally blind to religious faith. This really is destroying the diversity in our military -- the diversity that makes this country great."

"The Supreme Court will first consider whether Mr. Buono has standing to challenge the cross. The cross's supporters argue that he has not really been injured and, therefore, should not be able to sue. But as someone who was in contact with the cross and was offended by its presence, he was injured. More precisely, though, in this case, Mr. Buono has won a court injunction against the cross, and Congress's land transfer interferes with his injunction. He has a right to challenge the transfer."

"On the merits, the appeals court was right that the cross must come down. By allowing a Christian cross, and not symbols of other faiths, on federal land, the government was favoring one religion over others. Also, Congress has designated the cross as a national memorial, which means that it continues to have official government endorsement."

"The land transfer was mere window-dressing. Bypassing normal procedures for disposing of government land, Congress gave the land to an entity it understood would keep up the cross, and it provided that the land would be returned if it was not used as a memorial."

"Religious symbolism of this kind on government land is, by its very nature, exclusionary. Allowing only a cross to stand over the memorial sends a message to Jews, Muslims, Buddhists and others that their sacrifices, and their family members' sacrifices, are not appreciated or mourned."

"It also sends a message that state and church are intertwined. A single cross does not, by itself, mean America has an established religion, but if the Supreme Court stops caring that the government is promoting a particular religion, we will be down the path toward having one." ₆

The New York Times is wrong. There is no reason why "... the cross must come down." There remain two additional alternatives:

Unbolt the cross from its rock anchor, transport it to a piece of private land, and re-erect it.

Leave the cross where it is and augment it with symbols from other religions and from secular philosophies. This would convert the memorial into a cultural display that represents the religious and secular beliefs of all combatants, not just some. This would convert a divisive symbol that recognized only about 70% of the combatants and denigrated the status of the remaining 30% into a unifying symbol representing all of the combatants.

"Seeing one's faith receive preferential government treatment, while aware that no minority faith would receive that treatment, demonstrates the government's perversion of religion for its own ends. The government is taking something that should be a symbol of voluntary religious belief and practice and using it in a way that alters its apparent symbolism by making it look like an 'official' faith."

"It is not surprising that devout, voluntary adherents of a religion would not want to send the signal to those who do not share in the religion of the majority that they are political outsiders. Where the government endorses one religion over all others, it weakens the sanctity of that religion and its beliefs." ₇

^{Page Translator:}

This page translator works on Firefox,
Opera, Chrome, and Safari browsers only

After translating, click on the "show
original" button at the top of this
page to restore page to English.