High court and common sense
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that may indicate whether common sense still has a place in this country.
The case involves a monument erected in 1925 by the American Legion to honor 49 men from Prince George's County, Maryland, who gave their lives during World War I. The 40-foot monument was privately built and erected on land the town of Bladensburg gave to the American Legion post.
Today the parcel of land, owned by a local government commission since 1961, is a traffic roundabout — and the World War I tribute is in the shape of a cross. Therein lies the problem for what columnist George Will has aptly described as “a few cranky, persnickety, hair-splitting secularists.”
They see the monument as endorsing religion, a violation of the First Amendment's establishment clause, even though no religious ceremonies are held on the grounds and none of the markings on the cross is religiously themed.
On the contrary, the cross features the American Legion's symbol. It includes a plaque with the names of the 49 who are remembered; the inscription makes no mention of religion. Each face of the memorial's base is inscribed with the words valor, courage, endurance and devotion. The park where the memorial sits includes several other memorials that honor those lost in military conflicts, including a Pearl Harbor memorial and a 9/11 Memorial Garden.
A lower court applied common sense in ruling that the monument wasn't an unconstitutional establishment of religion, but a three-judge panel of the Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled otherwise in fall 2017.
Some of what dissenting Judge Roger Gregory wrote at the time is worth noting.
He pointed out that the fundraising flyer for the memorial in 1918 touched on patriotism and loyalty to country, not religious messages. In declaring that the memorial equates to establishment of religion, Gregory said, the majority “subordinates the Memorial's secular history and elements while focusing on the obvious religious nature of Latin crosses themselves; constructs a reasonable observer who ignores certain elements of the Memorial and reaches unreasonable conclusions; and confuses maintenance of a highway median and monument in a state park with excessive religious entanglement.”
Our guess is that most people who see a memorial honoring fallen soldiers, covered with nonreligious words and symbols, at a site not used for religious services, wouldn't view it as primarily a religious monument. Yet here we are.
If 58 years after the government bought the parcel of land, Will wrote, “a few people in this age of hairtrigger rage choose to be offended by a long-standing monument reflecting the nation's culture and traditions, those people, not the First Amendment, need help.” Here's hoping the high court shares that view.