Mojave cross case is a monument to changing times
The Supreme Court case about the cross in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve is itself a monument–a monument to changing times.
The cross placed in the Mojave National Monument in 1934. Photo by the Associated Press.
The simple white cross was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884. A plaque accompanying the cross dedicates it to the memory of the dead of all wars. It is similar in design to the crosses we’ve all seen in photographs of the cemetery fields in France.
Fellow blogger Leigh Hunt Greenhaw has said she’ll approach the legal issues inherent in whether the cross’s placement violates the First Amendment’s requirements for the separation of church and state. (the “establishment clause”). There are other issues as well, which are covered in the story published in the Post-Dispatch last week. My own opinions are based not on the fine points of Constitutional law, but on my feelings as a member of a spiritual path not recognized by the symbol of the cross or (I assume) by the men who originally dedicated it.
Justice Antonin Scalia said during the oral arguments at the Supreme Court last week that the cross is simply “the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.” He’s right, if the dead in question happen to be Christian. As an attorney for the plaintiff pointed out, crosses are not found on the tombstones of Jews. I would add they also are not found on the tombstones of the members of other religious groups.
Scalia’s follow-up: “What would you have them erect? Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?” shows an arrogant, exclusionary point of view that I find chilling in a member of the court entrusted with interpreting separation of church and state.
The issue to me is one of inclusion. If the monument is indeed “erected in the memory of the dead of all wars,” as reported in the New York Times, then a cross does not even begin to cover it. Even in World War I, Christians were not the only faith group on the battlefield. As the U.S. and its military have become both more diverse and more tolerant, so too have military memorial policies. There are currently 38 approved religious symbols that may be affixed to military headstones. One, the pentacle, was added in 2007. That addition followed 10 years of litigation by the widows of a Korean War veteran and a soldier killed in combat in Afghanistan.
I am not sure why any memorial needed to be placed in the beautiful, desolate Mojave Desert. I think the landscape itself leads to reflections on the nature of life, death and sacrifice. But I recognize that thought comes from my own religious viewpoint, and others might not share it. For those who would like more, I think a simple plaque commemorating the war dead, but free of any religious symbols, would be appropriate for federal land. That would honor the sacrifice and gallantry of those who fought without excluding anyone on the basis of his or her beliefs.
The need to be inclusive was not an issue in 1934. That was a very different time. This case is one of its monuments.
“The simple white cross was erected in 1934 by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Death Valley Post 2884. A plaque accompanying the cross dedicates it to the memory of the dead of all wars.” So,how is government tolerance of a simple white cross erected by the Veterans of Foreign Wars to commemorate war dead an attempt by the government to establish a religion? The cross also serves to remind Christians, Jews and Muslims alike of Jesus Christ, who was a pretty inclusive character.
A second point. There is no christian organized religion. Cristian organized religions are many and varied and there is no indication that the Veterans of Foreign Wars was attempting to use any organized religion to establish a religion on Federal land or anywhere else.
It does exclude so many who fought and died, it is true. But in our majority Christian society, I can’t see it changing. We may not have a government issued religion, but we might as well. Everyone forgets we were founded on freedom of religion.
Davel, while I appreicate what you are saying about there being no “organized” Christian religion, all denominations share the symbol of the cross and the same holy book. Christians are all united under the sign of the cross. There are many religions that are not “organized” but are still seperate religions. Not all religions see Jesus Christ as a son of God; the Muslims see Jesus as a prophet. Also, excluding Jewish people, and those of the other faiths who died, is probably going to backfire one of these days.
The government may raise an American flag to honor those who have died for their country, or any other new design they wish to adopt.
Speaking as a christian, for the government to use the cross is a violation of the promised protection of my right to practise my faith free of its interference. It is a religious symbol not a government symbol.
Religious and government institutions are distinct, and our government has promised to maintain that distinction.
I also ask that they remove references to God from their money and pledges.
‘I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’,
Leave the cross alone. It has not and will not hurt anyone and only represents good. Anyone who does not like what America stands for, can leave. We are a Free country, The cross shows that. If you allow this to be taken down, you are not American, and should find someplace else to live.
I am Proud to be in the United States of America. I too am a veteran, and say “Leave the Cross alone” or leave our country.
Kathy comments that 1934 was a different time. I agree. I would suggest it was a time of MORE tolerance of difference, not less. Could a paraplegic be elected President today?
I would suggest further that yes, the cross is a symbol, and it has whatever meaning the observer attaches to it. Kathy looks at it and sees something unpleasant and difficult and offensive. But, ultimately, the responsibility for the meaning attached to this symbol belongs to the observer.
We CHOOSE to take offense. We CHOOSE to attach meanings to symbols. In this case, the symbol has a specific meaning etched on to it. It is a place of remembrance. That is all. I don’t think the establishment clause requires that all religious symbolism be removed from public lands and spaces.
hs,
Who gets to say?
The whole point of separation is not to use authority in religion. Majority is another form of authority.
I will agree that being offended is the least powerful view. I am not offended by the cross.
I am concerned for the small mindedness of it. It is not enough, it is only for those who agree with the meaning of it. It is disingenuous for all those who died who do not share the same meaning of those who erected it.
If declared that it is erected only for those who are erecting it, it would be different than to declare it is being erected for all those who died. The erectors are speaking for another’s faith. They, at best, are claiming the cross as their own. This is inauthentic.
What is the difference from my removing the cross from your grave and replacing it with something else more meaningful to me.
One answer: whoever dies first doesn’t get to say.
davel’s comments are all too typical of the Christian fundamentalist attitude. Why on Earth does a non-Christian need to be reminded of your mythology, davel? Jesus is just that — mythology, and your religion has no more validity than any other. Also, nitpicking over whether or not Christianity is an organized religion misses the point of the establishment clause. Christians have made it very clear what the cross symbolizes, contrary to hs’s opinion that it can have many meanings. So when a cross is erected on government property, it can only mean one thing: Jesus. I don’t like Christian theology, and don’t want to be reminded of your God at every turn, especially when my government promises me freedom of religion.
What did all of these sacrifices have in common? If a monument is needed, then, in my opinion, perhaps one of a soldier. If there would be a dispute over which era’s uniform is used, then I’d suggest a 3D sculpture of a hemoglobin molecule, because one thing they all had in common is human blood.
- M. ”/
75 years this has been allowed as no been a big deal.Matter of fact, most people were probably unaware of its existence.
Along comes the progressive, enlightened ones who can finally save us and preserve the original intentions.
Thank you I feel better about myself and more secure in my right to believe what I choose.
This will surely be a major step forward in the riddance of bigotry,prejudice and hate in the U.S.
No longer will I have to bear the exclusion I have felt by the existence of that white cross in the middle of nowhere.
Thank you thank you,thank you.
We’ve come a long way ,Baby.