A Christian War Memorial in No Way Violates the Establishment Clause

(Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
The Supreme Court will decide the fate of Maryland’s Peace Cross, targeted by opponents who would stifle all religious expression in the public square.

Next week, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument from advocates for and against the preservation of a World War I–era veterans memorial, the Peace Cross, in Bladensburg, Md. The crux of the case, American Legion v. American Humanist Association, is the question whether a two-county commission offends the establishment clause of the U.S. Constitution by maintaining the cross-shaped memorial.

Advocates of letting the memorial stand at an intersection along National Defense Highway urge that its shape should not dictate its removal because it is chiefly a monument in honor of Prince George’s County’s war dead. They also stress that the commission accepted ownership of the memorial owing to traffic-safety concerns more than 30 years after private parties constructed it. At Family Research Council, we agree with the 84 percent of Americans who, according to one survey, say that the memorial should stand. Our nation has long accommodated and even facilitated religion in the public square. We argue that an unapologetic recognition of the religious nature of public monuments such as the Peace Cross is perfectly consistent with the establishment clause.

But not everyone who recognizes the Peace Cross’s religious nature believes it should stand. In an amicus brief submitted in support of the secularist group that wants the memorial gone, several religious organizations claim that even though the Peace Cross is a 93-year-old war memorial in a park surrounded by other memorials dedicated to wars throughout America’s history, the commission’s ownership represents “government taking sides between religions.” In their view, it “singl[es] out only Christians for collective memorialization” and represents “government speech endorsing particular religious teachings.”

The argument is misguided on several levels. First, these opponents use too broad a brush in painting a picture of improper religious motive. As the family members of the soldiers named on the Peace Cross argued in their own brief, the Peace Cross “safeguard[s] the memory of their family members’ service across generations.” It honors identifiable individuals named on a plaque on the memorial. And census data show that, at the time of World War I, Prince George’s County’s population was primarily if not completely Christian. This memorial is a product of a grieving community seeking to honor 49 men from the area who served with “valor,” “endurance,” “courage,” and “devotion” in World War I, and it reflects the community at that time. It is not, as its opponents argue, a national monument honoring exclusively those of the Christian faith.

Second, the opponents ignore the commonsense reality that the memorial is, at the most basic level, a commemoration by community members who in Christian imagery found comfort, not an endorsement of specific “religious teachings.” To argue that the Peace Cross is such an endorsement not only ignores the history of this particular memorial (erected by private parties) — it would effectively demand the removal of all religious symbols from public property. If government maintenance of a monument with religious significance means government endorsement of a particular teaching or belief, every religious symbol on government property must come down.

The neutrality principle does not demand such an extreme outcome. Justice David Souter put forth a strong originalist defense of the neutrality principle but explained that government may take pains to accommodate religious beliefs “without expressing a position on the theological merit of” any given “value or of religious belief in general.” While Souter wrote in context of exempting individuals from generally applicable laws because of their religious beliefs, the principle should apply just as much to the commission’s maintenance of the Peace Cross. Souter also acknowledged that “the Establishment Clause’s concept of neutrality is not self-revealing.” So when groups argue that the government’s obligation to religious neutrality prohibits it from maintaining a memorial like the Peace Cross, they bite off more than they can chew.

A review of how the establishment of religion was understood at the time of the founding shows that the Constitution hardly demands the Peace Cross’s removal. One study on founding-era discussions of the establishment of religion indicates that “government display of religious symbols was not a particular concern discussed in the context of an establishment. When concerns about religious symbols did arise, they arose in the context of government suppressing or destroying symbols of dissenting churches.”

The fact of the matter is, the Peace Cross was a private endeavor. The organizations argue that the establishment clause requires the memorial’s removal to accommodate America’s increasing religious diversity. But they overlook that it is their proposed standard that would stifle the expression of religion in the public square — be it Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, or any faith. All of America’s increasingly diverse religious communities will lose out if the Constitution is reinterpreted to prohibit any government recognition or accommodation of religion. The Peace Cross, religious implications and all, should be allowed to stand.

Something to Consider

If you enjoyed this article, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS. Members get all of our content (including the magazine), no paywalls or content meters, an advertising-minimal experience, and unique access to our writers and editors (conference calls, social-media groups, etc.). And importantly, NRPLUS members help keep NR going. Consider it?

If you enjoyed this article, and were stimulated by its contents, we have a proposition for you: Join NRPLUS.

Alexandra M. McPhee is the director of Religious Freedom Advocacy with the Family Research Council.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

The Other Case against Reparations

Reparations are an ethical disaster. Proceeding from a doctrine of collective guilt, they are the penalty for slavery and Jim Crow, sins of which few living Americans stand accused. An offense against common sense as well as morality, reparations would take from Bubba and give to Barack, never mind if the former ... Read More
Politics & Policy

May I See Your ID?

Identity is big these days, and probably all days: racial identity, ethnic identity, political identity, etc. Tribalism. It seems to be baked into the human cake. Only the consciously, persistently religious, or spiritual, transcend it, I suppose. (“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor ... Read More


Someone tweeted this cartoon today, which apparently is intended to depict me. A few thoughts: I love the caricature. It’s really good. I may steal the second panel and use it for advertising. I hear this line of criticism fairly often from people who are not very bright or well-informed; in truth, I ... Read More