Source: www.nytimes.com
NEW YORK, NY, USA, October 6, 2009 [An editorial from The New York Times]: The Supreme Court is currently deliberating whether a large cross that has been placed on federal land violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment, the constitutional provision that requires a wall of separation between church and state.
The religious significance of the cross is clear. It has even been the site of Easter sunrise services for over 70 years. And the National Park Service has not allowed other religions to add symbols.
When a Federal District Court ruled that the cross violated the establishment clause, Congress transferred the property under it to a veterans’ group–bypassing normal procedures for disposing of government land, and on condition the land would be returned if the cross were not maintained as a memorial. Two subsequent federal court decisions ruled that this transfer merely continued the constitutional violation.
By allowing a Christian cross, and not symbols of other faiths, on federal land, the government has favored one religion over others–and by designating the cross as a national memorial, Congress has given it official government endorsement. The land transfer was a cosmetic and superficial change.
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.