Crosses and Public Land

On the outskirts of the Mojave National Preserve sits a 5ft tall cross, originally erected in 1943 to honor fallen WWII soldiers on private land. The land was acquired from the landowner earlier this decade, and now sits at the forefront of a national debate.

A recent USA Today article argued that any form of religious expression on public government property should be expressly forbidden. He argued that Thomas Jefferson meant for the total separation of church and state, and this cross is defiant of that divide. The real issue in the Supreme Court case, argued earlier this week, is that a Forest Services worker was denied the opportunity to erect a Buddhist shrine next to the cross. He argued that it was religious discrimination, and thus must be removed.

As I read the responses to the article in this morning's paper, I was struck by many of the comments. There were a number of arguments that "Religion is a mythological premise that has absolutely no basis in reality." Another commentator argued that religion and state should be separate, arguing that there was a law in Colonial America that allowed the death penalty after three Sunday absences from church. Thus, church and state should be separate. (No matter how hard I look, I cannot find that law on the books. People were jailed for missing church, but I cannot find anyone who was actually killed. If you know of an instance, please let me know.)

I think the argument is intriguing. No one argues that Arlington National Cemetery is a religious institution. Thousands of soldiers are buried under white crosses at the American Cemetery in Normandy, France, and yet no one is up in arms about "religious persecution." Scripture from Isaiah is written on the side of the United Nations building, yet Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, and secular nations still send their delegates there as representatives.

This case is not about religious persecution, discrimination, or proselytizing. It is about the desecration of a war memorial that honors the fallen soldiers of WWII. What if I decided that the Korean War or Vietnam War memorials were offensive because of their offensive references to Asians of Korean or Vietnamese decent? What if I deemed the Iwo Jima Memorial that overlooks the Potomac as sexist, because of only the presence of men on the bronze statue (ignoring the OBVIOUS phallic symbol that is present!)

We get totally bent out of shape over the simplest things. Should he have been permitted to erect a Buddhist shrine on public land? Well, possibly. Does the cross function as a religious worship focal point? If so, then yes. If not, then get over it.