Supreme Court rules that the Bladensburg cross can remain

The large cross that was on public land in a busy intersection in Bladensburg, Maryland and is maintained at taxpayer expense has been the target of litigation for some time. Its continued presence had been challenged by the American Humanist Association, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, and the Center for Inquiry. A US District Court judge had initially ruled that the cross did not violate the Establishment Clause but the First Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling overturned that ruling and said it had to come down.

But today the US Supreme Court reversed that decision yet again so the cross can stay. You can read the 7-2 majority opinion by justice Samuel Alito and the dissent by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor here.

I am disappointed but not really surprised by this decision. Even before the Greece v. Galloway case that upheld opening prayers at government meetings, it has been clear that the Supreme Court is very reluctant to inflame religious opinions by demanding the elimination of symbolic expressions of religion. In his opinion, justice Samuel Alito invoked the same argument that the court uses when it does not want to eliminate some religious symbol that has been around for some time, by saying that over time it had essentially become secular and drained of any religious significance. This is the same thing said in retention of “In God We Trust” on the currency.

Such assertions of secularity can be interpreted as the court agreeing, in a backhanded way, that this is a secular nation. Of course, religious people do not see it in the same light. They see these allegedly secular symbols as actually a statement about the Christian nature of this country and view the rulings as endorsement of that view.

There is also a distinction between removinglongstanding symbols of religiosity and placing new ones. We have seen for example that putting new Ten Commandments monuments in public spaces now has met with greater resistance from the courts than removing old ones. As Alito wrote, there is a “presumption of constitutionality for longstanding monuments, symbols, and practices” and went on:

For nearly a century, the Bladensburg Cross has expressed the community’s grief at the loss of the young men who perished, its thanks for their sacrifice, and its dedication to the ideals for which they fought. It has become a prominent community landmark, and its removal or radical alteration at this date would be seen by many not as a neutral act but as the manifestation of “a hostility toward religion that has no place in our Establishment Clause traditions.” [My emphasis-MS]

Changing the status quo is harder and causes much more controversy than maintaining it and the court strives to find reasons to not do so. This results in the court tying itself up in knots to justify the status quo and explain why some religious symbols are allowed and others not, leaving confusion in its wake, when drawing a clean line between religion and state (as justice William Brennan advocated) would simplify things considerably.

It will be interesting to see how the court would rule if some group wanted to put up a new cross on public land. I would not be surprised to see some religious group in a conservative community try to do just that.


  1. johnson catman says

    How about a compromise: whack the “arms” off of the cross leaving just the vertical structure. It would still be a symbol honoring the fallen without the christian baggage.

  2. deepak shetty says

    but as the manifestation of “a hostility toward religion

    If it was truly a secular symbol then removing it shouldn’t be an expression of religious hostility, right ?
    The only way the removal can be an act of hostility ,is if its perceived to be a religious symbol -- and both the religious people and non believers see it as a religious symbol. Only the lawyers and the conservative liars don’t (in public anyway).

  3. says

    There are better ways of honoring the fallen, #1 would be getting the troops back home. I bet that hasn’t occurred to the christofascist war pigs, though, because “religion of peace.”

  4. lanir says

    I feel like they’re trying to have it both ways a bit too much. Like with the religious exemptions in the Affordable Care Act, they might find out they’ve been a bit too clever for their own good.

    Using the tradition argument when new monuments of this nature have been struck down in other courts makes it look like we’re in a transition phase. Progress away from this sort of thing seems possible.

    But using the argument that it might offend religious people and hurt their feelings… That’s a really scary bullshit reason to use. From what I understand there are places in the world where offending religious sensibilities can get you killed. I don’t really want to start giving religions leeway to skirt laws based on their feelings. That feels like it could go to some really bad, really extreme places.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *