It was July 13, 1925. In Bladensburg, Maryland, a community gathered to honor the supreme sacrifice made on the battlefields of World War I by 49 of their sons, brothers, husbands, fathers and neighbors. Their ceremony centered around the dedication of a monument that had taken six years to build and was made possible by the tireless fundraising efforts of the Prince George’s County Memorial Committee.
Two weeks ago, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruled that the cross-shaped war memorial violates the Constitution. Three men and the American Humanist Association brought the lawsuit because they are offended by the monument’s presence.
The condemned historical object, known as the Peace Cross, is as beautiful aesthetically as the sentiment it represents.
John J. Earley, the artist, artisan, and architect who designed it, has been hailed “The Man Who Made Concrete Beautiful.” The 40-foot-high Peace Cross is constructed of cast concrete with exposed aggregate, and embellished by accents of chipped pink granite. The four sides of the bottom of the cross are inscribed with the words: “endurance,” “valor,” “devotion” and “courage.” Its base bears a bronze tablet that declares, “This memorial cross is dedicated to the heroes of Prince George’s County, Maryland who lost their lives in the Great War for the liberty of the world.” It then lists the names of the 49 fallen county soldiers.
I don’t know why Earley chose to fashion the monument in the shape of a cross. Perhaps the 49 fallen soldiers were Christians. Or perhaps the artist wanted to emphasize the self-sacrifice that links these men to the heart of the Christian faith. After all, it was Jesus who said, “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.”
But alas, themes of sacrificial love and the community’s prerogative to choose a fitting symbol to memorialize their dead are lost on these three residents of Prince George’s County. They can’t see past their own personal offense at the cross and, as the court stated, their “wish to have no further contact with it.”
Around the time the lawsuit got started, Iraq war veteran Joe Myers characterized the situation this way: “In this era of hypersensitivity, [the plaintiffs] feel justified in demanding a monument built on the blood and sacrifice of a few of our forefathers be torn down, so as not to offend the delicate sensibilities of the benefactors of that sacrifice.”
I think most Americans would find that demand unreasonable. And that is precisely why those whose “humanist” philosophies require coddling are compelled to seek intervention from the courts. They know that their dubious cause will lose if subjected to the same political processes being used right now to determine whether Civil War monuments should stay or go. They must instead rely upon the prospect of a handful of judges applying an anti-historical, over-the-top interpretation of the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom.
In siding with the “offended,” the Fourth Circuit once again lent credence to a judicially contrived framework that has long turned the First Amendment’s religion clauses on their head. Under this framework, any utterance, monument, depiction, policy or situation that can be said to amount to a government “endorsement” of religion is unconstitutional.
So how does the Fourth Circuit explain the ubiquitous references to God and the Bible in our nation’s Capital? The Washington Monument alone contains numerous biblical inscriptions, and its capstone reads, “Laus Deo,” Latin for “Praise be to God.” If the Fourth Circuit’s ruling is correct, then these and countless other monuments in our nation’s capital cannot stand.
The court’s decision is simply wrong. The First Amendment does not protect humanists from having their feelings hurt by exposure to religious symbols. It protects them from being compelled to support the religions that the symbols represent.
The bronze tablet at the bottom of the Peace Cross includes a quote by President Woodrow Wilson. It says: “The right is more precious than peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest our hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.”
One of those things Americans have always carried nearest our hearts is a commitment to liberty that does not flinch in the face of that which merely offends us. So let’s hope the Supreme Court sets the record straight. Let’s hope it refuses to indulge those who would have a handful of judges mandate the whitewashing of our public square.
