Separation of State from Church

Many will try to convince you this is about separation of church from state because the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.  Read that again, this time really listen to the words - Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States says that Congress can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise thereof [religion].  This alone causes me to believe that to even get congress involved would be unconstitutional simply because the constitution states that congress can neither establish nor prohibit the free exercise thereof.

Once again, our Supreme Court delves into a debate about the role of religious symbols in public institutions and on public property.  The religious symbol - the World War One Peace Cross erected on public property some 60 plus years ago in Blandensburg, MD.  The shape of the cross resembles a Latin cross which stands approximately 40 feet tall and today 27 February 2019 our Supreme Court will listen to both sides and attempt to once and for all resolve issues about religious interpretation in America.

There is nothing in our constitution that addresses separation of church and state.  The whole separation of church and state came from a letter that [then] President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists Association of Danbury Connecticut (read my previous blog Freedom of Speech is Also Protected in our School System at dcvesser.com)

Those challenging the cross say that if the court allows it to stand on public land, the ruling could make it easier for government officials to defend support for religion.  On the other side, supporters of the cross say a ruling against them could spell the “doom of hundreds of war memorials that use crosses to commemorate the fallen.

Can religious symbols be displayed on public property or in public institutions?  The short answer is yes, but it is a qualified yes.

In 1971, the Supreme Court heard the case of Lemon v Kurtzman (403 US 602).  The Court decided that a Rhode Island law that paid some of the salary of some parochial school teachers was unconstitutional.  One of the results of this case was the Lemon Test.  The Lemon Test is used to determine if a law violates the 1st Amendment.

The Lemon Test is not absolute - there is discussion in the general public and on the current Court about the Lemon Test.  However, it has stood as a good guide for lower courts ever since 1971.

The following paragraph is taken from the Lemon v Kurtzman opinion and establishes the rules of the test:

First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

The cross’s challengers include three area residents and the District of Columbia-based American Humanist Association, a group that includes atheists and agnostics.  They argue the cross’s location on public land violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause, which prohibits the government from favoring one religion over others.  But the wording is all wrong.  The constitution does not prohibit the government from favoring one religion over others.  The constitution says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Challengers of the cross say the cross should be moved to private property or modified into a nonreligious monument such as a slab or obelisk.  The group lost the first round in court, but in 2017 an appeals court ruled the cross unconstitutional.

Defending the cross at the high court are The American Legion, which raised money for the cross and completed it in 1925, and Maryland officials, who took over maintenance of the cross nearly 60 years ago to preserve it and address traffic safety concerns.  Maryland officials argue that the cross does not violate the Constitution because it has a secular purpose and meaning.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas said several years ago that the high court has failed the public by not making clear what is permissible under the Constitution when it comes to religious expression.  Thomas was right then, and nothing has happened subsequently to invalidate his observation.

The memorial’s supporters, including the Trump administration, would seem more likely to win based on the court’s decision to take the case and the court’s conservative makeup, seen as more likely to uphold such displays.  Observers will also be watching during arguments to see how broadly the justices seem inclined to rule.

We should all know by about June of 2019 of the Supreme Court’s decision concerning the Blandensburg, MD World War One Peace Cross.