Essay: American Legion v. American Humanist Association

American Legion v. American Humanist Association
Facts:
In 1919, the Town of Bladensburg approved the construction of a 40-foot-tall World War I memorial shaped like a Latin cross. Private donors initially funded the memorial, but ran out of money in 1922. The American Legion then stepped in and completed the monument in 1925. The monument stood in the center of a three-way highway intersection. On March 1, 1961, Appellee Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, a state entity, obtained the Cross and the land on which it sits due to an increase in traffic and safety concerns. Consequently, the state of Maryland took on the financial responsibility of maintenance and upkeep along with the acquisition of the cross. Since 1961, Maryland spent $117,000 on routine ground keeping, lighting, and repairs. In 2008, the Commission set aside another $100,000 in order to continue maintaining the memorial grounds.
The American Legion Symbol (a star inscribed with ‘U.S.’) sits near the top of the cross. The words: “Valor”, “Endurance”, “Courage”, and “Devotion” appear on each respective side of the cross base. Also, one side of the base contains a plaque listing each of the fallen soldiers’ names from Prince George’s County and a quote from Woodrow Wilson: “The right is more precious than peace. We shall fight for the things we have always carried nearest out hearts. To such a task we dedicate our lives.”
The cross marks the first of many memorial monuments surrounding it in Veterans Memorial Park (a park honoring veterans in Bladensburg). The other monuments include a War of 1812 memorial, a world War II memorial, a Korean and Vietnam veterans memorial, and a September 11th memorial walkway. Every year, Prince George’s county hosts a memorial service for fallen veterans. Although the only documented reference to a religious event took place during 1931, Christian affiliates lead each memorial service.
Non-Christian residents of Prince George’s County who took offense to the memorial brought this case to court in 2012 because they believe the Cross amounts to governmental affiliation with Christianity and wish for a new representation of the World War I memorial site that does not involve any ties to religion.
Procedural History:
The District Court of Maryland decided in favor of The American Legion. The American Humanist Association appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which decided 2-1 in favor of the American Humanist Association. En banc denied. The American Legion appealed in a timely manner.
Issue:
1. Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross.
2. Whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test.
3. Whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
Opinion:
In an Establishment Clause case, one must take into account the specific facts of the case in order to decide where the constitutional line lies. This court affirms the decision of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.
i. American Legion Argument
The American Legion argues that the existence of the 93-year-old World War I memorial in Bladensburg is constitutional under any test. Since 1919, the monument in question stands to remember the 49 fallen soldiers of World War I from Prince George’s County. And for 90 years, no disputes or claims have been brought before a court. Therefore, the monument has a secular purpose that most people understand. Any funding from the Commission relates exclusively to the maintenance and upkeep of the cross, including roadway expansion plans and increasing traffic safety. Usage of these funds in no way acknowledges or promotes the Christian faith. Although the Latin cross has a clear connection with Christianity, to the reasonable observer, this monument clearly has a secular purpose given all of the historical context behind the existence of the cross. Noting that the only event to promote Christianity at the cross was conducted by a traveling preacher in 1931 (before the state of Maryland acquired the land), there have since been no documented ties between Christianity or any other religion and the monument.
The relationship between religion and government is inevitable and deeply rooted in the American system, such as “in God we trust” on the dollar bill and “one nation under God” from the Pledge of Allegiance. Purging of all religious ties to government could potentially result in backlash since so many individuals have religious views. Historically crosses have been a symbol of fallen soldiers in this country since at least the Civil War, so in relation to historical practices, commemorating fallen soldiers with a 40-foot-tall cross does not go against tradition. Furthermore, “the government’s act of recognition or accommodation is passive and symbolic… any intangible benefit to religion is unlikely to present a realistic risk of establishment.” Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 662.
Based off of the evidence presented, the American Legion believes that the existence of the cross to commemorate the fallen pass all the tests discussed in this case: Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, and Town of Greece v. Galloway. Furthermore, the American Legion calls for revisions to the existing establishment clause.
ii. American Humanist Argument
The American Humanist Association argues that the cross does have strong ties to Christianity, leading all the way back to its inception.
Firstly, the historical background of the Cross is in fact Christian based and government affiliated. John Early designed the cross in relation to “Calvary” shortly after working on a Catholic shrine; insinuating that the initial concept of the cross reflects Christianity accurately. While the initial funding for the cross came from private donors, the government still owned the land. Also, “The display aggrandizes the Latin cross in a manner that says to any reasonable observer that the Commission either places Christianity above other faiths, views being American and Christian as one in the same, or both.” AHA Brief. The Latin cross serves as the logo for Christianity. When placed in the middle of a busy highway, four stories high, the relationship between the government and Christianity seems quite apparent; especially since government funding maintains the Cross. Furthermore, all religious affiliated events that took place at the site of the cross since its erection involved Christian affiliates (priest, clergy, etc.) as well as government officials.
Secondly, there exists no Circuit split, only the “illusion” of one. Although the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed over “what test to apply to passive displays that include religious symbols,” (21) federal courts historically decide cross-display cases with the Lemon test. While there exists some conflict with Van Orden v. Perry, the cross represents Christianity based off of the facts in this particular case.
Finally, any potential revisions to the current system should be ignored as the sole intention of the American Legion is “to overturn decades of Establishment Clause jurisprudence in favor of a per se “rule” that upholds all sectarian displays so long as the government’s purpose is no to “coerce or convert” (41).
Although the American Legion may argue that the cross represents gravestones of the fallen soldiers overseas, the underlying message relates to the preservation of promoting Christianity through this 40-foot-tall Calvary Cross.
Opinion
When our nation’s founding fathers took on the burden of creating a list of rules that accurately embodies the ideals and goals of the American people, they immediately acknowledged religion above all else. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Amendment I. The precedence of separation of church and state in the United States Constitution alone should remind individuals of the importance to uphold and protect this statute at all costs. In this particular case, a 40-foot-tall Latin-cross monument has violated the First Amendment for over 90 years.
I.
The American Legion adamantly argues that the cross falls under the passive display category. However, the historical context of the Cross such as its Christian-affiliated designer, long-standing relationship with the Christian church, and it’s original “Calvary Cross” title makes it hard to disassociate the cross from Christianity. Although this quote originally refers to prayer, “The statute was enacted to convey a message… or the statute was enacted for no purpose. No one suggest that the statute was nothing but a meaningless or irrational act.” Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 59 can easily be applied to the significance of the monument at hand. Granted, the death of 49 soldiers from Prince George’s County inspired citizens of Bladensburg to build the monument, the eerie resemblance to the Christian logo insinuates that the monument more accurately represents Christian soldiers rather than soldiers in general.
This court has consistently acknowledged the relationship between religion and state despite the precedence of the separation of church and state as the history of man and the history of religion go hand in hand; therefore, “We must reconcile the inescapable tension between the objective to prevent unnecessary intrusion of either the church or the state upon the other, and the reality that, as the Court so often noted, total separation of the two is not possible.” Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 672. However, a tight bond is illegal. Also this Court interprets “the neutrality between religion and religion, and religion and non-religion.” McCreary v. ACLU. And accordingly, “there are limits to the display of religious messages or symbols.” Van Orden v. Perry.
A. Van Orden
In regards to plurality of a symbol, there must be some other significance that carries equal or greater weight than its default definition. “The placement of the Ten Commandments monument on the Texas State Capitol grounds is a far more passive use of those texts than was the case in Stone [v. Graham], where the text confronted elementary school students every day.” Van Orden v. Perry. In the case of the Ten Commandments monument, there exist many other examples in the American government such as the “large statue of Moses holding the Ten Commandments, alongside a statue of the Apostle Paul, has overlooked the rotunda of the Library of Congress’ Jefferson Building since 1897,” Van Orden v. Perry reflecting the traditional relationship between religion and state. Unlike the Ten Commandments monument, the only other interpretation for the cross relates to the gravesites of the fallen oversees. However, this claim does not hold based off of the relationship of the cross to the Christian church.
B. Town of Greece
“Religious themes provide particular means to universal ends. Prayer that reflects beliefs specific to only some creeds can still serve to solemnize the occasion, so long as the practice over time is not ‘exploited to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief.'” Town of Greece v. Galloway II. A. Although Town of Greece refers to the presence of an opening prayer before town hall meetings, this notion applies to the overall disregard for other religions in relation to the cross. In order for the monument to adhere by the First Amendment, “[The Constitution] mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any.” Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 673. Since no other religion has ever been referenced in relation to the cross, it is difficult to argue that it does not ‘proselytize or advance’ Christianity.
II. Lemon Test
In light of an Establishment Clause case, this court consistently references the Lemon Test. Therefore, the monument must (1) have a secular purpose, (2) not have a principle or primary effect that advances, inhibits, or endorses religion, and (3) not foster an excessive entanglement between government and religion. The American Legion point out that that the Lemon Test should be used as a guide rather than a definitive statement and encourages this court to introduce a new prong in regard to religious symbols and the Establishment clause. However, “In our modern, complex society…an absolutist approach in applying the Establishment Clause is simplistic, and has been uniformly rejected by the Court.” Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 678. The idea of further restricting the Establishment clause only allows for a more problematic system. This court agrees with the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in regard to second prong, but disagrees in violation to the third prong of the Lemon test.
A. Endorsement of Religion
In addition to the findings of the Fourth Circuit in relation to the second prong, this court would like to emphasize that the historical relationship between the Commission and the Christian church alone indicate the endorsement of Christianity by this monument. “The purpose of the establishment clause is “to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other.” Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 “The [Religion] Clause erects a ‘blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier depending on all the circumstances of a particular relationship.'” Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 679. However, the long-standing relationship with the Church, the historical background of the monument, and the lack of inclusion of other religions all join together to push this case just over that barrier.
B. Excessive Entanglement
As for the third prong, the Fourth Circuit states that there exists excessive entanglement because of the Commission’s ownership and maintenance of the Memorial. However, the majority of funds used for the monument solely surround safety and maintenance, which has no relation to religion whatsoever. However, “The dangers are increased by the difficulty to perceiving in advance exactly where the ‘verge’ of the precipice lies. As well as constituting an independent evil against which the Religion Clauses were intended to protect, involvement or entanglement between government and religion serves as a warning signal.” Lemon v. Kurtzman 403 U.S. 624, U.S. 625. In other words, it is difficult to determine the level of entanglement the Commission has with the church, but it could very lead to a blatant violation of this third prong given any leeway in the jurisprudence of the Religion Clauses.
III. Conclusion
Therefore, we will strike down the notion that this monument is passive making the Van Orden test irrelevant. Furthermore, the Town of Greece claim lacks relevance due to its inability to prove that any other religion has been included throughout the history of the cross. And although there exists a blurred line between religion and state, “Values that count as universal and that are embodied not only in religious traditions, but in our found documents and law” Town of Greece v. Galloway Part II, Section A. help make sense of what does and does not violate the first Amendment. The 93-year-old cross is unconstitutional because of its historic significance, which in part acknowledges its mere shape. This Court find the Petitioners in violation of the second prong of the Lemon test and we hear by affirm the decision of the 4th Circuit of Appeals.