Humanists Cross About Bladensburg Memorial
Secular organization says Bladensburg Peace Cross violates First Amendment's establishment clause.
Photos
Is the Bladensburg Peace Cross a religious symbol?
Representatives for the American Humanist Association say it is, and are asking local parks and planning officials to either remove the 40-foot-tall concrete sculpture or give the land to a non-public entity to maintain. Failure to do so, according to a spokesman for the 10,000 member secular group, would constitute a violation of the establishment clause of the Constitution, which calls for the separation of church and state.
"If this land wasn't owned by the government, then this wouldn't be an issue whatsoever," said Brian Magee, communications associate with the AHA.
Magee grew up in Greenbelt and remembers the cross as a prominent area landmark. But he said it is in no way a secular monument.
"It's clearly a Christian symbol, it's clearly exclusive, and it's on government property," said Magee. "The courts have consistently ruled that as unconstitutional."
The AHA, working with the Appignani Humanist Legal Center, wrote to the Maryland-National Capital Parks and Planning Commission two weeks ago complaining about the cross. The letter, written by William Burgess of the AHLC, said that his organization took action after investigating a complaint about the cross from a Prince George's County resident.
"It is unconstitutional for a sectarian religious symbol such as the Bladensburg Cross to be displayed on public land," wrote Burgess. "A cross is an inherently Christian symbol. The state cannot choose it to stand for all of the fallen."
The group gave planners two weeks to respond to its complaint and threatened to bring suit if action was not taken within two weeks.
Anita Pesses, spokesperson for the M-NCPPC, declined to comment in detail on the matter and said that her organization's legal team was reviewing the issue.
The cross, which sits in the circle near the intersection of Baltimore Avenue, Bladensburg Road and Annapolis Road, was initially built by a local American Legion club in 1922 to honor the 49 Prince George's County residents who died fighting in World War I.
According to Dane Weber, club manager at the Colmar Manor American Legion, the cross was maintained by a Hyattsville American Legion post until 1957 when the Prince George's County Circuit Court transferred it to the state of Maryland, which then handed it off to the M-NCPPC to administer.
Weber has lived just about all of his life in Colmar Manor, except for his service in Vietnam. He served as a door gunner on Army helicopters between 1967 and and 1969. During that time, Weber said he participated in some of the bloodiest conflicts of the war, including the Tet Offensive and the Battle of Saigon.
Twice a year, Weber's group attends memorial services at the Peace Cross. He doesn't understand why the AHA has singled out the Bladensburg memorial.
"Get a life. Do something. Why pick on the veterans? Probably the majority of them have never been in the service, or if they were they weren't on the front lines" said Weber. "Like the old saying goes, you don't find an atheist in a fox hole."
Magee disagrees, noting that there are many atheists, agnostics and secular humanists serving in the armed forces.
"We want to honor all of our veterans, not just the Christian ones," said Magee. "This should be a monument that includes them all, not excludes."
Weber himself said he doesn't subscribe to any single religion. Aside from weddings and funerals, he said he doesn't attend church regularly.
"All crosses are not necessarily about God," said Weber. "You find a lot of cemeteries, especially in Europe for World War II, and they put crosses on them, just to honor the people who died there."
The AHA disagrees. In its letter to the M-NCPPC, lawyers for the secular organization write that courts have consistently ruled against the display of crosses on public land.
Recent appeals court decisions support this claim. The Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego, which features a 43-foot cross, was ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of appeals in 2011. A year earlier, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals said that roadside memorial crosses honoring fallen highway patrol officers were also unconstitutional on similar grounds.
News of the complaint against the cross has sparked something of a burst of support for the memorial, including at least one Facebook group, Save Our Historical Peace Cross in Bladensburg, MD.
Solomon Landers
7:52 am on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
The cross is not "inherently" a Christian symbol. For thousands of years before Christianity, it was a symbol of the old Babylonian god Tammuz, and an Egyptian hieroglyphic symbol meaning "life" (ankh). Not until the time of emperor Constantine (4th century AD) did the cross supplant the fish (Greek, Ichthys, acronym for "Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior") as the notable Christian symbol. The New Testament says nothing about the shape of the "cross" of Jesus.
After so many years, it seems unnecessary to make such a fuss about the Peace Cross in Bladensburg now. It has acquired its own symbolism, political correctness notwithstanding.
Emil Farkwarp
5:13 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
I'm sure there were a few "whites only" signs that were historic,and slavery (not only condoned in the bible but with instructions provided!) is also an old institution... as is prostitution, and Baltimore brothels have been eliminated, though the gambling remains. Go figure.
If you want a Christian symbol-- and 1600 years of using the cross as a Christian symbol has been a wildly effective marketing ploy-- then put it on private land (and I mean sell the monument and the land to who'll pay for it).
Just because folks got their legal and constitutional rights steamrolled 90 years ago does not make it any better "after so manty years." If anything, it makes your attitude even more distasteful.
If it isn't a big deal what the shape is, make it a pentagram. By happenstance it symbolizes the five wounds of Christ, but that is coincidence.
Scot Brown
8:11 am on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Were the 49 Prince George's County residents who died fighting in World War I Christian?
Emil Farkwarp
3:45 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
As our county was very segregated in the early 1900s it is very possible they were all white and all christian. But what if they were all yellow and all Shinto? Would you want your tax dollars to pay for maintenance of a torii gate?
If the American Legion wants to honor veterans, they can pay for it. Seems fair, no?
Eric Chamberlain
12:21 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
OUT OF CONTEXT: In 1922 when this was built by a local American Legion club, it was not considered offensive or exclusive. Do we go back and destroy all monuments built throughout history to adapt to current beliefs? Maybe we should also start burning books too that might contain old beliefs… and tear down the pyramids, the sphinx, and any other symbols of previous cultures and times. Get real people. This monument is almost one hundred years old, and was built to honor all who died in WWII, not just Christians. Leave it alone!
Michael Theis
12:31 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Minor fact check: it was built to honor those who died in WWI.
jakeblues56
1:24 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Well done Eric!
Scooter Conrad
9:29 am on Thursday, September 13, 2012
I totally agree.
I'm getting "sick & tired" of all these outsiders telling ME to forget our past, bad & good. LEAVE Peace Cross MEMORIAL alone!
SunnyDaysInMD
7:25 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
Well said, Eric
Eric Chamberlain
12:42 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Thanks! …Typo.
Michael Theis
12:44 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
It happens to the best of us.
Dan
12:53 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Giving the monument back to the public seems like it solves the problem, and a good idea in general. Why can't it just be given back to the Hyattsville American Legion, and let them take care of it?
I don't mind Christian monuments, and I agree it now has a historical significance, I just don't want to pay for mowing the lawn and lighting it at night with my tax dollars.
Scot Brown
1:02 pm on Tuesday, September 11, 2012
I agree. However perhaps the H.A.L. does not have the money to take care of it.
Scot Brown
8:06 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Emil... I find "and 1600 years of using the cross as a Christian symbol has been a wildly effective marketing ploy--" boarderline offensive...
Emil Farkwarp
3:12 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
Why? It is the most recognizable symbol in world history, nearly a third of the global population uses it as their own religious symbol, and there may have been as many as 10 billion Christians throughout history. I am sorry if you are offended that the various Churches of christianity have engaged in dubious practices to further their goals but you can't pick your friends.
Oh, wait...
Scot Brown
8:13 am on Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Is this debate about proper use of public land or a resentment about a religious organization? I can see the point of moving the cross or having the land transfered to priviate property, and agree with you. But now I'm not sure what is motivating the request to move it.
Emil Farkwarp
3:34 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
There is no religious organization to resent. It was common practice to erect a cross as a memorial and rarely was any thought given to the constitutionality of it, not because of actual bigotry but because of honest lack of thought (I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here, though much documentation to the opposite exists).
But good intentions can be just as illegal as bad ones.
By providing tax doillars to maintain "Peace Cross", the gummint is favoring one religion's symbol. The solution is to either stop providing tax dollars for it OR to change the item to a non-religious symbol. If you don't have a problem with your tax dollars supporting religious symbols, ask yourself two questions: first, would you be so sanguine about a 10-meter-high Muslim crescent in the park across from the Pentagon-- after all, Muslims died in the 9/11 attacks-- and second, how many symbols of other religions do you see on public lands?
Why now? In the past anyone who brought such a suit would be persecuted in the community, ridiculed, ostracized, and abused as would any attorney involved. While that still happens, at least such harrassment is taken seriously by (most) police departments.
I wonder why the cross was transferred to the government in 1957 and how it was justified. Maybe the American Legion should reimburse the taxpayers for 55 years of maintenance of their memorial.
Scot Brown
4:12 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
I guess I just don't see how this is favorism. I mean I see your point and all. I don't like the cross and am a secular humanists but we don't agree with each other. Well, it will be interesting to see what happens. I'd rather they spend the money to connect the bike trail to the District... :-)
Rick Hudson
4:16 pm on Thursday, September 13, 2012
It is a monument to our war dead, nothing more nothing less. Leave it alone!
Andrew Saderholm
12:50 pm on Friday, September 14, 2012
The uncomfortable reality for the A.H.A. in this particular matter, is that this monument was built by private citizens on private land with private funds. 33 years after it was dedicated the county sued for ownership of the property under 'eminent domain' and won. taking over ownership (and the responsibility of upkeep) from the rightful original owners. They bear the responsibility to maintain this landmark because it was already an established landmark before they forcibly took ownership of the property from those who erected it. Simply because it contains a religious symbol is really of no consequence in this particular situation. The government is in no way endorsing a particular religion by maintaining a historical landmark that was built by religiously minded private citizens. It is not even clear that the intent of the designers was for the monument to be overtly religious. It may well be that it is just a very handsome representation of the typical style for war memorials of the time.
Francis Sheehan
3:18 pm on Monday, September 17, 2012
Couldn't you argue the same about the Washington Monument? From Wikipedia: "The obelisk symbolized the sun god Ra, and during the brief religious reformation of Akhenaten was said to be a petrified ray of the Aten, the sundisk. It was also thought that the god existed within the structure."
David Keely
8:27 pm on Monday, September 17, 2012
In response to the American Humanist Association’s request to the Maryland National Capital Park and Planning Commission to remove the Peace Cross, we support the retention of the World War I memorial based upon:
- Tolerance
Atheists, agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Pagans, Jews, and others should
respect the sensibilities of other believers and non-believers.
- Peace
This is a monument to peace. Humanists should honor that aspiration by
not provoking a legal war on a sacred symbol.
- History
The monument has stood for almost 90 years with much meaning to past,
current, and future generations.
Humanists, secularists, atheists, and agnostics should combine their
energies with people of all faiths toward removing the last vestiges of
slavery, war, and discrimination to build a better and sustainable world
for all.
The following members of the Washington Ethical Society (A Humanistic
Religious Community)
- David Keely
- Linda Keely
- Rich Reis
- MaryRuth Reis
- Scott Wales
- Todd Waymon
- Judy Hanrahan
- Ann Glendinning
- Rachel M. Hartig, Ph.D.
- Marty Kaufman
- Nora Ludden
- Randee Chafkin
- Roberta Geier
- Susan Runner
- Ross Wells
- Beth Baker
- Chris Matias
- Lynn Andretta
The Washington Ethical Society, as a whole, has not taken a position on this issue.
Mico
5:45 am on Saturday, September 22, 2012
Someone complained and then the fuss started? I grew up seeing the Peace Cross, I raised my children and they saw the Peace Cross. So, what? Leave it be. Who complained? I would like to know. I don't think this is about the government supporting a religious view over another. But, a group is being blindly used and they don't realize it. That area has changed so much, I don't live around there anymore.
Remove it and the roads can be rearranged so they don't have to whip around it anymore. Remove it, so those who are newcomers, don't have to wonder why it's there and find out the reason. Yeah, I see more then it being a 'religious' thing being supported by the government.
In DC, the USDA building, built before WWII, has symbols on the brick at eye level, it's the form of what we now call the nazi symbol. Is someone going to complain about this and that's it across from the Holocaust MSM? Should those bricks have the symbols blasted off?
This is simply dumb. I would normally support the Humanists because I can understand, we are all living deserving beings, so why pick on this? SMH.
TomD
8:49 am on Monday, December 3, 2012
Taking it down at this point is very akin to Islamists dynamiting images of Buddha.