Religious symbol on public land

It was a narrow ruling about the transfer of public land to private ownership so that a cross could remain as part of a World War I memorial in the Mojave National Preserve; but, in effect, the Supreme Court said that a cross on public land does not necessarily violate the anti-establishment clause in the Constitution. It was the usual 5-4, conservative/liberal split.

Here are some comments about the implied meaning of crosses on memorials for fallen soldiers:

Justice Kennedy: “A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies would be compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg, and Sotomayer: “The cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice. It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith. . . . [Because] Congress has established no other national monument to the veterans of the Great War, this solitary cross in the middle of the desert is the national World War I memorial."

Justice Scalia: “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.”

ACLU lawyer Peter J. Eliasberg: Many Jewish war veterans would not want to be honored by “the predominant symbol of Christianity [that] signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.”

Justice Stevens: “Making a plain, unadorned Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross secular. It makes the war memorial sectarian.”

The arguments are in, they are clearly divided, and the sides have been chosen. It remains to see how much the next case moves the law to the right.
Ralph