What next?

This is a difficult post for me. It concerns a case recently argued before the United States Supreme Court. In the case, the plaintiff argues that a cross erected at Sunrise Rock, on government land 75 years ago by a group of WWI veterans to commemorate the many dead who lie buried in foreign graves. The cross has been replaced several times to maintain it. A former park employee challenged the right of the cross to be on government land. A lower court found for the employee but the cross was not taken down. Instead, it was covered by a large box.

While the Supreme Court overruled the decision of the lower court, I am disturbed by the implications of the entire matter. This lonely memorial is seen by few people. It was erected in good faith by a group who had seen the horrors of war and wanted to memorialize their dead comrades. The fact that a man did not want that cross, which he saw as strictly a Christian symbol on government land is disturbing. That a court in California agreed with him is more so.

I believe that this case reaching the Supreme Court is the result of interpretation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. That states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free expression thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,or the press, or the right of people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I do not see where the erection of a memorial conflicts with that amendment. There have been other cases, notably the plaque of the ten commandments in a state house, which have been decided differently. While the constitution insists on the separation of church and state, I can not find anywhere that it forbids the use of a religious symbol on government land, or even in government buildings.

While I am not a Christian, crosses to me, symbolize sacrifice and honor, not the religion. It disturbs me that such a case can make it to the Supreme Court. What will the "politically correct" demand next? Covering the crosses and stars in National Cemeteries perhaps? It just seems wrong.

If you want to look at this, the case is Salazar v. Buono, 08-472.