Washington, USA - The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Wednesday in Buono v. Salazar, a church-state case involving a 6 1/2-foot cross built in the Mojave desert in the 1930s as a memorial to troops killed in World War I.
The case is the first major opportunity for the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts to divine the meaning of the First Amendment command that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Analysts on all sides of the issue said the court's ruling could ultimately provide clarity to the court's earlier, blurry rules on church-and-state separations. It could also carry important implications for the fate of war memorials around the country that feature religious imagery -- the Argonne Cross in Arlington National Cemetery, for instance, or the Memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg.
The Mojave cross's protectors, which include veterans groups and the federal government, say the symbol is a historic, secular tribute; its original plaque from the 1930s said it was erected to honor "the dead of all wars." They argue that Congress has taken the steps to distance itself from any appearance of endorsing a religious display--including transferring the acre of federal land on which the cross was erected to the Veterans of Foreign Wars in exchange for five acres owned by the family that acts as the cross's unofficial caretaker.
But the American Civil Liberties Union, Jewish and Muslim veterans, and others say government actions have only deepened the problem. In an effort to avoid the lower courts' rulings that it must come down, Congress has designated the site the country's only official national memorial to the dead of World War I, elevating it to an exclusive group of national treasures that includes the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore.
Congress's actions ensures that "the cross necessarily will reflect continued government association with the preeminent symbol of Christianity," the ACLU said.
The cross that currently stands on the site is the third built as part of the memorial. Because of the legal controversy and lower court rulings, it is covered by a small plywood box, set back from a gentle curve in a lonesome desert road in California's Mojave National Preserve.
World War I vets had flocked to the desert after their military service, either for mining opportunities or because doctors had suggested the climate for those with "shell shock" or respiratory problems from the war. The men started VFW chapters throughout the region, and apparently were drawn to this particular granite outcropping because some looked at the rock's shadings and conjured up the silhouette of a WWI doughboy. It is unlikely the veterans who erected the cross knew or cared that it stood on federal land.
But the cross for years has been the scene of Easter sunrise services. In the 1990s, the U.S. Park Service denied an application from a Buddhist group in the to build a shrine nearby.
The current challenge comes from a former assistant park superintendent who complained that the cross was inappropriate because it was a religious symbol on public land. The government contends that the former official does not have "standing" to bring the case, and part of the legal arguments will center on who has the right to bring a complaint about an alleged violation of church-state separations.
While the fighting has gone on, the cross has remained in place. But to comply with the court's ruling, it was covered -- first by a tarpaulin bag and now by the plywood box.
The Supreme Court has had trouble coming up with an easily followed guideline on religious displays on government land. Instead, it has opted to issue opinions based on the specifics of a case. Thus, the court in 2005 ruled 5 to 4 that a large, granite Ten Commandments monument on the grounds of the Texas capitol, in place for decades and surrounded by other historical markers, could remain. The same day, the court ruled by the same margin that recently installed framed copies of the Ten Commandments in two Kentucky courthouses were unconstitutional.
But changes on the court could make it more difficult for those challenging religious monuments. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted to find both displays of the Ten Commandments unconstitutional, but she has been replaced by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who seems more sympathetic to the other view.