Between the Crosses, Row on Row

The offensive image.

The US Supreme Court has just ruled that Maryland does not need to pull down a century-old WWI memorial because it is in the shape of a cross.

I am not a lawyer, but the initial demand seems to me another example of our social madness. And the reasoning of the USSC ruling is not reassuring. It seems they find the monument okay on the spurious grounds that the cross is not really religious in this context, but a recognized symbol of the war.

So symbols of war are okay on public lands, but not anything that suggests religion?

Is this not self-evidently mad? Is this not self-evidently anti-human?

The US Constitution, wisely, reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion.” But this has apparently been reinterpreted to mean the government must be opposed to all religion. This new interpretation is in fact in direct violation of the constitutional provision: it amounts to establishing atheism as the state religion.

The government actually has a legitimate interest in promoting religion; promoting atheism is a violation of trust. Religion contributes directly to peace, order, and good government, their prime responsibility, at least according to the Canadian Constitution. Religion promotes morality and ethical conduct; it provides a social safety net, at no cost to the taxpayers; it offers a sense of belonging, and so community cohesion. It increases the general store of happiness.

All this is objectively true, whether or not you even accept the truth of religion. These are just byproducts. If it is right in its basic assumptions, of course, its value, and its social value, is beyond calculation.

And yet we are to tear it down? Why this urge everywhere now to destroy civilization?

The proper approach is obvious, and it is obvious what the Constitution means: the government treats religions equally, favouring none. The government fosters and encourages all religions, but does not erect or pay for monuments or structures that are specific to any one to the exclusion of others. If some private group, like the Knights of Columbus or B’nai Brith, or the American Legion, chooses to generously donate something, as in this case, to the government and the general public, and it is open and available to all, of course the government should gratefully accept.

Instead, we have what John Paul II called “the culture of death.”