September 2019 - Parks & Recreation - 40

LAW REVIEW

In addition, the Court found an
examination of historical context
would also apply to " other memorials and monuments honoring important figures in our Nation's history, " which might include a natural
" symbolic reference to faith in the
design of the memorial. " The Court

Having found that " World War I
monuments have endured
through the years and become a
familiar part of the physical and
cultural landscape, " the Court
reiterated its concern that " a
campaign to obliterate items
with religious associations may
evidence hostility to religion even
if those religious associations are
no longer in the forefront. "
cited the example of " the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Civil Rights Memorial Park in Seattle, which contains a sculpture in three segments
representing both the Christian
Trinity and the union of the family. "
The Court also noted that " National Statuary Hall in the Capitol honors a variety of religious figures, " in
which the monuments include religious symbols acknowledging " the
centrality of faith to those whose
lives are commemorated. "
Having found that " World War I
monuments have endured through
the years and become a familiar
part of the physical and cultural
landscape, " the Court reiterated its
concern that " a campaign to obliterate items with religious associations
may evidence hostility to religion
even if those religious associations
are no longer in the forefront. "
38

Parks & Recreation

Guidance of History
While the Lemon test " ambitiously attempted to find a grand unified theory of the Establishment
Clause, " the Court found later
cases had " taken a more modest
approach that focuses on the particular issue at hand and looks to
history for guidance. " Specifically,
the Court acknowledged the trend
has been to find constitutional " categories of monuments, symbols,
and practices with a longstanding
history " and cultural tradition.
Applying these principles, to
the facts of this case, the Supreme
Court held the Bladensburg Cross
did not violate the Establishment
Clause. According to the Court,
the design of the Bladensburg
Cross must be understood in light
of its background and special significance as a symbol commemorating the sacrifice of American
soldiers killed in World War I.
While " the cross originated as a
Christian symbol and retains that
meaning in many contexts, " the
Court found this " does not change
the fact that the symbol took on an
added secular meaning when used
in World War I memorials " :
Not only did the Bladensburg
Cross begin with this meaning,
but with the passage of time, it has
acquired historical importance. It
reminds the people of Bladensburg and surrounding areas of the
deeds of their predecessors and of
the sacrifices they made in a war
fought in the name of democracy.
As long as it is retained in its original place and form, it speaks as
well of the community that erected
the monument nearly a century
ago and has maintained it ever
since.
Further, the Court noted " the

| S E P T E M B E R 2 0 1 9 | W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G

monument commemorates the
death of particular individuals, "
and it was, therefore, " natural and
appropriate for those seeking to
honor the deceased to invoke the
symbols that signify what death
meant for those who are memorialized. " While acknowledging the
cross is " undoubtedly a Christian
symbol, " the Court once again noted " that fact should not blind us to
everything else that the Bladensburg Cross has come to represent " :
For some, that monument is a
symbolic resting place for ancestors
who never returned home. For others, it is a place for the community
to gather and honor all veterans
and their sacrifices for our Nation.
For others still, it is a historical
landmark.
For many of these people, destroying or defacing the Cross that
has stood undisturbed for nearly
a century would not be neutral
and would not further the ideals
of respect and tolerance embodied
in the First Amendment. For all
these reasons, the Cross does not
offend the Constitution.
As a result, by a vote of 7 to 2,
the Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the federal appeals
court that had found a violation
of the Establishment Cause and
remanded (i.e., sent back) the case
for further proceedings to enter a
judgment upholding the constitutionality of the existing Bladensburg Peace Cross.

James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D., is an
Attorney and Associate Professor in the
School of Recreation, Health and Tourism
at George Mason University (jkozlows@
gmu.edu). Webpage with link to law
review articles archive (1982 to present):
http://mason.gmu.edu/~jkozlows.

September 2019 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of September 2019 - Parks & Recreation