from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-peace-cross-ruling-is-a-victory-for-constitutional-common-sense/2019/06/20/cd462cd4-9385-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html?utm_term=.45138af62061
The Peace Cross ruling is a victory for constitutional common sense
The "Peace Cross" stands at a busy intersection in Bladensburg. (Michael 
Robinson Chavez/The Washington Post)
By Editorial Board June 20
BY A resounding vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that 
the 40-foot-tall Bladensburg Peace Cross may continue to stand on a 
patch of public property in Prince George’s County. The decision was a 
victory for the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, 
which acquired the land in question from the nongovernmental American 
Legion decades ago; for the state of Maryland; and for a majority of 
other states, which supported the commission and its fellow litigant, 
the American Legion.
Above all, the decision was a victory for constitutional common sense. 
Rejecting the purist brand of secularism advanced by the cross’s 
opponents, led by the American Humanist Association, the majority — 
which included conservative Republican appointees, as well as two 
Democratic appointees, Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — interpreted 
the First Amendment prohibition on religious establishment flexibly. To 
them, it requires not the purging of religious symbolism from the 
American landscape but careful, contextual consideration of the many 
such installations that are already in place.
Written by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority opinion 
acknowledged that the Latin cross, of which the Peace Cross is an 
example, undeniably symbolizes the Christian faith. Still, at the time 
it was erected — in the aftermath of World War I — that symbol also had 
acquired an arguably more universal and secular meaning, derived from 
the ubiquitous crosses that marked temporary U.S. soldiers’ graves in 
Europe. This history, coupled with the fact that the Peace Cross has 
stood so long — long enough, in fact, for its original meaning to become 
subject to modern reinterpretation — created a strong presumption 
against viewing it as a strictly religious installation, much less an 
unconstitutionally religious one. Meanwhile, the court also declined to 
adopt the radical views expressed in concurring opinions by Justice 
Clarence Thomas, who argued that the establishment clause does not apply 
to the states at all, or Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who would deprive 
people offended by publicly subsidized religious displays of standing to 
file suit.
This important ruling did not quite overturn the court’s modern doctrine 
on the establishment clause, created in 1971, which has — 
unsuccessfully, for the most part — attempted to evaluate public 
policies based on their secular purpose, or lack thereof; whether they 
advanced or inhibited religion; and whether they created an “excessive 
government entanglement with religion.” The ruling did, however, reshape 
the law, advancing an approach similar to the one Mr. Breyer has long 
advocated, which acknowledges “there is no single formula,” as he noted 
in a concurring opinion Thursday, and that the court should evaluate 
challenged policies based on whether they fit “the basic purposes” of 
the First Amendment.
Those purposes, as Mr. Breyer, joined by Ms. Kagan, also noted, are: to 
reduce religious-based conflict; to assure liberty and tolerance for 
believers and nonbelievers alike; and to avoid corrupting either 
government or religion by inappropriate overlap between the two. It’s a 
rough-and-ready doctrine, to be sure. Among many questions it does not 
settle is what to do about the pending case of a cross that has been the 
focal point of religious observances in a Pensacola, Fla., park since 
1941, or a possible future one if a new cross is erected on public land. 
Purists may not be satisfied with what the court has just done. 
Pragmatists — which is to say, most Americans — probably will be.
  128 Comments
Read These Comments new
That thing only represents Christians. Saying that it somehow doesn’t 
represent Christianity is ludicrous. It should not be on public land. 
Period.
14 hours ago
This is what Ill-informed intolerance looks like.   The cross was 
erected by a Christian community for their fellow slain Christians in 
the Great War. It was set up on private land which was donated to the 
state of Maryland with the promise of safekeeping.
  Not today will you get to erase that history.