Holding on to the Right

The Religious Right may become an inappropriate name for evangelical Christians, particularly a younger generation of religious voters who may identify more with the Democratic left. In her article entitled “Praying Politics,” Loredana Vuoto shows that more evangelicals voted for President Barack Obama than any other Democratic candidate did since Jimmy Carter in 1976. According to Vuoto, this shows how Obama was able to tailor the democratic platform to religious voter without losing the party’s secular voters, which he earned 72 percent of the non-religious votes. According to Vuoto, that large amount of support in the evangelical community, however, many be turned away by President Obama’s overturning of the “Mexico City” regulations, which prohibited giving funding to foreign social-service organizations who provide abortions or information on abortions.

This logic used by Vuoto runs counter to the logic laid out by William Martin is his book, With God on Our Side: The History of the Religious Right in America, about what issues actually sway religious voters to switch political affiliation. Martin asserts that it was not the so-called “moral issues,” such as abortion or gay marriage that first caught the ire of the evangelical community, but rather the threat of the Internal Revenue Service to strip Christian schools of their tax-exempt status because if what the bureau believed was “de facto segregation.” Using the logic that Martin laid out, it is very unlikely that religious voters would supported President Obama would be turned-off by this move, understanding that this issue is more about foreign policy than religious convictions. The types of political decisions that have the power to shift religious voters’ loyalties have more to do with the government interference in the private lives of Christians. As long as President Obama is willing to respect the rights of religious voters to live as they want, than he has little to worry about losing the evangelical votes he received.

The Religious Right and their Capitol Crime

In his article, Capitol Crime, Rob Boston criticizes the Religious Right for protesting the new CVC building in Washington D.C. This newly constructed museum, called the Capitol Visitor Center, was created to display the history of Capitol Hill and ease the traffic of tourists who visit every day. It took seven years and cost $621 million to construct this facility and despite these efforts, the Religious Right pursued measures to change parts of the museum because it lacked religious symbols that paid homage to America’s “Christian heritage.” Claiming that the CVC is a “godless pit” and a “shrine to secularism,” they are angered by even the smallest details. These individuals clearly believe that the U.S. serves a divine purpose and they claim that by restricting the implementation of some of our nation’s Christian traditions, we are denying this country’s true Christian history. Boston states that this was the “latest episode in a long running campaign to convince people that America was founded to be an officially Christian nation.” To uphold their views, the Right even stated that George Washington, James Madison, and Thomas Jefferson would have agreed with them, which we all know is incorrect—especially concerning James Madison, one of the strictest separationists of the Founding generation.

But are the claims of the Religious Right true? Are they right in claiming that the CVC ignores all of our country’s Christian traditions? Staffers from Americans United (a separationist organization) say it ain’t so. They noted that despite all of the Religious Right’s complaints, there are indeed symbols of Christianity inside the museum. For example, there is a display that clearly reads “In God We Trust” on a video screen, an exhibit that discusses congressional chaplains, and even a large King James Bible on display which was given to congressional stenographers during the 1930s. If these aren’t blatant symbols of Christianity, I don’t know what is.

In my opinion, the Religious Right’s argument just doesn’t hold water. As a group, they seem to disregard the first amendment altogether—forgetting that our founding fathers wrote the first amendment with the intention of preventing the government from “establishing or promoting” a specific religion. The CVC building was not built to promote the Christian religion—it was built to provide an elaborate “civics lesson” as James Billington of the Library of Congress puts it. These exhibits are used to explain the formation of Congress and its role in politics. The last quote of the article sums up the purpose of the CVC facility quite nicely by stating:
“If the Religious Right has its way, the Capitol Visitor Center will lose an important opportunity to educate Americans about our nation’s history and the true origins of our government,” Lynn said. “Congress should ignore the Religious Right and make certain the Center accurately reflects history and is welcoming to all Americans.”

Our nation is not discriminatory. By including more Christian symbolism in a facility dedicated to the secular formation of government, the CVC would become exclusionary and fail to attract visitors of all backgrounds, cultures, and religious beliefs. If the Religious Right want a museum that solely displays Christianity in American politics, they should garner $621 million and build a historical sanctuary of their own design, supported by the Church. They simply cannot push forth changes on a secular facility in a country built on the principle of the separation of church and state.

Catholic Schools Converted Into Charter Schools

This New York Times article published on Feb. 15, “Hurdles for a Plan to Turn Catholic Classrooms Into Charter Schools” ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/education/16charter.html?ref=nyregion ) raises many questions regarding the limits of religious influences in public education. The plans are for four Catholic schools to be converted into public charter schools due to lack of private funds. Although the schools are expected to open in the fall, there are several political, educational and legal issues associated with this transition.

First of all, there is the question of teaching religious-influenced material with the money of taxpayers, especially since these schools are expecting to keep most of the same teachers (although this may not be possible since the majority of them may not have the right qualifications by public school standards) as well as some of the same members of their organizing committees. Also, since the charter public school system in New York is based on a lottery, the children already enrolled in these Catholic schools will be given priority when the schools reopen as public charter schools, which means that the same Catholic parents will be the ones supporting these schools and the teachings and traditions that go along with Catholicism. For example, these schools did not teach health education like public schools – they did not include the part about sexual health because it went against their moral standards. However, as part of the public school system, they are required to comply with the teaching of this material. How will this be settled when the vast majority of parents don’t want their children to be exposed to this?

What I found interesting is that there is a law in place that bans private schools from becoming public charter schools. Why are parochial schools any different than private schools when it comes to sources of funding? If they allow these Catholic schools to become charter schools, they should also make this option available for non-religious private schools. From my understanding of this article, there are several Catholic private schools that have already been converted into charter schools in DC. Is that fair to the other private schools that may be lacking in funding during this economic crisis?

Of course, there are also very important, beneficial aspects of these parochial schools being used as charter schools rather than not being used at all, such as preventing other schools from becoming overcrowded. I think this is a very important reason for encouraging this transition. However, the transition process needs to be supervised very carefully so that religious ideologies don’t end up being taught in public schools.

"Obama White House 'comfortable' walking fine line on religion's place in politics"

Commentary on Eric Gorskis' article:

It is without question that religion deserves a place in the public discourse of a nation that was founded on Christian principles and the Obama Administration gets this. I am excited to see that the new administration is expanding and increasing the funding for the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Hopefully, having advisors of faith will allow for cautious moves to the left versus radical change in a liberal direction.

Having people of faith more involved in our communities will only strengthen America as a whole and instill wholesome values throughout the nation. Additionally, one policy that I do hope the Obama Administration adopts from the Bush Administration is continuing to reward federal contracts to religious groups that only hire members of their own faith. This will allow for less confusion in these organizations and more effective and decisive implementation of ideas and practices.

The four priorities of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives are admirable. According to the article, these priorities include: enlisting faith and community groups in economic recovery efforts, reducing abortions, encouraging responsible fatherhood and improving interfaith relations, including in the Muslim world. If these milestones can be achieved, it will only serve for the betterment of the United States and the world. I look to these priorities with optimism knowing that they are attainable and knowing that religion playing a role in secular life can have a profound impact on changing societal wrongs.

Thus far, Obama has done an excellent job while in office; however, there is one decision that concerns me and that is his choice to revoke the ban on funding for international groups that perform abortions or provide information on the option. This is somewhat contradictory to one of the aims of the Office of Faith Based Initiatives. I fully support Frank Page and his efforts to have the Roe v. Wade decision overturned.

As far as the Establishment Clause is concerned, I take the non-preferentialists view and believe it only to mean that the government cannot restrict aid to one preferred church/denomination, which would in turn establish it as the state religion.

Saving Religious Schools a Risk for Obama?

Why not save Catholic schools with government funds? Schools are schools, and their primary purpose is to educate this nation’s children to be productive, responsible and law-abiding citizens. To this end, President Obama’s faith-based program may be a godsend to closing Catholic educational institutions. That is what Anthony Stevens-Arroyo, Professor Emeritus of Puerto Rican and Latino Studies at Brooklyn College, argues on his Washington Post “On Faith” Feb. 8th post. To some committed separationists—and in fact to your average American tax-payer—the idea of resuscitating Catholic schools suffering from lack of financial support with tax dollars would not only be absurd, it would be downright unconstitutional, a clear establishment of religion case and an easy fail on the Lemon entanglement litmus test. Yet rescuing Catholic schools may well be on the agenda of President Obama’s much-debated faith-based initiative.

Back in July 2008, then presidential candidate Barak Obama gave a speech in Zanesville, Ohio where he announced his plan to form a “Council on Faith-Based and Community Partnerships” if elected president. Fast-forward a few months and President Obama seems to be on track to delivering on his promise. On Feb. 5^th, 2009, President Obama signed an executive order to officially establish a White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The Office includes a 25-member Advisory Council of both religious and secular leaders. Three of the Office’s four main objectives is domestically-focused, encompassing poverty-reduction, supporting women and children, reducing the need for abortions, increasing employment and promoting responsible fatherhood. Strengthening communities and achieving all these listed goals undoubtedly involves improving education. From this point precisely, arises the possibility of President Obama’s faith-based program helping Catholic schools and with it a whole jumble of constitutional and legal questions marks.

Before someone shouts out the First Amendment with fiery disbelief, let me elaborate. President Obama is not proposing that Congress should convert to Catholicism. His faith-based policies, however, would allow for Catholic schools, and other religious schools, to convert to charter schools. Charter schools are privately-run, publicly-funded schools that are not formally part of the public school districts and that have more flexibility than traditional public schools in setting teacher salaries and their curricula. Charter schools are required, however, to fulfill government-mandated educational standards and must be non-sectarian. Therefore, if a Catholic school agrees to become a charter school, it can receive government funding like any other charter school, but only for its non-religious instruction or in ways that would not be channeling public funds to directly support religious teaching. Students would have to relocate during the school day in order to take religious courses, for example, as established by Zorach v. Clausen (1952), and as has been the case with a Catholic school turned charter in Queens, NY.

Such arrangements for support of religious schools would not be a great departure from historical precedent. In 1997, the Supreme Court approved the use of federal tax funds in Agostini v. Felton to send public school teachers into parochial schools to provide remedial teaching to “at risk” students during the school day. In Mitchell et al. v. Helms (2000), the Court again approved using federal funds to aid religious schools, this time granting money for computers and library books. The famous Zelman v. Simmons-Harris case in 2002 allowed for government-issued educational vouchers to be used for student tuition even if students used the vouchers to attend private religious schools, and in fact, an overwhelming majority of them did just that.

So are faith-based charter school arrangements a good idea? Stevens-Arroyo got a lot of heat for responding to this question with a “yes.” Yet, Catholic schools and other private religious schools undeniably serve an important role in community development. They often fill a substantial gap that poorly-functioning public schools leave behind, particularly in neglected inner cities. The educational voucher program that sparked the fire of the Zelman case is proof enough that public schools alone are not getting the job done when it comes to educating under-privileged American students. Perhaps government support of private schools, including religious schools, can help give more students a better basic education, which would in turn help the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships achieve its goals of poverty-reduction and social rehabilitation.

A word of prudence must follow, however. Even if giving private religious schools a push for the sake of the greater public good is a smart move, President Obama and his Advisory Council for the faith-based Office will have to proceed with caution. Critics of the idea can quickly argue that funds would be better spent trying to improve public schools, instead of risking getting stuck in legal webs over religious schools. Whatever the case, I do not doubt that every move the Council makes—related to schools or otherwise— will be under the wide-eyed scrutiny of policy-makers, lawyers and citizens alike. If someone spots excessive entanglement of church and state, they will be sure to blow the whistle loud and clear.

Right May Be Wrong for Republican Party

In today's politics, "Republican" and "Religious Right" have become, if not quite synonyms, an inseparable pair. Thus, it is surprising to learn that many Republicans wish to sever ties with fundamentalists. An article from the January 2009 edition of the publication Church and State titled "Religious right's role in GOP questioned after November electoral defeats" reports on this growing sentiment. According to the article, many Republicans are beginning to feel that their party's association with right-wing religious groups, many of which are thought to be "fanatical" by the general public, creates more harm than good, including conservative syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker:

'"[T]he GOP has surrendered its high ground to its lowest brows," Parker wrote. "In the process, the party has alienated its non-base constituents, including other people of faith (those who prefer a more private approach to worship), as well as secularists and conservative-leaning Democrats who otherwise might be tempted to cross the aisle."'

The article points to the backlash caused by McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his VP pick as evidence of the dangers that pandering to fundamentalist citizens can create, noting that while Palin appealed to voters who identify as the religious right, the choice lost McCain the support of more moderate factions. Indeed, "'Unless the Republican Party ends its self-imposed captivity to social fundamentalists, it will spend a long time in the political wilderness.'"

In The God Strategy, David Domke and Kevin Coe analyze the way that, since the seventies, the Republican Party has tried to reach out and appeal to the Religious Right, espeecially by devoting more words of their platform to issues that religious conservatives care about, such as abortion and the definition of marriage. It seems that today, the GOP is regretting the link that it so carefully forged.

In my opinion, it wouldn't hurt the GOP to put a little distance between themselves and the Religious Right. There are a great deal of "moderate Republicans"-- economically conservative but socially liberal--who would be more likely to vote for a Republican candidate if the fundamentalist agenda wasn't part of the package deal. Although the conservative sector of America deserves to have its voice in American politics as much as any other demographic, they might get more accomplished if the party that represents their interests was not viewed as religiously extreme.

The great debate on public school education

This article is titled Debate rages over Hebrew charter school in NYC. The article discusses the controversial nature of establishing public schools that have a focus on a particular language and culture especially if that culture or language has a religious focus. In the fall of 2009 the Hebrew Language Academy charter school is expected to open in New York City. It is the second school of this nature to be established in the city and as expected the public is divided in its opinion. Those who support the charter school do so because 1. The school will use Modern Hebrew texts to teach thus it will not promote the Jewish religion. 2. The school is to be built in an area substantially populated by blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and a moderately sized population of Jews. This choice of location will supposedly increase its appeal to diverse ethnic and religious groups. On the other side of the debate critics are concerned that schools like the Hebrew charter school will transmit cultural values and identity that are non-American. This fear is best quoted in the article by Diane Ravitch a professor of education at NYU. She states that “We don’t send children to public schools to learn to be Chinese or Russian or Greek or Korean. We send them to learn to be American”. I am against schools like the Hebrew charter school not because of the ethnocentric argument that it will transmit non-American values, but because my primary concern is that by allowing schools like the Hebrew language academy to be established the state of New York risks violating the establishment clause of the First amendment. As public institutions these types of schools will receive federal funding and will thereby be subject to regulate any element of religion as part of the school curriculum. But let’s say hypothetically that teachers teach Jewish prayers to students during school hours. Is that not promotion of the Jewish religion and a violation of the separation of church and state? Isn’t the state of New York advancing religion because it funds the operation of the school? It is my opinion that the state of New York walks a fine line by approving such schools because the religious identity of the languages and cultures being taught in the schools. I think it’s better if such schools are to be established they should be private institutions to avoid such issues.

Cultural Wars of the Religious Right

In his article, The Culture Wars Are Still Not Over, Frederick Clarkson recalls claims by the political punditry in the wake of the 2000 Presidential election that the religious right was effectively dead and asserts that those who claim that the religious right is dead now are just as wrong as they were 8 years ago. He cites a 1992 speech made by Pat Buchanan at the Republican National Convention in which Buchanan declares that the United States was in the midst of a “cultural war” that will determine what we stand for as Americans. Clarkson, however, disagrees, saying that the religious right is not driving a cultural war, but indeed a religious one that manifests itself on cultural fronts, “most urgently abortion, homosexuality (especially, now, marriage equality), education privatization, and curriculum content of the public schools”.
Though some historians, such as Thomas Frank in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas, argue that the religious right has been largely unsuccessful in passing the agenda it promises, it also true that the religious right successfully passed Proposition 8 in California, rolling back civil rights legislation for homosexuals in that state. Or as Clarkson emotionally declares, the religious right effectively squashed the “court ordered advance in civil rights gained by an oppressed minority”. As such, Clarkson argues that the ‘cultural war’ the religious right claims to lead is actually a one-sided war of aggression on the civil rights of others and an effort to ‘save’ people who don’t want or need saving by slipping religious education into public schools, reinstituting what they insist is “God’s country”.
But in addition to their war-like rhetoric and moral certitude , what is particularly alarming to those who oppose the agenda of the religious right is their broadening coalition and ability to transcend their many political losses. As William Martin describes in his book With God On Our Side, the evangelical religious right, once a splintered cluster of un-unified religious groups, coalesced in the seventies around their mutual frustration of the Federal government’s so-called intrusions into their lives. Just as Protestants unified and entered politics due to a mutual sense of oppression by the national government, so now are many denominations of Christianity unifying to pass a religiously oriented political agenda. Proposition 8 did not pass in California solely as a result of evangelical efforts but indeed a broad coalition of Protestants, Roman Catholics, and Mormons worked together to pass the initiative. As such, as the religious right broadens it’s coalition, it is counter-intuitive to believe that the religious right will die anytime soon: as it withstood its many political losses, it is not likely to die out after such a momentous victory as the passing of Proposition 8.

The Pro-life Cause as a Liberal Movement for Change! Really?

Catholic Bishop Neuhaus’ review of Jon Shields’ “The Democratic Virtues of the Christian Right” gives an interesting account of the 1960s Pro-life movement as a “movement for change”. He positions the Pro-Life movement in an interesting way on the political spectrum, arguing that it is not, as it is often portrayed, a reactionary movement, instead preferring a label that seems peculiar at first glance: “an heir” of the Civil Rights movement and arguing ‘that these “conservative reactionaries” might be agents in progressive history’.
But however unexpected this connection, it may indeed have its merits. Father Neuhaus quotes Reinhold Niebuhr in his first lines, though in a different context from that in which David Chapell uses him in his analysis of the Civil Rights Movement. Indeed, Chapell seeks to answer an important contradiction that has no doubt worried civil rights activists, and particularly Dr King, as demonstrated in “Letter from Birmingham City Jail”. The question is of course about the relevance of religious questions to the political world, and the possibility of accomplishing moral ends by political means, which were seen by Niebuhr (whose writing influenced many theologians, including Dr King) as by default immoral. Father Neuhaus answered this question for himself long ago, when he co-founded “Clergy Concerned about Vietnam” and wrote his 1970 book “"Movement and Revolution”.
He does however reflect on the apparently “inevitable connection between passion and participation” and legitimizes bringing moral concerns into political debate precisely because they are able to truly mobilize people, not around a policy, a law, but about an issue they feel more strongly about. “There has simply never been a social movement of moral skeptics and doubters; only strong convictions mobilized and sustained them”, he notes; and such strong convictions are best represented in those issues where the question is not about what is legal or illegal, but about what is just or unjust (in the sense that St. Thomas Aquinas used it when he said: “An unjust law does not seem to be a law at all”).
Father Neuhaus also attempts to show that bringing morality into the political debate is not so much a prerogative of Civil Rights movements or left-wing liberals, but rather a task that the Religious Right was able to accomplish with great success. He represents the pro-choice movement as trying to maintain the status quo, unwilling to engage in informed discussion and attempting to portray its opponents as “crazy” religious zealots with which dialogue is useless. But more than that, the pro-choice are not only unwilling but also unable to lead such a debate, as they simply lack a consistent, strong position on the subject. Pro-life activists on the other hand, accomplished the task of bringing morality into politics, or more precisely religion into politics, as they thought against an establishment that was ultimately against them and an uninformed “silent majority” that was apparently mislead into supporting Row vs. Wade.
This comparison does of course have its limits, as” the heir” to the Civil Rights Movement: the Religious Right went a lot further than its predecessor in bringing religion into politics, perhaps even bringing a little too much politics into religion a it established itself not as the grassroots movement of its beginnings but as an organization with a strong political platform, seeking to not only change on certain moral issues, but long term political power, and meddling in most social issues rather than focusing only on what is strictly moral and religious.

Politics and Atheism

In his article “Barack Obama on Injecting Religion into Politics: What Role for Religion?” Austin Cline argues from the viewpoint of an agnostic. He condemns the growing tendency of politicians to use religion as a means of garnering support and feels that under no circumstances should it be acceptable for a political figure to preach on how religion connects to political issues.


I can see his point on the importance of the separation of church and state and how it may be inappropriate for a political figure to advocate environmental friendliness because the Bible says that God entrusted us to care for the earth. However, I think Cline’s judgment of religion is overly harsh. He basically considers political arguments based on religion as childish and immature. Personally, I think he has missed the point entirely. For example, the issue with abortion isn’t that God doesn’t think you should kill unborn children or that God thinks you should have a choice. What makes it religious are the moral values derived from religion which guide our decisions. Separating religion, and therefore the moral arguments, from politics is completely impractical.


In his book, “With God on Our Side,” Martin explains the rise of the Religious Right, detailing how certain leaders realized all of the untapped voting power and strong opinions of evangelicals. This could lead to the conclusion that religion may not have played a huge role in American politics previously, although it is important to remember that, as we mentioned in class the other day, many feel that our nation was founded on Christian values. Regardless, complete separation of church and state is no longer an option. Once the evangelicals got involved in the political system, they are there to stay. As Martin described, there are always more battles to fight and issues for the people to rally behind. Likewise, as Robinson pointed out to Reagan, the evangelicals don’t base their allegiance on certain people or parties, they base it on moral stands. In other words, if it weren’t for the opinions generated by religion, they would not really have set political standpoints, illustrating the inherent ties between religion and politics. Our religious beliefs, or lack thereof, help shape who we are and our political ideologies. Chances are, Cline has let his contempt for religion influence his views just as much as Christians let their religion influence their views.

All for Show?

Associated Press gives a comprehensive overview of the Obama administration’s take on religion. Though his presidency began with a heavily religious inauguration and a presidential shout out to “an awesome God,” there is reason to believe this is an attempt to woo the religious right and build unity. Obama’s support of the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, may be just another such example. Executive director Joshua Dubois states, “We are going to try to find ways to work with faith-based and community organizations that are secular in nature, and don’t cross the boundaries between church and state.” The new advisory board has four main objectives: enlisting faith and community groups in economic recovery efforts, reducing abortions, encouraging responsible fatherhood and improving interfaith relations, including in the Muslim world.

The goal of abortion reduction is an interesting compromise to gain the religious right’s support while still recognizing the legality of abortion. Obama has already taken action regarding abortion. On his fourth day in office, he ended a ban on US funds for international organizations that perform abortions or disseminate information on the option. Conservative members of the advisory board still look to overturn Roe v. Wade, but I think we can all agree that Obama’s actions indicate their pleas will fall on deaf ears. While Obama is encouraging dialogue, his actions are speaking louder than his words.

Though the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships has a number of more ideologically conservative members, it also includes liberal members such Rabbi Saperstein and an openly gay man. The diversity of board has me torn; I applaud inclusion but I doubt in the ability of the board to come to consensus.

Obama has done several things that indicate the White House Office on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships will not have a serious effect on policy. For example, he has indicated he plans to do away with federal contracts to religious groups that only hire members of their faith. Here he is showing his commitment to the establishment clause.

Despite Obama’s courting of religious groups, George points out that he has “shown a tendency to paint those who disagree with him on moral issues as divisive.” Perhaps Obama’s religious inauguration and faith-based initiatives board are simply to unify a country fragmented by religion. In the end, these proceedings may just be symbolic and have no significant effect on policy.

Separating the Cross from Christianity

The cover story in the most recent addition of Church and State Magazine, the magazine owned and operated by the Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, was titled Cross Purposes: In A Bid to Keep Religious Symbols on Public Land, Anti-Separationist Forces Have Declared the Christian Cross to be Secular. The article focuses on a conflict in San Diego regarding a Veterans’ Memorial. The Memorial is located on public land and is a 43-foot Latin cross. Veterans affiliating with both Christianity and minority religious groups have called the cross a clear violation of the First Amendment. The first lawsuit was brought against the cross in the 1980s, in which both a district and superior court ruled that the cross be removed.

The article’s author, Sandhya Bathija, tackles two main arguments in favor of maintaining the cross as a memorial to veterans. The first claim held by supporters of the cross is that the cross is representative of American patriotism, and therefore secular. I agree with Bathija that this argument is false. The cross cannot be considered secular merely because it is placed on a veteran’s memorial. The memorial is meant to represent all servicemen and women, and as Bathija points out, nearly 1/3 of the military population does not practice Christianity.

I believe the giant cross would fail Justice O’Connor’s Endorsement test as established in the Donnelly case, which states there is a violation of the First Amendment if the symbol sends a message that the government endorses or favors one religion over the others. Bathija’s article interviews non-Christian veterans who feel devalued or excluded by the cross. In addition to offending minority religious groups, many Christians have taken offense to the cross being considered a secular object that may be placed wherever public officials deem appropriate.

The second argument that Bathija tackles is why this cross is any different from the crosses seen on individual soldier’s graves. Supporters of the cross argue that soldiers who have died in battle have always been allowed to place a cross on their grave sites. The cross honors the soldier’s service for the country. They argue that the 43-foot cross is no different. Once again I agree with Bathija, that these two crosses are in fact very different. The crosses on individual graves are placed there to represent one single soldier. Families may choose what religious symbol does or does not go on the grave site. The 43-foot cross is meant to represent all veterans, and these veterans have not been given a personal choice. The Zelman case established that personal choice is an element to determining violation of the First Amendment. Because the veterans cannot choose how they are represented, I believe that the 43-foot cross should be removed from the public land. A cross is inherently Christian and to argue otherwise insults both Christians and non-Christians alike.