The Constitutionality of Religious Memorials on Public Property

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, the largest national non-profit organization which actively promotes the separation of church and state, claimed that a memorial cross that was implanted in the Seneca water treatment plant functions as the government's unconstitutional establishment of religion. A construction worker was inadvertently killed on the job. Consequently, the city of Seneca inserted a cross in the rock wall, using the same type of stones to do so, which made the cross almost indistinguishable. In addition to the cross' concealment in the wall, the wall is located behind a building at the end of a dead-end street, making the cross completely unnoticeable from the street. The city of Seneca asserts that the cross is meant to serve the sole purpose of commemorating a construction worker who suffered and died on the job. An objection sent to the city of Seneca's manager, Greg Dietterick, said that due to the fact that the memorial is exhibited on public grounds, the city must show religious neutrality in its means of honoring the deceased. The Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed several other complaints regarding the government's failure of separating church from state. In recent news, although they were unsuccessful in their efforts, the non-profit organization accused the Clemson University football coach of endorsing a team philosophy that violated the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. In another case, the organization was successful in creating a policy that banned prayer during meetings at the Pickens County School Board.

In this case, the organization claims that the city's use of a Latin cross is considered to be "a sectarian religious statement." To make matters worse, the cross implanted in the rock wall has no plate, inscription, or other sign of its argued purpose- commemorating someone's life rather than the city's establishment of Christianity. Additionally, The Freedom From Religion Foundation states that if the city of Seneca did include some sort of marking on the cross to make it appear as a memorial for the worker, the cross would still be unconstitutional. They argue that the reasoning behind this claim is that a federal court previously decided that crosses along a road that clearly honored the deceased were "unconstitutional, despite being privately maintained and despite the government disclaiming them." In addition, the symbol of the Latin cross is intrinsically religious. The irrefutable message of endorsing Christianity that the cross carries outweighs anyone's claim that the symbol of the cross is being merely used for a secular purpose. This raises the question- does the cross memorial that is displayed on public property serve as the city of Seneca's advancement of a particular religion and thus violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment?

Although not explicitly stated in the article, I believe that the federal court's decision that the Freedom From Religion Foundation is referring to is concerning the Mount Soledad controversy in San Diego, California. In 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a memorial cross was unconstitutional due to it being a "distinctly Christian symbol." However, in July of 2015, after twenty five years of litigation and controversy, the United States Department of Defense sold the piece of public land on which the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial was located. I strongly believe that the case in Seneca should be treated the same way as the case in San Diego was. Although one may argue that the memorial cross embedded in the rock wall is barely noticeable and is not even visible from the road, the city's action of displaying a Latin cross on public property, regardless of its "secular purpose" is still considered unconstitutional and should be viewed as a violation of the establishment clause. The reason why it should be deemed unconstitutional is it being located on public, not private property. The display of a religious symbol on public land is a symbol of the government's advancement of that religion. There are other ways that the government can display a memorial for the construction worker that are religiously neutral. The city of Seneca could have easily embedded a stone in the wall with an "in loving memory" plague to commemorate the worker's life and commitment to the community. This would have still achieved the secular purpose of the memorial without creating any religious controversy.