Eagle Scout Project Creates Controversy Over the Establishment Clause

     A veteran’s memorial was asked to be removed due to the religious inscription that draws controversy to the establishment of religion. The memorial was an Eagle Scout project that Michael Carlson, 16 years old, invested two years of fundraising and dedication to properly acknowledge the military sacrifice of veterans who serve and protect the United States of America. The memorial was revealed on October 3, 2020 and is located inside Monument Cemetery in Colorado. The majority of the funding was donated by the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars) foundation in addition to contributions from scouts and leaders of Boy Scout Troop 8 of Matthias Episcopal Church. Since the revealing of the monument, members of the town have voiced their criticisms in relation to the unconstitutionality of the inscription that violates the establishment clause. Locals believe that the monument acts as a public testament of religious coercion. The inscription on the memorial is “Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you, Jesus Christ and the American soldier. One died for your soul, the other died for your freedom. We honor those who made freedom a reality."

Mikey Weinstein, the founder of Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), is currently seeking the removal of the memorial as it stands as a "blatant violation of the constitution.” Weinstein’s mission by creating the MRFF is to “restore the obliterated wall separating church and state” by focusing on the dynamic between religion and the United States armed forces. The memorial is not representing the veterans who are not of Christian faith, creating a barrier between the federal government and those who serve. Weinstein is of Jewish faith and believes that there is a state of religious intolerance that exists within the United States armed forces, stemming from the systemic dismissal of the constitution. 

On February 23, 2021 Weinstein wrote a letter to the mayor of  Monument, Don Wilson, expressing the unconstitutionality of the veterans memorial that is in violation of the establishment clause. In his letter Weinstein writes that the veteran memorial is being used to promote the Christian faith through the financial investment of taxpayer dollars. Weinstein continues to write, “The obviously and incontrovertibly sectarian, Christian proselytizing message of that Veterans Memorial would be absolutely fine in a private cemetery, but in a publicly maintained and controlled cemetery, as in this instant matter, it is quite unconstitutional and illegal.” The establishment clause is supposed to promote a secular relationship between the federal government and its people; however, the veterans memorial dismisses secular rule by establishing Christianity within a major part of the federal government, the armed forces. Weinstein as actively stated that if the town of Monument does not take proper action, then he will be a federal lawsuit that addresses the unconstitutionality of the memorial.

In response to the issue, a former scout master Andy Meyer of New Mexico, stated "The project clearly was one sided and didn't take into account all the many faiths or atheists of the great men and women who sacrificed their entire life to serve the United States of America and are buried there." The majority of the opinions that are opposing the display of the memorial are stemming from the idea that the verbiage of inscription is creating a religious establishment by including the word God.

The Supreme Court case The American Legion v. American Humanist Association (2019) has proven that the image of the cross does in fact obtain a secular meaning and it does not directly correlate to the establishment of religion. This case was argued on similar grounds as Weinstein’s concerns when in 1918 there was a World War I memorial that stood as a 40 foot cross that offended many non-Christian residents in Maryland. The American Humanist Association intervened by stating that the memorial is unconstitutional since the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission would have to financially maintain the memorial that is a religious symbol. The ruling was 7-2 in favor of the American Legion explaining that the image of a cross has evolved to embrace a secular meaning. The majority opinion also mentioned that the Lemon test (established to prevent violations of the establishment clause in 1971) cannot be accurately applied to religious monuments. The court saw the memorial as a monument to endorse the historical significance of World War I, not to promote Christianity. Justice Ginsburg and Justice Sotomayor wrote the dissenting opinion explaining that the most popular symbol of Christianity is the cross and using it as a war memorial does not change the religious association. There is an unconstitutional action by the state of Maryland by continuously maintaining a religious symbol on public land. 

    The veteran memorial in Monument, Colorado and the memorial in Maryland are analogous to one another as they are both a publicly display a religious symbol/inscription in relation to an United States veterans memorial that was funded by taxpayers. Weinstein is arguing that the United States armed forces, a prominent branch of the federal government, is establishing a common religion by using crosses or the word 'God' to associate the service of soldiers. The majority opinion from American Legion v. American Humanist Association is in fact applicable to the veteran memorial that was fundraised by Michael Carlson because it does not have the primary purpose to enforce a religious cause or force people to advance in any religious action. The main intention of the memorial was to honor the service of veterans from a boy who has multiple family members who served in the United States military. It is all important to consider that the majority of the donations came from the VFW foundation and not a religious establishment like a church. In addition those who did donate did not have to financially contribute to the memorial, but rather they were exercising a personal freedom. Weinstein leaves a question that has shifted the understanding of the First Amendment, who has the right to declare the intention of displaying a religious symbol or the usage of the word God?