I just read this article about the American Humanist Association's (AHA) failed suit to remove a Maryland war memorial because it's in the shape of a cross. I've been a member and supporter of the AHA for many years and will continue to be, but I have mixed feelings about their position on this issue.
Sure, that cross is clearly a Christian religious symbol. One can make a solid legal argument, as the AHA did, that it should not be on public land as that can be construed as government endorsement of a particular religion. However, I'm wondering if challenging a decades-old war memorial is really a good idea. This memorial has been there for nearly a century and commemorates World War I soldiers. How many people passing by even notice it let alone fixate on its Christian symbolism?
I fear that challenging monuments erected decades ago, particularly those honoring war dead, makes us secularists look petty, trite and mean-spirited. These monuments have become part of the history of the communities in which they stand and frankly, I don't have a problem with them.
I think we should challenge the construction of any new monuments on public lands or with public funds that contain religious imagery because they violate the values of our time, but we should not challenge ones that were erected in a different era. They reflect the values and social norms of their time, outdated as those values and norms may now be. I think that we should avoid aggravating people over small, historical things like this and focus on the bigger matters of today. Issues such as protecting reproductive rights, fighting religious discrimination, keeping religious doctrine out of politics and public institutions, defending science, etc. are crucially important in the here and now. A local and little-known 90 year old war memorial is not.
