Serious question, not an argument. The gravestones in military cemeteries have religious imagery on them, and no one seems to think that's an issue. How does this cross differ?

Somewhat less seriously, does this mean that the VFW could get out of this litigation by burying someone underneath this cross and calling it a headstone?

Military cemeteries allow any kind of religious symbol; if the dead soldier is a Christian, they put in a cross. If he's Jewish, they can put up a Star of David.

In this case, the government actually forbade a Buddhist group from putting up their own symbol. That was one of the problems that got this case started.

Military cemetaries have crosses for headstones on the Christian soldier's graves and Star of David symbols on the Jewish soldier's graves and as I saw this year when I visited Arlington Cemetary they has a Muslim star and crescent on the graves of Islamic soldier's graves.

Stop being so provincial. I am serious.

As posted in a different thread, here is an article about a US Wiccan soldier getting the pentacle put on his grave marker. Anyone against that?

<link>

So if they allowed other symbols around this cross, there'd be no issue?

Come to think about it, is that how the cases about nativity scenes tend to get resolved?

The short answer to your question is yes, but that is a really dumb outcome. The court's prevailing jurisprudence holds that religious symbols are ok as long as other religious symbols are also permitted. This means that nativity scenes are permissible as long as a menorah is present as well. How this compels a different conclusion under the endorsement test is beyond me.

ridesq:

The Constitution prohibits the passing of a law that would establish a state religion.
We have enough trouble with that phrase without expanding it to an "endorsement test". I can see the Catholic Church contributing a large sum to state X in exchange for a series of large billboards saying - Catholics are OK, check 'em out.

I like the idea of a stone soldier symbolizing the fallen. Fact is they come from all walks of life including Atheist's like myself. The first amendment is very clear on the topic and considering all who served have taken the oath to protect and defend it, should be respected by all who have survived by their sacrifice. That, or allow all dogma's and those of none to erect a memorial. Wonder what kind of reaction would ensue when Atheists erect their memorial?

Is the soldier's weapon planted in the ground with his helmet (or shield in the case of earlier conflicts) on top of the weapon.

Seeing how this is a memorial specifically for World War I heroes, how fitting would it be for the memorial to use the helmet and weapon contemporary to that war as the symbol. Quite honestly, if I saw that memorial I would know instantly what it represented.

A cross in the middle of the desert? Perfectly meaningless symbol in a perfectly meaningless context.

Yes, it was customary in WW2 as well and is easily recognized as you said. Good idea.

if you are buried in Arlington. Wouldn't it be far better for the VFW to come up with a more appropriate symbol for the WWI veterans rather than requiring them to represent everyone?

I thought that the weapon/helmet symbol as an alternative.

Flanders Field has the symbols. Arlington just has the plain curved stones for everyone unless they've started offering choices now.

Looks like they have!

<link>

Trebuchet:

if you are buried in Arlington. Wouldn't it be far better for the VFW to come up with a more appropriate symbol for the WWI veterans rather than requiring them to represent everyone?

I thought that the weapon/helmet symbol as an alternative.

Excellent idea, Trebuchet.

bsharporflat:

Looks like they have!

<link>

Thanks. I stand corrected and enlightened.