Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-1717_4f14.pdf
Page Number: 77.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

11 

GINSBURG,  J., dissenting 

and State Comm. v. Eugene, 93 F. 3d 617, 626 (CA9 1996) 
(O’Scannlain, J., concurring in result) (“[T]he City’s use of 
a cross to memorialize the war dead may lead observers to 
believe that the City has chosen to honor only Christian 
veterans.”). 
  The Peace Cross is no exception.  That was evident from 
the start.  At the dedication ceremony, the keynote speaker 
analogized  the  sacrifice  of  the  honored  soldiers  to  that 
of Jesus Christ, calling the Peace Cross “symbolic of Cal-
vary,” App. 449, where Jesus was crucified.  Local report-
ers  variously  described the monument as “[a] mammoth 
cross, a likeness of the Cross of Calvary, as described in 
the Bible,” id., at 428; “a monster [C]alvary cross,” id., at 
431; and “a huge sacrifice cross,” id., at 439.  The charac-
ter of the monument has not changed with the passage of 
time. 

C 
  The Commission nonetheless urges that the Latin cross 
is a “well-established” secular symbol commemorating, in 
particular, “military valor and sacrifice [in] World War I.”  
Brief for Planning Commission 21.  Calling up images of 
United States cemeteries overseas showing row upon row 
of cross-shaped gravemarkers, id., at 4–8; see ante, at 4–5, 
21–22;  Brief  for  United States as Amicus Curiae 26, the 
Commission  overlooks  this reality: The cross was never 
perceived  as  an  appropriate  headstone  or  memorial  
for  Jewish  soldiers  and  others  who  did  not  adhere  to 
Christianity. 

1 
  A page of history is worth retelling.  On November 11, 
1918, the Great War ended.  Bereaved families of Ameri-

—————— 

Cty., 781 F. 2d 777, 782 (CA10 1985) (county seal depicting Latin cross) 
(“[T]he  seal  . . .  conveys  a  strong  impression  to  the  average  observer 
that Christianity is being endorsed.”).