Are Church-State Separatists Right to Call This Christian Cross a Constitutional Violation?

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) may be preparing for yet another battle over the presence of a cross on public property. This time, the scene of the debate is Middleborough, Massachusetts, where a large, brick cross with the word "worship" present on it is creating angst among secularists who view it as an overt constitutional violation.

The structure, which was built on a traffic island by the Middleborough Kiwanis Club back in 1959, is considered -- unofficially -- to be a historic landmark by residents and local leaders, alike. The cross, which measures 12 feet in height by seven feet in width, includes a Kiwanis emblem at its base. It was originally conceived and advocated for decades ago by the Rev. Francis Schlater, a faith leader who is now deceased.

While many locals support the cross' presence, a lawyer who drove past it a few months ago decided to file a complaint with the state's Department of Transportation (DOT). The roadside religious symbol, he contends, violates the separation of church and state.

The battle is shaping up to be a complicated one, with the Kiwanis Club doubling down on its defense of the cross. Local officials, too, hold a positive view of the symbol and, thus far, seem to be defending it. But the state, which owns a portion of the traffic island, reportedly wants the town to remove it. The ACLU, naturally, agrees with this stance and is siding against Kiwanis.

The civil liberties group, infamous for fighting religious displays on public property, is hoping that the town simply moves the cross to private property. Or, ACLU attorney Sarah Wunsch claims that another option would be to open up the island to all religious expression -- an action that would force local officials to allow any and all faith messages to accompany the cross.

But while Wunsch, who says that the town "has a problem," stands firmly opposed to the cross in its current form, others, like Jane Lopes, the chairwoman of Middleborough's Historical Commission, claim that the symbol was originally intended to be non-denominational.

“It was meant to encompass all faiths,” Lopes said. "The dedication was non-denominational, and it was hoped people of all faiths would take this in the spirit in which it was intended.”

Kiwanis Club president Robert Kinney, too, seems surprised by the anonymous lawyer, who has such major issues with the cross' presence. In an interview with EnterpriseNews.com, Kinney voiced concerns over demands that it be moved and claimed that the cross can't be relocated without destroying it.