Every other day, my husband and I — him pushing a double SUS (sports utility stroller seating two girls) — run up Mt. Soledad, circle around the cross, admire the 360 degrees of breathtaking views and run back down. The 43-foot cross was erected atop the mountain in La Jolla 50 years ago as a veterans memorial. In 1989, a Vietnam War veteran and atheist filed a lawsuit over the mountain’s cross. In 1991, a court ordered to remove the cross from this stunning national park. But the litigation and political saga has since been going strong. Most recently, on May 3, 2006 a Federal DistrictJudge ordered the removal of the Cross in accordance with the order issued in 1991. According to the district court’s decision, beginning tomorrow, the City must remove the cross within 90 days or face fines of $5,000 per day of violation. But on July 7, Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy placed the decision on hold until the city exhausts appeals in both state and federal court. Then, two weeks ago, the House passed a bill that would preserve the by giving the land title to the federal government through eminent domain and having it administered by the Defense Department. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill before Aug. 7. The White House released a statement supporting the bill: “In the face of legal action threatening the continued existence of the current Memorial, the people of San Diegohave clearly expressed their desire to keep the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in its present form. Judicial activism should not stand in the way of the people … The Administration supports the important goal of preserving the integrity of war memorials.”
If the bill is approved, and the attorneys litigating the cross’s removal will petition the legality of imminent domain in this case, as they have stated they will do, the new U.S. Supreme Court is predicted to be more comfortable with the public display of religious symbols. As a Jewish runner who frequents the cross, my feelings are mixed about this debate. I grew up with a very different idea of state/religion separation than Americans. I think that because faith reflects the realities of so many in our society, the prohibition of any public expression of this reality can actually be rather oppressive. On the other hand, I believe that a cross as a symbol of the sacrifices of men and women sacrificing their lives for the homeland does not capture everyone’s beliefs and can indeed be experienced as excluding the many non-Christians who gave so much to their nation. The argument constructed by some supporters, that because the cross has come to symbolize the memorial it ceases to be a religious symbol, strikes me as wrong. A cross remains a cross and this one is highly visible. From a different perspective, the removal of the cross after so many years could raise more religious tensions and antagonism than necessary. A county referendum resulted in a 76 percent support of preserving the cross and the idea of removing a monument after it has become a landmark in the city can be highly disruptive. A pragmatic approach might be to leave the cross and allow other faiths to erect their own monuments nearby. Or, perhaps that is not practical at all.
Posted by Orly Lobel on July 31, 2006 at 07:20 PM
Comments
I think that Orly is right to highlight the importance of the “disruption” that various solutions to the problem might cause; after all, the most commonly accepted modern theory of the Establishment Clause is that it is meant to eliminate (or at least lessen) religious strife. But it’s important to note the asymmetry between the disruption one aims to avoid by not erecting a cross (or removing one) and the disruption one aims to avoid by leaving a standing cross in place. In the former case, the object is to keep government-endorsed religion out of the public sphere entirely in the hope that no one will feel like an outsider. In the latter case, members of minority religions and atheists are asked to grin and bear it in the name of pacifying the majority religion — a very anti-constitutional rationale. Even if removing the cross would generate a substantial amount of public antagonism, it seems hard to argue that this “anti-majoritarian” disruption should weigh heavily — much less equally — against taking such a step.
Posted by: Jonathan | Aug 2, 2006 6:23:11 PM
I understand the concern Orly raises about secularization of the public sphere (as evincing hostility toward religion rather than neutrality). But the rhetorical move made by defenders of this monument that I don’t really buy is the equation of removing religious symbols from publicly owned property with removing the presence of religion from the public sphere entirely. A world in which there were no religious monuments on publicly owned land wouldn’t be devoid of publicly visible religious symbols. Anyone driving through a city could still see churches, temples, and mosques; as well as religious symbols and monuments on privately owned land. A law banning the display of any religious symbols discernible to the public would run afoul of the concern about rampant secularization. The removal of a single religious icon on the theory that it represents government endorsement of a particular religion (which is not far from the original concern that animated the establishment clause) seems a very different matter, and not so objectionable.
Posted by: Dave | Aug 1, 2006 4:15:00 PM
thanks for these comments. i agree with ctw and anon that “oppressive” is often misused in these debates and can be distorting, and i think ctw is right to challenge the dichotomy construed by the white house of “judicial activism” and “the people”. What I meant was a much more general idea about how the two polar positions – religion merged with the public sphere and religion completely banned from the public sphere can in fact become mirror expressions of intolerance. But indeed – i was thinking merely about the polar extremes.
Posted by: Orly Lobel | Aug 1, 2006 1:27:38 PM
to elaborate on anon’s query, while the author’s good intentions are obvious and laudable, that kind of loose language aids and abets the religious extremist side of these debates (just as does the WH’s obligatory inclusion of the contemptible anti-constitutional “judicial activism vs the people” dropping in their statement). the issue, as the author must know, is expression on government property, not “public expression”. the judgment of those (anti-religious extremists?) raising a stink in this particular situation is certainly open to question, but let’s at least represent the opposing positions accurately.
Posted by: ctw | Aug 1, 2006 11:00:36 AM
But what does Mel Gibson have to say about this?
Posted by: Scott Moss | Aug 1, 2006 8:38:42 AM
The solution is to lease the land associated with the cross to whatever group is interested in keeping it. Have a plaque nearby explaining that while the cross is located within a national park, it is privately maintained and does not constitute an endorsement by the government of any religion. Other private plots could be made available to commemorate the war dead of other religious denominations.
Posted by: Bart Motes | Aug 1, 2006 2:50:18 AM
“[T]he prohibition of any public expression of this reality can actually be rather oppressive.”
Where is there a “prohibition of any public expression” of Christianity in this country?
Posted by: anon | Aug 1, 2006 1:23:54 AM
Nice post, Orly. It was really interesting to see all of the candidates this past election, weighing in on the cross. It’s become a very politicized issue.
Posted by: Kaimi | Jul 31, 2006 8:55:40 PM