Finally, in 2006, it seems like that lawsuit may finally be drawing to a close. Again.
The case has actually be ruled on many times. And every time, the verdict has been the same: the cross is unconstitutional. This decision was handed down in 1991.
But it seems some people just don't learn.
The decision was appealed in 1993 to the 9th circuit court, and was granted a hearing en banc in which all of the 28 judges in the court vote. The unanimous decision was that the cross was still unconstitutional.
But a little thing like that won't stop people from trying. So in 1994, the land that the cross rests on was sold for $24,000 to the Mt. Soledad Association. However, this sale was deemed unconstitutional under California's constitution due to the fact that the city did not solicit bids from other buyers and had sold it directly to the Mt. Soledad Association who had expressed that their desire was to keep the cross intact.
So they tried again in 1998. This time, five bids were solicited, and again, it was sold to the Mt. Soledad Association. However, this was again found unconstitutional because California's constitution prevents "government from affording any financial advantage or subsidy to religion."
But if at first you don't succeed, waste more time and taxpayer money. In 2004 the land was again transferred. This time to the US Department of the Interior. As if having the federal government own a giant cross didn't violate any constitutional provisions. However, this transfer was halted by a judge's order until the matter was settled.
But land transfers aren’t the only route the city has taken. In 1999, an attempt was made to declare it a war memorial thinking that would somehow prevent it from being religious. But the judges didn’t fall for it and noted that, since its creation, no commemoration to fallen soldiers has ever been performed, only Easter celebrations. Nor is it identified on maps as a war memorial. A 1985 map identified it as the “Mt. Soledad Easter Cross.”
Finally, in 2006, a federal judge announced that the cross must be removed by August 1, or the city will face a $5,000 fine per day.
So again, the city is looking to transfer the land to the federal government. I’m not sure how they haven’t learned that this doesn’t work. In addition, another appeal has been placed to the Supreme Court.
But who is it that’s behind this? Why it’s none other than the Thomas More Law Center. You know, the group that was confident they could win the Dover Intelligent Design case. We’ll just have to wait and see if their legal expertise is any better in this case.
Duncan Hunter (R) is one of those that just doesn’t seem to get the message. On June 26, he introduced a bill to try to hand the land off to the Defense Department. He recently said:
The fight to save the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial is not about religion. It’s about protecting a symbol of our freedom and honoring those who have chosen to defend it at all costs. Removing this long recognized and respected landmark is an insult to the men and women memorialized on its walls and the service and sacrifice of those who have worn a uniform in defense of our nation.What I want to know is how this fight isn’t about religion? The land wasn’t made a war memorial until 10 years after the lawsuit was filed. Additionally, is it not an insult to memorialize those who have fought and died for our country that are not Christian, by representing them with an explicitly Christian symbol? Furthermore, how does removing the cross have anything to do with the semicircular walls on which the soldiers plaques are placed?
Darrell Issa, a fellow sponsor of Hunter’s bill, recently said that the founding fathers did not envision a nation “devoid of religious expression”. I have to agree with this but note that they did envision one in which religion was not supported by the government, hence the first amendment.
Jay Sekulow, chief council of the ACLJ (the right wing, Christian version of the ACLU), recently said that
This unprecedented rush to remove the cross is senseless and we believe there should be adequate time to permit the appeals process to unfold.Seriously. Isn’t 17 years long enough?
6 comments:
Great summation of a case which is in itself a great summation of where the country is on this issue at the moment. I'm glad you note the failed and ultimately, for the Christian right, embarrasing Dover case. And that hooey about the war memorial--all of it tells me these people are desperate. And that's a good thing. They lost big on gay marriage (not to mention non-religious issues like Guantanamo and flag burning). They feel the tide turning against them.
A nice thing to celebrate on the 4th.
I have to agree that they do realize that the special privlidges they've held for the past 200 years are finally being reduced.
Let's not forget the other telltale signs: the branding of every judge that actually sticks to the constitution as "activist", the sudden importance of public prayer to reassure one another, the attempts to try to hide what they can in other forms (read: ID) before it's too late...
Honestly, I would feel sorry for the poor bastards if they weren't so self righteous about the whole thing. But it's really like watching a child get caught with his hand in the cookie jar pretending he's not doing it and has never done it in the past. Do they really think we're that stupid?
"unprecedented rush to remove the cross"
That's pretty funny, considering.
However, in keeping with my skills playing devil's advocate (no religious allusion intended), I want to mention a couple other cultural forces at work here.
La Jolla, pronounced La Hoy' Yuh, is a famously rich and insular community that is in love with it's identity. This extends out to San Diego as a whole, of which La Jolla is a part.
La Jolla, like many other communities who once long ago stuck crosses into the tops of their mountains all over the country, see the structure as part of its core identity, not so much for its religious symbolism but for its imagery and history. (And this comment is not in any way attempting to diminish the plain fact that in large part the city-wide effort to save the cross is a "fundamentally" religious effort). It's relationship to the town is like the gigantic Jesus statue overlooking Rio de Janeiro, which incidentally was constructed at roughly the same time as the cross overlooking La Jolla.
I think that if an obelisk had been placed atop the mountain 80 years ago the community would be just as adamant about preserving it for the ages. The religious zeolotry of course would not be a part of it so most of the political zing would be lost too. But then again, nobody would be suing to remove an obelisk.
When the firestorm developed about 15 years ago I remember thinking that although I am a staunch defender of the separation of church and state, this issue appeared kind of senseless to me. Busy-body-ish.
If I were the cross defender crowd, I would probably have long ago realized the futility of the fight at hand; they should just lop off the horizontal extentions and leave the tower.
Is that a win-win or a lose-lose?
Interesting to hear more of the cultural background to this story.
However, being in love with one's self image doesn't make a cross any less of a Christian symbol. If La Jolla is so terribly self absorbed, I find it a bit depressing that they can't find something else to take pride and identify with besides a giant cement cross.
Not that being proud of religious heratidge is a bad thing. However, there's no reason that the government should be paying for your religious monuments.
If the land transfers could be done in a constitutional manner, I would have absolutely no problem with a cross over the city. However, as long as the government is the one picking up the tab, religious iconery is unacceptable, regardless of the rationalizations.
Interesting to hear more of the cultural background to this story.
However, being in love with one's self image doesn't make a cross any less of a Christian symbol. If La Jolla is so terribly self absorbed, I find it a bit depressing that they can't find something else to take pride and identify with besides a giant cement cross.
Not that being proud of religious heratidge is a bad thing. However, there's no reason that the government should be paying for your religious monuments.
If the land transfers could be done in a constitutional manner, I would have absolutely no problem with a cross over the city. However, as long as the government is the one picking up the tab, religious iconery is unacceptable, regardless of the rationalizations.
"unprecedented rush to remove the cross"
That's pretty funny, considering.
However, in keeping with my skills playing devil's advocate (no religious allusion intended), I want to mention a couple other cultural forces at work here.
La Jolla, pronounced La Hoy' Yuh, is a famously rich and insular community that is in love with it's identity. This extends out to San Diego as a whole, of which La Jolla is a part.
La Jolla, like many other communities who once long ago stuck crosses into the tops of their mountains all over the country, see the structure as part of its core identity, not so much for its religious symbolism but for its imagery and history. (And this comment is not in any way attempting to diminish the plain fact that in large part the city-wide effort to save the cross is a "fundamentally" religious effort). It's relationship to the town is like the gigantic Jesus statue overlooking Rio de Janeiro, which incidentally was constructed at roughly the same time as the cross overlooking La Jolla.
I think that if an obelisk had been placed atop the mountain 80 years ago the community would be just as adamant about preserving it for the ages. The religious zeolotry of course would not be a part of it so most of the political zing would be lost too. But then again, nobody would be suing to remove an obelisk.
When the firestorm developed about 15 years ago I remember thinking that although I am a staunch defender of the separation of church and state, this issue appeared kind of senseless to me. Busy-body-ish.
If I were the cross defender crowd, I would probably have long ago realized the futility of the fight at hand; they should just lop off the horizontal extentions and leave the tower.
Is that a win-win or a lose-lose?
Post a Comment