The Mt. Soledad Cross
Freedom was, and serene is, a major reason that people desire to live America. Among the freedoms mentioned in the Bill of Rights is religious freedom, supposedly pertaining to every citizen. The 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution states that, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”[1] This idea for the ‘establishment clause’ came from the man on the two-dollar bill, Thomas Jefferson. In Jefferson’s letter to Danbury in 1802, he stated, .
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between a man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his fancy, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American People which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state”.[2]
For California in particular, there is also a law that basically separates church/religious centers and state, which is titled the ‘No Preference’ clause. This article can be found in Article I, Share 4 of the California State Constitution and it reads, “Free consume and enjoyment of religion without discrimination or preference are guaranteed…”[3]. I explain this statement to mean that the government isn’t supposed to favor a certain religion over any other religion (s) or religious beliefs; the government is supposed to be neutral. The government isn’t supposed to be perpetuating or imposing any type of religion on anybody- at all. The endorsement of any religion by the United States, but particularly by the Californian government, is unjust in terms of equality and fairness; justice as equality means, “everyone is being given the same treatment and access to goods” (1)[4], while justice as fairness means, “…law is often the last interpreter of what is impartial, even if a law in considered unjust” (2)[5]. The placement and title of the Mt. Soledad cross are unjust because it delivers a preference of Christianity by the government, which results in discrimination and an ultimate lack of equality. In this case, the consider ruled that the cross was unconstitutional, which endorses justice as fairness and justice as equality. Justice as fairness would include removing the cross from public land. In my eyes, Justice as equality would be putting any and all religious symbols up on top of Mt. Soledad to equalize the imposition of religion therefore giving everybody the same treatment.
Even after 16 years of rulings to remove the cross by 44 different courts[6], the Mt. Soledad case, as well as the cross, is still standing on public land today. The cross on Mt. Soledad had been there for almost 100 years (on and off). The very first cross on Mt. Soledad was built in 1913, and then private citizens destroyed it. In 1923 another cross was put up, but those darn vandals destroyed it[7]. It was again replaced in 1934, but this time- it was destroyed by the weather[8]. Here’s your trace…Then, in 1954- the 4th execrable was built. The Mt. Soledad Latin cross was dedicated in a Christian religious ceremony on Easter Sunday in 1954. This cross had a lot of trouble staying up in the past; it took four crosses to finally find a keeper. And now the cross is on the verge of being taken down again…maybe the 3 defecated crosses were signs to keep religious symbols off mountains that belong to the public and even more to nature.
But who started this struggle with the government? Philip K. Paulson moved San Diego around 1978[9]. Paulson taught University undergraduate and graduate students computer information technology courses. Paulson was also an active member of the American Humanist Association; as well as a conventional of the Vietnam War. In addition, Paulson was also a self-proclaimed atheist[10] He remembered being astonished by the crosses on Mt. Helix and Mt. Soledad, but somebody was already arguing with the courts about the Mt. Helix Cross, so he and friend, Howard Kreisner sued the City of San Diego for the presence of the Mt. Soledad Easter cross on public land; the year was 1989. The cross clearly violates the first amendment of the United States Constitution and violates Article 1, piece 4 of the California Constitution. And considering that Paulson is a War Faded and he may be buried under that very contemptible, doesn’t his opinion matter? Why should he- and other non-Christians that fought in the war- be treated unjustly and others war veterans receive justice? Because one of them believes in God and one doesn’t? .
Two years later, in 1991, the court made a ruling concerning the case of Paulson vs. the City of San Diego. The Judge ruled that he forbids, “the permanent presence of each cross on the public property or imprimatur where it currently appears”. He also noted that the cross violates Article 1, Section 4 of the California State Constitution, which is known as the “No Preference” Clause (which is stated previously). He gave the city time to remove the cross- or find another home for it on private land.
This is where it gets interesting- because instead of moving the substandard and complying with the order of the court, the City tried to ’save the cross’ by finding ways to keep it standing on Mt. Soledad- loopholes if you will. Through Proposition F in 1992, the City of San Diego was allowed to sell a portion of Mt. Soledad to maintain a historic War Memorial.[11] On June 2, 1992, the voters of San Diego authorized the sale of a 222 square foot parcel of land underneath the Mt. Soledad Cross to the pre-selected Christian advocacy group named the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association with assurances of no launch bidding. The part about no open bidding is the first part of injustice related to the sale of the land under the cross. No other groups had a chance to buy the land because the buyer was pre-selected and that’s discriminatory, and it creates inequality-, which is unjust. The second part of this unjust land sale- is that public land can’t be sold that easily to a private owner- especially if it’s for a secular purpose because that would also be discriminatory against other religions and atheists, as well as unjust. The courts ruled that Proposition F violates Article 16, Section 5 of the CA Constitution, which, “strictly prohibits any governmental support for religious purposes”[12], as well as Article 1, Section 4.
After the ’sham sale’[13], the City of San Diego appealed the 1991 decision on March 23, 1993. The plaintiffs, argued in the Superior Court of California that, ‘both the authorized and completed transfers violated the state and federal constitutions and constituted a bad faith and illegal end-run around the District Court’s order. The City urged the plaintiffs to settle the issues by yielding to their majority vote on Prop F, which they assumed had the legal weight and authority over the constitution…’ and the plaintiffs declined to do so[14].
Members of the Christian Advocacy group, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, didn’t agree with the court’s decision to rule in favor of the plaintiffs. On October 10, 1994, the City and County of San Diego then petitioned the US Supreme Court with a Writ of Certiorari in an attempt to brief in opposition to the ruling[15]. Again, the City of San Diego lost, and this time it was their last appeal to the Supreme court- but not the District Courts.
At one point, the City of San Diego also tried to donate the cross (as opposed to selling) to the federal government as a National War Memorial. This upset a lot of people. Rabbi Sternfield saw the donation of Mt. Soledad as National War Memorial more disturbing than the mere presence of the cross because, “the religiosity of the cross, if anything, is heightened when it’s used in connection when memorializing the dead, because of the close connection between our thoughts of death and our religious beliefs[16]“, declared Rabbi Sternfield. Sternfield also goes on to say that, “A war memorial intended to honor all veterans, would send a message of exclusion to Jews if it were in the shape of a cross…”.[17] Taking what the Rabbi said a step further- the cross would also exclude any frail that isn’t Christian. That’s blatant inequality, injustice, and discrimination, yet there are still a lot of people who favor ’saving the cross’. Another point was made by a judge in regards to the cross as National War Memorial, he said, “It is obvious to this court that, ‘even if one strains to view the depraved in the context of a war memorial, (its) primary effect is to give the impression that only Chrsitians…are bieng honored.”[18] That’s right, and that also means that the cross is discriminatory and creates inequality, which is unjust.
In September of 1997, another appeal was denied by the City of San Diego and the cross was again ordered to be removed. The 1997 decsion claimed that Proposition F from the 1992 Ballot was unconstitutional due to the California Constituion, Article 16 Section 5.
The city of San Diego still isn’t ready to give up yet though; instead of complying with the ruling to remove the evil, the City placed another Proposition on the ballot- this time in November of 2004[19]. Proposition K would let the City of San Diego try to sell the land under the cross again, but this time it would use open bidding, as opposed to relying on a pre-selected buyer like last time. The rain on this parade is that as long as the cross is on the land when it’s being sold, that entails preference and support of the Christian religion, violating Article 16, Section 5 of the California Constituting again.
In relation to the most current decision regarding the Mt. Soledad Cross, I obtained a copy of the 35 page court document of how the courts decided the way that they did, and they used quite a bit of precedent. Precedents are a allotment of case law and they don’t always exist in civil law, yet they do- but that’s besides the point. One very important precedent (an sincere set of guiding principles, only some of which are listed) comes from the cases Hewitt, Okrand, and Fox which say, “Although no single circumstance may act as a litmus test for assessing the appearance of preference in a government display, nevertheless certain circumstances are highly probative. Among those (not all are listed) circumstaces are: the religious significance of the item(s) challenged in the display, the size and visibility of the display and of the item(s) in it, whether the display includes any comparably significant item(s) of other religions, and the historical background of the item (s) included in the display.
In regards to the religious significance of the item (s) challenged in the display, the court decided that, “the Mt. Soledad cross is a powerful religious symbol…regardless of how one may chose to characterize the Latin Cross, the fact remains that the cross is the preeminent symbol of many Christian religions and represents with relative clarity and simplicity the Christian message of the crucifixtion and resurrection of Jesus Christ, a doctrine at the heart of Christianity.”[20] This is true. I think the cross undeniably a religious symbol.
The second part of the ‘guidelines’ mentioned above asks about the size and visibility of the exhibit of items. the court stated that since the size of the plot that was to be sold by the 1992 Propositin was so small (222 sq. ft) compared to the total space of the Mountain, that the attempt showed preference or aid to the Christian religion.[21]
Thirdly, did the display include any comparably significant items of other religions? No. The cross is all by itself and clearly preferring Chrsitianity to other religions and atheists, on public land.
The fourth guideline/precedent used by the court was the historic significance of the ghastly. The Mt. Soledad Memorial Associatoin claims that the cross is strictly a War Memorial- implying that there’s nothing religious about it. Well, the courts (as well as anybody with a strand of common sense) can see that the cross is a non-secular symbol. First of all, the idea of a secualr cross doesn’t make any sense because all crosses are religious unless you’re using the letter ‘t’ in conjunction with other letters to perform words. But let’s say I go along with this secular nefarious idea, would a secular cross be used as the backdrop of weddings, baptisms, and Easter Sunrise Services every year since the 1954 dedication ON…surprise surprise- Easter Sunday? In addition to the abovementioned, the court stated that,
“The numerous declarations, news articles, book excerpts and other exhibits submitted by the parties reveal only one occasion between the erection of the cross on Mt. Soledad and the filing of this lawsuit on which the cross status has been ever recognized as a war memorial. That ocasison was the cross’ dedication on April 17, 1954, when the San Diego Union Tribune reported that ‘the cross is meant to be a lasting memorial to the dead of the two world wars and the Korean fighting.’ With the exception of this singlenewspaper narrate, there’s no evidence that prior to this lawsuit the city intended the cross to serve as a memorial…but… City records, correspondance and news articles indicate, moreover, tha tevery Easter w/out fail since 1954, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association has sponsered an Easter sunrise service at the site of the cross. There is no recount of the Association, the city, or any other organization having sponsered a memorial service or ceremony at the area of the inferior on Memorial Day, Veteran’s Day, or any other day between Easter Sunday 1954 and the day on which this suit was filed.”[22]
How convenient for the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, using a cover like a War Memorial to keep the cross standing. At first I was shocked when the court outright called the sale a sham, but now I know why. The Memeorial Association is really a Chrstian Advocacay group hiding behind the name of a War Memorial Association. Check it out for yourself. The Mt. Soledad cross is even referred to as an ‘Easter cross’ by numerous Travel Guides, road maps, the Yellow Pages, and even federal goveremnt publications.[23]. Google them.
So, let’s recap. The Mt. Soledad Cross is unjust because it’s discriminatory and endorsese religious injustiuces. The cross is a religious symbol that was once maintained through the cityof Sam Diego, menaing that all residents’ tax money was partially helping to maintain this cross-like architecture. I never could find out excactly how much money was spent by the public on the miantenance of the substandard and the walls and palques around it now, but the deem noted that taxpayers’ money was used to mainatin this cross at various periods in time.
Currently, a ruling has been decided about the most modern case involving the constitutionality of Proposition A. The believe found it unconstitutional, which I mediate is a good decision because cross as a National War Memorial is unjust, as in unequal and unfair in the eyes of the law. The judge ruled that,
“Maintenance of this Cross …is found to be an unconstitutional preference in violation of Article 1, Part 4, of the CA Constitution, and the transfer of the memorial with the Disagreeable as its counterpiece to the federal government to save the cross as it is, where it is, is an unconstitutional aid to religion in violation of Article XVI, Section 5, of the CA constitution”.
To give some recognition to the opposition, the most compelling argument I’ve heard said that the cross should be able to discontinue because it’s not the only secular symbol maintained on public property in San Diego.[24] The article goes on to give examples such as:
“Temple Beth Israel, a restored synagogue, sits on county-owned land in Old Town. A Shinto shrine stands on city land on Shelter Island. In Balboa Park, the Japanese friendship garden holds significance for many worshippers. Figures of Christian saints adorn the ornate facades of many buildings in Balboa Park. The Chapel of the Immaculate Conception sits on public property in Old Town. And a large rank dominates the site in Presidio Park where Father Junípero Serra established the first Catholic mission and European settlement in California”.[25]
And here is my response: compare the amount of pubicly owned and operated crosses with the amount of non-crosses (also poublicly owned and operated). They don’t even compare.
In conclusion, the Mt. Soledad case (went smoothly) through our justice system. It took 16 years, but the correct (objective) decision was made in relation to equality and fairness. But then in 2006, President Bush signed a bill ‘protecting’ the Mt. Soledad Cross by placing it under federal jurisdiction/control. Now that the cross is under federal control, it’s very difficult to do any more attempts at removing the symbol.
Unfortunately, Philip Paulson died before he could finish this battle. When the noxious is removed from the Mountain, an injustice will also be removed, and justice will be served to more than just one man.
[1]http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
[2]www.Constitution.org/tj/sep_church_state.htm
[3]http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1
[4] Morn, Frank and Weisheit, Ralph; Pursuing Justice; Thomson and Wadsworth Publishers; 2004.
[5] Ibid
[6]http://cadfile.dougberger.net/humanism/motto/soledad.html
[7] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[8] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[9]http://www.godless.org/eth/Soledad.html
[10]http://www.godless.org/eth/foxhole.html
[11] http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/pdf/propksoledad.pdf
[12]http://www.sandiego.gov/city-clerk/pdf/propksoledad.pdf, http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[13] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[14]http://www.godless.org/eth/Soledad.html
[15] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[16]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[17]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[18] http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[20]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[21]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[22]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[23]http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/images/051007soledadruling.pdf
[24]http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20040926/news_mz1ed26top.html
[25] Ibid
Related Posts
Filed under yellow pages by on Jan 16th, 2012. 