Originally published on 1-17-11 by San Diego News Room. Used by permission.
From The Associated Press Jan 4, 2011.
A war memorial cross in a San Diego public park is unconstitutional because it conveys a message of government endorsement of religion, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday in a two decade old case.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the unanimous decision in the dispute over the 29-foot cross, which was dedicated in 1954 in honor of Korean War veterans.
The court said modifications could be made to make it constitutional, but it didn’t specify what those changes would be.
“In no way is this decision meant to undermine the importance of honoring our veterans,” the three judges said in their ruling. “Indeed, there are countless ways that we can and should honor them, but without the imprimatur of state-endorsed religion.”
Federal courts are reviewing several cases of crosses on public lands being challenged as unconstitutional, including a cross erected on a remote Mojave Desert outcropping to honor American war dead. Tuesday’s ruling could influence future cases involving the separation of church and state……..
Michael Aguirre, a former San Diego city attorney who has followed the case closely, said cross supporters will have to counter the court’s analysis that the cross was used historically to promote Christianity.
The ruling recounts that the cross was dedicated on Easter Sunday and used for religious gatherings for nearly three decades before it became a war memorial. It said La Jolla has a “well-documented history” of anti-Semitism from the 1920s to around 1970.”
RESPONSE:
Allow me to boldly depart from the conventional defense of the cross by responding directly to Aguirre. Let us go ahead and drop the war memorial part of the argument and admit that Mt. Soledad displays a definite Christian symbol. Is it true that a federally owned cross violates our constitution by specifically endorsing one religion with the usage of our tax dollars?
The tax dollar argument is growing tiresome. Our earnings get used against our will for a multiplicity of items and none of us approve of every distribution. My tax dollars—for instance—fund public schools and some public universities where the teachings contain zero compatibility with Christianity. Lectures about evolution abound, theories of Intelligent Design are forbidden, and the Bible is often slammed as an inaccurate collection of documents with racist, chauvinist teachings, all untrue but taught enthusiastically by teachers paid for by the tax dollars of Christian American citizens. Lifestyles incompatible with Judeo-Christian values (same-sex marriage, Pro-Choice positions) are also encouraged. Supposedly the Bible is a forbiddnen discussion at public schools, unless someone wants to slam the Bible. Nobody ever says, “Hey, if we’re not allowed to talk about the Bible, let’s just not comment on it at all, either negatively or positively.” As you see, this “separation between church and state” never cuts both ways. But then, why be surprised when the phrase “separation between church and state” is not found in our constitution anyway? The words of the First Amendment simply read, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This does not mean religion isn’t endorsed. It means religion is not mandated.
Our Founding Fathers actually did go out of their way to specifically endorse the religion of Christianity. No, we do not find the term Christian in the Constitution, but neither did its omission discourage George Washington from saying “We have no king but King Jesus.” And when Christmas was made a national holiday in 1870 by President Ulysses S. Grant, citizens did not feel that their civil liberties were being violated or that the holiday contradicted the original intent of our Constitution’s writers.
When the First Amendment was written, colleges such as Harvard and Princeton were Bible colleges and teachers led students through prayer in grade school. Christian symbols were found on public buildings all the time, the most ironic example (inasmuch as this seems to be mostly a court issue these days) being the Supreme Court building itself with its engraving of the Ten Commandments on each door and figure of Moses on top of the building.
None of this violates our constitution. The First Amendment exists for freedom of religion and freedom from religion. But freedom from religion does not mean our government is not allowed to even remind you that religion exists.
If religious expression and religious endorsement are not unconstitutional, only one argument remains: The cross is offensive to certain atheists and other non-Christians.
Yes, indeed: Free speech often offends. That’s exactly why we have a constitution! Why did the constitution bother to protect free speech if speech was always going to be some gentle, neutral communication that challenged nobody?
America, grow up! Nobody is making you compromise your beliefs. If a cross on public display honestly meant that Christian citizens were to receive preferential treatment, I would be the first to protest. But that’s not what it means, and the idea that such symbols must be removed simply because some paranoid person doesn’t understand the Constitution strikes me as a new low in the legal world, the intellectual world, and the world of disenfranchised dogs who are wagged by their own tails.
Bob Siegel is a columnist and radio talk show host. Comments to his columns are read and commented on over his radio show where the readers are invited to call in and respond to his reactions.