The imposing cross that stands on Mt. Soledad<\/a> in California was dedicated to \u201cOur Lord and Savior Jesus Christ\u201d in 1954<\/a>. For decades it was known as the \u201cMt. Soledad Easter Cross\u201d and was the site of Christian services (and may even have been a reminder of Christian triumphalism to area Jews<\/a>). After initial litigation was filed in the late 1980s against the cross standing on public lands, it was dubbed a veteran\u2019s memorial<\/a>, and expensive \u201cimprovements\u201d were made to stress this new role. Why was a Christian cross, obviously erected for religious purposes, suddenly named a war memorial? In hopes of magically transforming it from a religious icon into a secular memorial symbol. A tactic that initially worked.<\/a><\/p>\n Litigation over the 43-foot-tall Mt. Soledad cross has been under way for nearly 20 years. Several federal courts have ruled against its display on city property. In an effort to save the cross, the federal government acquired the land underneath the cross in 2006. Legal action proceeded against the federal government\u2019s ownership of the towering religious symbol. In July of 2008,\u00a0U.S. District Judge Larry Alan Burns ruled that the cross \u201ccommunicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice\u201d <\/strong>and can remain on public property.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n How can a Christian cross\u00a0communicate a non-religious message of military service, death, and sacrifice to non-Christian soldiers? The answer is it can\u2019t, it\u2019s a purely\u00a0political\u00a0ploy to exploit American patriotism in order to \u201csecularize\u201d a religious symbol<\/a> so that it can remain standing despite complaints from atheists, agnostics, religious minorities, and church-state\u00a0separation\u00a0activists. Here\u2019s Supreme Court Justice Scalia showcasing how the argument typically goes.<\/a><\/p>\n Mr. Eliasberg said many Jewish war veterans would not wish to be honored by \u201cthe predominant symbol of Christianity,\u201d one that \u201csignifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.\u201d Justice Scalia disagreed, saying,\u00a0\u201cThe cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.\u201d<\/strong> \u201cWhat would you have them erect?\u201d Justice Scalia asked. \u201cSome conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David and, you know, a Muslim half moon and star?\u201d Mr. Eliasberg said he had visited Jewish cemeteries. \u201cThere is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew,\u201d he said, to laughter in the courtroom. Justice Scalia grew visibly angry.\u00a0\u201cI don\u2019t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead,\u201d<\/strong> he said. \u201cI think that\u2019s an outrageous conclusion.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p><\/blockquote>\n You see, there are a lot of Christian crosses on the graves of dead soldiers, because there are a lot of Christians, ergo, it must be a common symbol of \u201cthe resting place of the dead\u201d<\/em> (repeat\u00a0sentence\u00a0until your rhetorical opponent grows tired). In 2010 the Supreme Court took a step towards secularizing the cross<\/a> with its decision in\u00a0Salazar v. Buono<\/a><\/em>, which challenged the constitutionality of a eight-foot Christian cross war memorial situated on public lands in California\u2019s Mojave National Preserve. Justice Kennedy acknowledged that the cross is\u00a0\u201ca Christian symbol,\u201d<\/em> but this particular cross didn\u2019t mean to send \u201ca Christian message\u201d<\/em> (how, I\u2019m not entirely sure, but this was a mess of a decision, with six\u00a0separate\u00a0opinions filed), and thus was constitutional. Only\u00a0Justice John Paul Stevens, a wartime veteran, had the courage to call a Christian cross a Christian cross<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cThe nation should memorialize the service of those who fought and died in World War I \u2026 But it cannot do so lawfully by continued endorsement of a starkly sectarian message.\u201d<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n However, <\/em>while\u00a0there was some secularizing wiggle room in\u00a0Salazar v. Buono<\/a>, <\/em>that wasn\u2019t the case with the Soledad cross. In the beginning of 2011<\/a> the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the memorial was unconstitutional, citing its long history of being a sectarian religious symbol<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u201cMuch lore surrounds the Cross and its history. But the\u00a0record is our guide and, indeed, except for how they characterize the evidence, the parties essentially agree about the history. A cross was first erected on Mount Soledad in 1913.\u00a0That cross was replaced in the 1920s and then blew down in1952. The present Cross was dedicated in 1954 \u201cas a reminder\u00a0of God\u2019s promise to man of everlasting life and of those persons who gave their lives for our freedom . . . .\u201d The primary\u00a0objective in erecting a Cross on the site was to construct \u201ca\u00a0permanent handsome cast concrete cross,\u201d but also \u201cto create\u00a0a park worthy of this magnificent view, and worthy to be a\u00a0setting for the symbol of Christianity.\u201d<\/strong> For most of its history,\u00a0the Cross served as a site for annual Easter services. Only\u00a0after the legal controversy began in the late 1980s was a\u00a0plaque added designating the site as a war memorial, along\u00a0with substantial physical revisions honoring veterans. It was\u00a0not until the late 1990s that veterans\u2019 organizations began\u00a0holding regular memorial services at the site.<\/strong>\u201c<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n That ruling was appealed, and on Monday, the Supreme Court\u00a0denied certiorari<\/a>, leaving the 9th Circuit\u2019s decision in place. Which means one of two things has to happen. Either the cross has to be taken down, or the memorial has to be modified so as to pass constitutional muster. A process that will necessitate even more litigation. Supporters of the cross are already calling for the Department of Justice to raise the issue, as allowed in the 9th Circuit\u2019s decision<\/a>.<\/p>\n Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Alpine), in urging the Department of Justice to continue the legal fight, said the government should preserve\u00a0\u201csuch a historic memorial that pays tribute to the service and sacrifice of America\u2019s veterans.\u201d<\/strong><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Notice that cross supporters now completely ignore the history of this monument, invoking veterans to cloud the issue, despite the fact that it this challenge was brought by the Jewish War Veterans<\/a>, who obviously don\u2019t feel a large Christian cross pays tribute to their sacrifice. In addition,\u00a0I somehow doubt these cross secularizers are going to stand in our corner when someone tries to erect a \u201csecular\u201d Wiccan or Asatru war dead memorial. Nor would anyone try to argue for a \u201csecular\u201d Jewish star of David, or \u201csecular\u201d Muslim crescent (particularly not the latter in our current climate). They would argue that these symbols are sectarian, and could not represent them. It\u2019s all part of the\u00a0hypocrisy\u00a0that comes with the\u00a0privilege of being the overwhelming majority<\/a>.<\/p>\n To many Christians their immense privilege seems invisible. They don\u2019t understand how much of our society panders to their unspoken power. The churches on every corner, the holidays and celebrations structured around Christian dates, the pandering of politicians, the\u00a0ceremonial deism<\/a> that acts as a placeholder for state-sponsored religion. Even our\u00a0vernacular\u00a0is colored by Christianity: \u201cGod bless you,\u201d \u201cwe\u2019ll pray for you,\u201d \u201cI\u2019m in heaven,\u201d or even \u201cgo to hell.\u201d \u00a0Yet despite this, many Christians, particularly conservative Christians, have a major investment in seeing themselves as part of a persecuted minority. This was reinforced for me in\u00a0the comments section of a recent post at the journalism commentary site\u00a0Get Religion<\/a>. There, I was informed that Michele Bachmann was\u00a0part of a religious minority<\/a>, and that due to mainstream media criticism\u00a0\u201cone has to speculate that perhaps Christians are a small minority in the United States.\u201d<\/a><\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Eventually, like the memorial crosses erected in Utah<\/a>, this Soledad cross will have to be removed<\/a>. We can no longer claim to be a secular, pluralistic nation while winking at those who crave a \u201cChristian Nation.\u201d The time of pretending the cross isn\u2019t the cross, or that monuments to the 10 commandments are religiously neutral, are quickly coming to an end. Public spaces will either have to\u00a0accommodate\u00a0all the other faiths that inhabit this country, or leave such expressions to the private sphere. While Christians may not think twice about a \u201csecular\u201d cross, it\u2019s not a luxury many non-Christians have.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The imposing cross that stands on Mt. Soledad in California was dedicated to \u201cOur Lord and Savior Jesus Christ\u201d in 1954. For decades it was known as the \u201cMt. Soledad Easter Cross\u201d and was the site of Christian services (and may even have been a reminder of Christian triumphalism to area Jews). After initial litigation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,6],"tags":[332,419,508,1308,1348,3446,2110,2118,2125],"class_list":["post-9856","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-paganism","category-religion","tag-california","tag-christianity","tag-cross","tag-law","tag-litigation","tag-mt-soledad","tag-scotus","tag-secularism","tag-separation-of-church-and-state"],"yoast_head":"\n