Editorial
Grading City Hall: How is L.A.'s city controller doing so far?
Editorial
Opinion Editorial

Mt. Soledad cross: Take it down

The Mt. Soledad cross has been handed yet another defeat in its long legal drama. A lower court ruled for the second time that the cross — a visually commanding religious symbol on government-owned land on a San Diego hilltop — violates constitutional guarantees of separation of church and state. Now the Supreme Court almost certainly will be asked to reconsider the issue. Though a previous opinion from the high court indicated a tolerance for such crosses, there is no getting around the fact that allowing such a clear symbol of Christianity to dominate a public landscape strongly implies a government preference for one religion over others. The cross should be taken down.

Attempts to remove the 59-year-old cross have been unfairly vilified as attempts to wipe all signs of religion from public spaces. Of course, crosses have a proper place on public land. One example is the large cross in a corner of Camp Pendleton that marks the site of the first baptism in California. In that case, history and religion are inextricably bound. The crosses that mark the graves of Christian war veterans are an appropriate way to honor both their service and their beliefs. But we doubt anyone would say that such a symbol belongs on the graves of Jewish or Muslim war dead. A cross is not a universal symbol for memorializing the dead. It is a Christian marker.

Yet in a 2010 case involving another cross on public land, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy oddly asserted in the majority opinion that the cross was not just a symbol of Christianity but a national emblem without particular religious meaning. "It is a symbol often used to honor and respect those whose heroic acts … help secure an honored place in history for this nation and its people," Kennedy wrote. Often, yes, but that's because Christianity is the dominant religion in the U.S. and many veterans come from that religious background. It does not make the cross a universal or official symbol.

YEAR IN REVIEW: Highs, lows and an 'other' at the Supreme Court

A 2011 opinion on the Mt. Soledad cross by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenged Kennedy's line of thought. "Contrary to any popular notion, war memorials in the United States have not traditionally included or centered on the cross," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown.

Last week's order by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns to remove the cross was stayed pending an appeal. But it clears the way for the case to go to the Supreme Court, where justices should rethink the disturbing suggestion that the symbol of one religion can now stand as the symbol of all Americans. If that's not governmental establishment of religion, what is?

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
Related Content
  • Why L.A. needs La Virgen

    Why L.A. needs La Virgen

    Her title in English — Our Lady of Guadalupe — is almost superfluous. She is La Virgen, Mary the mother of Jesus. She appears everywhere in the diaspora of Mexicanidad, the “Mexican-ness” that transcends borders and centuries. She waits on stucco walls, above shop counters and at roadside shrines,...

  • 10 ways Pope Francis earned our respect in 2014

    10 ways Pope Francis earned our respect in 2014

    In 2014, Pope Francis continued to exercise a fascination for members of his Catholic flock and for the rest of the world. There was no papal pronouncement in 2014 to match his electric answer last year to a question about gay priests: “Who am I to judge?” But the Jesuit pope from Argentina continued...

  • It's time to end inaccurate criticisms of male circumcision

    It's time to end inaccurate criticisms of male circumcision

    The recent report by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention should quell the unfounded arguments that male circumcision is no better than or different from female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation. According to the draft guidelines released by the CDC, the benefits...

  • The high court and the hijab

    The high court and the hijab

    The Supreme Court this week strengthened an important civil rights statute when it ruled in favor of a Muslim teenager who was rejected for a job because she wore a head scarf. But beyond its practical effect, the 8-1 decision offers a resounding reminder that generous accommodation of religious...

  • Mike Huckabee's rhetoric of religious victimization

    Mike Huckabee's rhetoric of religious victimization

    Just prior to announcing his candidacy for the Republican presidential nomination, Mike Huckabee addressed the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition in Waukee. “We are criminalizing Christianity in this country,” Huckabee declared. “We cannot stand by silently.” The Southern Baptist minister, former...

  • Conservative Catholics conveniently discover collegiality

    Conservative Catholics conveniently discover collegiality

    One of the major themes of the Second Vatican Council – the 1960s gathering of Catholic bishops better known for its ecumenical outreach – is the notion of “collegiality.”

  • Catholics, Africans, gays and the race card

    Catholics, Africans, gays and the race card

    The Roman Catholic Synod of Bishops that ended over the weekend was a remarkable exercise in transparency, with liberal and conservative prelates openly sparring over whether the church should adopt a more welcoming approach to gays and to Catholics who divorced and remarried.

  • Patriotic Americans have the right not to believe in any God

    Patriotic Americans have the right not to believe in any God

    Belief in God is obviously not a legal requirement for U.S. citizenship. Yet, as we observed in the first editorial in this series, citizenship has meanings that are deeper and more subtle than legal permission to live in this country. For many Americans, one important aspect of citizenship in...

Comments
Loading
69°