Lawsuits Protest Crosses on Hilltops, La Mesa Logo

The American Civil Liberties Union and an atheist group argued Tuesday in federal court for the removal of the crosses atop Mt. Soledad and Mt. Helix on grounds that they violate the constitutional separation of church and state.

Three separate lawsuits filed by people objecting to the use of the crosses on public property, on La Mesa Police patches and in the city of La Mesa’s logo were combined into one case by U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson. Thompson heard arguments in the case and said he would offer a ruling soon.

Mt. Soledad Nature Park, which features a 43-foot-high cement cross, sits on 822-foot-high Mt. Soledad. The park is owned by the city of San Diego. The 36-foot-high cross on Mt. Helix is on a 3.65-acre park deeded to San Diego County 61 years ago by Cyrus Yawkey.

John Murphy, an attorney and local ACLU president, sued the county to stop it from “displaying and illuminating” the cross on Mt. Helix and to stop county officials from using taxpayer funds to maintain the park, called the Mt. Helix Nature Theatre. Murphy lived in La Mesa five years but said in a deposition that he was not aware at the time that the cross was supported by government funds.

In his deposition, which was given to the county’s attorneys, Murphy associated the cross with the Catholic Church, which he called “a threat to the citizens of this county.” Murphy, who said he was raised a Catholic and attended Catholic schools, called the church “a political organization that I believe is threatening our constitutional rights.”

Murphy went on to say that the cross also reminds him of the “threatening” activities of Christian groups that blockade abortion clinics.

In the second lawsuit involving the Mt. Helix cross, attorney James Ellis, a resident of La Mesa, sued to remove a representation of the cross from shoulder patches worn by La Mesa police and from the city’s logo. Ellis was represented by ACLU director and attorney Betty Wheeler.

Wheeler argued that the color scheme on the patches and logo “makes the cross jump out at you” and “sends a message of endorsement and message of Christianity.” She added that it is “particularly repugnant” that city officials and cops “are marching behind the message of a particular religion.”

Attorney John S. Meyer, who represented La Mesa in Ellis’ lawsuit, argued that the cross is “a depiction of a historical landmark.” His comments were echoed by Deputy County Counsel Michael B. Poynor, who said in a brief that the cross is also used as a 24-hour visual navigation aid by pilots approaching Lindbergh Field.

Meyer argued that the cross on the police patch and the city’s logo have no particular religious meaning. He urged Thompson to use “a common sense view” that use of the cross does not violate the Constitution.

“There’s a longstanding tie between the city of La Mesa and Mt. Helix,” Meyer said.

Howard Kreisner, who identified himself as an atheist, sued San Diego to remove the cross from Mt. Soledad. Kreisner, who is not an attorney, argued the lawsuit himself.

Mt. Soledad is “an ideal place to send a graphic (Christian) message,” argued Kreisner. He called the cross atop the mountain in La Jolla “an aggressive advertisement for San Diego and clearly identifies the city and mountain as a Christian place.”

Deputy City Atty. Mary Kay Jackson argued that the cross was dedicated as a memorial to American soldiers killed in World War I, World War II and the Korean War. She added that crosses are commonly used as a war memorial, including on graves of soldiers buried at U.S. cemeteries.

However, Kreisner argued that the Mt. Soledad cross “has no secular purpose” and no other purpose other than as a symbol of Christianity.

“There are expressions of ceremonial deism easily distinguished from expressions of the Christian faith,” said Kreisner, like the words “in God we trust,” which are found on U.S. currency.

Jackson said that crosses have been built atop Mt. Soledad since 1913, and the latest one was erected by private citizens in 1954 as a war memorial.

“The historical aspect of the cross is very important. . . . There were crosses at this site prior to the present memorial being erected,” Jackson said.

She urged Thompson to reject Kreisner’s lawsuit because the cross has to be located “at the seat of government” in order for his complaint to be valid.

“This memorial is located very far from any downtown government buildings,” she said.

“No federal court has ever found a cross on public property to be constitutional,” said Kreisner in his oral argument.

In taking the matter under submission, Thompson hinted that he was not swayed one way or the other by the arguments.

“I can’t say with all honesty that I agree with what has been said here today by either side,” he said.