Caught in Cross-Fire of Symbols : Elected officials should uphold the principle that separates church and state

Whether one agrees with the recent federal district court ruling that the Mt. Soledad and Mt. Helix crosses are unconstitutional, the principle of separating church and state is one most San Diegans and Americans hold dear.

It is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, which has its 200th birthday today. The principle, fundamental to religious freedom, is protected in even more specific terms in the California Constitution.

We depend on the courts to uphold that principle, which in practice can get very fuzzy in an increasingly diverse society. That is what U.S. District Judge Gordon Thompson Jr. was trying to do in his ruling, the first federal court decision in California on the emotionally charged issue of the cross as a religious symbol on public property.

Thompson said the crosses, as well as the image of the Mt. Helix cross on the official insignia of the city of La Mesa, violated the state Constitution.

He said the use of the crosses “communicates a message of government preference for religion in general and for certain sects in particular.”

Elected officials of the city and county of San Diego disagree with Thompson’s ruling and have decided to appeal. That is their right and the proper course to test the principle, although a questionable use of public funds given the unlikelihood of success.

But the city and the county are also exploring the idea of circumventing the ruling by transferring the crosses and a small part of the public parkland they occupy to private groups.

Such a move would make a mockery of the judicial process and violate the spirit of the principle of separation of church and state.

In some ways, going to such lengths to protect the crosses’ home in the middle of public land shows greater religious preference than the crosses’ commanding and permanent presence on the San Diego skyline.

The San Diego City Council and the Board of Supervisors should pursue the cross matter in the courts if they feel strongly about their community significance.

But they should be prepared to honor the spirit as well as the letter of the final judicial decision.

And that means halting efforts to keep the crosses by merely changing their ownership.