Mountain Crosses

Councilman Barry Jantz of La Mesa (Letters to the Times, Dec. 29) favors an appeal from the court order calling for the removal of crosses from Mt. Helix and Mt. Soledad rather than “privatization” of the land, since the latter would be “admitting” that the crosses did not belong on public land. They do belong on public land, he argues, since “by viewing them, no one is coerced into believing anything they would rather not, (and) therefore the landmarks do not constitute an ‘establishment’ of religion.” If an appeal on these grounds fails, he would apparently approve of proceeding with such a plan for “privatization,” but only as a “last resort.”

This argument shows the absolute incapacity of a mind in the grip of religious belief to comprehend that another point of view can exist, or even that it should have the right to exist.

Viewing the cross on Mt. Soledad forces me to believe that the Christian religion, because of its historic status as the faith of the last army to take the region by force, is still considered by the local government to be most highly favored and worthy of an official monument on the highest ground available. While I try to teach my children the difficult but liberating Humanist truths that death is real and that humans must take the responsibility for the construction of their own ethics, the Christian myths of resurrection, eternal life, and cosmic forgiveness are honored by an “Easter cross” in a public park.

Personally, I would prefer to believe that this is a secular society, and that the official government of this city recognizes that justice has its roots in the rational thought of human beings, rather than in the emotional urges and prejudices of people in the thrall of irrational religious fervor. At least I would like to believe that such a view had a chance of being heard.

If the court decides that such a favored status for Christianity cannot be maintained, Councilman Jantz nevertheless assures us that a transfer of ownership of the two sites to private hands (as a last resort) will save the crosses. Exactly how this is to be done, he doesn’t say. By a sale in which the only bidders permitted are professed Christians? By city ordinance placing restrictions on the permitted use of the land so that a cross must be maintained? By a secret arranged sale? How is such a transfer of ownership to be accomplished, ensuring the “salvation” of the crosses, while not serving itself as an absolutely monstrous example of the same religious favoritism?

If the sites are to be sold, the sale will have to be open to all bidders, with no religious or other ideological restrictions on use of the land. The price is likely to run as high or higher than prices for home sites with equivalent views. Sale of all of Soledad Park might even help balance the city budget. And, if only a small plot beneath the cross is to be sold, then the city must be prepared to sell small plots of land in other parks for crosses, shrines, political emblems and other monuments for the purpose of public advertisement of ideological views. To fail to do so after setting such a precedent would be to show unallowable favoritism. Anything goes, from swastikas to statues of L. Ron Hubbard.

Wouldn’t it be simpler for the city to just obey the court order and get out of the business of promoting religion? Naah! That would be the rational thing to do.

NORMAN F. HALL, San Diego