Congress Blesses Mt. Soledad Christian Cross By Sham Land Sale

Sadly, the Senate ignored the FIRST RIGHT protected by the Bill of Rights -- freedom from government sponsored religion (a.k.a. the Establishment Clause) when it passed the National Defense Authorization Bill on Friday, December 12.

Section 2852 of the bill requires the Secretary of Defense to sell the Mt. Soledad Veteran's Memorial to the privately incorporated Mount Soledad Memorial Association. What is significant about the memorial is that its principal component is a 29-foot Christian cross on top of a 14-foot base for a total height of 43 feet. That's a powerful religious endorsement of Christianity telling persons of minority faiths and nonbelief that they are unwelcome or second class citizens.

The Mount Soledad Cross has been the subject of litigation for over 20 years. The City of San Diego and the U.S. government have lost at every step of the way, including a 2013 federal judge ruling from the bench upholding the Ninth Circuit's ruling and ordering that the cross must come down.

Time and again Christian dominionists have used the instruments of government to protect Christian crosses and Ten Commandments monuments on public lands by sham land sales where the religious symbol remains in place within the larger public park or other public property. Only the "donut hole" becomes private property!

A sham land transfer was also used by Congress to "save" the Sunrise Cross in the Mojave National Preserve in California. (I authored an amicus brief in opposition to the sham land transfer in Salazar v. Buono, Sup. Ct. No. 08-472, on behalf of the American Humanist Association, et al.)

Similar sham land transfers were also used by local governments to prevent the removal of Eagles-donated Ten Commandment monuments on public property in La Crosse (Cameron Park), Wisconsin, Hanover, Pennsylvania (Wirt Park), Frederick, Maryland (Memorial Park) and Nebraska City, Nebraska (Otoe County Courthouse).

These governmental acts demonstrate complete disrespect for, if not violation of, the First Amendment. Passage of the National Defense Authorization Bill is a sad day for religious freedom in America.

In concluding this post, I would like to take this opportunity to rebuke my Virginia Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine for their vote supporting this egregious violation of religious freedom and remind them that Congress has no authority under the Constitution to prefer one religion over another, or religion over nonbelief.)

Robert V. Ritter

Judge orders Mt. Soledad cross removed; Stays decision pending appeal

Pursuant to a remand from the 9th Circuit, U.S. District Court Judge Larry Burns issued a permanent injunction enjoining the display of a 43-foot Latin cross atop Mt. Soledad in California. Judge Burns stayed his decision pending appeal. The decision/order in Trunk v. City of San Diego (S.D. Cal. December 12, 2013) is here and the ACLU's announcement here.

This case has been going on forever. Almost. Philip K. Paulson a filed a law suit in 1989. Paulson, who died in 2006, has was succeeded by Steve Trunk as the lead plaintiff. Also in 2006, Jewish War Veterans and others filed a separate law suit. The two cases have been consolidated. 

The problem with a religious symbol as the predominant part of the memorial is quite simple.  The giant Christian cross is inappropriate because it does not represent the faiths or nonbelief of many veterans who have honorably served our nation.

I vividly recall Peter Eliasberg's response to Justice Scalia's statement during oral arguments in Salazar v. Buono that the Mojave Desert Christian cross was "erected in honor of all of the war dead." Eliasberg responded: "The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of Christians. I have been in Jewish cemeteries. There is never a cross on a tombstone of a Jew. [Laughter.] So it is the most common symbol to honor Christians." (Salazar v. Buono, No. 08-472 (October 7, 2009), transcript, at pp. 37-38.) Justice Scalia's face turned bright red in embarrassment.

Echoing Justice Scalia's insult, a plaque near the cross states: "Dedicated in 1954, as a tribute to all branches of the armed forces of U.S.A. servicemen and women." (Emphasis added.)

While the facts of Trunk (this case) differ from (1) Buono, 559 U.S. 700 (2010), (2) American Atheists v. Duncan, 616 F.3d 1145 (10th Cir., 2010) and (3) American Atheists v. City of Starke, 509 F.Supp.2d 1221 (MD FL 2007), in all four case courts found that the government's display of a Christian cross -- the preeminent symbol of the majority religion -- constituted a governmental endorsement of Christianity in violation of the First Amendment. (Note: In Buono, the 9th Circuit found the display to be an endorsement of Christianity. The issue before the Supreme Court was what affect was to be given to a land transfer to a private party.)

The bottom line is that the display of a religious symbol unique to one religion -- such as the Christian cross atop Mount Soledad -- has the purpose and effect of advancing one religion over others, and religion generally over nonbelief in violation of freedom from government sponsored religion guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution, which established a national government of limited powers, gave Congress and the President no powers in matters of religion.

Importantly, the removal of a cross from government property would not be an act of hostility towards religion but rather an act resulting in neutrality towards religion and nonbelief.