Judge orders Mt. Soledad cross removed, but saga probably isn't over

A US judge on Thursday ordered that the landmark Mt. Soledad cross, part of a federal war memorial, be dismantled in 90 days – unless there is an appeal. His apparent aim is to pave the way for the US Supreme Court to consider the case.

Sandy Huffaker/Reuters
People gather in the late evening sun around the massive cross sitting atop the Mt. Soledad War Memorial in La Jolla, Calif., Dec. 12, 2013.

A federal judge’s order to remove the massive cross atop San Diego’s Mount Soledad may not be the final word on the long-running controversy over display of a religious symbol on public land.

US District Judge Larry Burns gave the city, the federal government, and the association that runs the memorial 90 days to dismantle the southern California landmark. But he also stayed that action pending the resolution of any appeal.

The five-page order, issued Thursday, makes clear that Judge Burns does not believe the Mount Soledad cross violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. “This court previously held (and continues to believe) that permitting a historic, now 59-year-old cross to remain as part of a federal war memorial atop Mount Soledad cannot be reasonably viewed as our government’s attempt to establish or to promote religion,” he wrote.

Nonetheless, the judge’s earlier decision permitting the cross to remain as part of a war memorial was overturned by a panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court found that display of a cross on government land sends a “message of endorsement and exclusion” by the government.

Judge Burns noted that some members of Congress supported a bill to transfer the memorial site to a private entity, but that effort has bogged down.

“The mere possibility that Congress will act to transfer the Mount Soledad Memorial to private interests is not a reason to delay this case further,” the judge wrote. “As the Ninth Circuit noted in its opinion, the presence of this cross on public property has generated controversy for more than twenty years.”

Last year, the case made it to the US Supreme Court, but the justices declined to take up the issue, noting that a final decision had not yet been rendered in the cross case.

In a concurrence to that action, Justice Samuel Alito noted that the underlying issue in the Mount Soledad cross case is “a question of substantial importance.”

It is this comment that appears to have prompted Burns to issue a final ruling as a means to clear the way for the case to return to the high court for an examination of the Ninth Circuit decision.

“It is particularly appropriate for the court to issue a decision that advances this case to finality so that this question of ‘substantial importance’ can be clarified, perhaps by the US Supreme Court,” the judge wrote.

The case is Steve Trunk v. City of San Diego (06cv1597), consolidated with Jewish War Veterans v. Charles Hagel, Secretary of Defense (06cv1728).

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.