Cross Fire: The Latest Effort To Save Christian ‘War Memorial’ Should Fail

Let’s say you had a relative who fought and died in World War II and who was an atheist (or a Jew or a Hindu). Let’s say the government told you it was going to honor your relative’s sacrifice to our nation with a 43-foot cross atop a mountain in San Diego. Is this acceptable to you – a cross honoring your deceased, non-Christian veteran?

It’s not to a lot of people. Yet that’s exactly what’s going on at Mt. Soledad in California.

The Mt. Soledad cross was first erected in 1913. Back then, no one tried to pretend that it was a war memorial. It was displayed for clear religious purposes.

Bad weather knocked down two crosses, so in 1954 a concrete replacement (reinforced with steel) was erected. Again, no one tried to claim that the symbol was a war memorial. Backers of the cross said they wanted “to create a park worthy of this magnificent view, and worthy to be a setting for the symbol of Christianity.”

Only after the symbol became the subject of litigation in 1989 did people suddenly start insisting that the cross was intended to be a war memorial.

Since then, this case has had more twists than a spy novel. Cross defenders have desperately tried to latch on to any argument they can, even insisting that the cross – the preeminent symbol of the Christian faith – isn’t really religious. It’s just a secular marker for war dead.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that argument in a January ruling. Writing for the court, Judge M. Margaret McKeown observed, “The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion. It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion’s symbolism as its own, as universal.”

Rather than accept the logic of the ruling in Trunk and Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America v. City of San Diego, politicians keep interfering. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) has over the years introduced several pieces of legislation designed to keep the cross up. Courts keep striking them down, but Hunter won’t stop.

Hunter’s most recent gambit is a bill that he says will allow the cross to stay by declaring that religious symbols are suitable elements for a war memorial.

The bill faced a markup today in the House Committee on Natural Resources and sailed through. Hunter’s proposed legislation, known as the War Memorial Protection Act (H.R. 290), purports to legalize the inclusion of sectarian symbols on war memorials

This is a waste of Congress’ time. Courts, not Congress, will decide the fate of this religious symbol. Hunter’s stunt may please the cultural warriors of the Religious Right, but it doesn’t actually achieve anything.

Continue Reading (via Wall of Separation)

 

seo google sıra bulucu kanun script encode decode google sira bulucu google pagerank sorgulama seo google sıra bulucu ukash kanunlar

Comments

When U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter claims that "religious symbols are suitable elements for a war memorial," he makes perfect sense. After all, religion (or at least the value conflict created by religion) has been the root cause for nearly every war ever fought. How about this as a compromise -- Religion can provide symbols to celebrate war, but only if atheism or secularism can provide symbols to celebrate peace.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
seo google sıra bulucu kanun script encode decode google sira bulucu google pagerank sorgulama seo google sıra bulucu ukash kanunlar