A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday a veterans' memorial featuring a 43-foot cross on California's Mount Soledad is unconstitutional.
"The use of such a distinctively Christian symbol to honor all veterans sends a strong message of endorsement and exclusion," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"It suggests that the government is so connected to a particular religion that it treats that religion's symbolism as its own, as universal."
The decision that the memorial in La Jolla, Calif., violates the Establishment Clause reverses a lower court decision but does not determine what will happen to the cross that has been the dominant feature of the monument since it was erected in 1913.
"This result does not mean that the memorial could not be modified to pass constitutional muster nor does it mean that no cross can be part of this veterans' memorial," McKeown concluded.
The case has wound through the courts for two decades.
"We are grateful to the Ninth Circuit for its recognition that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment affirms the contribution of diversity in American democracy without pre-eminence to any single religion," said Robert M. Zweiman, past national commander of the Jewish War Veterans of the USA, which worked with the American Civil Liberties Union to challenge the memorial.
Legal groups that supported the memorial, including Liberty Institute and the American Center for Law and Justice, called the decision a "slap in the face" to military veterans.
A second case involving a controversial monument in Southern California also remains in the courts.
Last April, the U.S. Supreme Court permitted a war memorial cross to remain at the Mojave National Preserve and told a lower court to further consider a congressionally approved transfer of the cross to private land.
Posted by Sarah Pulliam Bailey on January 5, 2011 4:02PM
Comments
Yes, the cross of Christ is still an offense. It always will be, so why appeal?
David
Red letter Believers, "Salt and Light"
www.RedLetterBelievers.com
Posted by: David Rupert at January 6, 2011
And yet apparently its all right to have an 8' statue of an Aztec god (Quetzacotl) in the middle of San Jose on public property; and its also fine to have a 26' statue of Buddha on the grounds of San Francisco's City Hall (also public property. Can someone explain to me why the cross is so much more offensive than these two religious statues are? My God.
Posted by: Barb at January 6, 2011
Should we extend the court's argument, it follows then that we must remove Christ from the word, Christmas. How do you teach linquistic etymology without an explanation? What will the court of appeals do next? Remove Christmas from the holiday? Oh, that would require removing the word, holiday because it means "holy day." The extremism involved in "protecting the community from exclusivism and [possible appearance of] endorsement" reveals the nature of the beast: creating a building "one nation under God" then attempting to remove the foundational building blocks one brick at a time. The result is catastrophic collapse.... Hmmmmm.
Posted by: Kevin at January 6, 2011
So what I wonder is if the courts are going to declare places like Arlington National Cemetery unconstitutional and have all of those thousands of crosses and stars uprooted and removed. Blatant violation of church and state, right Judge?
Posted by: Michael Janke at January 6, 2011
Ah David, my friend, I have to disagree because we can't let this type of mania drive every cross from the public square. As Michael posted, where would the end of it be? Removing all the markers in every National Cemetary? It's similar to Coloradoans debating whether to change the name of a mountain because today we find that historical figure somewhat repulsive. Some of these crosses are of historical signifance now. You can't go back and change how the people at that time felt when they erected it. And it's true some unbeliever will always find it offensive. But that doesn't mean that it actually does any harm, and we don't have to hide it.
Posted by: Judy at January 7, 2011
I am a Veteran, but not a Christian. I am offended that so many people assume that all veterans are Christians. If the cross were on private property, I would have no problem. On Veterans Day, I walk over to the Japanese-American Memorial to the Japanese-American Veterans from World War II. Many of them were Buddhists. Buddha is not a God, the Son of God, etc. They were soldiers of the, 442nd, the most decorated unit in World War II, and were true Americans, regardless of your opinion that faith in G*d is a prerequisite They put their lives on the line in support of the United States of America, no other country. I salute the Memorial every time that I pass it. I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and no other country. If you ever do go there, please make amends to all of the Jews, Buddhists, Taoists, Native Americans, as well as the Deists, Agnostics, and Atheists that died to protect our freedom of religion.
Posted by: LarryLinn at January 7, 2011
Exactly. It is the public realm. The public realm ethically needs to take into consideration that all members of that society need to be presented and considered.
We can go put our crosses up on our churches and homes... but public spaces need to respect the dignity of all in that society.
Posted by: dan cran at January 9, 2011
We should appreciate that the court recognized the cross of Christ as being a distinctively Christian symbol. It would be far more disturbing to hear that the cross on which our Savior died has been so emptied of its particular meaning that the court could find it to be neutral universal symbol.
Posted by: Samuel at January 10, 2011