By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO, Calif.—I certainly hope that while the politicians are pleasing the
Christian majority of our city with their vows to "save the cross"
atop Mount
Soledad, even though the City of San Diego has been ordered by a federal
judge to remove the large religious symbol from public land, that privately, in
their offices, out of view of the television cameras, they are laying
contingency plans for complying with the court order.
So far, the actions of San Diego's political leadership have remained within the
realm of legal maneuver—all perfectly legitimate in a democracy which values
both freedom of speech and freedom of religion. But they must be aware
that the issue is not nearly so nuanced on radio—where irresponsible talk not
only is cheap, it boosts ratings.
The air waves are filled with calls for civil disobedience, such as people
chaining themselves to the cross to prevent its removal from the public park on
Mount Soledad. Even such a protest as that, if conducted peacefully, is
within accepted parameters of how citizens may try to change public
policy. But should that protest turn to violence—should the religious
protesters attempt to do battle with the police who will have to be sent in to
remove them—then the politicians will rue the part they played in seeming to
give sanction to such extremism.
Right now, Mayor Jerry Sanders is leading the charge to circumvent U.S. District
Court Judge Gordon Thompson Jr.'s May 3 order that the cross come down within 90
days, nine days of which have already expired. Yesterday, at a news conference
in front of the cross, Sanders told of a request that he and U.S. Rep. Duncan
Hunter (R-San Diego) have made of President George W. Bush to nationalize Mount
Soledad park.
If by a stroke of President Bush's pen, the land were to become the domain
of the federal government rather than the city government, it would mean under
America's complex federal system that U.S. law, rather than California law,
would govern the judiciary's consideration of the cross case.
Thompson, in deciding for plaintiff Philip Paulson, an atheist, against
the permanent display of the large cross on public land, cited the guarantees in
both the California and U.S. constitutions forbidding establishment of a state
religion. Transferring the land would mean the California constitution no
longer would be as important a factor in the case.
With President Bush having recently appointed two new members to the U.S.
Supreme Court—Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito—some say
the majority of the 9-member court may be ready to change previous Supreme Court
rulings on what federal law means concerning the permissibility of religious
symbols on public land.
Hunter, it should be noted, is not just some congressman from a district on the
other side of the continent from Washington D.C., he is chairman of the powerful
House Armed Services Committee, which deals with all the defense spending
issues. With the United States at war in Iraq and Afghanistan, he is a man whom
President Bush likes to keep as an ally. Hunter is a military hawk, but it
wouldn't be on large policy issues that he might potentially break with the
administration, it would be on smaller issues, out of the headlines, but
important to the President.
We'll see how this gambit plays out; since 1991, the Mt. Soledad cross case has
twisted and turned. Courts keep saying the cross's location is illegal and
the City of San Diego keeps finding new ways to keep it where it is. In several
elections, the city has tried to authorize the sale of the land to a private
group that maintains the cross atop Mount Soledad as part of a memorial to
fallen veterans. Courts, however, have invalidated the sales because in
each case they were conducted in such a way that nobody but cross proponents
could get the property. The courts ruled that even in trying to divest
itself of the cross in such a manner, the city government was showing an
unconstitutional preference for religion.
James McElroy Jr., the attorney for plaintiff Paulson, appeared unrattled in
face of the latest effort by the city to avoid complying with the court
order. "What part of 'unconstitutional' don't they understand?"
he asked reporters. He expressed belief that whether the case is resolved
wholly on the basis of the U.S. Constitution, or on the basis of both the U.S.
and California constitutions, in the end the result will be the same.
Calling a huge cross atop a mountain top a "war memorial" or a
"historic landmark" does not change its primary identification as a
symbol of Christianity.
So, what about the contingency plans? What gives me the most confidence
that they are being made is the fact that Mayor Sanders is himself a former
chief of police, who takes such matters as public order seriously. I am
assuming—hoping—that he and the city's current police chief, William
Lansdowne, have quietly decided upon a course of action for removal of the cross
should the various strategies to keep it on Mount Soledad fail. Perhaps the
removal will be done when most people are asleep, or after access to Mount
Soledad park is blocked, to prevent rioting.
One hopes that arrangements have been made for some private party to accept the
cross for safe-keeping, because the issue is not the symbol, it is its
location. The very same cross high atop privately owned land would not be
controversial—in fact, there are several such crosses dotting the San
Diego County mountain-scape. I would like to renew my suggestion that the
City of San Diego ask the Catholic-owned University of San Diego, or the Church
of the Nazarene-owned Point Loma College to accept the cross and erect it on
either of the mountain tops where their campuses sit..
Mayor Sanders is married to a Jewish woman, Rana Sampson. His love for her and goodwill toward our
community surely have sensitized him to our concern that
if emotions are permitted to run too high, bigots may use the controversy as an
excuse to attack non-Christians, including us Jews. We must all remember
the injunction to be careful of what we sow.
In my opinion, leadership of San Diego must look to find ways to unite our
population behind a new Mt. Soledad symbol. If indeed, the mountain top is
a war memorial—and in this military city, such memorials touch the hearts of
everyone—then perhaps the answer is in creating a public subscription fund for
building a heroic monument that will depict the heroism and patriotism of our
veterans.
In my mind's eye, I see a colossal monument similar to the famous Iwo Jimo
depiction of the U.S. Marines raising the flag over Mount Suribachi. There
should be a public competition for a design. Perhaps our city will create
a piece of art depicting the American spirit in such a manner that
it will attract visitors from far and wide. In such a day, all San
Diegans will be able to look to the mountain top—with pride!
|