Tear Down the Mt. Soledad Cross [Barf Alert]

I don't know if this argument has ever been tried, but here goes:

The cross is a universal symbol of death and sacrifice. Thus it is appropriate as a symbol of the sacrifices that our soldiers have paid in time of war. It is summed up in the phrase: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

While the symbol of the cross has some Christian roots, the cross was designed by the Roman secular government as a tool of torture and death. While it has been used as a religious symbol, the cross itself was designed for a specifically secular purpose, i.e., to torture and kill those who crossed swords or crossed paths with the tyrannical Roman Government.

The cross has always been a clear reminder that someone died. If people want others to recognize where someone died in a crash, they put a cross on the road whether they were christians or atheists or whatever. No other symbol tells that story better than the cross. Whether the person who died was a Christian or not is irrelevant to the message. A Cross on the side of the road tells passing motorists nothing about the religion of the victim, it states clearly and merely that someone died there. It reminds them to be careful and to remember how fragile life is.

The Mount Soledad Cross was erected as a war memorial to soldiers who paid the ultimate price for our freedom. It is there because it symbolizes their extreme sacrifice. It is there not as a symbol intended to favor one religion over another, but to recognize their ultimate sacrifice. That they gave their lives that others might live. That is the historical message of the cross. It does not stand to preach doctrine or to proseltyze those who gaze upon it, but it stands in memoriam to those who freely gave their lives so that we might live in freedom.

In that sense the existence of the Cross on Mt. Soleded clearly passes all the prongs of the Lemon Test.

1. It serves a legitimate secular purpose as a memorial to the sacrifice that our soldiers gave for us;
2. It's primary effect is to simply stand as a reminder of the sacrifice of our soldiers and does not in any way advance or inhibit any religion; and
3. There is no "excessive entanglement" of the government and religion, as the cross simply sits there on a hill as a reminder to all as to the sacrifice our soldiers... christian, jewish, muslim, atheist... whatever... made on our behalf.

No other symbol acts as a universal symbol of death and sacrifice. If the first amendment requires that the Mount Soledad Cross must come down, then it is the duty of the courts to demand that all of the arms on all of the crosses in our military cemetaries must likewise be removed. If the cross at Mount Soledad violates the constitution then so do the crosses at Arlington. They all have the same message: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.".

This editorial totally misses the point about government. Is San Diego to be governed by its City Council and its own citizens by referendum? Or, are these normal and legitimate forms of government to be set aside by unelected judges?

The LA Times, of course, prefers rule by judges -- as long as the judges are liberals, appointed by liberals. But rule by judges is NOT the "republican form of government" which is guaranteed by the US Constitution. And I made exactly that argument in my section of two appeals briefs filed in the Soledad Cross case.

This newspaper is not only wrong on the specific issue, they are dumb as a hoe handle on the entire theory of American government. Other than that, nice editorial, folks.

John / Billybob

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.