skip to main content









Donation Heart Ribbon

Group To Appeal Mt. Soledad Cross Ruling

A Texas-based legal foundation is scheduled to announce today it will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court an appellate court's ruling that declared the cross atop Mount Soledad unconstitutional.

The Mt. Soledad Cross and Veterans Memorial is pictured in this undated photo.
Enlarge this image

Above: The Mt. Soledad Cross and Veterans Memorial is pictured in this undated photo.

The Liberty Institute will challenge the ruling issued by justices of the 9th U.S. Court of Appeal.

The land underneath the cross -- part of a memorial originally dedicated to those killed in the Korean War -- has been under federal control since 2006.

Supporters say the cross is part of a war memorial. Opponents, who plan a competing news conference at the memorial, say it unconstitutionally favors a religion while on federal property.

"This cross, which is on government and public land, has no function except to promote one brand of religion,'' said Bruce Gleason, who belongs to an Orange County group called Backyard Skeptics.

"The defenders of keeping the cross say that the cross is a war memorial, but it was not until a lawsuit against the cross for 1st Amendment violation did the defenders start promoting it as a war memorial.''

Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by voice vote a bill by San Diego's Republican congressional delegation to protect religious symbols on war memorials.

The bill still has to go through the Senate and be signed by President Barack Obama before it becomes law -- and it remains unclear whether the proposed law would pass constitutional muster.

To view PDF documents, Download Acrobat Reader.


Avatar for user 'Lance'

Lance | February 9, 2012 at 8:31 a.m. ― 5 years, 1 month ago

Interesting how groups who do not even live in San Diego are weighing in on this. What's it to them?

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'TheKindGardenersCollective'

TheKindGardenersCollective | February 9, 2012 at 10:32 a.m. ― 5 years, 1 month ago

I'm guessing Bilbray & Hunter are both Christian, judging by the fact that they are not uncomfortable with having only a single, clearly Christian religious symbol to "honor the troops".

Honoring those who served with a strictly religious symbol is fine with me, but only if we move ahead and install a Jewish Star, and all other religious symbols.of those who served (Hindu, Muslim, Greek Orthodox, Unitarian, LDS, Scientology...) along side the Crucifix.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Mikey'

Mikey | February 9, 2012 at 11:42 a.m. ― 5 years, 1 month ago

If you truly believe that it is OK to display these other symbols alongside the cross at this monument, then you would be wise to not support the ACLU, et al, in their mission.

They do not seek a freedom OF religion in this country, but a freedom FROM religion. If we begin the slide down this slippery slope, not only will the cross be removed from this monument, but eventually we will see the crosses, stars of david, and any other symbol stripped from the headstones of all the markers in Arlington National Cemetery.

And for the record, this monument has a cross, not a crucifix. A crucifix also portrays the body of Christ on the cross.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'mdcaton'

mdcaton | February 9, 2012 at 5 p.m. ― 5 years, 1 month ago

The memorial isn't in any danger, because no one wants to remove the memorial. The memorial is great. There's one small part of the memorial that's a problem, and that's the cross. We owe it to *all* veterans to honor them, and there are a lot of veterans who aren't Christians that feel disrespected by this. My dad was a naval officer and an atheist; what do people have against his service? Keep the memorial but move the cross. Otherwise, next we'll have a Muslim statue at a memorial, and that would be bad. This is America - the same rules have to apply to everyone.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | February 9, 2012 at 6:21 p.m. ― 5 years, 1 month ago

It's troubling that an outside group from Texas is allowed to slither their unwanted slimy tentacle into this matter.

I agree with Lance's comment, what's in it for them? Why does a group in Texas have interest in this and why are they allowed to meddle?

( | suggest removal )