Expression is Not Coercion by
Robert Knight
The Washington Times
Monday, January 10, 2011
Section B, Page 1
Reprinted with permission
Home Page
Issues For
Life Topic Page
While the
nation watches to see how the new House leadership flexes its Tea Party-enhanced
muscles, the legal campaign to strip the public square of any reminders of
America’s Christian heritage continues apace.
On
Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
ruled that the 57-year-old cross atop the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial in San
Diego is unconstitutional. The decision runs counter to a 2010 U.S. Supreme
Court ruling in a similar case at the Mojave National Preserve, as well as a
district court ruling that said the Mount Soledad cross was not unconstitutional
because it “communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military
service, death and sacrifice.”
In finding the
cross unconstitutional, Judge Mary Margaret McKeown, a 1998 Clinton appointee,
wrote: “The history and absolute dominance of the Cross are not mitigated by the
belated efforts to add less significant secular elements to the Memorial.”
Perhaps the memorial keepers
should have erected a 40-foot Frost the Snowman next to the cross. Oops. That
applies only to the Nativity scenes and Christmas trees on public land. I’m
getting the sops to secular bullies mixed up.
The
problem seems to be that the cross is just too big and obvious. That makes it
ipso facto offensive. The 43-foot concrete structure can be seen from
Interstate 5, for instance.
It’s
a wonder that the American Civil Liberties Union, which brought the suit, hasn’t
claimed that the cross has caused multiple accidents as atheist, Wiccan,
Buddhist, Jewish and Muslim motorists clutch their hearts and keel over their
steering wheels upon spying it. Given that the hillside has sported a highly
visible cross since 1913, it’s safe to conclude that millions of motorists have
made it through that scary stretch without incident. It’s probably less safe to
claim this in areas with noxious billboards for “adult” services, but I haven’t
checked accident statistics, so let’s not go there. The key aspect that the
court ignored in its tortured finding of the First Amendment’s secret intent to
wipe out Christian symbols on public land is the element of coercion. Allowing
mere expression is quite different from using government power to force
observance.
As
American Civil Rights Union General Counsel Peter Ferrara points out in his
friend of the court brief in Jewish War Veterans v. the City of San Diego, “With
a clear, simple standard rooted in the text of the Constitution and its
surrounding history, this case is easily resolved. The cross at the federal
Veteran’s Memorial atop Mt. Soledad does not involve an unconstitutional
establishment of religion because it does not involve coercion of any sort. It
just sits there, without any specified message. …
“Each
visitor to the memorial is free to decide what the cross, and the memorial
overall, means to them. They can take the cross as an expression of reverence
for the nation’s veterans, including those who suffered the supreme sacrifice.
They can take it as an expression of hope that these lost love ones will be seen
again in some unknown future. They can take it as an expression of some
religious message. However each visitor interprets the cross, they are also
free to then accept or reject the message that they each discern.”
Fr.
Ferrara also notes that in 1776, Thomas Jefferson led the adoption of Virginia’s
Declaration of Rights and that the religious freedom clause in that Declaration
states, “That religion, or the duty we owe to our creator, and the manner of
discharging it can be directed only by reason or conviction, not by force or
violence, and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of
religion according to the dictates of conscience.
It’s
been tough sledding for public crosses. Even after the Supreme Court in April
refused to order the removal of a 7-foot cross made of metal pipe at the Mojave
National Preserve, where veterans had maintained a cross since 1934, vandals cut
it down. In May, a court ordered a replacement also torn down pending further
appeals. Previously, a court had ordered the cross covered in a plywood box, an
apt expression of the death wish that secularists have for public religious
symbols.
In
Arizona, at the behest of an atheist group, a three-judge panel of the 10th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in August that 14 roadside crosses, each 12
feet high and memorializing fallen Arizona Highway Patrolmen, are
unconstitutional. On Thursday, the full court issued a stay of the order,
giving the state 90 days in which to appeal.
A
common thread in these cases is the confusion of expression with coercion. It
would be nice if the new Congress found some way to coerce federal judges into
living up to their oaths. The jurists should be upholding real constitutional
rights instead of twisting the Constitution into a battering ram against any
public edifice with religious underpinnings.
Top
Home Page
Issues For
Life Topic Page