Opinion ID: 182136
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History of the Mount Soledad Memorial and La Jolla

Text: The Supreme Court has instructed that, when assessing the effect of a religious display, we must consider history carefully: reasonable observers have reasonable memories, and [the Court's] precedents sensibly forbid an observer to `turn a blind eye to the context in which [the] policy arose.' McCreary, 545 U.S. at 866, 125 S.Ct. 2722 (quoting Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist., 530 U.S. at 308, 120 S.Ct. 2266); accord Pinette, 515 U.S. at 780, 115 S.Ct. 2440 (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) ([T]he reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry must be deemed aware of the history and context of the community and forum in which the religious display appears.); Buono, 371 F.3d at 550. The Memorial's history stretches back more than five decades, and we must consider how the Memorial was used and the message it conveyed throughout this entire period, and not just in the short time that it has stood on federal land. Congress' acquisition of the Cross in 2006 did not erase the first fifty-two years of its life, or even its history dating back to the beginning of the twentieth century. As the district court noted, when Congress acquired the Memorial, it was obligated to tak[e] history as it [found] it. History would lead the reasonable observer to perceive a religious message in the Memorial. For most of its life, the Memorial has consisted of the Cross alone. The Cross is the third in a line of Latin crosses that has stood on Mount Soledad since 1913. Mount Soledad was chosen as the site for the first cross because it was considered a fitting place on which to erect an emblem of faith. The earlier crosses were not dedicated as war memorials, but served as the site of intermittent Easter sunrise services. When the Cross was erected in 1954, it was dedicated as a lasting memorial to the dead of the first and second World Wars and the Korean conflict. There was no physical indication that the Cross was intended as a war memorial, however, until a plaque was added to the site in 1989, after litigation over the Cross had begun. At the same time, the Cross's religious nature has been widely recognized and promoted since it was first erected. When seeking permission from the La Jolla Town Council to erect the Cross, the Association explained that its objective was to create a park ... worthy to be a setting for [this] symbol of Christianity. The Association sent out fundraising letters that called on potential donors to support this manifestation, this symbol, of our faith. The Association also raised funds for the Cross at Easter services and through the performance of a Christian play, Paul of Corinth, at a local church. The Cross was dedicated on Easter Sunday in a ceremony that included a Christian religious service. The Cross was dedicated not only to fallen soldiers, but also to Jesus Christ with the hope that it would be a symbol in this pleasant land of Thy great love and sacrifice for all mankind. The program for the ceremony referred to the Cross as a gleaming white symbol of Christianity. After the Cross's dedication in 1954, the Association held Easter services at the Memorial annually until at least 2000, and other religious ceremonies have been held there since. The annual Easter services included readings from the Bible, a Christian prayer and benediction, and songs such as Jesus Christ is Risen Today and All Hail the Power of Jesus' Name. Until the early 1990s, the program for the annual Easter service recounted the Cross's history and described it as a gleaming white Cross that serves as a reminder of God's Promise to man of redemption and everlasting life. During this same time period, the Cross was referred to as the Easter Cross on local maps. In contrast to this ample evidence of religious usage, the record of secular events at the Memorial is thin. The Association represented in its 1998 bid for the land sale that it had conducted annual memorial services at the site for forty-six years, but the government's expert historian could point to evidence of only two Veterans day ceremoniesone in 1971 and one in 1973that occurred prior to 1989. The government provides record evidence of secular events at the Memorial only from 1996 onwardafter the litigation began and after the government started attempting to transform the site. The Cross's importance as a religious symbol has been a rallying cry for many involved in the litigation surrounding the Memorial. [19] LiMandri and the Thomas More Law Center were integral in devising the plan to designate the land as a national veterans' memorial. They publicly characterized the campaign to save the Cross in religious termsfor example, as a spiritual battle. LiMandri declared that Christ won the war on Calvary. These are just kind of mop-up battles. ... LiMandri also participated in a fifty-four day prayer movement in front of the Cross that opened with the singing of Immaculate Mary, and the prayer of twenty mysteries of the rosary. Other Christian advocacy groups like the American Family Association, the American Center for Law & Justice, and Fidelis launched national petition campaigns for the Cross; an intercessory prayer movement was held by the Christian Defense Counsel outside the White House. Representatives from many of these groups participated in a meeting of the San Diego City Council to consider whether to accept the federal transfer. At the meeting, participants advocated for the transfer by invoking the Cross's importance as a Christian symbol, and denouncing their opponents as Satanists or hate[rs] of Christianity. When the Act passed, the Christian Coalition commend[ed] the great efforts ... in saving this historic symbol of Christianity in America. The starkly religious message of the Cross's supporters would not escape the notice of the reasonable observer. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 703, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) ([T]he short (and stormy) history of the courthouse Commandments' displays [at issue in McCreary ] demonstrates the substantially religious objectives of those who mounted them, and the effect of this readily apparent objective upon those who view them.). The wide recognition of the Cross as a religious symbol and its long and stormy history of religious usage distinguishes the Memorial from the displays in Van Orden and Card. The Ten Commandments monuments at issue in those cases passed muster in part because they were not used as religious objectsthey simply adorned the grounds of their respective government buildings in the company of other monuments. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment) ([T]o determine the message that the text [of the Ten Commandments monument] here conveys, we must examine how the text is used. ) (emphasis in original). In Van Orden, Justice Breyer emphasized that the organization that erected the Ten Commandments monument sought to highlight the Commandments' role in shaping civic morality as part of that organization's efforts to combat juvenile delinquency. Id. at 701, 125 S.Ct. 2854. Given the Monument's history and use in those cases, a reasonable viewer would not have inferred from the use of the monuments that their function was religious in nature. By contrast, a reasonable observer of the Memorial would be aware of the long history of the Cross, and would know that it functioned as a holy object, a symbol of Christianity, and a place of religious observance. The Cross's religious history heightens, rather than neutralizes, its undeniably ... religious message. See id. (finding that although the text of the Ten Commandments undeniably has a religious message, that message did not predominate in the display because the text was not used in a sectarian manner); see also Eckels, 589 F.Supp. at 235 ([T]hat the effect of the symbols' presence is religious is evidenced by what the site has been used for since the [cross was] constructed [including Easter sunrise services]. There is nothing remotely secular about church worship.). The fact that the Memorial also commemorates the war dead and serves as a site for secular ceremonies honoring veterans cannot overcome the effect of its decades-long religious history. See Jewish War Veterans, 695 F.Supp. at 5, 13-14 (holding that religious symbolism of a Latin cross and use of cross in religious ceremonies rendered it unconstitutional even though it had been dedicated as a war memorial). Although the Memorial was labeled a war memorial in 1954, for almost three decadesduring which it served primarily as a site of religious observance the Memorial consisted of only the Cross, with no physical indication of any secular purpose. Further, recognition of the Memorial as a tribute to veterans has usually been coupled with Christian ceremonies and statements about the Cross's religious significance. The simultaneous invocation of the Cross as a tribute to veterans and a gleaming white symbol of Christianity lends a distinctly sectarian tone to the Memorial's secular message of commemoration. See Carpenter, 93 F.3d at 631 (holding cross was not constitutional in part because its secular history was intertwined with its religious symbolism). The Memorial's relatively short history of secular usage does not predominate over its religious functions so as to eliminate the message of endorsement that the Cross conveys. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 701-03, 125 S.Ct. 2854. La Jollawhere the Memorial is located and serves as a prominent landmarkhas a history of anti-Semitism that reinforces the Memorial's sectarian effect. The record contains various documents reporting long-standing, culturally entrenched anti-Semitism in La Jolla from the 1920s through about 1970. The details of this history are well documented in a study that is part of the district court record. [20] See Mary Ellen Stratthaus, Flaw in the Jewel: Housing Discrimination Against Jews in La Jolla, California, 84 AM. JEWISH HISTORY 3, 189-219 (1996). The anti-Semitism manifested itself in various forms but most prominently in the housing market. Until the late 1950s, Jews were effectively barred from living in La Jolla by a combination of formal and informal housing restrictions. La Jolla was forced to abandon these restrictions in 1959, in order to persuade the University of California to open a new campusthe University of California San Diego. The aura of anti-Semitism, however, continued at least through the 1960s. An informed observer is far more likely to see the Memorial as sending a message of exclusion against this backdrop than if it had been erected in a city without this pointed history. La Jolla's anti-Semitic history also informs our conclusion that the historical lack of complaint about the Memorial is not a determinative factor in this case. See Van Orden, 545 U.S. at 702-03, 125 S.Ct. 2854 (Breyer, J., concurring in the judgment). In Van Orden, there was little to explain why there had been no complaints about the Ten Commandments monument other than the hypothesis that people had not been especially bothered by it. Here, the Memorial stood in the heart of a largely homogenous and exclusionary community. Even the government's expert noted that, for residents of La Jolla, being religious meant by definition, without really thinking about it as inclusive or exclusive today, [ ] being Christian. The Association's President noted that residents thought the site was primarily religious, although, in his view, it was primarily a veterans memorial. Under these circumstances, a lack of complaints from the minority population is hardly reflective of the lack of controversy. As it turns out, the record indicates that the first questions about the constitutionality of the Memorial arose in 1969 or 1970, less than a decade after La Jolla real estate was opened up to Jews (and other minorities). This sequence of events lends support to the argument that the discriminatory housing policies of La Jolla may have stifled complaints about the Memorial early in its lifetime. [21] In any case, the Memorial has been the subject of continuous and heated litigation and political controversy for the last twenty years. However one assesses the early years, the Cross has long since become a flashpoint of secular and religious divisiveness. Moreover, the suggestion that the longevity and permanence of the Cross diminishes its effect has no traction. As the Seventh Circuit explained in Gonzales, We believe this argument is much like [saying] the longer the violation, the less violative it becomes. The longer the cross is displayed in the Park, the more the effect is to memorialize rather than sermonize. We do not accept this sort of bootstrapping argument as a defense to an Establishment Clause violation, nor have we found any other case that adopted this reasoning. 4 F.3d at 1422. Overall, a reasonable observer viewing the Memorial would be confronted with an initial dedication for religious purposes, its long history of religious use, widespread public recognition of the Cross as a Christian symbol, and the history of religious discrimination in La Jolla. These factors cast a long shadow of sectarianism over the Memorial that has not been overcome by the fact that it is also dedicated to fallen soldiers, or by its comparatively short history of secular events.