This is a draft that was turned into a letter to the newspaper that a helped turn a peaceful resolution of this simmering church state issue into continued hatred. The actual letter that I sent follows this essay:
-----------------------
Rising from the highest point along the coast of San Diego is a tall concrete cross, the universal symbol of Christianity that conveys the mystery of "the Prince of Peace" whose death was an affirmation of eternal life.
This site is one of other mysteries, other paradoxes, a federal enclave with no signs of its actual ownership, a memorial to those who served in our wars to defend more than a country, but an idea. Unlike most countries, ours is not the formalization of an ethnicity but one that is based very much on fostering diversity of values-none more protected than those we call religions. The soledad site can be defined by over two decades of legal and political conflict, with the war veteran who spearheaded one side earning the appellation of "the most hated man in San Diego." Yet, in the midst of the long simmering, and still ongoing conflict, with barbs and accusations ripping across airwaves and newspapers, with anger, threats and condemnations that echo to this day, something notable has occurred that deserves to be brought into view.
During the time between that first lawsuit to remove the cross by Phil Paulson in 1989 and this day, throughout the world millions of people have met violent death in conflicts defined by religious differences. In the U.K. it was Catholics and Protestants because their brand of Christianity was different In India it was between Muslims and Hindus; and we were caught up in the ongoing internecine war among Muslims based on the nuanced difference between Shia and Sunni that is so arcane to be lost outsiders-yet real enough to terrorize those with different identifications. These religious conflicts took on political and economic aspects, but were always defined and exacerbated by this these ancient hatreds
With all of the lawsuits, inflammatory rhetoric of pandering politicians and newspapers, during this local battle between Christians and secularists over our cross, there was not a single casualty. Zero. There were no children maimed or orphaned due to the virulent hatred that such religious conflict engenders in so many parts of our world.
This is a reason to celebrate what this country is, what those who gave us our republic, our constitutional system bequeathed us. And there is no better location for such a physical expression of this than the exact site of the cross of mount soledad. It is this idea enshrined in our constitution that deserves to be memorialized, not only in the physical symbol that shall rise at this site, but as a visual representation of freedom of expression that makes this country unique.
At this very moment we are following an Appeals court decision that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court that ruled that the existing cross may not remain as the sole symbol over this memorial. At this juncture it is time to redefine this process away from what has evolved, a civil verbal war between Christians and others. It need not be a conflict at all, because the very constitution that mandates that the cross may not stand, also protects every religious or secular expression at this site, including those who pray to what is represented by the existing cross.
My proposal is a creative monument to our Constitution, the memorializing not of any war or any religion but to an an idea that has inspired the world. Slightly below the hill will we will tell the story of this site, of religious freedom, and how vulnerable is an idea reflected by what transpired over this site--argument, political pandering, legal action, referendums, ---with the final chapter still to be written.
As the two sides of this decades long conflict meet to hammer out a response to the mandate of our courts, it is the time to think large. A tower that rises even higher than the cross as a monument to a process, would demand contemplation, and as such, valuing that which makes this country unique. The tower would protect all religions, none less than Christianity, not only here where it is a majority, but as a symbol in other lands where it is vulnerable to religious inspired hatred.
If we do this with the right spirit it will become something meaningful not only to our city, and state, but more importantly to those beyond. It is a fitting memorial to those who risked everything for the country that sheltered these values, a symbol that the battle of ideas need not be defined by body counts, explosives and eternal hatred among peoples.
--------------
June 8, 2013
Bill Osbone, Editorial Page Editor
Bill,
I am addressing this to you as the human face of an institution, Whether the Union Tribune or UT, whether owned by the Copleys or Manchester-Lynch, it has both given voice and shaped the values of this metropolitan region of the largest state in the country. It has been a major force in the multiple legal challenges, and referendums- too tortuous for any to now comprehend, since that first lawsuit hand typed by Phil Paulson in 1989.
While things are quiet now, it may be the calm before the storm, as the tensions over this 29 foot cross on public, now federal, property are roiling under the surface. The underlying danger of violence is described to me by someone who is intimately knowledgeable of the sentiments of the operating group. With automatic weapons and ammunition sold out at retailers across the country, all it would take is a spark, outrage at a powerful federal judiciary that demands "tearing down our cross" to turn our nightmares into reality.
Between that first lawsuit and today, throughout the world, from Kosovo, India, Northern Ireland, Iraq and now Syria, there have been millions of brutal deaths based on religious identity where the theological differences were often less than that of the two side in the Soledad Issue. The body count over this central conflict between Church and State in LaJolla has been zero! In fact, the messy jurisprudence of that first amendment clause that sets out a principle of accommodation, far from being a failure due to its ambiguity, is a landmark of civilization--one that deserves a suitable monument.
We happen to have the site for such a monument, that like the one in Gettysburg, will be all the more poignant for being on the the field where the issue was fought. The court of appeals ruled that the current central figure of the cross is not constitutional, a decision that when refused to be reconsidered by the Supreme Court is usually seen as affirmed. Yet, there was enough of a loophole, that it is not being accepted by a part of our citizenry. While under the banner of "saving the cross" they represent something quite different that is of the long tradition of those who subvert the higher principles of "love thy neighbor" to that of leading the charge of destruction of those who have different views. It can lead to attaining power, or to unspeakable human tragedy.
The Union Tribune in the past has amplified the voice and given encouragement to those politicians who undermined an agreement that would have relocated the Cross to the church down the hill. They saw the personal benefit, and aroused the hatred against others that is the root of religious conflicts throughout history.
There is an answer that the UT, and this institution alone, can make into a reality. I will quote from Logan Jenkin's column of December 21, 2009:
In urging a crusade for a replacement of the Mount Soledad cross, Rodbell asked me to imagine “a soaring work of art, abstract enough to represent the force of religion, the toll of war and the aspiration for peace. It would be a small example to the city, the country and perhaps even the world that there are ways to transcend the limits of a given political system. … The hardpan of congealed conflict has to be plowed, which will take many passes; and then perhaps, just perhaps, a symbol the entire city could be proud of could grace the highest point of ‘America’s Finest City.’ ”
Support the Evolution of the Soledad Cross. Peace on Earth.
The individual veteran's plaques would remain, but the site would be transformed into a symbol of how reasoned accommodation can be a way of navigating the raw emotions that have lead to the worst kind of hatred. This could become the single image that represents San Diego to the people of the world, and when they visit it, they will be treated to the story of our constitution and those who wrote it.
The religious ceremonies there would now be richer, more fully realized, as they would be under the protection of that first amendment of our constitution that has now been further reinforced. This new monument will go beyond the temporary triumph of the battlefield that is always destined to echo resentment down the ages, to be an affirmation that under this constitution, the same one that required the removal of a Cross, Christianity and every other religion-theistic and secular, can thrive in peace.
This is the moment for resolution, and it could be in a way that provides a unique symbol for the San Diego area that would represent something that could be of value for time immemorial. My goal is to have this considered by Mr. Manchester and Mr. Lynch, and those who shape the voice of the U.T.
The world is changing at a pace faster than most of us can internalize. This proposal should be fleshed out, and if the potential value is appreciated by those who control the UT communication organization, the the concept can be achieved. The cost would be high, but trivial in contrast to the potential descent into violence and divisiveness that is the current potential of this symbol. In the words of He who is symbolized, "Blessed is the Peacemaker......"
The time is now. The potential of this proposal to the city, its commerce, character and citizens is great.
Let's get it started.
Al Rodbell
Encintas CA
