Does the Mt. Soledad Establish a Religion?
Greg Koukl
I want to start out by reading the introduction of a wonderful little book written by a friend of ours named Hugh Hewitt. This is a book we actually interviewed Hugh on a couple of years ago when it first came out, called, In But Not Of. Here’s the way he starts this book that is kind of a primer on how Christians can have an impact as a good ambassador in culture. He doesn’t use the word “ambassador,” but that’s really what he’s talking about. If you want to have an impact, if you want to make a difference as a follower of Jesus Christ, Hugh’s got 48 chapters, each as a short vignette, each with a different lesson. He starts out the book this way, because his point will have application to the current events issue I want to comment on.
The effective and mass communication of the Gospel depends upon the freedom to proclaim it. Though it is possible to proclaim the Gospel in the face of persecution, the unfettered freedom to do so is much, much to be preferred. There are billions of souls up for grabs, so the unfettered ability to reach them with the good news is a great and wonderful thing, hard to create and difficult to defend.
The creation and defense of religious liberty requires men and women with power and influence in the world. Such leaders helped found the colonies in America, fight for independence, and secure religious liberty via the First Amendment. Christians today are indebted to the founding generation of this country and to their successors who have made the defense of religious liberty a priority for the more than two hundred years that have followed the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
He continues in the preface explaining the reason for writing the book, which is to help guide those who want to have power and influence in the world to secure religious liberty so that the Gospel can be proclaimed most effectively. And this is, of course, a heritage of this country, the religious liberty that we have that allows us to pursue religion privately and to proclaim it freely. It’s one of the values that’s made this country great.
Of course, this requires “watchmen on the walls,” as it were, to make sure that that liberty is not curtailed. It seems that every time you turn around there is an effort to undermine that liberty. And if that liberty is undermined the Gospel cannot go forth as freely as it might, and that has eternal consequences.
By the way, this is why I think the apostle Paul says in I Timothy 2 that we are to pray for governments, all those who are in power, so that we can lead tranquil and peaceful lives in all dignity. Does he mean that we should pray that people should leave us alone? No, I don’t think that’s his point. The next verse says, “This is a good and acceptable thing in the sight of our God and Savior, who desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth, for there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Jesus Christ.” So the idea is that we are praying for stability and tranquility without interference from government so that this Gospel message can go forth to men and women who need it.
With that in mind, the issue in the news once again is the cross on the Mt. Soledad in San Diego County. I’ve seen it myself many times. If you head down the 5 freeway you can see high on the hill this huge cross that is somewhat of a beacon there as you come through the pass.
The cross was dedicated as a war memorial, but it has created some consternation of late. One atheist has been working for 17 years to have the cross removed from public land. A judge ordered its removal, but Justice Kennedy from the U.S. Supreme Court put a stay on the order until they consider whether they’re going to hear the case or not.
The city of San Diego wants it kept, and their argument is that it’s a war memorial and not just a religious symbol. It’s a landmark after all these years, having cultural significance and not only religious significance. They argue that it doesn’t fall under the kind of restrictions of the First Amendment and the concept of separation of church.
Of course, the plaintiff argues, and I’m quoting from the San Diego attorney James McElroy, who is representing the military veteran and atheist, “It’s such a strong religious symbol, it shows a governmental preference for that religion over all others.” He thinks that the symbol on the land that is owned by the government indicates a government preference for what the symbol stands for and this is an unconstitutional violation of the separation of church and state.
This kind of argument troubles me. On the one hand I don’t like getting involved in these fights because these are the kinds of “fundy” fights I like to avoid, the kind of fights that fundamentalists get all upset about, that atheists get all upset about. Everybody screams about these things and I’m not sure much progress is made in the end. But I do think that behind this struggle is something else going on that everybody, religious or otherwise, should be concerned about. This is especially the case for Christians because it has to do with our religious freedoms.
The complaint here has to do with the Bill of Rights, specifically the First Amendment. The atheist is complaining that the Bill of Rights is being violated and therefore his rights are being violated. I just want to ask you to reflect on this for a moment. I think these sound like complicated issues that turn out not to be that complicated at all. But something is complicating the issue that ought to concern you. The First Amendment is pretty simple. It was meant to be. Just read it.
It reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances.”
The Bill of Rights is a guarantee of freedom. The first freedom that is protected, before the freedom of speech or press, before the freedom of assembly and petitioning the government, is the freedom of religion. It is a freedom of religion, for religious expression; it is not a freedom from religion or witnessing religious expressions. It was meant to secure liberty, not limit it. This non-establishment clause was meant to promote religious liberties, not to restrict them. Let me say it again. The First Amendment is there to promote religious liberties. In fact, the main point of the first clause is not to prohibit the free exercise of religion.
Some people seem to think that this clause was written to protect people from public expressions of religion. It wasn’t. It was written to protect the right of public expressions of religion. And if atheists don’t like the consequences, like looking at crosses, then too bad. That’s the price of living in a pluralistic society with religious liberty. That’s when tolerance is called for.
The present trend is different though. It’s hostility toward religion in the public square, not freedom of religious expression in the public square as the First Amendment states. It’s rather a freedom from religion, which is something the founders never imagined. If the First Amendment means freedom from public displays of religion then it ends up favoring of atheism over theism because that’s what a naked public square conveys.
There is a changing view on what the First Amendment means. This cross was dedicated on public land in 1954. Why wasn’t it struck down then? That’s 52 years ago. It sat there for 35 years before some atheist got bugged about it and thought he had a case.
No one considered it a violation of the Constitution at that time. So why now? The reason is that there has been a change in mood. Tolerance and religious pluralism no longer mean a full public square, it means an empty public square. Public expressions are not encouraged, they’re discouraged.
Why is it that when the mood changes our liberties change? The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to protect us from shifting moods. The Bill of Rights secures our rights no matter what changes..
There’s a reason why the meaning of words change when the mood changes. There’s a reason why the non-establishment language for the purpose of protecting religious liberties becomes the concept of separation of church and state, which is being used much of the time as a lever against religion. The reason is because the Constitution is viewed as a living document.
If the Constitution lives that means that the words can change their meanings when the mood of the country or the courts changes. If you keep the same words of the Constitution but change the meanings of those words under the guise of a living document, you have effectively amended the Constitution without a vote that the document requires for changes. With a living document, what matters isn’t the meanings of the words, it’s the interpretations that become the standard for our rights. And then our rights cannot be secured against changing moods.
Our Founders included a provision to change the Constitution, and they made that standard difficult to achieve for a very good reason. Two-thirds of the Senate and the House had to approve a constitutional amendment, and when it passes their muster then it goes to the States, which also requires a super-majority to pass. Why did they make it so hard? They wanted to be sure that if any essential liberties were changed that the greatest majority of people—you and I—agreed to it.
This is why the living Constitution view is so dangerous. It puts de facto amendment powers in the hands of judges. Some people say, “Oh, you think the Constitution is dead!” I say, “No, I don’t think it’s dead. I think it’s alive with its original intent.” It’s that Constitution, that original principles, that protects us. The fact is, when it comes to the living Constitution view, the only thing alive is the imagination of justices, justices that by the nature of their positions have no direct accountability to the people. That is why justices are not allowed to amend the Constitution, only the people can.
When judges can change the meaning of the Constitution that erodes the freedoms that originally we were intended to have, specifically religious freedom that allows us to communicate the Gospel.
Note the words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion….” The language is non-establishment, not separation of church and state as is commonly used these days. Allowing religious expressions on public land is not establishing a religion. It’s religious freedom. It isn’t a violation of the Bill of Rights. Non-establishment doesn’t mean driving every vestige of religious expression from the public square.
And please tell me what religion the cross would ostensibly establish? Christianity? That’s not a religion in the sense the Founders used the term. In the backdrop of their time, European countries and some states had official denominations, specific religions. Like the Church of England, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism. What we would today call denominations.
What religion does the cross establish? A cross can be used by many Protestant denominations, by the Roman Catholic Church, by the Greek Orthodox Church, by Mormonism, or Jehovah’s Witness, and a number of others. A cross is a religious symbol, but it does not establish a religion by the government.
Religious expressions were common for most of our country’s history, and it was never considered Go inside the beltway in Washington, D.C. and take a tour of the historical buildings. You‘ll see that the city is thick with religious symbols and statements on government property. They are old, and they are Christian. Why was this okay for almost 200 years but just recently isn’t? It’s because the meaning of the words changed, and when the meanings change then our rights change and we’re not protected.
Finally, the landmark argument, the national or military symbol argument, offered by the city of San Diego has merit, but that isn’t my argument. There’s much more at stake here than sacrificing landmarks. There is no separation of church and state in the Constitution. The Constitutional language is non-establishment, not separation. So when people ask me, Don’t you believe in separation of church and state? I say, No, I don’t and neither should you. Instead, I believe in the Bill of Rights as originally written, not as re-defined by justices to take away liberties.
