In response to the Jan. 4 ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the cross atop Mount Soledad is unconstitutional, two San Diego County congressmen have sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates urging the Obama administration to “vigorously defend the Memorial in its entirety.” Weighing in on one of the most contentious issues in recent La Jolla history, Republican Reps. Brian Bilbray of Solana Beach and Duncan Hunter of Alpine wrote in the letter that it was “imperative that the departments of Justice and Defense take immediate action to protect this revered landmark.” Previously situated on city property, the 29-foot cross now resides on federally-owned land, since the government seized the lot by eminent domain in 2006. Judge M. Margaret McKeown, who wrote the 50-page ruling by the three-judge panel, stated, “the memorial, presently configured and as a whole, primarily conveys a message of government endorsement of religion that violates the establishment clause.” The decision reversed the one made in 2008 by U.S. District Judge Larry Burns, who wrote in his ruling that the cross was not a predominantly religious symbol, but rather one that “communicates the primarily non-religious messages of military service, death and sacrifice.” That ruling, according to attorney Jim McElroy, who has been involved in the case since the cross was first challenged by atheist and Vietnam War vet Philip Paulson in 1989, “flies in the face of common sense.” David Blair-Loy, legal director of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties, added that touting the cross as merely a symbol of war and not one of religion is not only inaccurate, but also offensive. “Frankly, I think it trivializes the Christian faith to say that a cross is not religious,” Blair-Loy said. “To Christians, a cross represents their religion.” Important in this court’s decision, said McElroy, was the fact that, for the first time since the issue was brought into the legal arena, the ruling took into consideration the community’s past, including the “well-documented history” of anti-Semitism prior to 1970. McKeown cited this history as important for considering what the cross might represent to non-Christian observers. “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,” she wrote. Bill Kellogg, however, genuinely feels that the existence of the cross does not exclude veterans who are not Christian. Kellogg, chairman and CEO of the Mount Soledad Memorial Association, sees the court’s decision as an attack upon veterans and their families, arguing that the memorial’s purpose is to honor vets, not to push a religious agenda. “It is incredibly meaningful to a broad cross-section of our community,” he said. “It is not divided along religious lines, but is supported by people of all walks of life and from every religious background.” For McElroy and plaintiffs, including the Jewish War Veterans, the cross symbolizes anything but an open-minded approach to honoring those who have served in the military. “[Non-Christian veterans] didn’t fight for the cross, they fought for the American flag,” McElroy said. Demonstrating that the issue has proven extremely divisive, the community that Kellogg describes seems to contradict in every way the one McElroy and the ACLU represented in court. “This community has been solidly behind this memorial from day one,” he said. “I think you’re going to see that it is the community’s will that this monument stay in place. Our city needs a memorial to veterans that is in a very prominent location.” The issue, as predicted by both Kellogg and McElroy, is far from over. The federal government can request an “en banc” hearing, wherein 11 judges from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would have to rule on the issue, or it can take the case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in turn, can choose to hear the case or not. Though the Supreme Court handpicks only about 1 percent of cases brought before it, McElroy and Blair-Loy agree with the general assertion that this case is one of particular importance and has brought in national attention, and thus may have more of a chance of being chosen. Rep. Bilbray said his ties to the issue are of a personal nature, explaining his involvement in the case for several years. “The Mount Soledad National Veterans Memorial holds a very special place in my heart because the plaques of my father, brothers and stepfather are among the thousands of stories of military service,” he said in a recent statement. “It is unfortunate that the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals continues to politicize this sacred Memorial and obstruct the memories and history the landmark proudly represents. I strongly urge Attorney General Holder and Secretary Gates to join Congressman Hunter and myself in continued defense of the Memorial.” McKeown emphasized that the ruling did not mean the cross would have to be removed or torn down, but that it could be “modified to pass constitutional muster.” About 10 years ago, an agreement was made to move the cross onto the property of the nearby Mount Soledad Presbyterian Church, but opponents, according to McElroy, shot down the settlement. “I don’t think it being torn down is something that anyone on my side of the case wants,” McElroy said. “It’s a revered symbol; people respect it and they want to keep it. The thing that makes the most sense is moving it onto church property. Then they can erect an obelisk or something that is commonly erected for all veterans, not just Christians.”