And why is the administration getting involved in a civilian court case?


And why doesn't the LA Times moderate their comments? yuck.

It certainly would be if they prohibited the erection of the symbol of a different religion. And the reason the federal government is involved at all is because the memorial is on public land - according to the article Congress took possession of the land in 2006 in order to preserve the memorial. The question becomes whether any kind of religious symbol on public land must be prohibited (and this wasn't public land until 2006). And, you could argue that this one was grandfathered in because it was already there before the land became public. Or, should religious symbols be permitted as long as no particular religion is excluded? So maybe somebody could put a big Star of David or a statue of Buddha there, too. The easiest answer is to say there should be no symbols at all. But the Constitution doesn't prohibit them; it only requires neutrality. And someone is bound to argue that tearing down the memorial would violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment. The answer isn't clear, which is how these things get to the Supreme Court in the first place.

Also from wikipedia:

Three differently shaped Christian crosses have been constructed since 1913 on City government property at the apex of Mt. Soledad (Mt. Soledad Natural Park) in the community of La Jolla.

The original wooden cross on Mt. Soledad was erected in 1913 by private citizens living in La Jolla and Pacific Beach, but was stolen in 1923; later that year it was affixed back in the ground in Mt. Soledad Natural Park and then, when a black family moved into the area, the Ku Klux Klan burned it to intimidate the new residents.[2] [3]

The second cross was erected in 1934 by a private group of Protestant Christians from La Jolla and Pacific Beach. This sturdier, stucco-over-wood frame cross was blown down by blustery winds in 1952.

The third cross, 29 feet (9 m) tall on top of a 14-foot (4 m)-tall stepped platform, was installed in 1954. It still stands today. A windstorm damaged one of the flimsily constructed cross members in 1955 and the concrete structure had to be repaired.

but it wasn't originally a war memorial, was it? It was erected as a religious symbol - and 'incorporated', in its present form, into the existing war memorial after the litigation started in an attempt to redefine its purpose.

I disagree that it was not built on public land - it apparently has always been on public land.

http://www.aclu.org/religion-belief/mt-soledad-latin-cross#origins

State-owned rather than federal, but public, nonetheless. The fact that its defenders have gone to considerable lengths to modify the definition and ownership of the object since the legal action started is irrelevant to the base issue. It is a religious symbol, it is on public land, it was not originally intended as a war memorial.

You're correct, though - there shouldn't be any symbol there at all.

The only time religious symbols start to bug me is when somebody insists on one particular symbol to the exclusion of others, religious or otherwise. This one has been standing there as a war memorial for almost 60 years, and its symbolism, while Christian, is directed primarily at memorializing war veterans. Religious symbols are everywhere - the only Constitutional requirement is that the government not favor one religion over another. If we insisted on removing all references to religion in the public sphere we'd have to rename an awful lot of cities.

First the cross was not legally designated a war memorial until 10 years after the first lawsuit was filed. Up until that time the only use of the cross had been Easter sunrise services.

Every annual publication of the Thomas Brothers Maps from 1954 to 1989 presented a geographic legal description of the location as the "Mt. Soledad Easter Cross" after which year (cross case was filed on May 31, 1989) the name of the legal location on the map was changed to the "Mt. Soledad Memorial." – [Paulson v. City of San Diego, 262 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2001), Documents on file with the US District Court of Southern California]

It was done to give a legal excuse to keep the cross on public land. Up until then it was a Christian site used only to celebrate Easter sunrise services.

What of other religions? Or are the Muslims, Hindus and the Apache supposed to use the Christian Cross also?
To say nothing of the non-believers.

the fact that we have a 'need' for 'war memorials'.