A poll: is a giant cross on a hilltop a Christian symbol?

This is the kind of thing where you’d think the answer is “Duh!”, but people are still struggling to make excuses for the Mt. Soledad Cross. This has been facing years of court cases, and fans of the cross, including Antonin Scalia, have been in denial that it’s a Christian symbol in defiance of all of the obvious facts. Their heads are so far up their asses you might think they were Christians, or something.

Have fun voting. The heads-up-asses brigade has come out in force for this one, so it’s not going to be easy.

Do you think the Mount Soledad cross should come down?

YES 19%
NO 80%


  1. says

    Of course it’s not a Christian symbol! How can you make such a silly claim?

    Now just imagine the cries of horror if someone decided to build a giant upside down cross there. Or one sitting in a giant plexiglas tank of yellow tinted liquid, mimicking a certain piece of art. Then it would be all “You horrible people are persecuting Christians! You’ll be putting us in death camps next!”

  2. Scientismist says

    For almost 50 years I have lived in the La Jolla area, and have seen that cross almost daily from the freeway, or even from my own front yard. It is, and always has been, a symbol of Christian political dominance. It became even more important for that purpose when the University moved in, with all of its ethnic diversity. Before that, they didn’t even pretend that it was a “war memorial” — even the USGS section map labeled it the “Easter Cross.”

    Funny that Scalia would get all non-religious about the cross, when he has always been quite clear that the purpose of the religious motto on the money, and the nod to God in the pledge recited in the schools, is to make sure citizens understand that government derives its power not from the consent of the governed, but from God, and so cannot be judged by human moral standards (see his essay “God’s Justice and Ours”). Scalia knows full well that the purpose of such public religious expression in the name of the state is to justify and to make people get used to the arbitrary application of political power.

  3. karmacat says

    If these people suggest it is not really religious, we can add hor to the “T” and everyone could be happy. :)

  4. Rich Woods says

    @Scientismist #6:

    (see his essay “God’s Justice and Ours”)

    Hopefully I’ve learned my lesson this time: I never want to read anything by Scalia again.

  5. Crip Dyke, Right Reverend Feminist FuckToy of Death & Her Handmaiden says

    @Rich Woods:

    It is precisely because I can’t stop myself from reading Scalia that I thought I might as well be a lawyer.

  6. robro says

    So, all those buildings with crosses on the tops of their towers aren’t churches…mmm, might explain the corruption and evil.

    One could argue that the cross is just another ancient pagan symbol, like swastikas. If the cross is viewed in this light, perhaps the fundies would join the chorus for pulling them down.

    Someone in the comments there suggested putting other religious symbols on the hill, but what about putting other symbols of torture and death on that hill…a giant electric chair, gas chamber, and hypodermic needle, for example.

    I’m surprised that San Diego hasn’t hit on the solution San Francisco came up with for its cross on a hill problem some years ago: they basically gave the property to some church. Now it’s not owned by the city. No more establishment clause issues.

  7. Jackie: ruining feminism one fabulous accessory at a time says

    How about this one?

    It’s sort of sad. It was originally on private property, but it was willed to the state. The state cannot spend money for the upkeep. So, it stands there. It’s no longer lit, falling apart and has been vandalized. The Bikers for Christ used to have Easter there, but I don’t know if they still do. It’s time it came down.

  8. mobius says

    Is this cross a religious symbol? Certainly. Without question. That some would argue otherwise just shows how disingenuous they are. Try putting up a Muslim crescent or a communist hammer and sickle and claim they are just shapes and watch the same people howl.

    Shapes, as we all know, have meanings in certain contexts. A cross displayed in this manner is certainly a symbol of Christianity. Otherwise it has no meaning and no reason to have been erected in the first place. And it would certainly have no reason to be removed.

    But then so many of these religious types are perfectly willing to be Liars for Jesus.

  9. Scientismist says

    JesseW, the Juggling Janitor @ 12:

    Re: selling the land. They thought about doing that, but were afraid the “wrong people” might buy it.

    Yep, I was one of the “wrong people” who offered to buy it (for more than they were initally asking from the Memorial Association). The mayor and city attorney ignored my letters.

  10. robro says

    Scientistmist @#16

    Yep, I was one of the “wrong people” who offered to buy it (for more than they were initally asking from the Memorial Association). The mayor and city attorney ignored my letters.

    Perhaps they feared you would festoon it with pictures of Darwin and other apostates.

  11. randay says

    Apparently you can VOTE MORE THAN ONCE. I voted yesterday and thought I would try again. I think my second vote was accepted too. There is only a 3,000 vote difference.

    As an ex-San Diegan, we would sometimes picnic up there. It’s a nice view and you don’t see the cross unless you intend to.

  12. hexidecima says

    it pleases me to see Christians deny that the cross is the symbol of their religion. We should set such denials to a chorus of chickens, both clucking and crowing.

    if it is not a religious symbol, the Christians should have absolutely no reason to resist its removal because it is therefore meaningless.