Note: My Web pages are best viewed with style sheets enabled.

Unrated

Mt. McCoy and the Cross

A Personal Experience

Copyright © 2004 by David E. Ross

History

Overlooking the west end of the city of Simi Valley (CA), Mt. McCoy is not the highest peak in the Santa Susana Mountains. Historical documents show a cross existed at the top of Mt. McCoy about 150 years ago. According to legend, the first cross was erected by Franciscan friars about 200 years ago as a landmark near the hacienda of the Rancho Simi to help travelers find a stopping place on the way between the mission churches of San Fernando and San Buenaventura. The current concrete cross was built in the 1940s.

In 1995, Mt. McCoy, the cross, and surrounding undeveloped land — 80 acres in all — was donated to the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District, which dedicated the parcel as public open space. In 2001, a local official of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) raised the issue of government ownership of a religious symbol. The District's Board of Directors directed its staff to propose a resolution to that issue.

The Solution

The Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District conducted a public hearing on 2 June 2004 on a proposal to sell the cross and 0.61 acres of surrounding land to the Simi Valley Historical Society, a non-profit organization. I attended that hearing.

The proposal involved a negotiated sale, avoiding the usual mandate for soliciting competitive bids. This was justified by the fact that the cross is an officially registered historical site, which a government agency can sell through negotiations to a non-profit organization that is established to protect such sites. Since the sales price was based on a report from a professional real estate appraiser, continued subsidy of religion through an under-market price was not an issue.

While it might be a historical landmark, the cross on Mt. McCoy — and any other such cross — is primarily a religious symbol. This was thoroughly demonstrated by the testimony presented during the public hearing, where members of the public lined up to recount their own hikes up Mt. McCoy to worship at the cross. Clearly, selling the cross would be an appropriate end to having a government agency host religion.

Ignorance

During the public hearing, repeated examples of public ignorance were evident.

• The ACLU came under repeated attack for forcing this action although no formal lawsuit had been filed. One person "invited" the ACLU to go to Israel to demand removal of Jewish symbols on government land.

  First of all, that person did not realize the A in ACLU stands for American. The ACLU operates only in the United States, defending individual rights granted under the U.S. Constitution.

  Second, unlike the U.S., Israel is indeed a semi-theocracy. For example, there are no civil weddings in Israel; only religious weddings are recognized by the government. And Israeli taxes subsidize religious schools. While this might seem a good idea to some in the U.S. who seek government support of their beliefs, they must realize that not all religions are treated equally: Under pressure from political parties controlled by Orthodox Jewish rabbis, the government generally denies rights to Reform Jewish rabbis (including the right to perform weddings).

• The City Council of Los Angeles was condemned several times for yielding to pressure from the ACLU to remove the cross from the city's seal. The city seal has no cross. Instead, it shows the four national flags under which the city existed: Spain, Mexico, the California Republic (very short-lived), and the United States. The day before the Rancho Simi hearing, the county of Los Angeles removed a cross from its seal, a cross that was explicitly described as a religious symbol when the seal was first adopted.
• Confusion between a city and a county was not the only civic ignorance displayed at the hearing. One person testified about how great it was that the city of Simi Valley hosted the cross. The chairman of the Board of Directors corrected him, pointing out that the city of Simi Valley had nothing to do with the issue and that the Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District is quite separate from the city.
• Many testified that they did not understand why this was an issue since the cross cost Rancho Simi nothing. The cross and the trails leading to it are maintained by volunteers. The cross itself was donated to the District. None of them realized that tax funds are required to pay for defending against lawsuits every time someone sues the District for injuries suffered while visiting the cross. (While California laws generally make hikers assume responsibility for their own injuries while on park lands, that does not stop lawsuits from being filed and the targets of those suits from having the expense of defending themselves.)
• Several individuals referred to how our nation was founded by Christians, on Christian principles. A portion of the Declaration of Independence was quoted. These individuals did not selectively cite history to support their positions; they completely corrupted history.
  • The Declaration was primarily written by Thomas Jefferson, who would not call himself a Christian and who strongly advocated a complete separation between government and religion.
  • Most of the compromises in the original Constitution were created by Benjamin Franklin, who rejected organized religion.
  • Jews fought in the Revolution. Haym Salomon — a wealthy New York merchant who happened to be Jewish — not only negotiated subsidies from foreign governments for the conduct of the war but also bankrupted himself by lending his own fortune to the Continental Congress (which never repaid him).

Conclusion

In the end, the public supported the proposed sale since it meant their worship at the cross would not be impacted.

Discomfort

The whole experience of the public hearing left me very uncomfortable. The general tone was that nothing is wrong with government hosting and supporting Christian symbols and credos. (Yes, the Ten Commandments and school prayer were frequently mentioned.) Everyone seemed to think that Christians have a right to use taxes from Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists to further Christianity. Strong resentment was expressed against anyone who wants to put Christianity on the same basis as other beliefs: No government sponsorship. None of this was mitigated by one appeal to Judeo-Christian principles.

I came away from the hearing with a feeling that I should avoid going to Simi Valley. Non-Christians are not welcome there as equal citizens.

3 June 2004

David Ross home