Tip of the hat to Psychopolitik for pointing out this story from the Washington Post.

A gigantic cross in San Diego that has been the focus of a 17-year court battle became the property of the federal government yesterday with President Bush’s signature.

Supporters hope the legislation enabling the federal government to purchase the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial — featuring a 29-foot cross — from the city of San Diego will protect it permanently. A series of court decisions have deemed the cross unconstitutional because it stands on public property.

. . .

Proponents of the new law believe the change in ownership could help insulate the cross from legal challenges because federal law is more flexible about religious displays on federal property than the California Constitution is about city land.

First off, did anyone else find it interesting that in the last paragraph they combine the flexibility of federal law with the California Constitution? Don't you think that the United States Constitution may have something to say on this matter?

Second, it is interesting that supporters of the new law turned to the federal government because of the tougher separation of church and state in the California Constitution. I'm just guessing, but the state may have a "Blaine Amendment" left over from the anti-Catholic days. I bring this up because this is one reason why the push for school vouchers keeps getting kicked up to the national stage; state level vouchers may not pass the tougher restrictions on public funding of religion.

Third, I want to know why the city of San Diego couldn't have just sold off the land to a non-profit organization. Call it something like Concerned Citizens for the Preservation of the Mount Soledad Veterans Memorial. Is that too hard? Do too few citizens of San Diego actually give a damn?

Fourth, I want to know the overall opinion of people here on this whole Establishment Clause debate. I've been heavily influenced by Noah Feldman's book "Divided by God," which argues that the Supreme Court has got it all wrong by allowing indirect funding of religious institutions (such as vouchers, or faith based initiatives) but not public displays of religion (like Judge Moore's Ten Commandments). Instead, we should make sure that no federal funds find their ways into the coffers of churches and other religious institutions, but allow public displays of religion which can range from posting the Ten Commandments to voluntary school prayer. I'm not sure if I agree entirely, but I do think that too often we give special privileges to established religions (tax exemption, frex) and create a Pandora's Box of problems when we start to debate what qualifies as a religion.

Fifth, aside from how you feel about this specific act, what about other attempts to circumvent the courts to keep America's "Judeo-Christian heritage" free from evil attacks? The Pledge Protection Act, which attempts to prevent the federal courts from hearing cases involving the Pledge of Allegiance, seems of questionable merit to me. Any thoughts?