One of you will end up here next!
"The law is reason, free from passion."
What is so difficult to understand about the government being neutral on religious matters? Why is it so difficult for religious neutrality to be enforced?
In this case, finally, it seems government neutrality has been enforced by this court, so I applaud the decision.
If someone wants to erect a cross of private land I would obviously support their right to do so. However, this clearly violates the Constitution when government erects it or it is on government land.
Women (Nasty or otherwise) are going to be the reason that Donald Trump is NEVER President!
Here's my 2 cents. I believe strongly in separation of church and state. However, I believe the cross represents a memorial to those who died, rather than a religious symbol. To take it down, IMHO, would be a disservice to all who died for their country, that this memorial represents.
The ghost of Jack Kevorkian for President's Physician: 2016
As long as it's just symbolism, let the cross stay.
So long as laws are not favouring one religion over another, I don't really care what dumbass religious symbol the government puts up.
BTW - for the record - I believe all major religions are a complete and total waste of time.
'What kind of sick and twisted toy factory is this?'
'We are all the sum of our tears. Too little and the ground is not fertile, and nothing can grow there. Too much, the best of us is washed away.'
"Better to be dead and cool, than alive and uncool."
Thinking tactically here: In order to promote atheism one must strike at the symbols of religion wherever they are and argue for their removal. That's what happening here - this isn't about a separation of church and state, it's not about the people who died (though it should be) which inspired the cross to be erected, it's about dismantling a belief system and the power that system has over people. Let people believe what they want - in Mother Earth, God, Allah, the Sun god Ra --- who cares? The cross on that piece of ground does no harm to anyone yet it now under court order must be removed. Stupid.
“I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.
It appears that this action (removal of a symbol) does more to explicitly demonstrate that the government is supportive of non-religion than to demonstrate that it is simply neutral or removed on religious matters. That would seem to be counter to what protections were intended for religions from government and vice-versa.