The only question I have is whether the land the cross is on is owned by the government or a private individual. It does not say in the article. If owned by the government, I can see the decision.... maybe. Was this really an endorsement of religion, or is it similar to a tombstone, which would be a memorial, as opposed to a religious symbol. Of course if the land is owned by a private individual, then what is erected up there is none of the government's damn business.
Your thoughts on this?
EDIT: My bad. The land IS owned by the government, so the first question remains. Is the cross there really an endorsement of a religion or not? I believe it's not, and therefore disagree with the decision.
NOTE: I need to learn to read my own damn links. LOL.