"The Supreme Court intervened Monday to save a large cross on city property in southern California. A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.

Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial said in an appeal that they wanted to avoid the "destruction of this national treasure." And attorneys for the city said the cross was part of a broader memorial that was important to the community. The 29-foot cross, on San Diego property, sits atop Mount Soledad. A judge declared it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion."

http://www.culturebattles.com

Are crosses used as grave markers in National cemeteries also government endorsement of religion?

What part of "nor prohibit the free exercise of religion" do secularists not understand? Free means any time, at any place. It means private and public expression, whether that expression is by a person, church or (gasp) body of government.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

The latter expression is a clear violation. No one cares about the two former ones.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

No it isn't, any more than crosses in a National cemetery are a violation. Shall I once again post the First Amendment and maybe you can read exactly what it says? I would, except words have no meaning in your world. But go ahead and read it any way, and tell me where any sort of religious expression is prohibited. By the way, if government religious expression is so clearly prohibited, why is there prayer offered up at each meeting of Congress?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

All this does is prohibit Congress (and by means of the 14th Amendment States) from establishing a religion. It says nothing about prohibiting expression. Moreover, it says that no expression shall be prohibited.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

All religions have some sort of prayer, so prayer offering during a government meeting wouldn't necessarily be endorsing any particular religion.

I think you kinda got it here. The wording is about making laws, and as far as I know, there are no laws requiring any specific religious symbols be erected on public property.

Personally, I can't understand why anyone would get so mad about two sticks set together perpendicularly on a building anyway.

BTW, how would you all feel about a bodhisattva statue in front of a government building?

__________________
WARNING: In the unlikely event of an accidental agreement with any or all points made in the above post, contact a clinical psychologist immediately.

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily those of Joker and/or any of his affiliates.

. "You have found the secret message. Do you have too much time on your hands? ...Let it go."

I most favor religious expression, in any context, in any circumstance and in any religious tradition.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Are you aware that the US military prohibited an Iraqi war vet his religious symbol as a grave marker? Christian, Muslims, Jews, Hindus and even atheists get a commemorative marking. The dead vet was a Wiccan.

link, please.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

Perhaps this may explain:

"In a step interpreted as partially smoothing the way for Pentacle approval, the VA's National Cemetery Administration amended a rule last October that had been a bureaucratic roadblock. Until then, applicants had to submit a letter from a "recognized central head" of the faith attesting to the fact that the requested symbol in fact represented the religion.

But because the Wiccan faith and its related sects are substantially decentralized, that requirement was essentially impossible to meet. Now, the National Cemetery Administration asks for a letter from "a recognized leader."

No one is quite sure how many Wiccans there are in the ranks of military veterans and active-duty troops. Estimates by the Pentagon's chaplains' board put the number of Wiccans at under 2,000, out of the 1.4 million troops in uniform."

It's hard to comply with the requirements of a National cemetery and it's respect for individual's religious beliefs when the beliefs of some individuals have no central base of operation. In other words, a National cemetery has no problem complying with any established religion and noting a grave with that religion's symbol, but when a religion is so obscure as to have no central ecclesiastical leadership or real structure, that becomes a problem. Obviously, the denial of the Wiccan symbol has nothing to do with prejudice against the religion, but everything to do with this religion's lack of legitimate, ecclesiastical structure.

__________________
"Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory, there is no survival."
Winston Churchill

It has far more spiritual worth to christians than the eyesore or offensiveness it is to an atheist. Why must they get so upset about a memorial?

The US is a secular nation, but its population is overwhelmingly christian. Thus it's cultural symbols will have ties to their religion. I don't mind a statue of any other religious symbol, if it reflects the belief of the people.