New Supreme Court Case!

[D i v i n i t y]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hears-mojave-cross-case/story?id=8665121

Check it out! It's a new Supreme Court case and it's actually very close to where I live! Probably within 5 and 15 minutes. Yay, my city/county might be put on the map ;D
Anyway... the case... Well, you see, it's about this cross monument that's meant to be a war memorial. It was originally made to honor the people who died for the war (I believe, but you can read the article for further info) and it was made a while back on private property; so it was perfectly legal since it was their own land. Now, however, the government owns the land and so the cross is actually on government property. Recently, some dude wanted to put a Buddhist shrine there to also serve as a memorial but it was denied since it IS government property and they can't just go letting everyone make religious monuments or put religious symbols all over their property. The cross was made there BEFORE the land was government-owned though. What do you guys think?  

[The Emoholic]

Eh. While generally, if a cross is being used to honor the dead, I see no REAL problem with it, in this case, I feel it needs to be taken down. Either that or let anyone put whatever sort of religious symbols there that they want, too.

 

[Labtech Soosh]

Chop down the cross and replace it with a memorial statue?

 

[In Search of a Dream]

Take it down, then, and put a memorial statue. How do they know that everyone who fought for the US was Christian? (Which war are we talking about, by the way?)  

[dl1371]

D i v i n i t y

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/supreme-court-hears-mojave-cross-case/story?id=8665121

Check it out! It's a new Supreme Court case and it's actually very close to where I live! Probably within 5 and 15 minutes. Yay, my city/county might be put on the map ;D
Anyway... the case... Well, you see, it's about this cross monument that's meant to be a war memorial. It was originally made to honor the people who died for the war (I believe, but you can read the article for further info) and it was made a while back on private property; so it was perfectly legal since it was their own land. Now, however, the government owns the land and so the cross is actually on government property. Recently, some dude wanted to put a Buddhist shrine there to also serve as a memorial but it was denied since it IS government property and they can't just go letting everyone make religious monuments or put religious symbols all over their property. The cross was made there BEFORE the land was government-owned though. What do you guys think?

they should take down the cross and put up a slab of stone
that way you're not worshipping any religion  

[D i v i n i t y]

Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. A more secular memorial would be better. The arguments, though, are that the cross cost money to the people who wanted it there, etc. and that it is not harmful and has only good intentions. So do you guys think that the government should take down the cross and put up a new memorial? I mean the cross is already like a memorial monument... does the government really need to waste tax money to take it down and make a new monument? o.O
Also, the cross was put up by war veterans some time in the 1900's...
I don't remember when though; I forget, sorry.