So in essence you equate the crosses removal with its destruction? Why is that. Couldn’t the cross be moved to another location and be just as relevant, or must it be there, it its origonal place to have meaning? Again we come back to the intent of the cross.
If its just a war memorial, then it probably should be a religious endorsement.
If its an important part of local history, tell me how other than in a religious context this is so? I certainly don’t know of any such history, not that I claim expertise.
If it is as I suspect a symbol of Christian domination of this land, then that sucker has to come down no question about it. Just because in the past religious bigotry was acceptable doesn’t mean it is so now. I feel the cross is intertwined with the history of “No Jews need apply in La Jolla,” though in a tangential way.
Religious tyranny is the same whether its Christian, Jewish or Muslim, or Atheist as I happen to be.
This is NOT a Christian land, its a secular land which happens to have a majority of Christians. I suspect that is the fundamental disagreement that we will never solve. If you view this nation as a place that is fundamentally Christian and just happens to be tolerant of others, of course your religious symbols should be pre-eminant. On the other hand, you could view this as a secular nation that gives favor to no religion; tolerates most if not all of them and treats them equally.
There is definitely an argument to be made to respect our hertiage, Judeo/Christian and otherwise. Its just wiser in my opinion to honor that heritage by minimising the impact of religion on public life.
