What do you all think of this?

I admit I had some trouble following the logistics of who owned the land, etc.. Part of me always gets the legal argument int hese cases, but part of me is also saddened to see a symbol that is important to many people being challenged in this way. And I like what Scalia had to say:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-court-cross8-2009oct08,0,2065193.story

I looked around a little bit on the web, and couldn’t really find anything to indicate whether or not the memorial was intended as an exclusive monument to Christian veterans or the more inclusive form of a monument which Scalia eludes to. I would tend to agree with Scalia’s comments. I think that a simple cross is as much a cultural symbol of remembrance as it is a religious one.

Unfortunately the symbolism that the cross was originally intended to have has been irreversibly changed to one of a battle between Church and State. If I had the authority in the VFW, regardless of the outcome of this case, I would request to have the cross moved to a place where it would have the original symbolism that it was intended to hold, restored.

In a way, I hope that the Supreme Court rules in favor of permitting the cross to stay as an exception to the general policy(which I presume is now a law) prohibiting the unsanctioned construction of any permanent memorials or monuments in our national parks.

One other thought, I wonder if Agent86 was selling tamales near this cross 10 or 15 years ago before relocating to NOLA?

Peace my brothers and sisters.