We have a cross here in Missouri that is being contested. As with any religious type monument, I have no issue AS LONG as there can be monuments of other religious placed there alongside the cross. Personally, I would rather have no depictions of religion on government grounds.

It's weird to me that there's even an argument about this. All the exceptions listed in the article, like "in god we trust" on US money, should all go, as should this cross.

Just chop off it's little arms. Monument saved. It is no longer a cross. Problem solved.

"Edwords, who helped bring the cross challenge, concedes that his objections may seem small now. But he warns that if you don't object to small incursions on your liberties, "people will use them as a precedent to make another abuse, and another one, and the other ones will be big, and you'll feel them, but it will be too late." My sentiment exactly. No public money should be spent for someones private business benefit or their particular religious beliefs.

It seems unlikely to me that all the people killed in WW1 were Christians, so this seems inappropriate from the very beginning.

If a religious symbol is on private property, there can be no complaint. But on government property, it is a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state. This can be fixed by removing the cross beam and leaving a monolith as a non-religious monument to the veterans.

Another option may be to build a museum to the days when the constitution was openly violated, and move all crosses, and other religious symbols from government properties into the museum. This way, the monument is preserved, but does not violate the constitution.

It can also be fixed by opening up the area in which the cross stands as an "open forum" in which anyone of any religion, or non-religion, may erect a monument without government interference. In an open forum, an atheist group could raise a monument to atheism, maybe even with a cross covered by a red circle-slash.

If it isn't a religious symbol, why are religious people so very upset about the possibility of it being removed?

I have no problem with the display of religious symbols on private property, so the solution for the government is really simple. The government sells the square footage upon which the symbol rests to private organizations. Said organizations then lease rights of way where necessary to the government. Caveat: These organizations are not to be subsidized by the state or federal government in the form of tax exempt status. If the symbol is important enough to them, they will do what is needed to take care of it.

In the same vein, I suggest the government/s of this country stop subsidizing religions through tax exempt status. We pay state and federal taxes for the 'right' to own property and conduct business, so should they. The only place where I would consider exceptions would be as relates to legitimate charities.

Sell the land and the monument to some rich theist goober. No buyers? Tear it down, build another one that isn't a fucking cross. People don't like that? They can chip in to buy it. That's all I got.

Anything that could be perceived as a religious endorsement by government no matter how seemingly inconsequential is always the camel's nose under the tent situation.

When I see monuments to ignorance like that I always think of John Goodman’s line in Red State:

Link is not "finding" the article ?

I don't think any supposed loving god would condone monuments to death and destruction. We use gods to vilify the other side (how many sports teams pray to a god about beating the other side). I firmly believe in separation of church and state and think that there is too much church in our state (or public places), but we will never be 100% rid of it.

I just wonder how the whole fiasco will play out in the supreme Court ? from what I read it's deteriorating anyhow ? at least it's not a concrete Jesus?

At some point we must understand that almost every symbol will end up in some forgotten religion.
As long as symbols of every religion (dead or alive ones) are accepted, we are good.
If you start to strip out religion symbols you will need to even change the names of the months (April is from afrodite, mars is from the god of war, june is from juno etc). Days of the week like Odin (Wedn), Thor (Thur) etc. Or even professional symbols and vocabulary.
The western world is a mix of roma/greek/christian culture, and religion is part of the culture.
What needs to be avoided is new ones, or preferential one (if there is a cross, you can build a baphomet also, and if you can't build a baphomet, then the cross shouldn't be there).

I'm leaning towards leaving it because of its historical significance.

I think that historical monuments should be allowed to stand, but no new monument of a religious character should be constructed.

It's really a simple solution.
The American Legion is backing the monument.
Sell them the land it sits on and then it's not an issue.

My 2cents while I'm here. Move it to private property. If they must have a monument on public property at that location make sure it's something honoring the fallen of all religions and/or no religion.

My feeling is that it should not be supported by taxpayer funds. And I think it should be moved to a private site. It cannot represent our governing process. Which is what I think that it does, when left standing on public property!

This is a foregone conclusion.. the x stays..anything else would be a serious attack on European culture.