The Mt. Soledad cross is a giant cross on a hill in San Diego, CA. It is supposedly a war memorial but was only made so after it was challenged as unconstitutional in 1989 by a war veteran, one who doesn't believe in a god. Obviously that veteran didn't know according to the common cliche that he doen't exist in combat, because supposedly all non-believers convert on the battlefront. Anyway, the Mt. Soledad cross's purpose was a recognization of religious belief by the Christian majority. I have no problem with Christians nor any other group wishing to promote their religious belief through through the free marketplace of ideas. They certainly have enough talk radio and tv shows to do so. Humanists such as I, have online columns like mine. So, it is is perfectly fine to promote one's religious beliefs on private land, but please don't do it (as in this case) on land tranferred from the government to a private group, just to get around the federal and California state constitutions.
Well, a federal court has ruled against the Mt. Soledad cross as constitutional. Look, I know many people think it is their right for the government to take their side when it comes to religion. But, if the government can promote religion, could it promote a view that the death penalty is good? Most of those who supported this cross, probably also support the death penalty. So, would they want a giant electric chair on the side of a hill? Of course not, so why should they have a cross? Religious beliefs can get promoted while non-religious beliefs can't? This makes no sense. If a god exists he doesn't need for the government to tell people he exists, and if he doesn't exist why is the government in the business of saying that he does exist?