Federal Court rules Bladensburg Cross unconstitutional, TAL to appeal to the Supreme Court

Honestly not a bad suggestion SSG Colwell, and I appreciate the measured approach it describes. However, I'd respectfully add that this issue is about more than just finding compromise...it's about defining what the Establishment Clause does and does not speak to. I think it's fair to assume we all know what the "Founding Fathers" would say if they could comment on their words today. It's also likely fair to suggest not one of them, or all combined could convince the SCOTUS to reverse their rulings on the subject if they did. I am expected to "accept" it when the First Amendment allows a statue of "baphomet" to be privately raised in Detroit, college activists wear headgear in the form of genitalia , or the White House is bathed in rainbow colors. I'm expected to tolerate these and more because the First Amendment did not establish favor for any one religion, let alone the precepts thereof. However, for some reason that I sincerely cannot comprehend, a symbol that has stood for one of our longest lasting cultural identities offends some to the extent they must see it removed from all public places. There are no surviving victims of Rome's persecutions of the Druids, the Crusades, or the Pogroms. What remains of Christianity has gone further than most in redressing past misguided abuses. I can only conclude then that what many truly want is visible evidence that they "won"...That a concept that began as rejection of corrupt, state sponsored sectarianism has evolved into rejection of all faith itself; at least when that faith suggests a greater basis for good than what mankind wants to call it.

LCDR (Join to see) - If visible evidence that someone has won, means that government and religion are completely disentangled and separate, then I suppose it is true that many desire it. At the same time, that disentanglement in no way diminishes its message... I believe that is evidenced by religious participation statistics in European countries where Christianity is still officially the state religion.

The Baphomet statue, like the cross may not be displayed by the government... unless some ill advised attempt is being made to circumvent the appearance of favoritism through inclusion. Freedom of speech works both ways, it allows someone to wear a silly hat and it also allows someone else to condemn the wearing of the silly hat.

Good points. I think if both "sides" were to be completely honest, there's willingness to accept that true freedom of thought means freedom to disagree with or reject certain philosophies or theologies. However, for that to work, there are probably "common sense" limits both have to practice. Actions such as those proposed in the OP seem to broach upon "agitation", more than legitimate adherence to the Establishment Clause.

Yes Sir. Very sad.

SGM (Join to see), Arlington was mentioned as maybe the next place they will want the crosses removed. It really saddens me it has come to this in our country.