[Dilbert San Diego]

As I understand it, it is considered an endorsement of religion, per liberal criteria, because a cross is on the site.

I heard it suggested that if they chop the arms off the cross , then the atheists would deem the memorial to be acceptable.

Or if the cross were removed, again, the atheists would be ok with it.

So to these activists, any symbol of any religious significance has to be removed.

[Political Junkie Too]

respecting an establishment of religion

That's the confusion, the "endorsement of religion."

I think (and I don't know but I assume it's been debated by others who are smarter than me), that "respecting an establishment of religion" does NOT mean the concept of "religion." I think "establishment" means a specific denomination of church, not the verb "to create."

So, "respecting an establishment of religion" means respecting, say, Methodists over Protestants, not the general concept of "religion, " which a single non-denominational cross in a cemetery represents.

The cross itself is not an establishment of any one religion.

-PJ

[Midwesterner53]

There is no more intolerant, bigoted, hate filled group than militant atheists.

[gnickgnack2]

I don’t see anything that prohibits endorsing a religion, or multiple religions even. Endorsing would indicate that it is okay to call it a religion, as opposed to some cults. Establishing would require the government to say that a particular religion is the official religion of the state.