Another example of taking the First Amendment too far

Below is another example of taking the First Amendment - in the form of Separation of Church and State - too far.
You know, I am completely understanding of the idea that people want their religions to have equal status under the law, not only in practicality but in appearance as well. In the creation of new memorials, it would be perfectly acceptable to me to incorporate Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. as well as Christian symbols into the statues or monuments. I think this would be a fair proposal to make. But to completely tear a memorial down simply because it incorporates a cross - this is wrong.
The government should not sponsor or endorse any single religion. But this does not mean it cannot or should not interact with and have exchanges with a multitude of them. I have alredy heard the threats mounting about Arlington National Cemetary. One chapter of the ACLU recently released a proposal to challenge the engraving of religious symbols onto the gravestones in national cemetaries - given that they are federal institutions. They can be sure of one thing, if they ever try to deface my father's grave like that, I will be standing there ready to stop them...by any means necessary.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court intervened Monday to save a large cross on city property in southern California.

A lower court judge had ordered the city of San Diego to remove the cross or be fined $5,000 a day.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, acting for the high court, issued a stay while supporters of the cross continue their legal fight.

Lawyers for San Diegans for the Mt. Soledad National War Memorial said in an appeal that they wanted to avoid the "destruction of this national treasure." And attorneys for the city said the cross was part of a broader memorial that was important to the community.

The 29-foot cross, on San Diego property, sits atop Mount Soledad. A judge declared it was an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.

The cross, which has been in place for decades, was contested by Philip Paulson, a Vietnam veteran and atheist.

Three years ago the Supreme Court refused to consider to consider the long-running dispute between Paulson and the city.