What would you have them erect? . . . Some conglomerate of a cross, a Star of David, and you know, a Muslim half moon and star? . . . I don't think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead.
Scalia definitely has no problem avoiding religious sensitivity. He seems to dismiss even the idea of a more inclusive memorial outright. Since the memorial was built more than 75 years ago, there could be a valid argument for preserving it for historical reasons, but it seems only right that today's memorials should not favor one religion. Then again, perhaps the separation of church and state goes even further to dictate that no religious symbols should be found on public land. That is the question the Supreme Court must decide.
What do you think? Should crosses be allowed on public lands, should religious memorials be required to be all-inclusive, or should religious symbols be banned altogether from public land?