Supreme Court says Mojave cross can stand

From the L.A. Times:

The Supreme Court gave its approval Wednesday to displaying a cross on public land to honor fallen soldiers, saying the Constitution "does not require the eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm."

Speaking for a divided court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the 1st Amendment called for a middle-ground "policy of accommodation" toward religious displays on public land, not a strict separation of church and state.

Kennedy disagreed with judges in California who said U.S. National Park Service officials must remove a small Latin cross from the Mojave National Preserve that had stood since 1934 to honor soldiers who died in World War I. The judges said the display of the cross on public land amounted to a government endorsement of religion.

....

Retiring Justice John Paul Stevens spoke for the dissenters. The government has good reason for "honoring all those who have rendered heroic public service regardless of creed," but it should "avoid endorsement of a particular religious view" in doing so, he said.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor agreed.

The cross is the symbol of Christianity. It's inseparable from it. The purpose that the cross is put to here might be broader in context than an endorsement of religion--but the symbol used is still explicitly Christian. This accommodation is a poor call because it allows for "creep". Simple separation of church and state makes the line clear: no endorsement of religion on public land.

What this sort of thing allows for is a kind of "officially acceptable" expression of religion. It's okay if it's displayed in an historical context, or has been repurposed into a memorial, or if, darn it, we just like it. And how do they choose which types of displays aren't officially acceptable? Too whimsical--no Flying Spaghetti Monsters, please! Not popular enough--as was the case with a monument to the Seven Aphorisms of the smallish sect called Summum. It creates a favoritism which is altogether too close to actual state endorsement of particular sects for my taste.