Mike T.
It is about separation of Church and State. The problem is still one of identifying a state employee with a religious movement. The cross is not a secular monument.
Religion does exist even if God doesn't which is why it should be challenged when and where ever it crosses the line from private action to state supported action. Religions have been using the state to foist their religion on others since the beginning of civilization. Its a great temptation. We still see this practice commonly done in in the Middle East, often with extreme cruelty, even to children.
If dragon-worshippers were erecting dragons to memorialize these officers as dragon-worshippers with state funds and on state monuments they would be just as offensive.
Let us say that ethnic Muslims by exercising their right to vote, controlled the state government. If they were using crescents in place of crosses, would not most Christians also be offended? Would they not consider the use of the Crescents by the state as promoting Islam?
I cannot see how religions folks can't recognize the obvious. It is about the usage of state funds and resources to promote religion that is the problem, not the religion itself.
Conversely, the non-promotion of religion by the state is not a promotion of atheism. It is a recognition of secularism limited to government, something that our Consbreastution, while clearly based on judeo-christian morals (that also promoted slavery by the way), insisted upon the clear resolution being that no religion should dominate a nation of people of differing views.
We are republic. It is not about just "majority" rule, it is also about protecting folks from the excesses of the majority.
Not a perfect system by any means, but it is an effort at basic fairness.
A memorialization of the heroism of state officers can be done without promoting Christianity. They did not die for their religion, they died exercising their duty to ALL the citizens of the state.
