The cross was erected at a time when such arguments were unknown, and frankly unacceptable. No one at the time would have had, or did have, an objection.

Now that a majority of those it honored are passing, they can't defend their vision. A great opportunity for the historical revisionist to take advantage.

Amazingly, the WWII Memorial in Washington DC made every effort to avoid any reference to a religious aspect of the conflict.
This despite the true history.

Well meaning seculars, who are proposing new monuments and tributes to our fallen in history, can design and implement whatever they want. They are creating their own history and we can value it appropriately.

But existing monuments, and especialy private ones, are created by people in the contemporary ethusiasms of their achievements. That is their tribute and their vision of the moment. It's sacred to the moment and to the people of the time, and should never be violated by historical revisionists.

My position here is not based on religion but the presevation of history. If non christians are to be honored there, their supporters should be allowed to place monuments of their own. Secularists do not seem to have any icons or symbols. Apparently they disdain and reject them. So, it would seem, they are already equaly represented.

Why then, is there a problem?

franc