Does a cross hold any religious meaning to an atheist?

There are Christians that use the fish instead of the cross. There are Christians that see any symbol as idolatry. There are Muslims who see any picture depicting a human being or animal as idolatry. There are probably people who see the statue of Liberty and lady justice as pagan idols. Do you pick and choose whose opinion you enforce or do we just get rid of all artwork or anything else that can be construed to be a religious symbol.

Then we better get rid of the music to as you know rock and roll is the devil’s music.

I saw a statue of Mary in someone’s yard and figured it was idolitry. Do I get to destroy that because of my opinion?

In short the cross has the meaning that you personally put to it just like the statue of liberty.

KB: I said that? I certainly don’t remember saying that, but if you could quote me on it, that’d be great. Anyway, the statue of liberty and the like are devoid of religious meaning at this point in time, so that argument is moot. If you’d like to argue that the cross holds no religious meaning now, I’d be interested to hear it.

First off, the Mt. Soledad Cross was erected by private citizens. Secondly, the Mt. Soledad Memorial Association, which maintains the memorial is a private non-profit. Third, who do you think the Founders would agree with MR? Do you really think that the intent of the Est. Clause was to ensure that there were no religous symbols anywhere for any reason on public property?

So now that you’ve been educated that the Mt. Soledad was sponsored by and is now maintained by a private groups and that you darn well that the Founders did not intend the ESTABLISHMENT Clause (there’s no such thing as the “Endorsement Clause” despite distortions of the court the last few decades), do you still have a problem with this long-standing, historic symbol of the sacrifice of our fallen heroes?