Mt. Soledad cross ordered to be taken down

[Jenny A]

Is this really any different than the Taliban destroying Buddhist monuments in Afghanistan?

Yes there is a difference. We do protect historic, and prehistoric religious symbols that were erected before the the land became public, but not because of their religious value. They are preserved for their historic value. I'll give you some examples. Across the Southwest, ancient pueblo Indian Pueblos sit on public land. They inclue kivas, which are really churches/community centers. They include religious icronography. And yes those religions are still practiced. Religious petroglyphs are also preserved on federal land. Similarly, so is a church in Capital Reef National Park. It's part of a group of houses and other pioneer buildings. I doubt it's the ony church preserved this way. But it is preserved for it's historic content and not as a symbol of Christianity. I've been in at least 50, probably more, government opperated museums that display iconography of various religions western and eastern, Indian, prehistoric, and African. None of them promotes these religions, and I have no objetion to the displays.

The cross in question is rather different. It was erected to promote a religion on land that was public when it was erected. It is not a historic display but an actively religious one. The option to move it is allowed. Blowing it up without that option, is not on the table. It's differentin all respects from the symbols being blown up in the middle east.