I find it interesting from some of the comments that think this is basically petty because it was erected over 90 years ago and that it is a ' cultural relic of remembrance appropriate for its time' and not a 'religious one' that that is some of the basic reasoning that the religious right uses to proclaim that erections of crosses on public lands is 'non-religious' for these reasons: 'They aren't really religious in nature' 'They don't establish or promote one religion over another', yet they cry foul and claim religious persecution when the crosses are rejected...

I suspect the cross in this case IS religious in nature (though it CAN fullfill other purposes) and I back the FFRF because of 1st amendment reasons, regardless of when the cross was erected since it was erected after the 1st amendment was passed...