It's difficult to believe that there are so many who either don't understand the law or choose to disobey. The United States is not a theocracy, is not a Christian nation (although most of the citizens profess to be Christians). The cross should come down.

War memorials on public property should not be religious. War heroes are of many religions and none (such as Pat Tillman). Religionists love to pretend there are no atheists in foxholes, but they are mistaken: www.militaryatheists.org/expaif.html

A cross in a display on public property is clearly inappropriate. It's hard to believe that nobody recognized it when the memorial was placed there. Although religionists love to pretend, there ARE atheists in foxholes and to have a war memorial with a religious symbol is insulting to all the military personnel who are non-religious or of another religion.

The origina Buddists and Jainists have not god; Jewish Americans could very well be reminded of the centuries of Christian anti-Semitism when they see crosses and Muslims reminded of the Crusades.

Some of the Lutheran sects disassociated themselves from Martin Luther's "On the Jews and their Lies" in the 1980s and the pope exonerated the Jews for killing Jesus only last year! The non-religious beat them hands down on morality!

It is sad that the alleged Christians don't understand that the Golden Rule would have them objecting to the cross at the time it was proposed, as they should treat public property as they would like to have it if they lived in a country where Christianity was a minority religion.

One commenter even failed to realize that the cross is a symbol of Jesus's bad weekend rather than a neutral one!

I was taught that silent prayer worked as well as spoken ones and to respect the separation of church and state (the meaning of the references to religion in the Constitution). Now some folks pretend that Thomas Jefferson didn't understand the meaning of it! Education, education, education!

A nativity scene does not belong on public property. Even if it weren't illegal, Christians who like to quote the Golden Rule can surely understand that reminders of Christian discrimation against Jews would be inappropriate.

When I was a child, many Protestants I knew believed that statues of any kind were idol worship, thus against the Ten Commandments. Such a nativity scene would be offensive to them also. Did Jesus teach to be offensive?

City Councilor Steve Uffelman is correct that it is appropriate to put it on private property.

It is amazing that people don't know that Jesus wasn't even born in the winter, let alone on December 25. The reason for the season is the axial tilt of the earth and everyone in the northern hemisphere can celebrate the lengthening days just as they have done long before the stories of Jesus' birth. (Yes, the bible has two contradicting stories of Jesus' birth. Whatever are wise men doing in the manger scene?)

That is exactly right. The United States has supported Israel's expansion against our interests for far too long.

Nancy Pelosi has been consistant. The CIA has recently even admitted the briefing dates they stated were wrong, etc. so what they claim were in the briefings probably was inaccurate too. This is what she said in December, 2007; the CIA and the Republicans didn't refute her statements then.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti...

Cheney saying on TV that Obama's making our nation less safe by not using those techniques is just trying to scare people, just as before the war(s). Didn't the Bush Administration stop using waterboarding in 2005 as previously reported (or were they lying then too)?
[page 1 from above Washington Post article]

Another reason not to trust the CIA's account:
[page 1 from above]

The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup.

Since Jesus was clear about the importance of avoiding a public show of religion in Matthew 6, he probably would have approved of what our president did.

I suspect, more importantly, that our president wanted to avoid anything that might imply that our government is religious. The Treaty of Tripoli clearly said that. It was ratified by a unanimous vote of the Senate and signed by President Adams not long after the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution.

Neither of these, of course, infringe on the rights of our citizens in regard to their respective religions.