Crosses aren't always religious symbols

This is in regards to the article, "Judges rule cross at Calif. Park unconstitutional": We should all be greatly disturbed by such decisions. The First Amendment to the Constitution restricts only the Congress of the United States from making a law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

To presume that the figure of a cross is always religious is ridiculous. A cross in a religious setting such as a church, or erected specifically for religious purposes, like the giant cross in Texas on private property, is a religious expression. A cross beside the highway marking the spot where a loved one died has no religious meaning. It means a loved one died there. A cross erected to honor the military men and women who died for this country in a war represents no religion. It is only a monument erected in memory of the death of those who fought for our country. It certainly is not the Congress of the United States enacting, or endorsing, a law relating to religion. Absolutely no law exists because of it. Rather it is the voice of the people, not Congress, being expressed on public land which belongs to the people.

Every citizen should be alarmed because the freedoms enjoyed in this country for more than 200 years are now being judged as unconstitutional. Strangely, most decisions are related only to Christianity. Actually, the judges are unconstitutional in their decision. Think about it.

Pastor Lindon Sparks, Barstow