text: When you say you'd agree with me if there were "no cross and someone wanted to erect on on public land." I'm not sure what the point of disagreement is to begin with. I've stated nowhere that I'm in favor of removing this or any other cross. To the contrary: I have said that I'm in favor of a plurality of religious voices being representation, including Christian voices. There was a point when no cross stood on that public land; at what point does it achieve status as "historical?" 10 years? 20 years? Was the John Sunday house protected by such considerations of being "historical" by that metric? My point is that it is a difficult criterion to define and we've seen the City already doesn't care to enforce such a criterion. It seems to me that your ire is not best directed at me or my view, but at the person who judged that the cross must come down, viz., the federal judge. Again, I favor letting all religious voices be heard; given time they'd be historical as the cross.