Apparently, Frank Buono a citizen of Oregon has filed suit against Ken Sandoz , Secretary of the Interior to tear down a veterans' memorial in the Mojave desert that features a cross because he might, might mind you, drive through the Mojave desert someday, see this monument and become offended by it. Now I know what you may be thinking, surely this is some plot by the ACLU and atheists to get rid of crosses and other religious imagery everywhere, forever. Mr. Salazar, I'm sad to say, is Roman Catholic. I hesitate to say even that because I was raised in that particular faith and there is nothing in that belief system that would cause a person to be offended by a cross on a memorial.

The story gets more interesting when you delve into the history of the case.  You can find the background at the Scotus Wiki site.  Mr. Buono is a retired civil servant, from, wait for it....the department of the interior.  So we are expected to believe that this guy is making a big deal about this long after he knew about this monument.  Shame on you Mr. Buono.

If you really want to see how divorced from reality law is, read the background briefs. Better yet get your baloney detection kit and challenge false premise of the case. One of the biggest assumptions of the case concern the phrase "reasonable person". There is no such thing. What you consider reasonable, I may consider unreasonable and vice versa. That's one of those empty phrases that means whatever someone wants it to mean. Can you think of any other place in the world where people are discussing things like this?

The whole purpose of law is to protect people's life and liberty. I don't see how this interpretation of the law does any of that. When you expand the law to include things that might happen or things that are not concrete, you begin to pervert the spirt of the law and people start to lose respect for the law. When people lose respect for the law, law becomes oppressive and hateful.

There are practical considerations to take into account as well. It has to do with the nature of the military, especially an all volunteer military.   Several of our Founders warned against a standing army because they felt that was the easiest way to induct a tyranny.  What they may not have understood is that the military of a republic is loyal to the principles of that republic, not necessarily loyal to a person or office. 

Because of this they tend to be more conservative than other groups in society.  This has serious implications when you consider that fact along with the fact that we currently have, in this country, an activist judiciary who take it upon themselves to not only strike down laws and actions that may be unconstitutional but also prescribe remedies from the bench.   Where the court sees this as a religious issue, it's a veteran's issue to the troops.  We ask these kids to possibly lay their lives down for us, the very least we can do is respect their monuments.  If we don't, do we really deserve the sacrifices they make?