Both of these issues were looked on favorably by those men.

Are they both okay with you?

There’s an old adage: History is made by those who write it. Give it some thought.

This argument is between people of other religions, who want their dead to be represented by their own religious symbols, not another religion’s cross. Sounds American to me – “To each her own”, or “Pro-choice” – choose your own religious symbol for your memorial. Why should the symbol of one religion be used for everybody?

The giant Buddhas for hundreds of years looked out onto Afghan people with their Islamic religion without offense, until the Taliban arrived with their directives.

Tell me what the difference is, and do so without any valuative moral high ground.

Holocaust Museum: How were the funds raised for the Museum’s construction?

Built on land donated by the federal government and funded with more than 200,000 private donations, the Museum is the product of a strong partnership between the government and private philanthropy.

Here is the list of delegates (and Steele’s name is not there, because he was not a delegate): http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/marryff.html

Roger Sherman at once seconded Franklin’s motion. But Hamilton and several others feared that calling in a clergyman at so late a stage might lead the public to suspect dissensions in the Convention. To this Franklin countered that a measure of alarm out of doors might do as much good as ill. Williamson of North Carolina made the flat statement everyone knew the real reason for not engaging a chaplain: the Convention had no funds.

After all of this Franklin’s motion failed.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081122174755AA9Z2WE

Does everything have to include any and everybody now? Is there no room for individual expression?

Yes, Docelder, so long as reasonable people have a place to vent their frustrations, there is plenty of room for individual expression. Hell, we should all insist upon it. I think NQ comes as close as any I’ve found in all my years of commenting (Yahoo, MSN, etc.). Don’t fret–that’s what the always-saying-nay want you to do.

Fumble fingers, again.

What “story” does a Christian cross say

You can feel the contempt for that cross in just those many words. This is what is fueling this battle for a lonely cross in the middle of nowhere… contempt for that for which it represents. The rest of the arguments are rationalization. But, I expect it will come down. As a few here gleefully retort… we evidently aren’t a Christian nation. Never mind it is the dominant faith in this nation and never mind that cross in the desert doesn’t exclude anybody from feeling about it anything they want to feel. Never mind it was the faith of the men who erected it… which is all that matters really. Nobody said it represents everybody… just those men who put it there. But some have as mush disdain for those men as they do for that cross. Neither the men or the cross represent some people. What I ask is so wrong with that? Does everything have to include any and everybody now? Is there no room for individual expression?