Originally Posted By: swampwalkerIt's not about being offended. It's about footing the bill for a God that you don't believe in. You wouldn''t want to pay for a statue of Mohamed would you? "In God we trust" on our currency is a bit different. It doesn't specifically address any one particular God.
The Jaycee's donated and erected the cross in the 70s, the city incurred no costs there.
Looking at that the city has incurred...
-- The costs of mowing the grass around it, just like they would mow the grass if it wasn't there.
-- They've probably incurred the cost of lighting it at night, much like they light the rest of the park at night.
-- They've probably got a few flowers planted around it, much like they have flowers planted in other places around the park.
-- About the only true cost to tax payers would likely be the cost of painting it every however many years, which it's not unreasonable to believe that somewhere in the 5+ year range, maybe more dependent upon paint used. And, if it cost $5,000 a trip to paint it, that's $50,000 costs incurred over 50 years.
It's also likely that they've spent tens of millions of dollars on bicycle paths around the city, when the majority of the population doesn't ride a bicycle, tens of millions of dollars on recreation facilities that only a small percentage of the population uses, the costs of insuring and maintaining bicycle paths, and sporting complexes are far greater every year, than the costs of maintaining that cross for 50 years. We spend millions on handicap facilities that only a very small percentage of the population uses. Does anyone ask that any of these facilities be removed because they are forced to foot the bill for any of them, when they don't believe in or use them?
I would agree with you however that it's not about anyone being offended; it's about offending someone else. Someone doesn't believe, therefore they feel compelled to go out and pisss in someone else's cornflakes because they do, quite honestly. And, that's what suits of this nature are about. Activists take offense to such a monument, move into the community, run down and claim they're offended, because sharing the costs of maintenance on something of this pales in comparison to everything else they share costs, so they have to be offended for it to count in court, file suit, and move on to their next target.
Next time y'all encounter some anti-gun/anti-hunter types on public land when you're afield, give up your guns, and quietly go home, you have no right to offend them according to what you're suggesting here.