The cross as a marker does not have to be a Christian symbol.
The cross
is the de facto symbol of Christianity, like it or not. What an individual's own perception on it's additional meanings are is irrelevant. If this marker was the crescent moon of Islam you know damn well not a single christian would buy that it really stands for something else.
It is those that want to make an issue of a marker that is the problem.
While I hardly consider this an important, pressing issue, the incorrect representation of non christian dead is a point of order, and to me appears to more of an affront than separation of church and state advocates getting their panties in a bunch. But then that's probably because I care more about religious freedom of other Americans being respected than I do having my own ethos advertised. The
real problem here is people who decide to take the law into their own hands and commit a crime like the theft of the cross. Who knows, maybe it will show up as an anonymous donation to a church, where it can installed on private property as a proper commemoration of christian veterans.
This was a symbol of respect to those that died for the country.
That may have been the intent, but by using a religious symbol it has the opposite effect for those who don't share that religion. The nationalistic, non religious explanation simply wouldn't fly if the marker were something non-christian. Trying to insinuate that a cross isn't religious is ridiculous. If someone were to erect a memorial based around a swastika, but with a disclaimer that it doesn't promote Nazism, you'd call shens in an instant (as well you should!)
And those that choose to desecrate it are not trying to understand that these men gave their all so some idiot could bitch.
I've already commented on that crime, and won't derail with details on how WWI wasn't about preserving American liberties, but will say that if this area in question wasn't government land then we wouldn't be having this debate.