But not in this case
I think a functioning mission should have to pay there own way and don't agree with president Bush on this one.
Having to gut a symbol of it's religious significance is not what is happening at the state owned missions. The symbols at the state owned missions have one significance and there meaning is not gutted, just not practiced.
I see no reason the cross in question with a 50 year history as memorial to veterans cannot be viewed the same as the ones at the missions. It's not like it is a place of worship where regular mass is being held.