So you think that it's OK to trample on the anti-establishment clause because such acts don't offend you?

Listen to me: Every week we get hundreds of donated books to the library. We have a policy that governs what we will include in the collection and what we give to the book store. (Also we have to throw a good portion away because people think donating torn and moldy books to the library is better than paying to have them disposed of themselves, but that's another issue.)

Every so often, we are swamped with donations that are all of a particular religious or political bent. The policy calls for a balanced collection that serves the needs of the service area. This means that, when we receive a collection of books denying the Holocaust, we must make sure we have one or two in the collection, as a representation of that idea, but we don't keep the entire box. If we kept every Book of Mormon that was donated to us, we would have three whole shelves of them, even though Mormons constitute a tiny minority of our Christian population here. We have lots of books about Christianity because we have lots of Christians in our service area and there is a demand, but the other religious are all represented insofar as we know what they are. (We even have books on Rastafarianism, though I'm unaware of any Rastafarians in the neighborhood.) After 911, we received an enormous box of brand new books about Islam, which I think was from CAIR, that contained a cover letter reading "Dear Librarian": an obvious mass-mailing intended to tip the library collections of the region, and possibly even of the state or the country. We kept a fraction and sold the rest. On the other hand, we would have no books on Judaism at all if we didn't buy them because the Jews, as a matter of religious belief, don't prostletize.

We work on the inclusion principle because our mission is information distribution and education. The government has decided that the exclusion principle is more cost-effective for them. But then, books are easier to store and maintain than statues and giant crosses. We can fit a world of creeds on a few shelves, all together, everyone represented. There's only room for one giant cross on the top of the mountain.

When people force the government, or any other public agency, to accept donations advocating a particular religion, the religion with the most adherents wins. It becomes the established religion, not by legislation but by fiat. The other religions are not recognized.

If religious groups want to build a monument, a house of worship, a display of some kind, and open it to the public, that is their choice, and its maintenance and safety should be their responsibility.

Private donations for public displays on private land maintained by private funds. That's it. Period.