That's the point: one religion receives preferential treatment in the public sphere.

The governing body offered to sell it? I didn't know that. The whole park, or only the area that the cross was situated on? If it was the whole park, that was silly and/or fanatical to oppose. If it was only the little piece of land actually holding the cross, then the group was right: the safety and maintenance of the cross, as well as access and surrounding land of which it would continue to be the centerpiece, the focal point, would still be publicly funded and the responsibility of the government. Think of it as the Intelligent Design ploy, only with real estate.

"Value-related things"? Why do I think you're referring to reproductive issues here? That a particular thing offends someone's religious beliefs is not the same as that particular thing being an explicit expression of a particular religion's creed, laws or tradition.

The anti-establishment clause refers specifically to preferential treatment given to one religion over others. I will say it again: If a Christian or a non-Christian can prove, to the satisfaction of the courts, that any item, declaration, or policy that has been instituted, erected, installed, or maintained by civil government has an intrinsic religious significance to a specific religion, then that item, declaration, or policy is in violation of the anti-establishment clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and should be removed.

The "cultural war" business concerns Christians who think that equality for everyone in religious matters is a step down for them. And you know what? They're right. If they are concerned that they have no place to turn, no shelter from the onslaught of equal treatment under the law, they can regroup in and evangelize from the largest concentration of private tax-exempt property in America.