At least one LA Times reader gets it:
A federal judge ruled that a cross' presence on federal land conveyed an endorsement of religion. Left unsaid is just how such a feeling by some is equivalent to a "law respecting an establishment of religion," as the 1st Amendment states, and how the plaintiffs are ever harmed by such symbols without enforced rules on how one has to act religiously.
Mr. Wolf's sentiment echoes mine made here yesterday:
The Desert Cross Case's Hidden Meaning.