Congress Double-Cross At Mojave?

The author Bruce Ticker from the smirking chimp wrote this atrocious article that basically bashes congress for somehow discriminating against minorities in religion by denying a Buddhist shrine to be placed on the land of the Mojave National Park. Congress then proceeds to allow a cross that was erected by a local VFW which was placed in 1934 to remain standing as a national monument because the cross was erected to commemorate fallen soldiers. Bruce later goes on and says that other minorities may consider this to be an affront to their choice of religion and that he interprets the first amendment as saying "I personally interpret the First Amendment to mean that no religious symbols are permitted on taxpayer-funded property". Is this a serious statement that he just made? Our money has the words In God We Trust on them and he is complaining about a cross erected for fallen soldiers? Should we also retract the printings of the flag raising at Iwo Jima? Should we go to Arlington and start kicking over the crosses? Bruce it seems is arguing that there should be a Buddhist shrine as well as the cross which makes no sense at all from his reasoning. In effect his interpretation of the first amendment would validate the park for not allowing the Buddhist shrine to be built in the first place, there is also the issue that the cross was " erected by the VFW in 1934 to commemorate fallen soldiers." Would that not make that a national monument like congress declared it to be? I imagine that the Pearl Harbor monument over the U.S.S Arizona which happens to be shaped like a cross will have to be moved or destroyed next due to his logic. The point that continues to stun me about this article is that the author plainly says that he does not believe that there should be any religious symbols on tax-payer funded property, then how is it that we are discriminating against minorities? they should not be allowed to have a religious shrine there in the first place. The next issue is that because a judge does not see his way they are and I quote "simplistic". The judges who are quote "relatively sane" are strongly urged by the author to consider the sequence of events? why would they want to do that, their job is to determine whether or not the cross is a national monument or not. The other issue seems to be that people are angry that congress swapped land in order to give the VFW the acre around the cross so that the issue of it being taken down or not does not apply. So now the cross is on private land and apparently in the middle of nowhere so the authors claim of resentment of viewing religious symbols on public land has no bearing on this argument as the land is now privately owned. Congress and the President have the authority to make national monuments and in fact to sell or trade land as well. This is one of the worst arguments that I have ever heard in my lifetime, Bruce constantly contradicts himself and has not done the adequate research to support of his audacious claims.