The Cross Is Allowed by the Constitution--religious speech

This Cross is my original oil painting that I Gloria Poole painted @ Denver Colorado 80203. It is for obvious reasons to express religious intent.
In the news this morning of the NY Times is an article about the U S Supreme Court case involving a lone man challenging the 'right' of California to have a Cross on federally-owned properties. And the atheist spin of their op-ed piece is what comes through their article. I have a different point of view on this and it is very important to me as I am Christian and the Cross matters a whole lot to me.
The U S Constitution allows the Christian Cross, the Jewish Star of David, the Islamic Crescent, the prayer beads of Monks, --all religious symbols in the First Amendment that allows the people /citizens to liberty to worship GOD as they see proper, and to express/write about/talk about/publish their religious beliefs.
If the U S Supreme Court tries to suppress that religious expression then it is purposely trying to establish atheism as the 'official religion' of the United States and that would violate the establishment clause. Atheism is the denial that GOD exists and for a nation to adopt that as its official policy is ruinous to a nation because GOD said so. It is written,' blessed is the nation whose GOD is THE LORD; and the people whom HE hath chosen for HIS own inheritance." {Psalms 33:12].
My second point is that the Congress and or the federal government own nothing. What is bought directly via government agents with taxpayers money appropriated by act of Congress collectively like buildings and or land belongs to the taxpayers not to the government. The taxpayers pay the debts of the government. The government has no money of its own. Therefore the land that is supposely owned by the taxpayers is property of the taxpayers and it should serve the purposes of the taxpayers. Therefore if the majority of taxpayers in California have not complained or opposed that Christian cross on display, why is a sole atheist given more authority in the law than millions of Christians? Why should the policies of one man who hates GOD be allowed to destroy California and the nation? Why should not that one man be made to 'tolerate' [that infamous word that perverts everywhere use when referencing their attempts to legalize sodomy and sin] Christianity ? Why should Christians be forced into catacombs and secretive worship to appease the devil?
The better solution other than denying the Christian Cross the very symbol of Christianity, is to allow all religious speech which is the intent of the First Amendment. Establishing secular [without GOD] humanistic [worship of humans] atheistic [haters of GOD] by declaration of the U S Supreme Court violating the laws [Amendments] of the people who ratified the First Amendment, in an effort to rule over/suppress religious speech and worship of GOD will destroy this nation.
/s/ Gloria Poole, @ Denver Colorado 80203 @ 5:53AM, 7-Oct-2009
Update at 6:13 AM on different topic:
Also in the NY Times is a collection of writers who are suggesting reasons for why older workers are being laid off more so now. And an article on the 5th said that 15. + million people are out of work currently. The Obama policies are the engine of that, not the solution.The Obama-Democrat-socialist policies of government control of all decisions is causing panic among employers. Reading the news tells them that the socialist plan of government take-over of health care delivery is to force employers and citizesn to pay whatever premiums BIG INSURANCE demands; [whether adminstered by government or hired by government it is still a HUGE capture of most of the health care dollars if it succeeds.] The employers know that insurance premiums are set by actuarial studies and that the insurance companies have a century of data--numbers to crunch. Those actuarial tables are published info, and they state what has proved to be true. Some of those facts are that married heterosexual couples live longer than single men and women do. And that sodomy is dangerous to the life itself. And that abortions are fraught with medical risk on the short term [death from anesthesia, and puntured innards, and the long term* [sterilization by surgery leading to later wanting IVF or substitute mothers that they want insurance to pay for]*. And that people in their 60's are more likely to need health care than people in their twenty's. And that when people need health care and the bills are actually paid,the 'pot of money' or envelope of money, or account of money is depleted, and the premiums go up. That is why older workers and all workers are being laid off. The employers do not want to be extorted more money from their profits to pay for health insurance or risk even higher punitive fines and damages and ruinous expenses to their businesses. The plan to mandate more expenses to the business owners causes them all to have to assess who is critical to the success of their companies and who is not. It's a no-brainer but then if you put all the brain-power of all the Congress together it would not equal much. They have coalesced into group-think and seldom think independently but as they are told by their "Party bosses." Puppets would be a better description of the present Congress [except that 'you lie' Congressman Wilson] than representatives of the people.
*Footnote, I wanted to clarify that I am ALWAYS opposed to abortion and to sodomy since GOD said those are abomination to HIM. Also that I am always opposed to any plan that has the government force behind that has the intent of annihilating humans. The builtins for that plan would legislate euthanasia bypassing the Constitution's written right to life [Amendment] in a sneaky, underhanded, double-speak way. The evil that always results from government plans that decide who gets the skills of medical doctors and who gets 2 yr trained Physicians Assistants instead of real medical doctors, is not hidden from Congress. The fact that they want to deceive the nation, is made obvious by their plan to exempt themselves from the plan they devise 'for the people.'
Also this quote from a BBC article this morning discussing how Asia perceives euthanasia : "Your life is part of the family. Even if you want to die, your family would not let you die.

"You are part of the family. If you die there's a consequence to your family, to the people around you," says Dr Kwok."