Why one and not the other?

http://www.courierpress.com/news/2013/aug/04/cross-the-river-on-private-ground-and-open-to/

Earlier this year, local churches of different denominations wanted to display crosses, each made by a different church, displayed along the Ohio river. It was to show diversity and solidarity among the churches. Thanks to a couple of people filing a complaint using the argument of separation of church and state, the court system ruled against the crosses being displayed on public property. What I thought was spectacular, was the fact that a whole bunch of local businesses down by the river allowed the group to use their property to display their crosses. It aggravated me that the pettiness of  a couple people could spoil such an event that was going to be put on by multiple church organizations of different religions, but, technically they were right. Petty, but legally right. Now, can someone explain to me how the following is deemed alright, because I just don't understand how it can be proper when the above was not.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/09/23/national-park-service-produces-videos-praising-islam/

I have a hard time trying to swallow the part about Islam being woman friendly, and a peaceful religion to start with. How on earth can the government justify having this on government property. I find the double standard quite offensive. Christianity has to walk on egg shells and stay off of public land, but, if it has to do with Islam, we all have to show tolerance? Why? Seems really lopsided to me. I really hope they get enough negative feedback, that they remove this atrocity from public land, but, I highly doubt it.