This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comment

← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

LaurieB's Avatar Jump to comment 21 by LaurieB

paulmarkj

Please fix your blockquote above. I did say the first line but I did NOT say the second line and I do not agree with the second line. This is an American matter and I definitely don't care what the world thinks about it.

We have a secular constitution here and religious statements on public property are unconstitutional. The FFRF are not stirring up trouble just for the fun of it. They are insisting on compliance with a federal constitution that all of our states have signed on to in total agreement. If the constitution needs changing then there are legitimate ways of doing so. I am not aware of any state or group that seeks to amend the constitution to allow creation of a state religion. Of course, they are welcome to try. But as long as the separation of church and state stands as the law of the land, then why would anyone feel bad that it will be enforced?

cynicaloptimistrealist

Removing that cross from public property is not a reactionary act. It is a progressive act. By removing that cross we will make a statement to Jewish citizens, Hindu citizens, Buddhist citizens, Muslim citizens and Atheist citizens that the American government does not favor any particular religion over the other and protects everyone's right to worship as they please on their own private property. Private property includes their own land and houses and also the land and churches, temples and mosques and other types of religious meeting places where they are free (within the zoning laws) to put crosses, stars, or whatever the hell they want to put. In fact, in Salem, Massachusetts, 20 minutes away, there is an old church that has been purchased and converted into a devil worshiping center. They painted it black and there are 2 huge gargoyles out front flanking the front door. I don't care about it to be honest. It makes me laugh and roll my eyes every time I drive by it - because it's on private property!! Let someone try to install big black gargoyles flanking the doors of the town hall and that's a very different story isn't it?

It would be a reactionary act if people like me, the descendants of the religious fundamentalist, bigots, racists and sexists who stepped off that rickety boat on the Massachusetts shore in 1620, say that since we were here "first" then everyone else must allow us to force our small minded little religion down your throats and there's not a thing you can do about it! The buck stops here. I'm the first generation since 1620 in my family that is proud to say that people should keep their religion to themselves, if someone wants to participate in any other religion here then they are free to do so, and that we are free to NOT believe if we don't want to.

What the hell does this all have to do with cemetery headstones? And who says we want to destroy historical and cultural treasures in Europe and Middle East? I sure hope no one wrecks those cathedrals in Europe since I quite enjoy touring through them when I get the chance and I'm hoping to get to Istanbul sometime this fall to see that mosque of theirs!

And rest assured, American secularists are perfectly capable of maintaining concern about both large issues and small "petty" ones too. All at the same time! Yes, it's possible to chew gum and walk, both at the same time!

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:52:25 UTC | #937971