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


← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

mmurray's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by mmurray

Comment 19 by cynicaloptimistrealist :

Are you seriously suggesting that enforcing the US constitution is somehow akin to Year Zero in Cambodia or moving a memorial onto private land the same as dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas ?

Hello again Michael,

The point is that the monument has sat there for 91 years, it is not a proposed monument or something that the local government planted there a couple of weeks ago. Many historic monuments throughout the world have a religious or superstitious dimension and many of them sit on public land. The monument does not breach the First Amendment because at the time of its construction the cross was seen as a cultural symbol of rememberance. That "+" sign we see on hospitals and pharmacies shares similar cultural origins. So whether you see it or not, demanding the removal of previous cultural symbols because "we wish to establish a secular society" is very much akin to the Cultural Revolution and dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas, except we are saying "Oh, I don't like that, hide it away where no one can see it!"


I don't know who "we" is in this context. All I am saying is there is a supposed breach of the US constitution. If I am wrong and what you say is right then I guess this will get settled. I would have thought the US constitution predated the monument so it would have been a breach when first erected.

Sorry but this is nothing like the Cultural Revolution, Year Zero or the Banyam Buddha. We are talking about a legal problem in a free and democratic nation. The thin edge of the wedge secular revolution stuff is all in your imagination.


Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:52:46 UTC | #937972