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


← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 19 by cynicaloptimistrealist

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.

So was a fucked up mistake 91 years ago and an insult to all those minority religion believing soldiers, and those with none, that gave the ultimate to protect the freedoms that the constitution represents.

Many historic monuments throughout the world have a religious or superstitious dimension and many of them sit on public land.

That's as maybe, but is it secular public land and do they favour one religion above all others?

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.

Why? Why was the cross seen as a cultural symbol of remembrance? Where would those setting it up as such ever get that idea from? Think about what you are saying.

War memorial

Thus crosses, an enduring feature of the European landscape, have for a long time been associated with remembering great people who have died. However, the custom of erecting War Memorials began when people wanted to celebrate a great victory. Remembering the dead who secured that victory was of secondary importance.

It was born out of tradition, a tradition that arose from Christianity. Why not a Totem Pole? Why do the fallen soldiers in non-Christian majority religion countries not get remembered by a cross shaped monument?

That "+" sign we see on hospitals and pharmacies shares similar cultural origins. really should do the minimum of research (Google) before commenting.

On June 6, 1900, the bill to charter the American National Red Cross (ARC) was signed into law. Section 4, which ultimately was codified as 18 U.S.C. ยง706, protected the Greek red cross symbol by making it a misdemeanor for any person or association to use the Red Cross name or emblem without the organization's permission.


The earliest emblem of the Red Cross is a red Greek cross on a white background; it is often claimed to have been derived as the inverse of the Flag of Switzerland, which has a white Greek cross on a red background.

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!"

Behave yourself. Or get an emblem of every other 'fallen comrades' belief system put up alongside...simple enough in my opinion.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:59:11 UTC | #937984