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

Comment

← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 211 by I'm_not

Comment 210 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 207 by I'm_not

This is similar to my argument above ^^ about taking their symbols off them exactly the way they did with pagan symbols. But that isn't what happened with the cross though is it? It was not a previous symbol of beielf.

While you're googling memorials Amos find me an old cathedral NOT loaded with pagan symbols.

I'm not sure what, if anything, that has to do with this situation and your previous assertion that most memorials in the U.K. are adorned with religious imagery.

I think they've shot themselves in the foot, the very prevalence of the cross has rendered it at best banal and possibly a coloquial sign for death or memorial as has been suggested.

That could be argued in court. The problem I have, is that the other side are not defending the cross as such. They are defending the action of the FFRF as an attack on their religion, so that point has become moot. If it was a case of the cross being banal, a coloquial sign for death or memorial, surely replacing it with a non-denominational and neutral symbol would be the favoured position for all involved, given that the thing is falling down anyway?

Now that thought is a true victory isn't it?

Do you think so?

Who cares what the other side are arguing? Take it. Take the symbol of the cross and equate it only with memorial, the way way they took the green man or the christmas tree or the symbols of Eostre. Use their methods against them.

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:24:11 UTC | #939668