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


← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Jump to comment 238 by AtheistEgbert

This story has reached the Washington Post where it's claimed it may get removed without even going to court.

Something I learned from this discussion is that I am more angry and reviled by accommodationists who side with religious privilege than I am passionate about secularism itself. I think secularism is a compromising and weak position, but nonetheless essential for a properly functioning democracy.

I am a secularist but secularism is not atheism nor is it anti-religious. I am anti-religious, but do not consider using force to rid the world of this evil. The only justification for force is self-defense, and when secularism is ignored for religious privilege, then it starts becoming a matter of self-defense. Civil disobedience is not an option I'd rule out, either.

Also, it's not a bloody symbol, it's a physical object. Symbols aren't being removed or destroyed here, but the physical objects which are obviously used as markers for property and de-secularizing public land.

Mon, 07 May 2012 11:28:18 UTC | #940280