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 246 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 239 by Nunbeliever

I am all for secularism.

No you're not. You're clearly against secularism for supporting religious privilege, as are all the self declared 'passionate secularists' on this thread who are so passionately defending something so unimportant.

Comment 240 by Bobwundaye

I know this wasn't a question for me, but allow me to interject, if I may. I think that various people have different ideas about what secularism is and to what extent religion and state should be separate. As such, there is a spectrum.

I didn't know truth, justice or reality was defined by the spectrum of opinion, so thanks for that. I guess there must be a spectrum of opinion for 2+2=4 or rape.

Comment 242 by Schrodinger's Cat

And this 90 year old statue leaped out and accosted someone....did it ?

Maybe a Christian filled with a belief in their special privilege may accost an atheist, or a black person or a Jew or a gay person. It certainly appears to have happened enough times in history.

Comment 244 by Schrodinger's Cat

If the majority sentiment in that town, when the statue was put up, was Christian then in my view it would have been a far greater violation of the Constitution for the local authority not to have done it's job of representing the people.


because the whole point is that the will of the people would be respected whatever that will happened to be.

Not 'people' but a majority religion, in other words you're happy for the tyranny of the majority to rule by force over reason. The constitution is supposed to protect the individual and minorities and make everyone equal. It appears that you disagree with that.

Suppose instead the majority religion was Islam. I guess we must respect the will of the majority of Muslims for the death penalty for blasphemy.

Mon, 07 May 2012 17:49:12 UTC | #940344