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 258 by AtheistEgbert

I'm sure you have an intelligible argument hidden within your comment somewhere, but I'm sorry to say I can't find it. Exactly where in my comment did I support religious privilege?

I'm pretty confident my argument for supporting this is solid.

Secularism means separation of church and state. It appears you don't support the separation of church and state, by your comments as follows:

But, that is really irrelevant. Even if it was a religious symbol. Should we tear down all religious monuments that lie on public ground? Old churches or ruins? What about the pyramids? They are religious symbols as well. Should they be torn down? This is insanity in my modest opinion.

Two errors you've made. The first is you don't understand the difference between public property and private property. The second is that this is about America and its secular law, and not about other non-secular countries.

America is a secular nation and has been for over two hundred years. It has a constution where the first ammendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

The constitution is the highest law in the land, and goes above all other forms of law. Any building, monument or any fixed object that is religious breaks this law, and is therefore illegal.

It's an illegal monument, that was illegal when it was constructed and has remained illegal ever since.

You are British (I assume) like me, which is not a secular country, and has an official state church. Thus, you're unaware of the religious privilege that exists here in Britain, the same privilege that you continue to support by arguing for illegal religious monuments on state property in America.

You could begin with answering my question whether you want all religious symbols on public places to be tore down regardless of their nature and history?

The answer in the case of America is a yes. Public means state owned. Privately owned land does not apply. In this case, a Firestation is part of the state and therefore it is illegal to have such a monument on it. Any important historical or religious site that is not privately owned can be placed into a trust and held a place of special historical interest, and therefore falling outside the ownership of the state. That can't apply on a functioning Firestation.

Unfortunately, since you misunderstand the difference between private and public property, you've gone hysterical and completely misrepresented the secular position. That doesn't aid the cause of secularists.

Man, this argument is so hollow. You really are in a desperate need to rationalize your irrational behaviour aren't you?

I don't think the American constitution is irrational, nor the principle of secularism, but I do think you're being irrational.

I mean, I have not heard a single rational argument for why this cross should be taken down.

Once again, the monument is illegal. That is a rational argument for why the cross or monument should be removed. It's not a technicality, it's the entire point of secularism, which is part of the American constitution, and therefore the most important fundamental laws of the land, and the reason why Americans sacrifice their lives for their country.

Tue, 08 May 2012 01:52:22 UTC | #940473