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

Comment

← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Jump to comment 294 by AtheistEgbert

Comment 287 by Nunbeliever :

To AtheistEgbert:

Accommodationists need to do one simple thing: form a coherent rational argument for why the monument should not be moved. Otherwise, reason is on the side of secularists.

1) It is of historical importance.

2) It is counterproductive to demand the removal of a century old cross, when no one really seems to have been bothered by it so far. With regard to recent violations of the constitution we have an obligation to protest in order to prevent an escalation. Hence, even seemingly petty endavours are worth pursuing. In this case the modern government had nothing to do with the cross. It was raised a century ago. Let's concentrate on current matters that actually matters.

I want to stress that there might be several good reasons for removing the cross, but none of them are in defense of secularism. So yes, if the cross is not of historical importance it should legally be removed in my opinion. But, you always have to weigh the pros and cons. Nothing is black and white. This is in my opinion not a fight worth taking.

Do you not see 1) contradicts 2)

1 "It is of historical importance." 2. "It is counterproductive to demand the removal of a century old cross, when no one really seems to have been bothered by it so far"

Either it's important or it's not important, which is it? Again, incoherent and contradictory.

Tue, 08 May 2012 19:13:09 UTC | #940592