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

Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I was browsing the net and came across this Huffington Post article. Now, all the usual caveats apply - the Huff Post is a crappy rag of a paper and the story is not reported in a manner that I would call objective or unbiased, etc.

The gist, however, is easy enough to get. There is a cross in the parking lot of a fire station somewhere in Rhode Island. This cross is a dedicated war memorial. The FFRF has written a letter to the Mayor of the RI town asking for the cross to be removed to private property for First Amendment reasons.

Is this request legitimate?

Now I'm not an American and not entirely familiar with the First Amendment, but the separation of Church and State does not automatically mean that the government is not allowed to have religious symbols on its property, or does it? If the government wishes to build a war memorial somewhere, does this war memorial have to be secular in nature?

I appreciate that these are turnaround times for atheists and that Jessica Ahlquist and Damon Fowler have started a general movement by which sneaky state-sanctioned promotions of religion are not ok anymore. This is totally cool. However, is there a risk of exaggerating and becoming petty?

TAGGED: ACTIVISM, ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE, RELIGION


Comments

Comment RSS Feed

Please sign in or register to comment