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

← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty? - Comments

The Jersey Devil's Avatar Comment 1 by The Jersey Devil

In this particular instance, I think the FFRF is being petty and small minded.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:09:23 UTC | #937796

LaurieB's Avatar Comment 2 by LaurieB

This is not petty and small minded. We have a constitutional separation of church and state here and we (the secularists) expect this to be followed. Fire stations are totally supported by tax dollars and therefore we don't appreciate any endorsement of any religion on that property. The government is not allowed to favor any particular religion and when we see a cross or a star of David or any other religious symbol on public property then this is an endorsement of a religion that has been funded with tax money. The fire fighters are welcome to move the cross to their own private property however. It would be very ill advised for these constitutional violations to go unnoticed. Remember that the religionists have a strategy of death by a thousand paper cuts. The FFRF is doing a wonderful job for us here in the States.

Thank you FFRF for all of your hard work.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 19:37:09 UTC | #937802

Quine's Avatar Comment 3 by Quine

In line with what LaurieB wrote, above, once the FFRF finds out about one of these situations, they pretty much have to send the take down letter. If they don't they can be accused of selective actions picking on specific communities. If the town says no, the next part is more subtle as both sides think over the costs of legal action. Having put the complaint in writing, the FFRF can keep making demands while spending their legal money elsewhere. As the town watches other places lose this kind of fight, they may quietly change their position and the question of how petty it is or not may never get to court. From the not-in-court tactical position, I think FFRF did the right thing to send the letter, even if it never gets past that point. (The town can always put a box over it to "preserve" it for historical reasons, and thus not have to move or take it down, and yet no longer be in violation by "display.")

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:31:37 UTC | #937810

I'm_not's Avatar Comment 4 by I'm_not

If you give them an inch they take a mile I suppose but America does sure look strange from this side of the pond and from my point of view on this issue. Both sides look weird and make me very uncomfortable. It feels that some organisations and individuals on both sides of the arguement thrive on it while lining lawyers pockets with public money that could be put to far better use for what exactly?

I think it makes atheists look pathetic.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:32:20 UTC | #937822

Jumped Up Chimpanzee's Avatar Comment 5 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

Is it any more petty to demand the removal of religious symbols or rituals from public life than to demand that they stay?

Following the recent British court ruling against holding prayers in council meetings, I watched a TV debate where a pro-religious journalist moaned that it was "just so petty" to object to the holding of these prayers. She obviously completely failed to see the hypocrisy of her argument. If it was such an innocuous matter, why did she care so much about it that she made the extraordinary effort to attend a TV debate on the issue.

Either these matters are important, or they are not. But religionists want to play it both ways, to suit their own ends.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:35:11 UTC | #937824

I'm_not's Avatar Comment 6 by I'm_not

Comment 5 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee :

Is it any more petty to demand the removal of religious symbols or rituals from public life than to demand that they stay?

Following the recent British court ruling against holding prayers in council meetings, I watched a TV debate where a pro-religious journalist moaned that it was "just so petty" to object to the holding of these prayers. She obviously completely failed to see the hypocrisy of her argument. If it was such an innocuous matter, why did she care so much about it that she made the extraordinary effort to attend a TV debate on the issue.

Either these matters are important, or they are not. But religionists want to play it both ways, to suit their own ends.

I'd say of equal pettiness personally.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:44:22 UTC | #937825

78rpm's Avatar Comment 7 by 78rpm

Petty? You said "petty?" Hell no! First of all, FFRF is supported by donations, and that is what pays their staff lawyers. No lawyers' pockets are lined by these complaints and suits. Damages requested are token, not the kinds of damage amounts infamous in the US for suits over somebody's hot spilled coffee. Anyway, the real plaintiff is the First Amendment, which plainly forbids this kind of religious overbearing. Fighting to maintain separation of state and church as clearly spelled out in the First Amendment is quite the opposite of petty; it is a necessary undertaking, the distorted view from the other side of the pond by Commenter No. 4 notwithstanding. I fully support the much-needed work FFRF does, and that is why I am a member.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 23:56:35 UTC | #937857

Carl Sai Baba's Avatar Comment 8 by Carl Sai Baba

If they can't honor soldiers without appealing to superstitious bullshit, they aren't really honoring them. They are pandering to them. "You didn't die for your country, you died hoping to get into the big playground in the sky!" Government-erected religious monuments are a political insult to atheists and an intellectual insult to the supposed honorees, though some of them are stupid enough to like it.

This is not just a legal technicality. I would oppose it even if there weren't a specific constitutional amendment prohibiting it, so I am not having any queasy feelings about being "petty" or extreme in making use of every legal route to undo this crap.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 03:39:12 UTC | #937887

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 9 by mordacious1

Well, I had a slight problem with this particular case, only because the damn thing has been there for 91 years (originally to honor WWI vets). More of an issue to me is the fire department's website that has christian prayers and what not. You can't argue history for a website.

This situation can easily be rectified by the town paying to erect similar symbols for any one who requests it (and pay for it). So if some Jews want a Star of David, they put one up. If atheists want the atomic symbol, or a declarative plaque, then one is put up also. This is how military cemeteries have handled this and the courts have supported it. The law does not say you can't have religious symbols on public property, it just can't promote one group over others (and that includes wiccans or anyone else).

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:13:34 UTC | #937916

mmurray's Avatar Comment 10 by mmurray

“Personally I think it’s an outrage they want to take down a cross put there in 1921 that has to do with soldiers who gave their lives to their country,” says Richard W. Schatz, president of the United Veterans Council of Woonsocket. “To me this is just another type of terrorist attack on this country.

Perhaps just a slight exaggeration.

Michael

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 08:24:25 UTC | #937917

AtheistEgbert's Avatar Comment 11 by AtheistEgbert

No it's not petty, and stop giving religion a special status.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:29:35 UTC | #937935

Bobwundaye's Avatar Comment 12 by Bobwundaye

Petty and small minded. A ridiculous application of the principle of secularization. It is tantamount to a rewriting of the history of the country, denying religion every played any part in its formation.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 10:36:02 UTC | #937937

Dirty Kuffar's Avatar Comment 13 by Dirty Kuffar

Briefly, I think it is petty, and this sort of thing will cause people to lose time and respect for the real value of secularism & atheism. It is also, surely, a matter of prioritising tasks - surely it is more urgent to prevent a major religiously induced evil such as female genital mutilation than to gripe about war memorials and council prayers that you can miss anyway ?

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:02:58 UTC | #937940

cynicaloptimistrealist's Avatar Comment 14 by cynicaloptimistrealist

If the article is to be trusted, then the action of FFRF is petty in the extreme. If you don't think it's petty I ask you to read about the Banyam Buddhas and the continuous destruction of Mecca, I am sure you will reach the conclusion that the above are examples of the criminal destruction of historic treasures by narrow minded superstitious theists.

This cross was not erected in the 6th century, nor does it have any particular aesthetic merit, but it is a piece of history and as such should be preserved in the location it was erected. This is not some proposed memorial or something that was thrown up last week, it has been there for 90 years. At the time when the memorial was erected, a cross was an appropriate symbol, if such a memorial were to be erected today it would more than likely be a statue of a fire fighter in some suitably heroic pose with a small plaque at the base. Do we really want to go down the road of erasing our culltural history? Do we want a year zero where monuments like Arlington Cemetery, the WW1 graveyards in France and nearly every pre 1950 military monument in Europe is torn up because the crosses on those monuments offend our secular sensibilities? I sincerely hope not!!

The battlegrounds are mental ones. I have visited many historical sites, particularly in the middle east and have yet to see a single Muslim embrace the ancient Greek pantheon upon visiting the Temple of Artemis or the ancient Egyptian pantheon on visiting the pyramids. We can encourage rejection of the maladies of theism without erasing our historical landscape like the medieval Christians, Wahabbi Muslims or the Cultural Revolition. I would much rather see a cross, crescent or star of David on the top of some old memorial in the middle of the street than hanging from the neck of a government officer or see a school teacher costumed in the fashion of a ninja.

In our rejection of the sacred we ought not to become champions of the profane, tearing down every building and burning every book that offends our philosophy. You can read the Bible or Quaran appreciating them as an ancient "American Psycho" with God replacing the central character and still not believe a word of them. If the FFRF wish to be taken seriously they should concentrate on educating people and fighting the real battles. This type of action presents them as politically correct fascists who are running out of causes to fight and drives a wedge between free thinkers.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:45:32 UTC | #937947

mmurray's Avatar Comment 15 by mmurray

Before we decide if this is secularism gone mad we have to know if the presence of the statue is illegal under the US Constitution. The American's here seem to be suggesting it is.

Michael

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:15:11 UTC | #937953

mmurray's Avatar Comment 16 by mmurray

Comment 14 by cynicaloptimistrealist :

I ask you to read about the Banyam Buddhas

Do we want a year zero where monuments like Arlington Cemetery, the WW1 graveyards in France and nearly every pre 1950 military monument in Europe is torn up because the crosses on those monuments offend our secular sensibilities?

Are you seriously suggesting that enforcing the US constitution is somehow akin to Year Zero in Cambodia or moving a memorial onto private land the same as dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas ?

Michael

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:31:01 UTC | #937957

paulmarkj's Avatar Comment 17 by paulmarkj

Comment 2 by LaurieB :

This is not petty and small minded.

But it isn't what you or I think, it is what the the world thinks. We have to look at the big picture.

The majority of people are not particularly interested in the battle between atheists and Christians, they have other things in their minds. When they come across stories lie this, they will think atheists are being petty and small minded and that's not good for the cause.

Sure, atheists might win a few minor battles, but lose potential supporters in theprocess.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:47:46 UTC | #937959

cynicaloptimistrealist's Avatar Comment 18 by cynicaloptimistrealist

A comparison with the Banyam Buddhas is silly. Nobody is suggesting flattening the cross.

Perhaps that particular comparison is going a little too far, but isn't demanding its removal a reactionary act of cultural cleansing? There are not many differences between flattening the thing and locating it somewhere out of view because we fear what it represents and lack the cultural maturity to ignore it. It was erected during a time when most of the population of the area were devout Christians. The next logical step is removing other such memorials in public places, so in Arlington Cemetery for example, are we to return the gravestones to the homes of living descendants or perhaps chip off the crosses like an angry mob dismantling the symbolism of the previous regime? If we were to make such demands in Europe we would have to find space on private land for 1,400 years worth of monuments, which with the costs involved would lead to many of them being destroyed. I think a future secular society would look back with derision at a group which demanded the cultural clensing of its spaces.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:55:13 UTC | #937960

cynicaloptimistrealist's Avatar Comment 19 by cynicaloptimistrealist

Are you seriously suggesting that enforcing the US constitution is somehow akin to Year Zero in Cambodia or moving a memorial onto private land the same as dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas ?

Hello again Michael,

The point is that the monument has sat there for 91 years, it is not a proposed monument or something that the local government planted there a couple of weeks ago. Many historic monuments throughout the world have a religious or superstitious dimension and many of them sit on public land. The monument does not breach the First Amendment because at the time of its construction the cross was seen as a cultural symbol of rememberance. That "+" sign we see on hospitals and pharmacies shares similar cultural origins. So whether you see it or not, demanding the removal of previous cultural symbols because "we wish to establish a secular society" is very much akin to the Cultural Revolution and dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas, except we are saying "Oh, I don't like that, hide it away where no one can see it!"

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:17:33 UTC | #937963

78rpm's Avatar Comment 20 by 78rpm

The FFRF is not trying to destroy this religious symbol, so quit all that comparison to what the Taliban did to the Banyam Buddhas (an action taken in the name of religion, don't forget). All FFRF wants to have happen to this cross is that it be taken the hell off of taxpayers' property. Any private citizen is free to put it on his own property.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:20:18 UTC | #937964

LaurieB's Avatar Comment 21 by LaurieB

paulmarkj

Please fix your blockquote above. I did say the first line but I did NOT say the second line and I do not agree with the second line. This is an American matter and I definitely don't care what the world thinks about it.

We have a secular constitution here and religious statements on public property are unconstitutional. The FFRF are not stirring up trouble just for the fun of it. They are insisting on compliance with a federal constitution that all of our states have signed on to in total agreement. If the constitution needs changing then there are legitimate ways of doing so. I am not aware of any state or group that seeks to amend the constitution to allow creation of a state religion. Of course, they are welcome to try. But as long as the separation of church and state stands as the law of the land, then why would anyone feel bad that it will be enforced?

cynicaloptimistrealist

Removing that cross from public property is not a reactionary act. It is a progressive act. By removing that cross we will make a statement to Jewish citizens, Hindu citizens, Buddhist citizens, Muslim citizens and Atheist citizens that the American government does not favor any particular religion over the other and protects everyone's right to worship as they please on their own private property. Private property includes their own land and houses and also the land and churches, temples and mosques and other types of religious meeting places where they are free (within the zoning laws) to put crosses, stars, or whatever the hell they want to put. In fact, in Salem, Massachusetts, 20 minutes away, there is an old church that has been purchased and converted into a devil worshiping center. They painted it black and there are 2 huge gargoyles out front flanking the front door. I don't care about it to be honest. It makes me laugh and roll my eyes every time I drive by it - because it's on private property!! Let someone try to install big black gargoyles flanking the doors of the town hall and that's a very different story isn't it?

It would be a reactionary act if people like me, the descendants of the religious fundamentalist, bigots, racists and sexists who stepped off that rickety boat on the Massachusetts shore in 1620, say that since we were here "first" then everyone else must allow us to force our small minded little religion down your throats and there's not a thing you can do about it! The buck stops here. I'm the first generation since 1620 in my family that is proud to say that people should keep their religion to themselves, if someone wants to participate in any other religion here then they are free to do so, and that we are free to NOT believe if we don't want to.

What the hell does this all have to do with cemetery headstones? And who says we want to destroy historical and cultural treasures in Europe and Middle East? I sure hope no one wrecks those cathedrals in Europe since I quite enjoy touring through them when I get the chance and I'm hoping to get to Istanbul sometime this fall to see that mosque of theirs!

And rest assured, American secularists are perfectly capable of maintaining concern about both large issues and small "petty" ones too. All at the same time! Yes, it's possible to chew gum and walk, both at the same time!

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:52:25 UTC | #937971

mmurray's Avatar Comment 22 by mmurray

Comment 19 by cynicaloptimistrealist :

Are you seriously suggesting that enforcing the US constitution is somehow akin to Year Zero in Cambodia or moving a memorial onto private land the same as dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas ?

Hello again Michael,

The point is that the monument has sat there for 91 years, it is not a proposed monument or something that the local government planted there a couple of weeks ago. Many historic monuments throughout the world have a religious or superstitious dimension and many of them sit on public land. The monument does not breach the First Amendment because at the time of its construction the cross was seen as a cultural symbol of rememberance. That "+" sign we see on hospitals and pharmacies shares similar cultural origins. So whether you see it or not, demanding the removal of previous cultural symbols because "we wish to establish a secular society" is very much akin to the Cultural Revolution and dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas, except we are saying "Oh, I don't like that, hide it away where no one can see it!"

Hi

I don't know who "we" is in this context. All I am saying is there is a supposed breach of the US constitution. If I am wrong and what you say is right then I guess this will get settled. I would have thought the US constitution predated the monument so it would have been a breach when first erected.

Sorry but this is nothing like the Cultural Revolution, Year Zero or the Banyam Buddha. We are talking about a legal problem in a free and democratic nation. The thin edge of the wedge secular revolution stuff is all in your imagination.

Michael

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:52:46 UTC | #937972

mmurray's Avatar Comment 23 by mmurray

Comment 18 by cynicaloptimistrealist :

A comparison with the Banyam Buddhas is silly. Nobody is suggesting flattening the cross.

Perhaps that particular comparison is going a little too far, but isn't demanding its removal a reactionary act of cultural cleansing?

Actually it was the comparison between this legal dispute and the Year Zero genocide in which 2 million Cambodian's died which I thought was "going a little too far".

There are not many differences between flattening the thing and locating it somewhere out of view because we fear what it represents and lack the cultural maturity to ignore it. It was erected during a time when most of the population of the area were devout Christians. The next logical step is removing other such memorials in public places, so in Arlington Cemetery for example, are we to return the gravestones to the homes of living descendants or perhaps chip off the crosses like an angry mob dismantling the symbolism of the previous regime? If we were to make such demands in Europe we would have to find space on private land for 1,400 years worth of monuments, which with the costs involved would lead to many of them being destroyed. I think a future secular society would look back with derision at a group which demanded the cultural clensing of its spaces.

This is just a ridiculous exaggeration of what anyone is requesting.

Michael

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 13:56:23 UTC | #937975

LaurieB's Avatar Comment 24 by LaurieB

The destruction of the Buddhas by the Muslims was not done to establish a progressive secular society. It was done because Muslims do not tolerate the Buddhist idea of God. They also rail against the Hindu idea of multiple Gods. Both of these religions are classified as pagan. In the Koran these are the Kaffar. This is what gives authority to the fundamentalists to destroy them as objects of idol worshipping.

This example is the very opposite of what is going on here with the cross at the fire station.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:13:45 UTC | #937976

cynicaloptimistrealist's Avatar Comment 25 by cynicaloptimistrealist

What the hell does this all have to do with cemetery headstones?

Hello Laurie

If you've been to Arlington Cemetery, you will notice little crosses on many of the headstones, isn't the cemetery on government land?

And who says we want to destroy historical and cultural treasures in Europe and Middle East?

I was speaking in an international sense, against the folly of using this as an example of progressive atheism or secularism. An example which leads to more problems than it solves if applied to any nation or indeed internationally. For example, who gets to decide what passes as cultural relic or religious endorsement? There are far more important battlegrounds for atheists than a little cross which no one noticed for the last 90 years. Just suppose a compromise was reached and they decided to remove the cross but keep the base of the monument in its place, would you be happy with that? Then suppose that everyone is happy until someone reads the inscription on the monument and it says "May God have mercy on their souls", will the battle begin again to have the offending words "God" and "Souls" scratched out?

By removing that cross we will make a statement to Jewish citizens, Hindu citizens, Buddhist citizens, Muslim citizens and Atheist citizens that the American government does not favor any particular religion over the other and protects everyone's right to worship as they please on their own private property.

By removing the crosses you are also denying the historical fact that at one point the inhabitants of that area saw the cross as an appropriate symbol of rememberance while pushing away potential "converts" within the fringes of those religious groups by focusing on something so miniscule.

Actually it was the comparison between this legal dispute and the Year Zero genocide in which 2 million Cambodian's died which I thought was "going a little too far".

Hello again Michael,

I didn't capitalise it as "Year Zero" in my original post because I was using the term figutatively rather than drawing a literal comparison. However, regarding the Buddhas and the Cultural Revolution I was drawing literal comparisons.

The thin edge of the wedge secular revolution stuff is all in your imagination.

I think most atheists would love to see their respective countries becoming more secular or totally secular. I also think it's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think it's crucial that we make our voices heard and our votes cast in favour of a secular society, but not by methods like this which play into the hands of our religious opponents and cast us in an illogical light.

I get the impression that in the U.S. because God seems to be wedged into everything from the Pledge of Allegiance to the dollar bill, atheists feel they are under constant attack and seem to be a little more inclined to be defensive.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:39:48 UTC | #937981

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 26 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 19 by cynicaloptimistrealist

The point is that the monument has sat there for 91 years, it is not a proposed monument or something that the local government planted there a couple of weeks ago.

So what....it was a fucked up mistake 91 years ago and an insult to all those minority religion believing soldiers, and those with none, that gave the ultimate to protect the freedoms that the constitution represents.

Many historic monuments throughout the world have a religious or superstitious dimension and many of them sit on public land.

That's as maybe, but is it secular public land and do they favour one religion above all others?

The monument does not breach the First Amendment because at the time of its construction the cross was seen as a cultural symbol of rememberance.

Why? Why was the cross seen as a cultural symbol of remembrance? Where would those setting it up as such ever get that idea from? Think about what you are saying.

War memorial

Thus crosses, an enduring feature of the European landscape, have for a long time been associated with remembering great people who have died. However, the custom of erecting War Memorials began when people wanted to celebrate a great victory. Remembering the dead who secured that victory was of secondary importance.

It was born out of tradition, a tradition that arose from Christianity. Why not a Totem Pole? Why do the fallen soldiers in non-Christian majority religion countries not get remembered by a cross shaped monument?

That "+" sign we see on hospitals and pharmacies shares similar cultural origins.

Bollocks...you really should do the minimum of research (Google) before commenting.

On June 6, 1900, the bill to charter the American National Red Cross (ARC) was signed into law. Section 4, which ultimately was codified as 18 U.S.C. §706, protected the Greek red cross symbol by making it a misdemeanor for any person or association to use the Red Cross name or emblem without the organization's permission.

..and...

The earliest emblem of the Red Cross is a red Greek cross on a white background; it is often claimed to have been derived as the inverse of the Flag of Switzerland, which has a white Greek cross on a red background.

So whether you see it or not, demanding the removal of previous cultural symbols because "we wish to establish a secular society" is very much akin to the Cultural Revolution and dynamiting the Banyam Buddhas, except we are saying "Oh, I don't like that, hide it away where no one can see it!"

Behave yourself. Or get an emblem of every other 'fallen comrades' belief system put up alongside...simple enough in my opinion.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:59:11 UTC | #937984

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 27 by Schrodinger's Cat

No it's not petty......it's worse than petty. It comes across as having all the hallmarks of fascist cultural cleansing, and frankly the sort of people who espouse this sort of thing are no friends of secularism and should get back to Stalinist Russia where they belong.

The fools who support such things could really do with a crash course in pragmatism. Not only do they come across as tiny minded and petty, but also as having a total inability to see the wider picture and the negative effect of their actions on the entire secular humanist endeavour.

Religion will not be overcome by laws, edicts, Constitutions, or whatever. It will be overcome....indeed become irrelevant....the day secular humanists can finally get together and start presenting a vision of a better world that appeals to the vast majority. And even then I suspect some semblance of religion will always remain. Petty squabbles over statues don't exactly present the start of the glorious secular endeavour in the best light.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:03:15 UTC | #937985

cynicaloptimistrealist's Avatar Comment 28 by cynicaloptimistrealist

The destruction of the Buddhas by the Muslims was not done to establish a progressive secular society. It was done because Muslims do not tolerate the Buddhist idea of God. They also rail against the Hindu idea of multiple Gods. Both of these religions are classified as pagan. In the Koran these are the Kaffar. This is what gives authority to the fundamentalists to destroy them as objects of idol worshipping.

This example is the very opposite of what is going on here with the cross at the fire station.

Hello again Laurie,

In response I would say that both are driven by belief, the destruction of the Buddhas by religious belief and the request to remove the cross by the belief that the cross is in contradiction with the First Amendment, one could argue it does, but one could also argue that at the time of its construction that the cross was the accepted symbol of memorial at the time and was not erected as a symbol of endorsment. If my local government were about to erect a cross, crescent, star of David or a Goat in the middle of public land today I would be the first person raising objections. Sometimes we have to concentrate on the here and now rather than revising planning decisions 90 years ago.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:06:09 UTC | #937986

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 29 by mordacious1

Comment 25 by cynicaloptimistrealist

If you've been to Arlington Cemetery, you will notice little crosses on many of the headstones, isn't the cemetery on government land?

Yes Arlington is government land, but as I stated above, you'll also see Stars of David, Wiccan symbols, that atomic thing some atheists use...they're not preferring one belief over another, so a cross at Arlington is constitutional. If they only allowed crosses at Arlington, it would be unconstitutional.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:07:53 UTC | #937987

Schrodinger's Cat's Avatar Comment 30 by Schrodinger's Cat

Whatever next ? Lets demolish the Acropolis. I mean....it's a damned monument to ancient gods. And the pyramids too ! Stonehenge will have to be relocated to some obscure site.....as a prominent place on Salisbury plain might offend secularists. And to cap it all off, we'll have to rename St Paul's cathedral to something neutral like The Hayekian Center For The Study Of The Neurological Basis Of Economics.

Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:22:11 UTC | #937988