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

JHaikney's Profile

JHaikney's Avatar Joined almost 4 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by JHaikney

More Discussions by JHaikney

Latest Comments by JHaikney

Go to: The Video That Ended a Career

JHaikney's Avatar Jump to comment 29 by JHaikney

Proof, if any was needed, that conservative biggots aren't biggoted enough for the fundies. And the most delicious piece of irony in that article? "Religious credentials". I believe in superman. Does that give me "superhero credentials" and make me an expert on superman? Would I be kicked off superhero websites if I made a video saying that I think superman, according to the evidence we have before us, is actually a fictional and rather dull TV show?

Mon, 03 May 2010 08:33:00 UTC | #465218

Go to: US Supreme Court - cross is now a secular symbol

JHaikney's Avatar Jump to comment 52 by JHaikney

Re: Prettygoodformonkeys

Good point well made. It was a pretty daft worry now that I think about it :P

Sun, 02 May 2010 14:53:00 UTC | #464963

Go to: US Supreme Court - cross is now a secular symbol

JHaikney's Avatar Jump to comment 45 by JHaikney

Much as I'm against the weakening of the American separation of religion and state, I have to say - I'm not necessarily against this decision.

Before everybody hurls abuse at me, consider the following:
1. We all have to remember the war. Religious differences or no, the cross on war memorials represents sacrifice - not a religious one, but a historical one.
2. If the court declares it unlawful to have war memorials with crosses on, that leads the potential can of worms arising that old war memorials have to be torn down. I don't want that, even if it means that a few crosses have to stay in place.

What I AM against in this decision is the possibility that this will allow the cross to be used in a variety of *new* "secular" contexts. I hope this decision will be seen as a recognition of the unique role of the cross in this particular historical context rather than a license to go out and use it wherever one chooses. I'm hopeful, but I'm not confident.

As an example of what I'm talking about, I've been an atheist since as long as I started thinking about that kind of thing. That didn't stop me from being hit hard when I went to Normandy and Belgium and saw the British graveyards, which have as their symbol a cross with a copper sword running down the middle. That represents the horror of the war to me, and has no relation to the cross-as-instrument-of-execution or the cross-as-religious-symbol. I wouldn't want the British government tearing those memorials down to satisfy our committment to a secular society. The graves themselves, incidentally, are standard headstones. Some of them have crosses engraved, others have the star of David engraved, and others have no symbol at all, depending on the individual's preference.

That, for me, emphaises that it's somewhat simplistic to see this as a means of extending Christian mythology to the masses. Should the judgment be used to justify a clearly CHRISTIAN monument erected by the government, THEN I'd take issue. I just think that, like the poppy, the cross has come to symbolise more than Christianity when it comes to the horrors of the Second World War.

Sun, 02 May 2010 11:01:00 UTC | #464906

More Comments by JHaikney