(December 14, 2013 at 10:35 pm)Polaris Wrote: Just echoing a point of both rational atheists and the Moslem spiritual leaders who lambasted the Taliban.
The rational atheist view is "it's been here for many years and atheists for decades did not have a problem with it, so I won't be a dick and take issue but I will push that they won't erect new religious monuments on tax dollars hence forth." For all the talk about people saying these momuments waste tax dollars, how many have they wasted debating it just like the Republican Congress with their anti-Obamcare attempts...
The spiritual leaders likewise held the same point that "yes, even though these Buddhist movements were not of the Book, that since believers centuries before them had not destroyed them, what gave these Taliban extremists the right to destroy them?"
These situations aren't the same Pol, I know you're trying to make a point of symmetry but it just isn't there. These atheists/secularists aren't extremists they're operating inside the law and working for the continuance of seperation of religion and government.
This cross to my understanding, unless there has been a recent development, is not being destroyed. It is being moved from the area because it is unconstitutional for it to be there in the first place. Just because it has been there since the 50's and atheists/secularists haven't made a big deal in the past doesn't make it right. In counterpoint these lawsuits have been ongoing for quite some time.
In my opinion; To leave this government display of religion would set the precedent for more attempts for state-sponsored religious monuments, which is wrong.
