I have no words.

[ItsTheSheppy]

I'm just going to go ahead and ignore Tomcat, as he appears to have run out of steam and has fallen back to the old tried-and-true 'when in doubt, ad hominem'.

Originally Posted by elfailo

I didn't miss the point at all, and just because I wrote something you can't connect with the points you made yourself, it doesn't make it a strawman. I don't agree the slightest with the terrible resolution you proposed, which I think is unfair to the locals.

Many things are maintained through tax money. Many of those things have some connection to religion, which isn't surprising when religion permeates everything in our societies, especially when it's historical/monumental.

Plenty of churches in the Netherlands get government subsidies. It's done because they're part of our cultural heritage. They're considered works of art on top of places of worship. They're part of the landscape/cityscape and people value them despite not being religious. I know because I'm one of those people.

Museums get subsidized through tax money, even though most people don't give a rat's ass about art. Classical orchestra's get subsidized, even though most people prefer Lil Wayne, dawg. You can go ahead and try to call false analogy on that.

I'm mainly just skeptical about an organization that calls itself "freedom from religion", and then goes around acting like totalitarians.

You cover a few different points in your post and I'll try to address them as best I can, as I feel they deserve separate attention.

I called your suggestions largely straw man examples (through use of a brilliantly clever image) because they featured lots of 'examples' of things that bear little to no resemblance of what I was saying. Addressing them in particular would have been off topic and distracting. I ask that you address what it is that I actually am saying, not whatever semi-logical extreme you feel they may extend to.

I will agree with you that tax dollars does end up supporting religious symbols through the context of art. This is a major reason why I am not for the removal of the statue. It certainly could be classified as art. You and I are not in disagreement over this.

I cannot, however, comment on what is done in the Netherlands. You say they do this or that... well, okay, but I'm limiting the scope of this conversation to the United States, which is where I live and where this incident is taking place.

I will say there is a difference between certain forms of music and art being subsidized through tax dollars and what is going on here. This would take us into a very bumpy road of 'what is and is not art', which is frankly a conversation that's been happening since ancient times and unlikely to be resolved here, and also distracting from the central topic, which revolves around the monument in question. I will merely say that I do not feel the monument was placed there to be intended as 'art'. It was placed there as a religious symbol with religious significance.

The Freedom From Religion group in question is being totalitarian only in their adherence to the Constitution. If you disagree, then you are taking a stance in opposition to the guaranteed freedoms of our constitution; which you are free to do, of course. I have my own problems with the document, and that can be a very interesting conversation. But don't name-call them something they are not to obfuscate the issue. Totalitarians would advocate, for example, the immediate execution or deportation of opposing viewpoints. Freedom From Religion wants to remove a religious monument from government property, using the Constitution to excuse the request. Not even remotely the same thing.