Friday, July 14, 2006 | Re: Hard to Believe, letter to the editor by Richard Russell.
The void that will be left isn’t what creates the monument to atheism. If anything, you could kind of view the void as a monument to agnosticism because, once again, everything – even nothing – can become a religious symbol.
I’m saying that the act of taking down the cross is a monument to atheism. What’s more representative of atheism than the tearing down of religion or religious symbols?
I’m not trying to say that the cross doesn’t represent Christianity, I’m just saying that whatever ends up there (even if it’s nothing) will represent something else that someone won’t agree with. Will the law “protect” them as it is “protecting” Philip Paulsen?