Wellnowjustaminutehere. The San Diego atheist argues that the cross' presence privileges Christianity over other religions. He wants it down now.
But don't we see what that means in turn? Don't we catch scents of the symbolism? What our atheist, Philip Paulson, hopes to achieve, with the federal courts' concurrence, is the public degradation of Christianity -- the back of our hand, at least in San Diego, to the religious faith upon which, in large measure, the American consensus, the American vision, presently rests. Which faith might just (consider, Mr. Paulson) be true. Unless all faiths are equally untrue: a claim for which the American public isn't ready, I strongly suspect.
Many -- too many -- in my profession, the media, are quick to pooh-pooh the importance of symbols to our life together as Americans, as people of faith, as people who don't (unlike Feingold and Paulson) insist on having their own way at other people's expense.
To tear down what others esteem isn't to level any intellectual playing field. It's to put thumb to nose and deliver a loud raspberry to those less enlightened than the raspberry-blower. And you don't think that's symbolism, Mr. Paulson? You don't think so, Sen. Feingold?
I know a few places in Texas I'd enjoy -- symbolically, of course -- watching you try it.