neither did mohammad. but followers of christianity have done far worse. but none of that matters. you simply shoulndt want to have your particular superstition represented above all the others simply because you are the majority. you guys should be able to understand the value of a secular government that is always strict about keeping everything separated. if you think about it hard you could probably figure out what i meant.
I read what you wrote but you also said it represented an offensive theology from which children should be protected. And some of my 'Realist' friends feel a bit stronger about 'protecting' children from such things. And when 'I think about it hard' I know that the absence of religious belief is not that far removed from the belief when it comes to 'helping' others to see the correct way to think. Its not about religion, it's about arrogance of thought.
That was then and this is now. The point was that I don't want the crescent displayed anywhere because to me it represents hatred towards Americans. That just the way I am. Fk PC. If you're a Muslim I don't trust you.
that day i did, today i think i woke up on the right side of the bed today because i have to do a bunch of unemployment crap today and wage verifications. All for a bunch of people who cry because there is no work, but quit their jobs we find for them, so they can go get back on food stamps. If you can do better for yourself sitting on your arse doing nothing, what is the incentive to go out and be productive?
i agree, this is why we should keep religious symbols away from government stuff. the symbols are representative of ideology that the government should not represent. i understand your sentiment but i do not agree that you should not trust a person simply because they are muslim. muslims are pretty much exactly like christians, you can trust lots of them.
Of course it does. Did you read any of the quotes from its writers? or any of the court decisions. Are you advocating changing the Constitution? It can't prohibit the free exercise of religion by citizens. It already has prohibited state and local governments from attempting to circumvent the Constitution. Tax-funded governments at any level cannot endorse religion in the United States of America. Well, you are quite wrong according to the Supreme court.
What if the local citizens in Summerville, South Carolina decided to re-institute slavery? Or secede from the Union? Or drive on the left side of the road? Local governments can only govern locally. They cannot use local power to take away the constitutional rights of the American citizens that they govern. Ignorance of the law does not make a law go away. The courts have ruled on it.
Exactly what right is being taken away when the Little Old Ladies of Conderate Widows puts up a Christmas tree on the lawn of No Redlight, AL's town hall? The Supreme Court is quite wrong according to the Constitution. Rock, paper, scissors. :usaflagwa :wink:
Uhhhh, because "Conderate" Widows are exempt due to being dead for decades? Only they get to make that call instead of you. But you still have a chance to get on. Ginsberg is ancient and Clarence Thomas ain't looking too good either.
Then where was the contemporary outcry from the founders when the government had all sorts of religious elements to it? I think it is pretty clear that the founders were much more concerned with government involvement in religion that religious involvement in government.
