|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/20/07 15:24
Steve wrote:
>> But when they refuse to allow someone to place a cheche or menorah on city
>> property (at no government expense), that's exactly what they are doing -
>> interfering with someone's right to practice their religion. And such a
>> display does *such great harm* to believers in other religions. It's
>> public property and should be available to all, as long as it is in good
>> taste (i.e. no displays from "The Honorable Church of the Naturalists".
>
> 'such great harm'...lol. and the slippery slope rises from no less than
> these words.
>
> i'm sure the wiccan symbol of an upside-down cross would not offend many. or
> how about a swastika (yes, a religious symbol) would not offend anyone. and
> how about pentagrams? who says what good taste is?
>
The upside-down cross or pentagram would offend me, but I would take it
in stride. It's nothing worth getting upset over. The swastika is
another story - not because of its religious nature, but what else it
represent. I think that would be out of line.
> if the government allows such things on their properties, they sanction them
> implicitly.
>
No, they allow the use of public property by the public. There is no
sanctioning.
> the fact that you feel like i'm hindering you by not allowing you to market
> your filth in public places of operation (court houses, schools, etc.), is
> absurd. you keep saying you don't try to 'convert' anyone. what other
> purpose could there be? are you going to say, 'for historic reasons'? quit
> playing dumb! you have churches, homes, any place that allows you to
> proliferate your divel...just don't do it through the vehicle of government.
>
Who said I was trying to convert anyone? I'm proud of my faith, and
want to display it. I don't get upset when I see symbols of other
religions. Why does it upset you so much? Maybe you've got a problem?
>
>>> In short its best hope is to act as if it were completely a-theistic. Not
>>> to deny or affirm God, but simply to keep its mucky paws out of that area
>>> altogether. Almost any other course is a recipe for dissent and
>>> ultimately revolution.
>>>
>> They should act such that religions can have the same access to public
>> facilities as any non-religious group.
>
> uhmmm...they do. both should have NONE provided by the government! period.
>
>
They are public places, paid for with my tax dollars. I see no problem
with renting those spaces out, as long as the rent covers the cost of
maintenance, cleaning, etc.
Government buildings have always been open to the public for public
functions - stretching way back to the colonial days, when people could
meet in town halls. And it continues to this day.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|