Posted by Steve on 09/19/07 20:31

> 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?

if the government allows such things on their properties, they sanction them
implicitly.

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.


>> 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.

[Back to original message]