 Quote:
Originally Posted by alias  Show me in the separation clause where you cannot have a religous symbol on government property. You can't. | Asked, and repeatedly answered...
Putting a religious symbol on governmental property, for religious purposes and lacking secular reasons, is a an example of "establishment of religion" which is prohibited by first amendment. Quote: |
Originally Posted by alias We already have some. | "some" that have SECULAR purposes for being there... Quote: |
Originally Posted by alias You're hypocrites because you will force someone to take down a nativity scene on school property but ignore the ten commandments on the US Supreme Court building. | Not hypocritical. You are just NOT LISTENING to what the standard ACTUALLY is.
Nativity scene on school property? Clearly a religious purpose lacking secular rationale.
Ten commandments, amongst other cultural law symbology? A SECULAR purpose, and obviously not revolving around a religious theme.
Consistent. Not hypocritical. Quote: |
Originally Posted by alias Both are religious displays on government property and then use the excuse of "historicity". Funny. You expect people with a brain to eat that shit? Stupid. | Yes. You are...
The "historicity", for OTHER displays, revolves around how long the display was ACTUALLY up. Some buildings have been preserved as national land-marks, and cannot be torn down because of their status as such.
THAT is the issue.
Over and over again, you ignore what is said and keep ranting on the same non-sequiturs / hyperboles / strawman arguments. You don't respond to what people ACTUALLY say most of the time on this issue. "(Gay marriage) is a debate about whether you think gay people are part of the human condition or just a random fetish."
-- Jon Stewart
"Please don't judge others by your own standards."
-- Garysher  |