- NEW!
by Darth NANAME on September 18th, 2009
Where does the City of Los Angeles rank in educational achievement compared with other cities in California?
by Rick_A5690 on January 1st, 2011
| 1 person likes this
Why do people still believe that raising the minimum wage helps the people within that country?
by FlyingUbercapitalistPig on November 8th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
Should the "Grand Old Party" update it's acronym to not should so archaic?
by Koz - Passion Perseverance Patience on November 19th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
What is the "politically correct" statement that you despise the most?
by Freedom00 on April 10th, 2011
| 6 people like this
Liberals, why shouldn't we have a smaller government?
by Siwinski on December 30th, 2010
| 1 person likes this
You're reading "Separation of Church and State" was put in place to keep the States from having a State run Church, not ban prayer in schools. Agree or disagree?
Your favorite Q&A site is on Facebook! Become a fan to connect with the ever-growing community of Answerbaggers, share your thoughts and find out what Answerbag's up to next!
Comments
What do atheist extremists think?
by 23Skidoo on September 18th, 2009
Govt cannot ban religious symbols??? The ACLU might possibly disagree with THAT! Especially around Christmas time!
by LarryH54 on January 11th, 2012
@LarryH54 - No, the government cannot ban any private individual or association of individuals from displaying religious symbols.
There was a live Nativity Reenactment just down the street from me in the week leading up to Christmas.
What is against the separation principle is to use GOVERNMENT MONEY or GOVERNMENT PROPERTY to display such symbols.
Why these relatively simple distinctions are beyond the grasp of most evangelicals is beyond me.
by Old School on January 11th, 2012
Larry - are you aware of how often the ACLU has defended religious rights in the US?
I am unaware of any attempt to ban religious symbols in the US - much less a case of the ACLU behind such an attempt. Can you please provide a link, some evidence?
by 23Skidoo on January 11th, 2012
@23Skidoo - It has to do with The Narrative. It has almost nothing to do with Reality.
by Old School on January 11th, 2012
Yes. Of course. It's all about the narrative, no reality at all.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/rant/descansos.html
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/940/940.F2d.1561.89-55199.html
http://blog.beliefnet.com/news/2011/08/la-times-state-removes-crosses-that-stood-at-inspiration-point-for-decades.php
http://www.newser.com/story/88477/take-that-supreme-court-mojave-desert-cross-stolen.html
by LarryH54 on January 11th, 2012
@LarryH54 - Again, what part of Government Property do you not understand?
Also, how would you feel is people wanted to put up odes to Satan to celebrate roadside deaths, or there was a county park with a set of statuary devoted towards Islamic worship?
I've found that's an easy way to get people who cry about "religious freedom" to reveal their true motives (Christian dominion). Just ask them if what they're advocating applies to Muslims or Satan worshipers.
by Old School on January 11th, 2012
Hey, last month I SUGGESTED placing Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Beer Volcanoes beside some Nativity scenes. I can't help it if no one took me up on it. It's THEIR belief, not mine.
by LarryH54 on January 11th, 2012
@LarryH54 - So you wish to turn this into a contest where basically whichever religious group has the largest number of well-funded in-your-face adherents gets to dominate our public spaces with their beliefs?
That sounds like a recipe for a civil society...;-D...
by Old School on January 11th, 2012
I didn't have time to look at all your links but in none of the ones I did was there a case of Govt banning symbols.
Religious symbols are allowed on private property, displayed on clothing etc.
Look at it this way - adults are allowed to look at pictures & videos of naked people doing a rather amazing array of things. Such materials are freely available and the governed has not banned them. But it it appropriate to display they (even behind "Adults Only" barriers)? As much as it would help pass the time in DMV lines - I think most people, especially those in favor of taxpayer funded crosses, would think not.
But the material is in no way banned.
Next?
by 23Skidoo on January 11th, 2012
Well, if you didn't have time for the last bunch, I don't really see the point in continuing. Just as well, really. I didn't have time to read beyond your first paragraph.
by LarryH54 on January 12th, 2012
I see. So there weren't any cases in which the ACLU actually wanted to have your symbols banned? I figured it was just more hot air.
Thanks. I'll take that as your concession.
L8R.
by 23Skidoo on January 12th, 2012
@23Skidoo - I did take a look at the links. In every instance, they involved displays of religious symbols on public property.
In contrast, the Sundar Shadi Holiday Display has been a fixture in the SF Bay Area town of El Cerrito (just a bit north of the People's Republic of Berkeley) since the 1950s, and to my knowledge there have never been any complaints or lawsuits about it.
http://www.insidebayarea.com/crime-courts/ci_19601311
But Mr. Shadi created the display on his own property with his own money.
That makes all the difference in the world.
by Old School on January 13th, 2012
That's what I thought from the scan I did.
As you said, this "conservative" blather about the ACLU is pure nonsense. They don't see the difference between taxpayer funded support of religion and banning it. It's the politicians way of keeping their sheep reacting to made up boogeymen rather than noticing that Republican policy has raped the middle class for the last 3-40 years.
http://www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression
by 23Skidoo on January 13th, 2012
And YOU don't see a LEGALLY ERECTED CROSS being STOLEN by atheists after the ACLU LOST their fight against it as any kind of problem at all. Lie to yourselves if you must. The links are there for anyone who wishes to determine who is lying. I'm done with you.
by LarryH54 on January 15th, 2012
@LarryH54 - If atheists stole a legally erected cross on private property, then they are idiots and thieves and should be prosecuted.
But I reckon for every instance of something like that you can find, I can find hundreds of instances where Christian Evangelicals tried to push their iconography into the public sector where it doesn't belong.
Do the words "intelligent design" and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District ring a bell?
by Old School on January 15th, 2012
Were did I say I agree with vandalism and theft, Larry? Yo9u're making shit up again.
OS is right - idiots abound. Prosecute 'em. I bet the ACLU would even agree.
BTW - How do you know it was stolen by atheists? Maybe it was drunk yokels who go to church every Sunday... or maybe it was Jews or Muslims or Indians or them family of a dead soldier who wasn't Christian and they felt he wasn't duly honored....
See? You're making shit up again.
by 23Skidoo on January 16th, 2012