Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Nor should they be in the business of preventing the free exercise thereof. Why must the majority ALWAYS bow to the will of the few?It gets sickening, it truly does.


There are times when I think it's important to deal with the will of the few, but any more those times are so few and rare. The original (MLK jr style) civil rights issues would be such an area. But again, we've moved on, or should have moved on, from those issues and times.

I agree with the thought though LW. It's just crazy that in the name of not offending one lost soul we have to toss away the will of so many others.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top

It disgusts me that the current interpretation of the 1st amendment is that one should not be forced to see religious displays that go against their own beliefs!

Siege of Centauri
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
one should not be forced to see religious displays that go against their own beliefs!


Heck, if that's the problem, I've got the perfect solution: poke the guy's eyes out. Now he'll never have to see another cross for as long as he lives.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Opponents say simply transferring the land to federal hands does not resolve the issue of separation of church and state.
"Crosses belong on churches, not in public parks," said lawyer James McElroy, who is representing atheist Philip Paulson in his efforts to see the cross removed. "It doesn't make any difference if it's on federal land, state land or city land. . . . The government should not be in the business of religion."
.

But it should solve ALL problems with the transfer. What these idiots don't get is that it becomes a "war memorial" (sort of like the "Arizona" battleship at Pearl) NOT a public "park".