Replies

>>explaining why such a plaque was oppressive of their inalienable rights<<

It has to do with taxes. You're a Republican, you should be able to understand that it's a violation of my rights to have taxes taken out of my pocket in order to promote your religion.

It also has to do with government endorsement of religion. You should be able to understand that it's a violation of my rights for the government to endorse your religion.

These are simple concepts. What's not to understand?

These are simple concepts. What's not to understand?

Why none of the arrogant jerks calling Medved could communicate this simple argument, and instead resorted to juvenile taunts and insults.

What if said object was paid for by private money, and none of your taxes were involved?

What's not to understand?

That religious history in this nation is historical fact and should not be denied nor re-written...

That in absense of a unified philosophy, religion is the firmest path by which man can trace a path toward common civility...

That with the exception of the First, none of the other nine Commandments are in any way antithetical to propriety in secular human behavior. And even the first one can be applied in accordance with ALL beliefs. (ie. One who believes that man is an end in himself, would thus define God as man or himself, and therefore conclude that there should be no other value higher than that)...

That in a society knitted of every variety of humanity on the planet, tolerance of every (sane) belief system must be encouraged, which includes an acceptance OF Judeo-Christian tradition as well as a careful legislative separation from it...

That sarcasm and condescetion have no place in civil discourse and are tools of the ignorant bigot...

For starters...

There is no such thing as a "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. There is no "wall between church and state" in the Constitution. Therefore -- there is no problem with having religious literature or symbolism on the public square as long as all religions can be represented. The first amendment says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

It can be and has been argued that forbidding religion from the public square is in fact prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The problem is when you have folks who want only the Christian religion, and preferably their version of it (that is, no Catholic stuff), on the public square. If the star of David, the Virgin Mary, a big ol' fat-bellied Bhudda, and whatever Islamic symbol du jure are also permitted, then there is no issue. I think the ACLU and the atheists are dead wrong in trying to get Christian symbols and the 10 commandmants banned, and I think the leftists judges who rule for them are morons.

But I also think that Christians who want to fight this fight need to be aware that if we win, we have to permit any other religion who wants to foot the bill the right to park their statues, verses, and so forth in the same area. Which in the long run I think is a good thing. I would rather have any and all religions (who want to foot the bill, I don't think the taxpayers should be on the hook) to be permitted to do so, and would rather have a bunch there rather than none.