Posted on 04/28/2005 8:50:50 PM PDT by 4lifeandliberty
I've seen it. Driven by it several occasions. Makes for an inward chuckle.
I don't think the Founding Fathers had this in mind when they founded the country. I doubt they even know knew what a homosexual was, other than what they read in the Bible about Sodom and Gomorrah. Another strong sign of the end times.
You really have to wonder what they were thinking when the design was approved.
Oh, I think we do.... It was just ... peachy...
Philadelphia Freeedom....I LUV LUV LUV YA! Yes I do!
Something like this?
Another solid contender. LOL
No. Too much estrogen...it makes the queers jealous.
That photo gives new meaning to your tagline .
Rock, what the heck is wrong with you. You sure have little understanding of history, that is for sure. God is a living God and there will be wrath poured out on those who do things that are an abomination against God.
ping.
The United Fudgepackers of America will be represented....
You are on your game today!....and to think I got suspended from here earlier this week for, er...um..
Gonna assume it'll have a small "ten commandments" built in someplace. Or maybe just the Lord's prayer---should be appropriate in the neighborhood.
I'm not as virulenty gay-hating as many are here, but...gimme a freakin break.
This country is very rapidly coming to a confrontation about the meaning of religion and secularism. (And I'm an agnostic, btw.) Secularist beliefs can be enshrined freely because they are not religious, while religious beliefs cannot be, in the public sphere. But from my point of view, they're ALL simply...beliefs. Someday someone is going to get around to saying the sensible thing: "You guys who believe in butt sex, and you guys who think some god is against it, are BOTH 'believers'."
I have no idea what the ramifications of this will be, but this kind of thing makes a joke of that "separation of church and state" crap. What that separation is about is making sure there is no state-backed religion--something I agree with.
But something like this shows that such separation in terms of public events, public officials attending such events, etc. is a lie we all agree to live by.
What is the difference between what Rendell is doing, and, say, a president attending a religious event and APPROVING of the practices of those who created the event?
Answer: Nothing. Except that no one would ever suggest Rendell is supporting religion with his attendence...BUT he IS supporting a BELIEF (that gay sex is a great thing).
And that's what religion is.
I'm not taking a side on this, merely pointing out that the religious in this religious/secular battle merely need to codify the conflict to show that these Dems who support all kinds of secular BELIEFS are violating the spirit of that "separation of church and state" theme they so love every time they support such (non-religious) cultural events.
Thanks. I'm only trying to stay on topic.
RE: "Rock, what the heck is wrong with you. You sure have little understanding of history, that is for sure. God is a living God and there will be wrath poured out on those who do things that are an abomination against God."
If wishing death and suffering on your innocent fellow man because of what hole they choose to screw is not an abominations to your version of God, then you might as well just give up and worship Allah the murderous.
Let me know when you want to stop babbling on about Sodom and whatever and start talking about America (where we are not legally bound to follow the scriptures of one particular religion over another like fundamentalist loonies like you would like).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.