[jwparkerjr]

I'm not sure what I said that would indicate that's how I feel. I'm simply saying that it's the faith of a worshipper that makes a place, any place, sacred to that person, not what others think of it.

It's not the government that's making this function off limits, it's the person's religion.

I see what you're saying though, and I would have no problem if a group, any group, decides not to use the facilities of Bayshore Baptist Church here in Tampa where I am a member for any reason whatsoever.

It's all about tolerance, and strangely enough those who demand the most of it seem to have the least of it.

[voltaires_zit]

> I'm not sure what I said that would indicate that's how I feel.

The fact that, in your view, what makes an idol is the significance you, personally, give to the item.

That's not the way the rules work in other religions.

I happen to think you're right, but I don't want the government deciding such things.

> It's not the government that's making this function off
> limits, it's the person's religion.

Once upon a time, a very long time ago, some citizens of Rome used to hold that a person could show they were a "good citizen" (and avoid being torn apart by lions) by sacrificing to the emperor as if he were a god. They claimed that Christians' refusal to do so was a problem with the person's religion, not with the law.

That's a way too dramatic illustration, but it's the direction that thinking leads.

I don't much care for that direction, and I say that as an atheist.