ACLU is America's worst enemy

[Eagler]

this is about to get good  

[-ammo-]

Originally posted by ispar:
Hang, may I politely request that you stuff it with both the personal and religous slander? Thank you.

I don't find it hateful and offensive. I do believe that some find it, if not hateful (which I just don't see) then offensive. So, these people aren't entitled to that? It makes perfect sense to me. I also believe that putting that message at a school amounts to a state endorsement of religion/religious statement, whichever you pick, and that is unconstitutional.

LOL, in true bleeding heart fashion. You move me ispar...LOL

[Thud]

NM

[ 10-24-2001: Message edited by: Thud ]

[Creamo]

Istard is doing just fine. Let him expand on all ideals.

[popeye]

For those having trouble with the concept, just think of the ACLU as an "NRA for the FIRST Amendment", protecting the Constitutional rights of a minority from the whim of the majority.

 

[miko2d]

Originally posted by 1776:
I say by removing the sign there is an establisment of religion.  The religion of the non-religious.  The state has no right to impose non-religion on the people

 You are absolutely right. If you put a religious sign on your person or on your property, no one has a right to remove it.
 But the school is public property and (tax-paying) public whose children attend the school may not share religious views of a person who posted the sign.

 weasel: When are they going after dubya?
 He can voice his religious views and bear religious signs. No problem with that - it is personal. He does not make any state decisions based on religion.
 He cannot though make my children say those things or wear those signs.

 Professor Fate: You cannot exercise your freedomn of religion on (partly) my property (school) or brainwash my children without my concent. I send children to school to learn math and other stuff, not get converted into one of your wacky religions. Worship of ancestors is good enough for them.

 miko

[mrfish]

slan-der!, slan-der!, slan-der! wooooo!  

sorry ispar, but honestly i'm still having trouble believing you are actually a quaker. it seemed to me like you suddenly took on that faith to make a point a few threads ago. i don't remember you mentioning it before...

my real and sincere apologies if i am wrong, but if i'm right it's kind of a slap to real quakers.

you might define whether you are actually a practicing quaker or just a philosophical sympathizer. the difference may be more than semantic, i don't know enough about it to say.

if it's any consolation, feel free to question whether i am really a cynical agnostic existentialist anytime you want - i may have shown a hint of optimism in a previous thread but i assure you it was a  passing notion