Who wins the "I'm offended" game?

[Spiderman]

I'm offended by easily offended people.

 

[jillian]

I am going to fall back on my original and often disagreed with position here.. The case law is wrong here.

The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,". Simply erecting something that has a religious connotation is not establishing a religion. Passing a law that says that "The Church of ( Fill in the blank ) is the official religion of the United States and all others are not." is establishing a Religion.

As long as all the religions are treated equally under the laws, given the same tax breaks as an example, there is not an establishment of a Religion.

The language is quite simple, the words are common words, and to read it any other way is, IMHO, simply wrong.

Intentionally wrong.

and your determination that the caselaw is wrong is based on what legal scholarship that you've done?

the freedom of religion also protects freedom FROM religion. if it were as narrow as you would like, then the purveyors of the majority belief would always be imposing their beliefs on the minority. that's pretty much the opposite of what was intended.

 

[Spiderman]

I am going to fall back on my original and often disagreed with position here.. The case law is wrong here.

The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,". Simply erecting something that has a religious connotation is not establishing a religion. Passing a law that says that "The Church of ( Fill in the blank ) is the official religion of the United States and all others are not." is establishing a Religion.

As long as all the religions are treated equally under the laws, given the same tax breaks as an example, there is not an establishment of a Religion.

The language is quite simple, the words are common words, and to read it any other way is, IMHO, simply wrong.

Intentionally wrong.

and your determination that the caselaw is wrong is based on what legal scholarship that you've done?

the freedom of religion also protects freedom FROM religion. if it were as narrow as you would like, then the purveyors of the majority belief would always be imposing their beliefs on the minority. that's pretty much the opposite of what was intended.

Tell me then why is the president or any other politician on the public payroll allowed to say god bless america on publicly owned audio equipment that is on publicly owned property while they are being protected by public employees?

Freedom of speech also means freedom from speech is protected right?

 

[ron4342]

I can understand why atheists are offended by the first four of the Ten Commandments. They atheists.

They are offended by the rest of the Ten Commandments, because they insist that it is nobody's right to tell them not to do the things they love doing and come naturally to them.

Incorrect.

The issue has nothing to do with ‘atheists,’ or being ‘offended’ by a religious display, it has to do with the fact that, given the circumstances, religious displays on public property at the behest of the state are in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate (County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter (1989)).

The concern, therefore, is for the religious liberty of all Americans to practice their faith, or to enjoy being free from faith, absent interference by the state.

I am going to fall back on my original and often disagreed with position here.. The case law is wrong here.

The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,". Simply erecting something that has a religious connotation is not establishing a religion. Passing a law that says that "The Church of ( Fill in the blank ) is the official religion of the United States and all others are not." is establishing a Religion.

As long as all the religions are treated equally under the laws, given the same tax breaks as an example, there is not an establishment of a Religion.

The language is quite simple, the words are common words, and to read it any other way is, IMHO, simply wrong.

Intentionally wrong.

If you are going to allow Christian religious symbols on public land, then religious symbols from every faith should also be allowed. Not to do so is choosing one religion above others. Those Christians who would scream that they should be able to put a cross on public land will also scream against a Jewish, Muslim, or Hindu symbol being placed there and that is the rub. Think of how the Christians came out of the woodwork to scream about Muslims putting up an activity center near the location of the World Trade Center.

 

[L.K.Eder]

White, conservative, Christians who think they're persecuted.

that's fucked up. those guys win all the time. that's UNFAIR!

 

[ron4342]

I am going to fall back on my original and often disagreed with position here.. The case law is wrong here.

The 1st Amendment reads, in part, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,". Simply erecting something that has a religious connotation is not establishing a religion. Passing a law that says that "The Church of ( Fill in the blank ) is the official religion of the United States and all others are not." is establishing a Religion.

As long as all the religions are treated equally under the laws, given the same tax breaks as an example, there is not an establishment of a Religion.

The language is quite simple, the words are common words, and to read it any other way is, IMHO, simply wrong.

Intentionally wrong.

and your determination that the caselaw is wrong is based on what legal scholarship that you've done?

the freedom of religion also protects freedom FROM religion. if it were as narrow as you would like, then the purveyors of the majority belief would always be imposing their beliefs on the minority. that's pretty much the opposite of what was intended.

Tell me then why is the president or any other politician on the public payroll allowed to say god bless america on publicly owned audio equipment that is on publicly owned property while they are being protected by public employees?

Freedom of speech also means freedom from speech is protected right?

I do not believe you are being held down and forced to listen to the president say "God bless America." You, as a free person, have a right to shut off your radio, TV, phone, or any other means of communication so you do not have to hear "God bless America." Your choice.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Simply using the cross to pray to is blasphemy....

you are obviously using the cross in an ungodly way, you heathen

 

[Toro]

Simply using the cross to pray to is blasphemy....

It will be when Obama imposes marshall/sharia law in 2016!

 

[L.K.Eder]

Simply using the cross to pray to is blasphemy....

It will be when Obama imposes marshall/sharia law in 2016!

you wish. he will delcare marshall law in ocotber 2014. while vacationing in papua new guinea.

 

[LuckyDuck01!]

Everybody is offended at something.
Personally, as an atheist, I'm NOT offended at the following:
1. The word Christmas, Christmas Carols, trees being called Christmas Trees, Christmas decorations on government/public lands, Nativity scenes, the words "In God we trust" on currency (all that matters to me is that it spends), Christmas cards and people wishing you a Merry Christmas. It's all quite pleasant.
2. Slabs/Monuments with the Ten Commandments on them, on government property. After all, except for laws against theft and murder, the others aren't actual laws and shouldn't be (i.e., you shouldn't respect your mother and father if they are murderous or abusive perverts, et cetera). As there are numerous religious and non-religious beliefs, you can't legislate one belief over the others (unless of course you're stuck in an Islamic nation).
Things that DO offend me:
1. Politicians who (like Huckabee) that advocate a nation more in line with the bible (you want to believe in an invisible, all-knowing, all-powerful, deity, that's your business, but don't push your beliefs and its canons on others).
2. Refusing to serve people who are born the way they are (either via race, gender, or sexual orientation). I find flaming gays (overtly feminine males) to be absurd, but money is money. All that should matter is the dollar.
3. Individuals who consider blacks to be "sub-humans." Neo-Nazis and Skinheads are definitely offensive.
On a different note via the original post, if you feel the need to walk about with a handgun strapped to your hip, you're going to make some people nervous and they will call the cops and the cops have to investigate. So don't bitch if a cop stops you and wants your ID and information. I am the owner of several firearms and possess a concealed weapons permit. That way, nervous-nelly anti-gun citizens aren't scared and I'm still free to walk about armed to the teeth. If you feel the need to wear it so it shows your testosterone is in overdrive and you are just trying to show off and see what kind of rise you can get out of people. People who want to strut about with a visible handgun on their hip aren't necessarily the most stable people and probably shouldn't even own one.

 

[Spiderman]

and your determination that the caselaw is wrong is based on what legal scholarship that you've done?

the freedom of religion also protects freedom FROM religion. if it were as narrow as you would like, then the purveyors of the majority belief would always be imposing their beliefs on the minority. that's pretty much the opposite of what was intended.

Tell me then why is the president or any other politician on the public payroll allowed to say god bless america on publicly owned audio equipment that is on publicly owned property while they are being protected by public employees?

Freedom of speech also means freedom from speech is protected right?

I do not believe you are being held down and forced to listen to the president say "God bless America." You, as a free person, have a right to shut off your radio, TV, phone, or any other means of communication so you do not have to hear "God bless America." Your choice.

Doesn't matter he is broadcasting his religion from a publicly owned mic, on public property while on the public payroll being protected by public law enforcement

IOW our tax dollars are being used for religious purposes.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Tell me then why is the president or any other politician on the public payroll allowed to say god bless america on publicly owned audio equipment that is on publicly owned property while they are being protected by public employees?

Freedom of speech also means freedom from speech is protected right?

I do not believe you are being held down and forced to listen to the president say "God bless America." You, as a free person, have a right to shut off your radio, TV, phone, or any other means of communication so you do not have to hear "God bless America." Your choice.

Doesn't matter he is broadcasting his religion from a publicly owned mic, on public property while on the public payroll being protected by public law enforcement

IOW our tax dollars are being used for religious purposes.

your country would definitely benefit from a little separation of church and state. we have gone through this, it does not hurt at all.