Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 29 of 29
  1. #26
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    +1

    I'm not quite sure why this was an illegal activity...

    did they have a bullhorn?
    Liberals love to say crosses cannot be displayed, destroying others first amendment rights. then when the same claims are made of how offensive building a mosque near the 9/11 site, and opening it on the 9/11 anniversary...

    Liberals fail to understand the offense others see.

  2. #27
    Cogito Ergo Sum LnGrrrR's Avatar
    My Team
    Boston Celtics
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Post Count
    22,399
    Liberals love to say crosses cannot be displayed, destroying others first amendment rights. then when the same claims are made of how offensive building a mosque near the 9/11 site, and opening it on the 9/11 anniversary...

    Liberals fail to understand the offense others see.
    WC fails to see the difference between government and private property.

    Most cases that liberals take up against displayed crosses and other religious paraphernalia relate to them being on government property. For instance, the Ten Commandments displayed in a court of law.

    And personally, I don't think there's anything offensive about opening a mosque there.

  3. #28
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    WC fails to see the difference between government and private property.

    Most cases that liberals take up against displayed crosses and other religious paraphernalia relate to them being on government property. For instance, the Ten Commandments displayed in a court of law.

    And personally, I don't think there's anything offensive about opening a mosque there.
    But there is no real "separation of church and state." The first amendment does not say religion cannot influence government. In fact, the way it's written, I would say it bars government from removing existing religions artifacts on government property for such incorrect interpretations.

  4. #29
    Still Hates Small Ball Spurminator's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Post Count
    37,751
    But there is no real "separation of church and state." The first amendment does not say religion cannot influence government. In fact, the way it's written, I would say it bars government from removing existing religions artifacts on government property for such incorrect interpretations.
    I have a problem with governments forcing the removal of religious symbols from certain public areas. I also have a problem with governments funding the production or placement of such symbols.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •