Intolerant Anti-Christians Need to Get A Life [link]
Why are athiests and other anti-Christians so intolerant? Why does the display of religious symbols cause them such discomfort. Can't they see that a public display of a cross or the tablets of the Ten Commandments is an acknowledgement of the importance of religion?
Case in point: the display of a large cross as part of a war memorial in San Diego. From the anger coming from the anti-Christians, you would think that the display was being used to crucify non-Christians.
A giant cross in San Diego that's been contested for 17 years by an atheist became the property of the federal government Monday with President Bush's signature.
I view athiests as members of a competing religous view. Why should THEIR view be given preference? I am not a Christian and I do not feel threatened when I see Christian symbols in public.
But the legal fight that began in 1989 when atheist Philip Paulson sued San Diego over the cross is not played out yet.
Paulson's attorney, Jim McElroy, said he filed papers in federal court in San Diego last week to void the transfer and declare it unconstitutional.
"I don't think anybody really thinks the cross is going to remain on Mt. Soledad. It's been 17 years of litigation, and every court, every judge who's ever looked at it has ruled it's unconstitutional," McElroy said.
These people are selfish and incapable or realizing that the world is bigger than they are. Anything that makes them uncomfortable must be torn down....the fact that it makes other people uncomfortable is of no importance.
The U.S. Supreme Court started this nonsense by lecturing the country on the separation of church and state decades ago. The Court thought it could satisfy athiests and other anti-Christians by allowing them to sue to remove some religous symbols. Instead they created a never ending stream of litigation. There are always going to be people who are uncomfortable with things they see...the last thing you want to do is to give them a cause of action to file suit and possibly impose their values on the rest of us. .
Case in point: the display of a large cross as part of a war memorial in San Diego. From the anger coming from the anti-Christians, you would think that the display was being used to crucify non-Christians.
A giant cross in San Diego that's been contested for 17 years by an atheist became the property of the federal government Monday with President Bush's signature.
I view athiests as members of a competing religous view. Why should THEIR view be given preference? I am not a Christian and I do not feel threatened when I see Christian symbols in public.
But the legal fight that began in 1989 when atheist Philip Paulson sued San Diego over the cross is not played out yet.
Paulson's attorney, Jim McElroy, said he filed papers in federal court in San Diego last week to void the transfer and declare it unconstitutional.
"I don't think anybody really thinks the cross is going to remain on Mt. Soledad. It's been 17 years of litigation, and every court, every judge who's ever looked at it has ruled it's unconstitutional," McElroy said.
These people are selfish and incapable or realizing that the world is bigger than they are. Anything that makes them uncomfortable must be torn down....the fact that it makes other people uncomfortable is of no importance.
The U.S. Supreme Court started this nonsense by lecturing the country on the separation of church and state decades ago. The Court thought it could satisfy athiests and other anti-Christians by allowing them to sue to remove some religous symbols. Instead they created a never ending stream of litigation. There are always going to be people who are uncomfortable with things they see...the last thing you want to do is to give them a cause of action to file suit and possibly impose their values on the rest of us. .
posted by Lucius Cornelius at 9:10 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home