-
Enter at your own risk
e-mail ME:
SondraKisP*at*Gmail*dot*com
Claire*at*e-biscuit*dot*com
visit e-Claire !!!
e-mail The Ugly American:
tua_sondrak*at*yahoo*dot*com
e-mail DougM:
dougmkisp*at*nc*dot*rr*dot*com
one of these things is more equal than the other
Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
14 Comments!
Well, hey, if it keeps just one bus from being blown up …
they’d have a more clear cut case if they’d chosen “Don’t believe in Allah?”
Caged has the better point.
Even us atheists are pretty sure Mohammed existed…
One of those signs is racist and hurtful and oppressive.
Sigivald : So did Jesus: see histories by Tacitus &c.
But that ain’t how the sign reads.
Of course…atheists aren’t in the habit of blowing themselves up in your lobby if you pi$$ them off.
The ACLU is busy suing cities about religious symbols (but only crosses, it seems) in public spaces. I suggest they try something different: in 2004 the Muslims in Hamtramck, Michigan won a lawsuit allowing them to broadcast the call to prayer over loudspeakers. Why is a cross in the public space offensive, but not the call to prayer?
Oh, wait — threats to bodily parts. Gotcha. And Muslims are oppressed, therefore protected. Double gotcha.
Rant: the Constitution only prevents the government from establishing an official state religion, like the Anglican Church in England. There’s nothing in the Constitution that says government must scrub public spaces of all religious symbols. Not taking any action is also not taking sides.
Fat Baxter: True. Some have interpreted “freedom of religion” to mean “freedom from religion”.
But surely the “call to prayer” is a matter of “free speech” – at least, a lot closer to “speech” than actions, like flag-burning, or going around the city naked (as they do in Frisco – but the City Fathers are thinking of making that illegal:
S.F. public nudity ban
“A federal judge considering San Francisco’s public nudity ban rejected arguments Thursday that simply disrobing in public was protected political speech akin to flag burning.”
Nasty assed Misotheists at it again.
Rant: the Constitution only prevents the government from establishing an official state religion, like the Anglican Church in England. – FB
Actually (if I may be a bit pedantic), it says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
Don’t say nuttin’ about the States. If Utah wanted to make the LDS the official State religion, I don’t see anything to prevent them doing so (other than good taste and common decency, of which the Mormons have plenty).
Lord of the Fleas: That’s actually a bit scary considering how Obama has been skirting around Congress on all sorts of things.
Can they put one on a bus in D.C. that said “Don’t believe in Big Gov’t?….You are not alone” ? Well, maybe change the “you are not alone” part- it implies Big Brother is watching you.
Fleas, the First Amendment has been incorporated, it applies to the States too. Everson V. B.O.Ed.
And the difference, as the bus company points out, is not the content of the advert but the thing it advertises. They might well win on that basis. If the Mohammed advert pointed to the same site as the God one, the bus company would use.
And yes, it should be Allah. Mohammed was definitely an historical figure.
When Jesus declared Himself to the The Way, The Life, and The Truth, and that He is the only way to The Father, he meant just that.
In 1 John, John describes what constitutes good and evil.
Those things haven’t changed, and will not ever change.
What changes are the lies, laws, and the ways of man.
…shall make no law regarding religion….or prohibiting the free exercise of religion…
Right now, Congress is making end runs around the Bill Of Rights concerning religion. The purpose of that is for the day when America is disarmed, and the REAL tyranny begins.
Day of Resistance, February 23, 2013.