No only a few Yahoos. No one serious
There's only one Yahoo Serious.
No only a few Yahoos. No one serious
I don't know that the 1st amendment guarantees a place on a public platform. Sure it secures your and your group to practice unharrassed what ever you think appropriate. I think in order to have a place on a public platform you may should be required to have contributed in a significant way something to the well being of said public. For example a monument to Firefighters as opposed to me placing a monument to myself. Not that I don't contribute, but my contribution is not extraordinary.
On what grounds should there be a place of honor in the public square?It doesn't. There is a clear precedent of a separation of church and state that the founding fathers envisioned. Christians point to the fact that they use the word "God" and automatically assume they are only referring to the Christian God. Sadly, many founding fathers were deists (not Christian) and if one chose to worship a doorknob, then the doorknob could be inserted any place "God" is written.
As for prerequisites in order to be eligible to be put on display on public property, I think all religious related things should be banned. While I love Jesus Christ and His immaculate conception and birth, I don't need the state to display anything for me nor do I only honor Him on December 25th; He should be honored throughout the entire year and not just on many of the pagan gods birthday that predate Him.
By not allowing anything, we keep a clear separation of church and state and keep Christians from having to walk pass a statue of Satan, and non-Christians from walking pass a nativity scene. No one will whine or cry... actually, that isn't true. People will always find a reason to complain.
No one cares about the technical aspects of their beliefs, whether it is worship of self or of a deity who lost a fiddle contest to a random hillbilly.The Church of Satan is a misleading name because they are actually atheist.
At the risk of being redundant that's why there shouldn't be any religious monuments on State PropertyNo one cares about the technical aspects of their beliefs, whether it is worship of self or of a deity who lost a fiddle contest to a random hillbilly.
Do their works carry merit enough to warrant a plaform in the public square. The answer is no. In order to be honored by a place in the public square you must accomplish some extraordinary meritorious work. We can't nor should we give place to just any and everyone who wants a place of honor.
Example MLK, he did extraordinary meritorious works in the area of civil rights, thus we can and should afford him honor in the public square.
On what grounds should there be a place of honor in the public square?
To whom or what ideas should monuments be errected?
No one cares about the technical aspects of their beliefs, whether it is worship of self or of a deity who lost a fiddle contest to a random hillbilly.
Do their works carry merit enough to warrant a plaform in the public square. The answer is no. In order to be honored by a place in the public square you must accomplish some extraordinary meritorious work. We can't nor should we give place to just any and everyone who wants a place of honor.
Example MLK, he did extraordinary meritorious works in the area of civil rights, thus we can and should afford him honor in the public square.
At least this is an honest stance. Basically no one or thing merits a statue or monument that would occupy a public space. Which may be the best policy.The trouble with making a precedent based on "merit" is that it is non-quantifiable, it's rather subjective. While you might think MLK is worthy of it, maybe someone thinks a more deserving person should be put up instead. Truthfully, this is probably an extremely unpopular opinion, but I'm not sure why we need to "honor" anyone on public property. If anyone actually goes to the statue of a person and honors them, it's closer to worshiping an idol than it is paying respect/honoring the person. We can honor someone without a physical structure built on public property at the expense of the tax payers.
Honest? It's uneducated as to the history of monuments.At least this is an honest stance. Basically no one or thing merits a statue or monument that would occupy a public space. Which may be the best policy.
Honest? It's uneducated as to the history of monuments.
Snowflakes would love that to be policy though. Erase American history because those opposed to America may be offended by how we got here.
God willing they'll remain offended and very disappointed statuary and monuments continue to dot our landscape.
Historic figures and monuments are erected because the person or event depicted are meritorious.
The Statue of Liberty, for instance.
Mount Rushmore.
The list goes on.
No one worships these statues. And if that be the argument that it is wrong they are erected,then the first amendment will shortly be targeted by those averse to such replications because that inalienable right amended would gut every Roman Catholic church in the nation.
Statues galore. Saints on the walls. Mary in many forums throughout. And don't forget Jesus hanging crucified still on the crucifix.
The anti-Christian FFRF seeks to eradicate all Christian religious symbols from public property. They also join with the ACLU to threaten tax payer funded schools should their students dare to openly express their religious beliefs.
They even attack veteran memorials should there be a cross present.
Fear.
What an ugly incentive.
The thing is the satanist are not a religious group . They are atheist. The use Satan to agitate Christians and Jews . It’s not about religion it’s about ridiculing others belief in God .Except that it's not. if Christians have a right to put religious monuments on state property then other religions have the same right
The thing is the satanist are not a religious group . They are atheist. The use Satan to agitate Christians and Jews . It’s not about religion it’s about ridiculing others belief in God .
Blessings
Bill
No, but thank you for posting.Snowflakes are offended when another religious group or anti-religious group wants to put up displays on public property. They have an entitlement mentality that only THEIR [religious] beliefs must be displayed and refuse to acknowledge that there are other people in this country who have different spiritual views. Snowflakes want to be the "special" ones who have the right to do something while restricting other groups of people. Frankly, they are ignorant about how everyone has freedom of religion AND freedom from religion.
No, but thank you for posting.