Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the objective of removing any exclusive access for Gideons is easily dealt with by the equal access provisions, why pretend it is an establishment of religion problem????
The fact that you don't get people to do things the way that would fit your idea of the Christian privilege you feel you deserve doesn't constitute a nullification of other people's rights. The only pretending going on is on your part, in your unwillingness to admit the Establishment Clause issue. Regardless, it isn't up to you whether equal access is "easily" accomplished. There are myriad examples proving that it is practically never "easily" accomplished.
Earlier in the thread I posted a link outlining why that's the case, highlighting the fact that unjust Christian privilege in the United States has fostered far more haters willing and inclined to inflict disproportionate damage on that which represents other religions. People who run businesses and state institutions know that they're going to have to deal with the deviant behavior even if you choose to blind yourself to its disproportionate impact. I bet you would blame the victim for the disproportionate impact, disclaiming the state's responsibility to provide the security measures necessary to ensure that there be no more Qur'ans destroyed than Christian Bibles destroyed, and therefore refuse to acknowledge the cost to the state from providing equal access, beyond having to deal with myriad groups all seeking to place their own materials.
Silly feigned ignorance is a game Dominionists use to inure themselves from the rational repudiation of the childish excuses they put forward for getting their own way. If they could get away with it, they'd claim that it isn't the state's responsibility to spend a dime more to protect mosques as compared to Christian churches, or for that matter, to protect Muslims from hate crimes as compared to protecting Christians from hate crimes. That's the kind of rationalization games Dominionists engage in.
Your motivation is quite clear: Rationalize unjust Christian privilege in any way possible. This time, the powers that be didn't let the corruption you favor prevail, and instead took the appropriate action.
Even if it did fall under the establishment clause, the establishment clause pretty clearly states in the full text (which you have not read) that government can neither promote nor prevent religion in any way.
It doesn't say on government land, it doesn't say non-official (i.e. those like maids who do not represent the government) government employees. In fact, if you are preventing regular people from reading or placing religious works on certain land, you are in fact restricting religion, while making a flimsy excuse.
I leave a Bible on a state park bench in a while I go feed the birds. Is the "government" making a statement about religion? Or am I leaving a Bible on a park bench?
If you don't want a Bible in your room, start a group called the Bible-burners. Go collect Gideon books from hotels, and give them to poor people to start fires. This is your right, and it's protected, unlike this right you claim is there.
No … The "establishment clause" is accompanied by the "free exercise clause," which explicitly DOES endorse and guarantee that the guv'mint DOES "promote" religion ...
Y'gotta love how fundamentalists work to defend unjust Christian privilege from both sides: Some denying the relevance of the Establishment Clause for the aspects of the matter for which it is relevant, while others deny the relevance of the Free Exercise Clause for the aspects of the matter for which it is relevant.
Y'gotta love how fundamentalists work to defend unjust Christian privilege from both sides: Some denying the relevance of the Establishment Clause for the aspects of the matter for which it is relevant, while others deny the relevance of the Free Exercise Clause for the aspects of the matter for which it is relevant.
Well, when they are faced with dwindling power they will come up with anything to try and stop it. They believe that Christianity should in fact have special privileges, and the rest of the country just doesn't matter. They are heathens and hell bound ya know?
Don't blame us. If you hadn't been so pushy in trying to shoehorn religion into politics, the workplace, hospitals, the home, Law, education and even science for cripe's sake, we wouldn't have to do this.
And we shall just have to manage without Carrie Fisher's support.
Oh no, you are the pushy ones, forcing secularism into politics, the workplace, law, education and science.
Forcing students to gobble up the lie of evolution was just the beginning.
Oh no, you are the pushy ones, forcing secularism into politics, the workplace, law, education and science.
Forcing students to gobble up the lie of evolution was just the beginning.
So go and start another cult out in the desert somewhere and wait for the rapture.
Seriously, what are the "lies of atheism" and how can you prove them to be lies?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
