Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Atheists & Agnostics

Act_of_Reparation

(9,116 posts)

3. No offense, but that's inane.

Reply to Doreen (Reply #1)

Fri Mar 10, 2017, 08:49 AM

Mar 2017

Why is it wrong to legislate religious doctrine, but OK to use public money to erect religious symbols? Both violate the Establishment Clause. It's a distinction without a difference.

And frankly, I would argue this chickenshit "live and let live" crap only emboldens those leading the religious intrusion into secular institutions.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

7 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Controversy Over Crosses on Proposed Villanova Bridge, being paid for by penndot. [View all] yortsed snacilbuper Mar 2017 OP

I am Buddhist and it does not bother me in the least. Doreen Mar 2017 #1

why are "we" expected to live and let live... uriel1972 Mar 2017 #2

No offense, but that's inane. Act_of_Reparation Mar 2017 #3

Fine. They can pay for their "pretty crosses" with their "pretty money" Heddi Mar 2017 #4

"If Jesus was hung, would we pray to a rope?" -- Gordon Downie of The Tragically Hip FiveGoodMen Mar 2017 #5

George Carlin once said if Jesus arrived in the 20th century mountain grammy Mar 2017 #6

They can do what they want, but not with tax money. Goblinmonger Mar 2017 #7