Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 12/26/2015 11:31 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
wrote:
On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 13:54:22 -0500, Keyser Söze
wrote:



I'll try this again with my reading glasses on this time.

I believe in the separation of church and state and therefore I am
offended by the erection of religious symbolism on public property in
this country. But not outrageously offended.

Why be offended at all? Will you ever see it?
That is why we can't use democratic as an adjective.
Democrats are ****ed off lesbians from Baltimore like MM Ohair, who
drive around the country trying to be offended.

"Democratic" would be letting the local voters decide




I am offended because religious bull**** erected on public property
violates the establishment clause that is supposed to separate church and
state. It is not something for voters to decide absent a change in the
Constitution.


Establishment cause did not ban religion! Founding fathers even used under
God. Stated there would not be a State Religion established. Vis a vis
Church of England.



Not really. The founding fathers chose "E Pluribus Unum" as the nation's
motto. "In God we Trust" didn't come until later. It was used on some
coins after the Civil War but it wasn't until 1956 when it was adopted
on all coins and paper money.

"Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until then also.

Never knew this ... The original Pledge of Allegiance was written in
1892 by a socialist.




Sorry, the statement under God was not what I wanted to use. Acknowledging
a god or creator was my intent.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Fantastically written document, the Declaration of Independence. And I do
not think a degree in English was held by any of the signers.