On Sat, 26 Dec 2015 19:44:27 -0500, 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.

Perhaps you have not actually read the amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What "law" was made when they allowed a religious object was allowed
to be placed on public property?
In fact a law banning that object is "prohibiting the free exercise
thereof".

I understand there are some SCOUTS decisions but a different court
might rule the other way and it could even be this one.

I see you ducked the "democratic" thing altogether. It is the
"democrat" thing to do I guess.