Friday, November 19, 2010

This is now the stupidest comment,

That I have ever seen in the entirety of my short life:

“Surely as a black man you can sympathize with the non-theist community,” she said, suggesting that attitudes about her group were “equal to the way blacks were treated before the civil rights movement."

From this idiot here.

Yes, because not being allowed to put a tree with offensive books on it on public property is the same as being murdered, beaten up, harassed and mistreated for wanting to vote and go to schools that are'nt purpousely sub-standard.

*Sigh* If there was ever disproof of the theories of the progress of man/society or evolution, I think this lady is it.

I agree that there shouldn't be these types of religious displays on public property. In this day and age, where civility is non-existent, trying to allow everyone of all religions to put up a display only ends in the uncharitable fighting, insulting and insensitive mocking that you see happens with the displays that happen here. It's not about suppressing free speech*. It's actually about tolerance. Since, as her own group ought to admit, they are not really tolerant of other faiths, and those other faiths are not tolerant of her, why bother pretending that we all get along when under the paper-thin surface, disunited and hatred actually exist?

Besides, you would think in a time where the separation of church and state is becoming more pronounced, a so-called free thought society would advocate the elimination of religious displays on tax-payer funded property, in favour of religiously neutral displays. But since this would mean that they would have to give up their atheistic display, legality and their own principles are thrown out of the window in favour of ideology.

*Free speech, by the way, is'nt totally free. It is governed by the rules and laws of those who own the property. i.e., speech is free withing the bounds set by the person who owns the property that the right is being exercised on. If a local government sets a rule that limits free speech on state property, there's nothing to get into a tizzy about because similar laws already exist EVERYWHERE.

No comments: