There are those who find pictures of Jesus, and even angels, offensive. Likewise, there are those who find obscene and vulgar pictures offensive. Why is exposing people to the latter often considered free speech, while the former is considered an attempt to impose church (religion) upon state? Why do we hear the cries that the constitution clearly calls for separation of church and state? Excuse me? A religious picture, especially if it happens to be Christian in nature, is somehow going to negatively influence the operations of the government? How ridiculous is all of this?
I think the ACLU and the BAT peoples have gone over the edge with their concerns about anything assumed to be religious in nature being exhibited or expressed on government property or within a government body. Are they afraid that religion is contagious and they might catch it?
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Fear of catching it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
The difference here might be citizen speech versus government speech. You can walk through the State Capitol with a Jesus t-shirt, a Mike Huckabee for President t-shirt, or a Hooters t-shirt, no problem. But for the state to advocate or mandate the display of any of those images/messages on public property, with public money, infringes on your freedom of speech by forcing you (through the agency of your government) to say things you don't approve of. The First Amendment claims you mention are efforts to protect individual citizens' rights. The church-state issues usually arise when a governmental agency seeks to convey religious messages.
Post a Comment