I’m trying to figure out what imposed privilege means. Is that sort of like ‘jumbo shrimp’? Back in the good old days when people sent their kids to school it was a rare privilege to do so. Most schools were private and run by Christian charities , priests and nuns. Even most colleges were catholic made and run. The nutty thing was back then the religion that founded this nation and has kept it running was based on catholicism. The government imposed nothing. Nobody had to go to school. You went voluntarily to better educate yourself and you sent your kids in hope of them bettering themselves.

This is still, for a little while, a predominantly Catholic country. It’s morals and values which have stemmed from the Jude0-Christian beliefs is what has made it the greatest country in the world. Don’t you think it’s strange that the further we stray from Christianity and it’s values, the faster this country falters and fails?

Socialism and communism are the bastard religions of man. The celebration of mans failures over Christian values. The piece of paper you mentioned has been so badly manipulated by the left that George Orwell could use it now for ’1984, Part deux’. By putting a cross in a classroom you may make a child think about something other than MTV or becoming an Obamazombie.

Perhaps they’ll think about something important. Like living a moral life. But then thats the whole idea isn’t it? Remove any moral beliefs so they’ll be easier to control by the government. And that damn cross is interfering with the government mind manipulation machine. We can’t have an opinion other than the government! People would then think for themselves and have a choice. God forbid!

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. It’s not merely the discussion of God. It’s the government imposed privilege of Christianity in schools, etc. The religious are free to exercise their religion in any way they see fit, but not to impose their religion on others, which is what you are arguing for.

Oh, ‘technically’ people have religious rights, eh?

“I think you’re vastly overstating their significance.”

So there would be no problem removing them, right? If they’re truly insignificant, nobody would care.

“Returning to the basic story here, we’re talking about something that happened in Italy, and I think that most would agree that the degree to which catholicism dominates Italy, does in fact make it almost like a state endorsed religion, and I doubt that anyone would have any problems with the cross hanging in Catholic school classrooms, so what’s really the big deal here?”

Because they AREN’T Catholic schools; they are STATE schools, which, by their own constitution, need to supply a secular education, not a Catholic education. And since when is it OK for the majority religion to take control of state schools? Will you still agree to this if Muslims are the majority?

“To my knowledge, there aren’t many crosses hanging on the wall in American public school classrooms.”

Of course not. That’s unconstitutional.

We don’t have to worry about Submission to Islam. We all ready are bowing to the inevitable surrender of our belief, all for the sake of tolerance. What fools these mortals believe! Lets get fitted for our shackles before the line gets too long.

In your first comment, you wrote:

“The cross lovers will just have to accept their hurt at a vastly larger area of blank wall which could be construed as
government abusing its power to push atheism.

Could be construed ? By whom ?

The government’s only agenda is to make sure that they stay in power.

And then in your second comment you wrote:

“Of course a blank wall is absurd, get it, I think athiests are absurd.”

You profess belief in an eternal, unknowable, omniscient and omnipotent invisible being, and you think that atheists are absurd? Why? Because they’re not delusional?

After which you claim that:

“I have never met one that did think God existed.”

Well duh……

What part of the word atheist don’t you understand?

While they do respect superior force, it doesn’t make them change their ways… They just cringe in their mud huts for a few years with their goats, while they build themselves up into thinking that they’re strong and powerful once again by abusing their women until they’ve mustered up the resources and strength to try again… I don’t think that they’ll ever come around.

They’re ignorant barbaric bullies, and the only way they’ll become part of modern society is if they stop indoctrinating their young with the their dreadful cult of death and hate. They’re still a “tribal” people. They have no comprehension of what the modern world even means.

The reason why they’re exempt is because everyone in Europe is afraid of those animals, so they bend over backwards to accommodate their every whim…

Witha few exceptions, the people running the governments of Europe are spineless cowards, who’ve gotten so used to American protecting their sorry asses that they have no idea how to defend themselves any more.

There are a few wing nuts at the outer edges of ever issue, but what they think really doesn’t matter. I fail to see where any significant number of people are offended by the cross.

We’re not talking about the ways in which one religious group feels about the beliefs of another. What we’re doing is have a serious discussion of the government’s role in the issue.

I’ve previously made the argument that under our constitution, government should remain neutral on the subject. do you think it’s proper for our government to give favorable treatment to any one religious group, no matter how big of a majority they happen to represent? If they did, wouldn’t that be the same as the government giving preferential treatment to one race over another?

BTW: Your idea that atheists would consider a blank wall as being representative of their beliefs or lack of same, is just as absurd as your further words that imply that atheists claim that god in any form is nonexistent. With the exception of a few religious extremists who simply hate atheists because they don’t share their religious views, (you know, just like muslims do) atheists don’t say that god doesn’t exist. By definition, it’s impossible to prove a negative. Atheists simply say that that they’ve never seen any evidence to support the idea that a god figure does exist. How could one possibly prove that a supernatural being, who is by definition invisible, and unknowable, DOESN’T exist ?

The issue isn’t if it offends anyone or not. The issue is whether or not the government should take a stand on the issue one way or the other.