Posted on 08/02/2005 11:49:31 AM PDT by THE person involved
To me, a story like this only demonstrates how silly the popular understanding of the so-called Establishment Clause is today. 'Religion-neutral zones' only exist in socialistic fantasies.
"What if the Atlanta Freethought Society wanted to put up a bench that said, 'There is no God?'" Buckner added. "Do you think they'd say 'Yes?' I don't."
You would have no problem with a message of this sort?
As long as the message on a bench funded privately is not obscene or vulgar, I have no problem with allowing them to express themselves. Where I would have a problem is with the idea that you can open up the ability for private parties to pay for a bench or a stone marker or whatever and put their messages on it, but then prohibit a message that affirms faith in God or Jesus based on its religious content out of some ridiculous expansion of the "establishment clause" way beyond any reasonable interpretation of its original intent.
If they allow other points of view out there, I wouldn't have a problem with it either. Although somehow, I can't believe that an atheist or Moslem messaged bench would be allowed out there...
Typically, they aren't willing to spend their own money to put their messages out there. So instead, they file lawsuits and complaints to try to censor religious messages from the public square.
An example of exactly what I'm talking about took place in Columbine a few years ago. There was a privately funded memorial being placed on the school grounds where individuals could pay a certain amount to have a brick placed in the memorial wall with memorial messages inscribed. Keep in mind that this was entirely privately funded and those who wanted to put bricks with messages had to pay their own money to do so. Well, officials leary of ACLU types and their litigation censored all messages that had any religious content. For the government to censor messages with religious content while allowing other messages has repeatedly been found by most courts to be a violation of the first amendment, but the school officials held their ridiculous position.
Right, I have heard of someone named Jesus when I was in school. Besides, try pronouncing it in Spanish. (yes, it sounds different now)
Even if Jesus on the bench did represent the spiritual Jesus Christ, so what? Everybody needs to get a life, and move on. The bench is old news now.
Since your children do not even attend that school, it was NONE of your business. We all know the caliber of a person CNN employs, and you fit the stereotype. Obviously, you are unaware of how offensive your behavior is, or you wouldn't be bragging about raising this non-issue. No one else complained in the four years the bench was at the school. That should tell you something about how important this is to the other parents. Don't expect this to endear you or your children to your neighbors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.