Quote:
Originally Posted by flippyshark
Sir Dillon,
That reply doesn't appear to be addressing the issue (the right for the sign to be there as opposed to the merits of its content), and it's confusing in the bargain. Again, please clarify.
|
Sorry for the confusion.
Just as much as religious people read the Bible in ways (not what it actually says, but what they want it to say) that to suit their own ends; they also read into the Constitution the same way.
As referenced in the OP, Lars and his caller claimed the 1st Amendment (reading into it what they want it to say, not what it actually does) supported the religious display but not the atheist display. Then claiming it was hate speech and was tantamount to being agents of the government in proliferating that particular belief, they concluded it was an unconstitutional display.
That position is a special pleading fallacy. Holding others to their rules while not holding themselves equally accountable.
The "I'm right...you're wrong" mentality previously mentioned by one of your cohorts.
Anyhow...
Thanks for the response.