 | | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) My point is that it is okay to protect *all* matters of freedom of religious expression up and until people fly planes into buildings... k, that was a little far--my personal philosophy has *always* been that anyone can believe what they want (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) As long as you understand that "Young Hedonists for Satan" has the same rights of access and same protection under the law... Brucifer Devil's Advocate for the Day :-) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) When you adequately explain from where our government claims our rights originate, then we can talk about the constitutionality of "God language". -John (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) If "apples" = "why does the State in one case have the right to endorse or restrict religion" and "oranges" = "why does the State not have the right to endorse or restrict religion," then I am indeed comparing apples and oranges. What's your (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Those stupid liberal judges are at it again!
|
|
(...) Apples and Oranges... In this one, a bonafide extra-curricular school group deserves the same status as any other extracurricular school group. It'd be like saying--'Hey you in the Chess club--we think you're geeky so you don't get any (...) (22 years ago, 10-Sep-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
