[in response as to why Michican voters voted against Nativity scenes on public property]
Yeah but who would vote no? I suspect Michigan's rising Muslim population.....
16 comments
Actually, I'm surprised at this too. As an atheist, I've nothing against nativity scenes at Christmas, or brightly coloured patterns during Divali, heck sacrifice a goat for all I care. But I'll bet that everyone in the PF who is outraged that they aren't allowed to do the first would be more outraged if anyone else were allowed to do any of the others.
Perhaps Michigan voters were wise enough to see that being even-handedly permissive would p*** off the fundtards more than being even-handedly restrictive and voted accordingly.
I don't believe in state sponsored religion, and I don't really see that allowing a nativity scene at Christmas qualifies as that. Public spaces are just that, places to be used by the public; by being open to all they can separate church and state, I don't see that they have to be strictly secular.
David B.
I guarantee the fundies would throw a tantrum at menorahs or pagan symbols on their courthouse lawn, which is favouritism - something the voters in Michigan don't want, apparently.
Shit, the Berkley Clergy Association were urging people to vote No. They want to have their nativity scene where it is, on private property, rather than have it watered down with non-Christian symbols.
Pretty sure Christanis carried the vote.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
