http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/jeffe...rity-vote/

Quote:http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/jeffe...rity-vote/

Quote:In an op-ed for the Detroit Free Press on Thursday, historian and author John Ragosta argued that no religious displays belonged on government land.

“I hope most Michiganders find placement of a Satanist display in a government building offensive, but it is offensive for the same reason that a crèche display on government property is offensive — government has no business promoting or endorsing, even indirectly, religion,” he explained. “That’s the First Amendment’s separation of church and state. (And I know that those words are not expressly in the amendment, but history demonstrates that the principle is central because, as 18th-Century evangelicals recognized, mixing the two corrupts both.)”

Well said.

Just saw the Nebraska state capitol building is getting a nativity too.

We need some penis worshippers to develop a Lord Priapus version, badly.

Wouldn't that give the conservatards a giant head ache?

Nice fundie bait and switch in the article!

I bet you are all offended like me
.
.
.
but for all the wrong reasons! Hah, In your face!

It's only discrimination if its happening to them.

(December 18, 2014 at 8:03 pm)Spooky Wrote: It's only discrimination if its happening to them.

(December 18, 2014 at 6:18 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Just saw the Nebraska state capitol building is getting a nativity too.

We need some penis worshippers to develop a Lord Priapus version, badly.

Well, how about worshipping Priapus himself, Roman god of agriculture.



Bugger seems to be aiming straight for the fruits. Guess that was his purpose after all.

So what's the deal with Lord Prolaps up there?

I'm in love