So according to you the 151 foot 1 inch idol of the goddess liberty that is located on Ellis Island should be torn down because is violated the seperation of church and state.

And unless a 300-foot dead soldier is buried under that gigantor cross in San Diego, maybe it shouldn’t be there.

You seem to miss the point. It is an atheist who wants to tear down the cross and not the family of one of the soldiers. The atheist believes it is governmental endorsement of the Christian religion. An ideal I believe is nonsense since the Statue of Liberty is the goddess of liberty and no one has proposed tearing it down because the government is endorsing her worship.

We put crosses on the graves of our dead soldiers because this country was founded on Biblical principles, an idea you atheist libs keep trying disprove. We’ve honored dead soldiers with the Cross from day one. … That is why Arlington Cemetary is full of Crosses as well.

Ever been to Arlington National Cemetery? If you’re even in DC, make sure you visit. It’s a pretty humbling scene. But among the crosses you’ll see the Star of David, the star and crescent, and many other religious symbols. They don’t just slap a cross on every grave.

“Most of you are a disgrace to your own core beliefs.”

And you are a disgrace to America, and to the idea of “free-thinking.”

Where all the brave men Christians? I doubt it? Who many men are you disrespecting by having a cross in their name. How would a Christian like a Star of David to be remembered by?

I think most of you will agree that 99% of the people who appose the ACLU are theists. Theists in this country usually talk about their outstanding ethics and morality. Keeping the ethics and morality of their elected officials aside, it seems obvious from this article that theists have terrible ethics and morality. They are only moral when it suites their needs.

Most of you are a disgrace to your own core beliefs.

Leandro
FreeThinker

Blog at:
http://www.freethoughtnews.com/blog/2006/05/support-aclu.html

brain–

You never cease to amaze. The hilarity of the claim you make above is that you challenged me on the plaintiff’s atheism when it has been well-established in public legal documents, news reports and self-description, hence easily “fact-checked.” Pot meet kettle.

One sect of Muslims used to go around defacing artwork that depicted animals or people because they believed it idolatry. This atheist and his supporters are doing the same thing.

I’m beginning to think you are a hard-core Conservative having fun on this blog playing the prototype Leftist moron. Your absurdity is unbounded by any attachment to reality.

To address one of your idiotic “challenges”: Phillip Paulson is a self-admitted atheist who is very active in the atheist (bowel) movement. Whether his primary purpose in this legal hissy-fit is to desecrate dead vets matters little. The practical impact is just that. Nice try at an argument.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20040806-1508-soledad.html

Tell me Brainiac, whose high principles is this pus-puddle defending?

I’m beginning to think you are a hard-core Conservative having fun on this blog playing the prototype Leftist moron.

Phillip Paulson is a self-admitted atheist. Nice try at an argument.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20040806-1508-soledad.html