To: epicure who wrote (168068 ) 8/6/2011 10:52:30 PM From: Brumar89 Read Replies (1) | Respond to And I was (partially) agreeing with Cogito, who said: "And I'll point out that nobody is bristling about that FDR statement, though you seem to think they would."Message 27547865 I know plenty of people who don't like the historical toxic mixture of church and state- that is after all why things have changed. Because people didn't like it. If people have loved it, they would have kept it. Do you feel that historical use justifies all kinds of intolerance, or just religious intolerance? (Because using the government As is using government power to suppress religious expression.And what, exactly, do you have about letting the governmental public sphere be neutral? And what if, as the teabaggers and wingers fear, the 1% of Muslims in this country "capture" the nation and made everyone pray to Allah. Would public prayer still be fabulous? If Muslims were to "capture" the nation, there would be no possibility of neutrality would there? But in a country where the majority of people are Christian, the government can ban school prayer and judges can apparently ban invocations at graduation ceremonies and religious language at a national cemetary. Our Christians seem to be doing a terrible job of persecuting people. I think Muslims would be better at that.
