Man infuriated by Buddha statues at zoo

It does point out the idiocy of having fits over things like crosses and such being in public places, though.


Yeah, why do people fight for crosses on government property when they know it is unconstitutional? It IS idiocy.
 
Cuz I know the Oregon Zoo is owned by Portland. Which makes it a publicly owned property.

I imagine the San Diego Zoo is likewise owned by the city.
 
Last edited:
Do you hear me screaming? They can have a hundred buddhas if they like. So long as they allow crosses as well.
 
Lol. You can't link it because it's not true. You allow your inner dialogue about the way you think things are to taint your interaction with others.
 
Zoo ownership is unique, some are owned by private citizens or corporations, some by cities in which the taxpayers have the right to choose (usually through petitions) what happens there, some are co-ops from several groups, and some are just funded by the city while owned by a private group. The name means little as to who owns it, you have to actually *gasp* look it up.
 
Things this guy should know.

1. Buddha is not a god.
2. It isn't an idol.
3. The fat and happy "Buddha" is not even an image of Siddharta.
4. Buddhists do not rub Buddha's belly in "worship".

I could go on, but what is the point?
 

Forum List

Back
Top