Whoa, why can't Seven in Heaven be interpreted to mean
Seven at Peace, Seven resting in Peace
Is there any law that says what "Seven in Heaven" has to mean?
Who gives these atheists the right to interpret it in such a way that offends them?
I interpret Jesus God and the Bible differently from others even the majority.
I interpret the Constitution to be my personal responsibility to enforce as a citizen,
which is different from the vast majority.
Do I go around suing because the majority interprets it in a different or conflicting way?
I get imposed upon all the time by people who disagree, including these people
who want to impose their view instead of seeking consensus that would not
favor or disfavor ANY group.
Maybe I should start pursuing similar lawsuits, just to mock these Atheists.
What if I sued to remove "Equal Justice Under Law" from the Supreme Courthouse
because "it doesn't exist" and "has never been proven to exist."
Do you think the ACLU would support that?
Removing all references to "justice" in the laws of the state, every court ruling and
document, since no one can prove or agree the existence of justice except by faith?
City leaders seemed dumbfounded by the atheists’ outrage because no one complained about the sign as it was going through a public approval process. “It’s unfortunate that they didn’t raise this as an issue while it was undergoing its public review either at the community board level or when it came before the City Council on their public agenda,” said Craig Hammerman, the district manager for Brooklyn Community Board 6.
The city should have thought of that before the approval process – they needed the input of the City’s legal staff, not only citizens. The City has only itself to blame if it gets sued.
but the leftists, atheists, socialists, etc. want to have those opinions or beliefs stifled because they don't jive with their own opinions.
Funny, the same can be said of rightists, fundamentalists, and fascists.
Not necessarily – one might infer ‘Seven in Heaven’ to be a religious process, the dogma of ‘life after death.’ That is indeed conveying a religious message.
Atheist want to ban the word heaven and everything else to do with Christianity and I'm a bigot?
Perhaps not a bigot but ignorant if thatÂ’s what you believe atheists want.
These fools are trying to deny OTHERS an opinion, because they want to enforce their own religion of Atheism as the official religion of the nation - intolerant of all other faith and using the power of the federal government to crush other expressions of faith.
Wrong. Establishment Clause restrictions apply only to governments, not private citizens who may say what they please. And enjoining a given jurisdiction from violating the Establishment Clause is not a Free Exercise Clause violation.
By the letter of the law, sure, you can do what you want, be a hypocrite if you want.
Corporations do this all the time, by invoking rights without equal responsibilities for the rights of other individuals, so this gets abused and causes a lot of problems that cannot be checked because corporations claim to be private persons with individual rights.
But in practice, by the natural laws of reciprocity, if we want free exercise of religion, we must respect the same. Free speech, free press, all these rights must be followed in context with the whole of the law including due process, right to petition and equal protections of the law.
People aren't respecting the whole of the law, and that is why things are taken out of context and abused. If you enjoy watching these problems continue, then keep teaching people it is okay to do that! Sure, you can argue it is legal to do it, by the letter of the law, but that doesn't mean it isn't unlawful or unethical by the spirit of the law. Clearly to respect equal religious freedom by all parties, the conflict over religious values should be mediated and resolved by consensus, so that all interests are equally protected and none are violated, imposed upon or denied by any opposing view. So if I were the judge in this case, I would order mediation until the parties AGREE how to handle the sign, and the cost of pursuing this matter, and any other costs involved; but it would have to be by agreement. Anyone who is not willing to pursue a consensus solution would lose standing in the case, due to a conflict of interest, so the parties willing to represent and include all the other views under equal Constitutional protection, are able to work out a decision.