You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →


[–] Cold_Guinea_Pig 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Why would Atheists find this offensive? Whoever did, is an idiot, Atheist or not.


[–] shimmyquarterturn 2 points 7 points (+9|-2) ago 

It's offensive because the city is using public funds in the endorsement of one particular religion over another, as well as endorsing religion in general. Just because the nation is mostly Christian, doesn't make it okay to go outside the bounds of the first amendment.

The offense isn't with the symbol, it's with the execution.


[–] The_Prophets_Profit 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

It's offensive because the athiests know they can sue and win.


[–] YashinNashi 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

The article said "offensive", but I doubt any atheist would complain on the grounds of something being offensive. A cross being displayed on public land without also allowing other religious symbols to be displayed is illegal. Experience has taught us that the display all the religions as requested metdod just doesn't work, so it's defaulted to no religious displays on public land. So, the atheists were just reminding the council of the law.