I agree wholeheartedly.
I think.
Damn right! You tell 'em!
Hear, hear!
Preach it, brother!
gobear! Such shocking language!
Is this about the couple who donated $100 for a brick in a park in Washington and they wanted it to say “Thank you, Jesus” but when they went to see it they found only their own names inscribed? If so, I agree. I can’t see what SOCAS has to do with it. The city is essentially selling advertising space on bricks in their park. Doesn’t refusing to display the message practically amount to abridgement of speech and/or the press?
LIES!
It’s all lies!
Oh, wait!
It’s not lies. It’s some sort of 1920s style OP eater.
I’m again enjoying my typical level of comprehension of the average Pit thread.
Shit piss fuck!
On the contrary, I support discrimination against anti-christians.
Dang, the hamsters ate my OP.
But yes, what cuauhtemoc said. The volunteer group had no business censoring the couple’s message for religious content. I am no fan of god-botherers, but Christians should be treated as fairly as anyone else. The couple paid $100 for their brick, the same as everyone else, and they had a perfect right to put any message they pleased on their brick. A brick with “Thank you, Jesus” is no threat to the wall of separation between church and state and only a chuckleheaded ninny would think otherwise.
Why the hell would someone pay 100 dollars for a brick? Buy a tree, or a goldfish, or something, instead. You could make your own brick for a fraction of the cost.
actually, I don’t agree that it would have been ok for the group to have put ‘anything the person wanted’ on the bricks. But I also think that it they were concerned about messages, clear guidelines should have been advertised (“no profanity”, “no insults” “no religious messages”) or whatever. accepting the $$ then changing the message was wrong.
It especially seems hypocritical when they allowed another brick w/words like “God loves all children” (so the issue didn’t seem to be religion as such, but specificity of religion).
Uh, unless I’m being wooshed here, the $100 is a charitable donation. The volunteer organization then puts a brick in a place where everyone can see it. You don’t take the brick home with you. Same idea as a “$1,000-a-plate” politico dinner.
it’s a fund raising gimic. Folks pay $100 to have a brick engraved w/their name/message and the brick becomes a part of the building, walkway or whatever. The patron gets to see public affirmation of their donation/interest in the cause/message etc, organization gets $$ towards the project.
The $100 for the brick was to go toward building a park, or somesuch thing.
Well, one would think that a prohibition against profanity or insults would not ned to be explicitly spelled out, and I don’t think that religious messages are in the same class as profanity. In addition, as you noted, the volunteers did allow a message with “God,” so banning “Jesus” just reeks of hypocrisy.
Wouldn’t need to be spelled out??? bwahahahahaha. But, yea, mostly (mostly) folks w/a spare C note wouldn’t spend it one a Beavis and Butthead type of joke (“heh heh heh”). I was pointing out the (sorta obvious) exception to ‘whatever they want’
In any event, where I think they went wrong was accepting the money and then changing the message. Had they refused the $$ saying “we’re trying to remain a religious nuetral stance”, I’d have backed that play. I think that the “God” was allowed since it’s not religion specific (much like the ‘in God we Trust’ type of thing).
but on the whole, yea, they fucked up.
mho.
Well, color me naive, but it just seemed to me that $100 is mighty steep to write naughty words, and I tend to credit people for having more sense than they actually possess.
But, yes, I agree with your post. If the volunteer group wanted to avoid any potentially controversial messages, they should have had an explicit policy set beforehand AND vetted the messages before accepting the couple’s money.
But I still fail to grasp the qualitative difference between “God” and “Jesus.” Yes, “Jesus” is explicitly Christian while “God” is non-specific, but isn’t “God” just as potentially offensive to atheists or polytheists (that is, if they are whining offenderati)?
Actually, I wonder if that angry guy from the Alabama 10C news footage is available for temp assignments. It would be entertaining to have him shouting in a court hearing, “GET YOUR HANDS OFF OUR GOD, YOU BUNCH OF GODHATERS!!!”