who originally posed this premise:
The fact is, this IS discriminating against a number of people - a larger number than you would even admit. But even if it were only discriminating unreasonably against ONE person, it wouldn't be acceptable. And because the remedy - restore it to the historical form - discriminates against nobody, there is no reason not to do it.
Are you now claiming that unreasonably discriminating against their rights is acceptable because they believe that there IS a god of one sort or another? Tsk, tsk, contradictory arguments, Naruki.
Personally, I see no difficulty in removing the offending line, but until such a point as a majority of those empowered with changing the way our country works (namely, US!) decide differently, I also see little difficulty in leaving it in place. Change it, if desired, through the means provided by the Constitution, but don't attempt to force it on an unwilling public... or you're no better than 'they' are.
Thanks! I hadn't thought of using the blockquote, must be getting HTML-lazy in my old age. ;) |
