These are good points -- I think that they reflect a preference of religion, but not of a particular religion, which is even more problematic in my opinion. But, I am not for these other displays of religiosity either.
These are good points -- I think that they reflect a preference of religion, but not of a particular religion, which is even more problematic in my opinion. But, I am not for these other displays of religiosity either.
My point is that your argument loses its foundation because the Government consistently demonstrates a clear preference for a particular religion. Despite having listened to the concerns of Creationists, their suggestions are never put into practice. This raises the question of why the government should not extend the same consideration (listen to) to other religious minority groups, which you criticize. In my humble opinion, it appears to be more of a bias against these minority communities.
These are good points -- I think that they reflect a preference of religion, but not of a particular religion, which is even more problematic in my opinion. But, I am not for these other displays of religiosity either.
> which is even more problematic in my opinion.
Why? You really should learn more about the nation's (Lockean) founding philosophy.
My point is that your argument loses its foundation because the Government consistently demonstrates a clear preference for a particular religion. Despite having listened to the concerns of Creationists, their suggestions are never put into practice. This raises the question of why the government should not extend the same consideration (listen to) to other religious minority groups, which you criticize. In my humble opinion, it appears to be more of a bias against these minority communities.