Here is a quick one... If people are so against hanging religious symbols on Govt. buildings because they pay tax for those buildings, Can I force welfare homes to take down all their religious symbols? I pay tax on their house too. Why would it only work one way?
2007-11-21 09:13:53 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is not a private dwelling if we pay for it.
2007-11-21 09:19:00 · update #1
Besides why is it fair that WE have to pay for the electricity to light up the tree if we do not believe in X-mas.
2007-11-21 09:19:42 · update #2
Jim your logic works both ways... Just because the cross or 10 commandments offends a small percentage why do we waste money changing things?
2007-11-21 09:26:08 · update #3
Great Point.
2007-11-21 09:17:52 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 6⤋
The homes of welfare recipients are not arms of the state. The association of religious symbols with government buildings, for some, is seen as endorsement of that religion by the state and therefore a violation of the seperation of church and state.
2007-11-21 09:18:32 · answer #2 · answered by Hubris252 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
It limits freedom simply by fact people decide those they see donning it (for greater efficient or worse). Believing provides much less regulations. for my area i think of censoring religious symbols is a contravention of freedom as people might choose for to be judged. In France they censored religious symbols in an obvious attempt to decrease conflict... Now here is an ironic assertion: The French are so racist!!
2016-09-29 23:20:38 · answer #3 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Because one is a private residence, the other is a public building.
Just because you "own" 1/300,000,000th of the private home does not give you or the government the right to tell the occupants what they can or can't do as long as it is within the law.
If you rent, does it give the landlord the right to tell you what you can do with that home as long as you are within the law, and the rental agreement and don't damage their property beyond normal wear and tear?
Peace
Jim
.
2007-11-21 09:17:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
Private dwellings are a different class than public gov't buildings.
2007-11-21 09:18:00 · answer #5 · answered by Pam H 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Most welfare recipients aren't allowed to own homes.
If you own a home, in most areas you are required to sell it to support yourself on that income, before they will give you assistance.
even then, ackowledging that it is their home, shows the inherent flaw in your argument of trying to justify promoting the government spending tax dollars on supporting a religion.
2007-11-21 09:19:49 · answer #6 · answered by Boss H 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
better oppose the second amendment before attempting anything as silly and unconstitutional as that.
but sure, why not. But i think you still have to apply for a permit to have your cult rallies there.
What does your Bible tell you about worshipping idols and engraven images? that is eactly what your obsession with them is.
2007-11-21 09:27:06 · answer #7 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is a difference between public buildings and private abodes.
2007-11-21 09:16:59 · answer #8 · answered by taa 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
The money is given to those on welfare.
2007-11-21 09:17:24 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Sure, if the residence is a Government owned and run building.
Why not.
2007-11-21 09:21:21 · answer #10 · answered by Think 1st 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I here ya! Makes perfect sense to me. I'll put my damn Christmas tree wherever the hell i want.
2007-11-21 09:17:11 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋