This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by I'm_not

Comment 7 by 78rpm :

Petty? You said "petty?" Hell no! First of all, FFRF is supported by donations, and that is what pays their staff lawyers. No lawyers' pockets are lined by these complaints and suits. Damages requested are token, not the kinds of damage amounts infamous in the US for suits over somebody's hot spilled coffee. Anyway, the real plaintiff is the First Amendment, which plainly forbids this kind of religious overbearing. Fighting to maintain separation of state and church as clearly spelled out in the First Amendment is quite the opposite of petty; it is a necessary undertaking, the distorted view from the other side of the pond by Commenter No. 4 notwithstanding. I fully support the much-needed work FFRF does, and that is why I am a member.

The FFRF does sterling work, I completely agree. I think it is wrong in this case though.

Tue, 01 May 2012 16:48:43 UTC | #938728