Wow. All the things Michelle fantasizes about doing to people who don't agree with her.
But seriously, the U.S. has played ball with dictatorships and theocracies who've done this kind of thing. We helped give China next year's Olympics without giving a damn about human rights abuses or people's right to freely practice religion, be it Roman Catholic or Falun Gong, there.
Amnesty International has spoken out on these kinds of abuses for yesrs, but it is usually dismissed by the powers that be as a liberal organization (and tastes the tail of Michelle's whip).

And who the Clinton played ball Clinton with the dictatorships Clinton and theocracies Clinton who've done this kind of thing during the Clinton administration? Must have been President Bush, eh?

Why do the guys in power feel they need to wear masks?

>>The city government said the flier was "determined to promote harassment based on sexual orientation.''

But, apparently, harassment against heterosexual "orientation" is to be official policy.

(Just ask the Boy Scouts!)

Some Westerners apparently believe that allowing Christians to buck the secularist system within their own organizations or Christian leaders to explain how their religious beliefs apply to politics would unleash the demon evident in these images. I'd suggest that a look at the landscape as it truly is reveals that the evil actually inches forward with each new manacle placed upon the West's religious citizens.

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble parsing this. I believe that combining the coercive power of government with religion is a recipe for disaster, as the example of Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc clearly show, and that's why I'm a strong advocate for the separation of religion and the state in this country. Obviously, we're not beating non-Christians here, and thank goodness. However, I don't think that the repellent nature of Islamic theocracy and the quasi-theocratic leanings of Christianists in this country are of different species.

But, apparently, harassment against heterosexual "orientation" is to be official policy.

Awwww. Poor oppressed straight guys.

Awwww. Poor oppressed straight guys.

Same tune, different religion.

Huh?

For me, the issue is what falls into the category of ‘separation of Church/religion and state’. This is one of those phrases which has been so twisted and perverted by advocates that the rhetorical value is higher than its actual meaning. The same can be said about other phrases such as ‘civil rights’ and ‘family values’.

How did this culture get to the place where a group of people who want to meet to share their faith and even discuss politics is condemned in the context of ‘separation of church & state’. Did their flier say “no fags allowed” or “supported by the state”? How did the mere existence of anything that refers to faith in God become a magnet for controversy in the name of ‘separation of Church and state’?

As much as I like to debate, the debate as to whether we are a secular or Judeo-Christian country is wasted time in my opinion. The truth is that secular does not and has never meant that the public religious displays fly in the face of secularism. I don’t see how someone – including judges and legislators - came to the conclusion that someone else’s display of religion is trumped by someone else’s ‘civil right’ to disagree or not be offended. But someone did and the door has been opened.

As with everything, the issue is about where to draw the lines between rights of one entity versus anther when the issue results in someone being denied. My point is that the line has moved too far in the opposite direction of the entity using faith or religion as their basis. And to me, it’s even worse in that the line is based on liberal vs. conservative ideology.

What is the most unfortunate is the agenda of groups who wish to build their point by being in-your-face and the resulting one-uppe-manship of opponents of their agenda. Yes, let’s all build a village of our own … we’ll show them.

Freedom of religion is great in theory (that's what Rhode Island was founded upon).
Unfortunately, Christians who want their freedom of religion aren't willing to grant Muslims the same consideration (and vice versa). And neither seems thrilled about Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. getting in on the freedom.
Maybe if both Christians and Muslims cut their ties with their respective fundamentalist loons, religion wouldn't be such a divise force in this country.

Rhody,

Yes, maybe if EVERYONE ON EARTH would cut their ties with the ‘extreme’ wing of whatever they choose to advocate, then there would be no divisiveness in this country. Can’t we all just get along and agree?

“Unfortunately, Christians who want their freedom of religion aren't willing to grant Muslims the same consideration (and vice versa). And neither seems thrilled about Jews, Hindus, Wiccans, etc. getting in on the freedom.”

Huh? Who specifically are you referring to that live in this country that are not willing to grant other religions the freedom to practice their religion? The KKK? Other than them and the islamofacists that want to destroy us (regardless of religion), I don’t see who you’d be referring to or can think of recent examples where Christians or Muslims wish to deny people of other religions the freedom to practice.

In the context of the post, are you saying that the city government of Oakland was correct in denying the GNEA to put up their flier based on ‘freedom of religion’?

The GNEA has the right to put up that flier. But that ability comes with the acknowledgement that others have the right to criticize it.
BTW, some of the more righty Christians are really pissed off about that congressional district in Minnesota which had the temerity to elect a Muslim (hey, democracy doesn't always work the way we like it to, right?).

Agreed - I'll even acknowledge that the description of "... with respect for the Natural Family, Marriage and Family Values" was an eye-roller for me. But that doesn't mean I support government sponsored censorship.

As far as those pissed about the Muslim elected in Minnesota, that's one of the negative outcomes of elections in a democracy. There will most often be those unhappy with the outcome. The good news is that they are allowed to opnely criticize witout fear of ... severe (and also government sponsored) consequences.