Read this paragraph for a moment:
Joel Anderson, a member of the California Assembly, has more expansive goals. He has introduced a bill in the state Legislature that would prohibit “virtual globe” services from providing unblurred pictures of schools, churches and government or medical facilities in California. It also would prohibit those services from providing street-view photos of those buildings.
Anderson is worried that terrorists may be spying on certain buildings in order to plan future attacks.
Outside the whole issue of privacy and what should and should not be censored, reader b raises another question: Why are churches included on that list?
I understand why churches might be targeted by terrorists. After all, most terrorism is based in religion. But the 9/11 terrorists didn’t target churches, they targeted commercial and government buildings. How is a church more important than, say, a shopping mall? Or a sports arena? Why does a religious building need special protection instead of, say, a Boys and Girls club? Hell, most days there are more people in bars than in churches.
Should churches get special protection here (if you want to call this protection at all)?
Would that be a violation of church/state separation?
And should this politician (or others) be allowed to decided what should and should not be censored?