Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

[Foxfyre]

Not at all.. what YOU seem to have a difficult time with is the first amendment, the very first addition ot the bill of rights, that addresses your lil dogma fueled tantrum regarding our government RESPECTING any religion. Here, let me cue up the actual Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



So, enjoy your personal freedom to worship however you see fit while I enjoy the FACT of a first amendment that CLEARLY indicates what we are trying to avoid by telling you no. By assuming that a christian majoirty represents a non-christian MINORITY we see exactly why this was added to the very first amendment.

too bad for you, eh? Hell,I was looking forward to matching you pagan symbol for christian symbol! I'm sure those American Hindu's will LOVE an opportunity like this to get the word out about their beliefs!


You take the east lawn and THIS can go up on the front lawn, eh?

You know what, I don't know a single soul who would object to a Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu or any other display commemorating an important historical date. It would require nothing of me, take nothing from me, nor would it violate a single unalienable, civil, legal, or Constitutional right afforded to me by God or government.

Nor does that nativity scene require anything of you nor take anything away from you.

Perhaps you could elaborate how an artistic display of anything is an establishment of religion. What God does it require you to pray to; what observance does it require you to keep or what rite does it force you to perform? What does it coerce you into believing? What consequence is imposed on you if you do not adhere to the history or cultural heritage implied in the display?

 

[Foxfyre]

Would you have the same sentiment if the people were a Muslim majority?

You do realize that for the State to represent the people, they must represent ALL people. So the whole majority rules notion is BS.

What if the majority in Alabama condoned racism against blacks? Should we allow that to continue? What if the majority condones slavery? Should we allow slavery? What if the majority condoned molestation of children? Should we allow it to happen?

Do you see where your logic is flawed?

I see no reason that a Muslim community should not have an appropriate display commemorating a date important to them any more than Christians or people who just love Christmas for whatever reason should not have a display commemorating a date important to them. As for the other red herrings you are throwing in there, they are totally unrelated to this discussion but might might an interesting different discussion.

For this discussion, that display on the library or courthouse lawn does not violate ANYBODY'S rights or privileges. Slavery or child molestation does. If you are unable to make the distinction, then I fear there is no point continuing the discussion.

 

[Shogun]

By using public works to facilitate your particular dogma you are using common grounds to, not only tax money to light the damn thing up at night, endorse a respecting an establishment of religion. Exactly the type of thing we looked to circumvent when by Britain's example. YOU are free to observe your christianity at your church and private property. Perhaps you can explain to me how the first sentence in the first amendment to the constitution DOESNT SPECIFICALLY apply to your jesus jonez here. If THIS is not what the founding fathers were looking to avoid the why add it? Hell, are you even familiar with the RANGE of denominations present at the time of the ratifiction of the Constituiton who saw the wisdom in keeping the governemnt from being a religous battle ground?



So, when can we get some Santaria "Look to the future through chicken guts" displays? Anton LeVay's on the phone and he's never been happier about short sighted acts of faith!

 

[Shogun]

I see no reason that a Muslim community should not have an appropriate display commemorating a date important to them any more than Christians or people who just love Christmas for whatever reason should not have a display commemorating a date important to them. As for the other red herrings you are throwing in there, they are totally unrelated to this discussion but might might an interesting different discussion.

For this discussion, that display on the library or courthouse lawn does not violate ANYBODY'S rights or privileges. Slavery or child molestation does. If you are unable to make the distinction, then I fear there is no point continuing the discussion.

Since al that is found, and largely justified, by the same book you get the nativity scene from....

ohhh man, that's funny!

 

[Annie]

I see no reason that a Muslim community should not have an appropriate display commemorating a date important to them any more than Christians or people who just love Christmas for whatever reason should not have a display commemorating a date important to them. As for the other red herrings you are throwing in there, they are totally unrelated to this discussion but might might an interesting different discussion.

For this discussion, that display on the library or courthouse lawn does not violate ANYBODY'S rights or privileges. Slavery or child molestation does. If you are unable to make the distinction, then I fear there is no point continuing the discussion.

Indeed, our library had just such a display this year. BTW, it's in Wheaton-more churches per person than perhaps anywhere else on the globe. Home of Billy Graham's Wheaton College.

 

[Steerpike]

The First Amendment is pretty interesting. Actually, at the founding of the country, some States had Christianity as their official religion. The States were allowed to do that even though the federal government was not. The phrase "Congress shall make no law" was taken to mean that the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government and not to State and local governments.

That didn't change until the 14th amendment and the incorporation doctrine. Even now, not all of the Bill of Rights have been explicitly "incorporated" into the 14th amendment and applied to the States. The 2nd Amendment is one example.

Of course, as the country grew I think it was wise to apply the Bill of Rights to the State governments as well as the feds. State governments today are bigger and more powerful than the federal government was at the founding.

The religion portion of the 1st amendments has two separate statements. Congress shall

1) make no law respecting an establishment of religion; or

2) prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

People tend to forget one or the other. #1 prevents the State from endorsing a religion by, for example, having mandated prayer in public school. #2 prevents the government stopping people practicing their religion (for example a public school teacher wearing a cross, or students at a public school putting religious expression in a public area on their own, rather than at the behest of the school).

 

[Shogun]

I would certainly never prohibit Foxfyre from practicing as s/he see's fit...

That being said, how different is a mandate of christian prayer in schools from a mandate on christian displays on a courthouse lawn? Are they not both a specific declaration giving authority to one of America's religions over all others? A validation above and beyond that which other religions enjoy?

I'm pretty sure the acceptance of Hindu gods on the courthouse would change pretty quick on 12/26. Not that the complete rip off of the pagan observation of solstice will make the myriad of observable holidays over this same time frame any less true. So, NAtivity scenes and Pentagrams it is then!

 

[Foxfyre]

I would certainly never prohibit Foxfyre from practicing as s/he see's fit...

That being said, how different is a mandate of christian prayer in schools from a mandate on christian displays on a courthouse lawn? Are they not both a specific declaration giving authority to one of America's religions over all others? A validation above and beyond that which other religions enjoy?

I'm pretty sure the acceptance of Hindu gods on the courthouse would change pretty quick on 12/26. Not that the complete rip off of the pagan observation of solstice will make the myriad of observable holidays over this same time frame any less true. So, NAtivity scenes and Pentagrams it is then!

You honestly don't see any difference between a mandate of Christian prayer in the school and an artistic display on a courthouse lawn that requires no participation by anybody? Please tell me you are smarter than that.

 

[Steerpike]

Foxfyre:

In both cases, though they are different in degree, the government is behind the religious sentiment or display. That should not be allowed. If the government opened an area of the courthouse lawn to the public, and people came and put nativity scenes up, then there wouldn't be an issue. If the government itself is putting the scene in place, then they're chosen one religion over others (or over the lack of religion) and I think they're on thin ice Constitutionally.

 

[Shogun]

You honestly don't see any difference between a mandate of Christian prayer in the school and an artistic display on a courthouse lawn that requires no participation by anybody? Please tell me you are smarter than that.

I've expressed my comparison. Would you like to take me step by step on why one is different than the other?

 

[Taomon]

You know what, I don't know a single soul who would object to a Jewish or Buddhist or Hindu or any other display commemorating an important historical date.

I can name at least 10 Reborn-Christians that I know who do object to anything that is not overtly Christian, especially on Easter or Christmas. And I live in Liberal MA.

 

[Gunny]

I can name at least 10 Reborn-Christians that I know who do object to anything that is not overtly Christian, especially on Easter or Christmas. And I live in Liberal MA.

Wow. Really? TEN?

Dude, you made a statement, then said no one could disprove it. Not the way it works. I asked you to prove your statement and you ignored said request.

Might I assume the "Dirty Almost-a-Dozen" you refer to is the basis of your argument?

"Born Again" Christians do NOT represent all Christians. Your average Christian shies away from them every bit as much as you do.

 

[Taomon]

Y'think?

Well, how about YOU prove YOU right? You've made the accusation, back it up with some evidence.

I'll wait ....

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL755.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed070205b.cfm
http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/
http://jesuspolitics.typepad.com/jesus_politics/2006/06/evangelical_pol.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/index.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glover_Roberts,_Jr.
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/swatrelease.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/10/what_is_blackwaters_role_in_the
http://www.reason.org/pu18.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05889t.pdf

Give this one a quick read and then look into the allegations: http://www.truthaboutgeorge.com/appointments/index.html?printable=yes


A symptom or possible hope: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501790.html

 

[Gunny]

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/HL755.cfm
http://www.heritage.org/Press/Commentary/ed070205b.cfm
http://www.fed-soc.org/aboutus/
http://jesuspolitics.typepad.com/jesus_politics/2006/06/evangelical_pol.html
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/index.html
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/mcgarvey
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glover_Roberts%2C_Jr.
http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/swatrelease.html
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/12/10/what_is_blackwaters_role_in_the
http://www.reason.org/pu18.pdf
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05889t.pdf

Give this one a quick read and then look into the allegations: http://www.truthaboutgeorge.com/appointments/index.html?printable=yes


A symptom or possible hope: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/15/AR2006061501790.html

You really aren't good at this debate shit, are you? I don't see anything there that supports your argument.

 

[Foxfyre]

I've expressed my comparison. Would you like to take me step by step on why one is different than the other?

Yup, and your comparison makes no sense whatsoever. One instance requires participation by the people. The other doesn't. Most people can make that distinction. I bet you can too if you try really hard.

 

[Taomon]

You really aren't good at this debate shit, are you? I don't see anything there that supports your argument.

Look who is talking. You have been wrong on this subject for days and yet you cannot let it go because of ego. I could have the perpetrators announce that I was right and you would still act smug and state that it wasn't proof.

No one has asked you to prove your point and yet when you are shown to be wrong you demand proof of it and stomp your feet like a lil baby.

 

[Foxfyre]

Foxfyre:

In both cases, though they are different in degree, the government is behind the religious sentiment or display. That should not be allowed. If the government opened an area of the courthouse lawn to the public, and people came and put nativity scenes up, then there wouldn't be an issue. If the government itself is putting the scene in place, then they're chosen one religion over others (or over the lack of religion) and I think they're on thin ice Constitutionally.

The government is definitely on thin ice; in fact the government is in clear violation of the First Amendment by requiring prayer in the school. This requires participation by the students whether or not they choose to participate. Voluntary student initiated and led prayer or a moment of silence to start the school day or whatever is, in my opinion, in no way violates the First Amendment because it makes no requirement for participation by any student or anybody else.

Now let's consider that nativity scene. If the government takes it upon itself to buy and display a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, we could be in murky waters where the First Amendment is concerned. It would not be a clear violation because of the strong and pervasive history and heritage that Christmas has had in this country along with its strong beneficial influence on the economy that benefits everybody. It is for this reason that there have been no challenges to angels, stars, poinsettas, Christmas trees, etc. along with bugles and candy canes and snowflakes that towns and cities hang off light poles and everywhere else to bolster Christmas spirit and get people in the mood. So a nativity scene in a downtown area would really be no different.

I think it probably best, however, that the townsfolk build or donate the nativity scene and the city just provide space for its display. It is appropriate on public land because the public land belongs to everybody. And yes, if there is a noticeable Buddist or Muslim or Jewish influence in the community, it would be appropriate to acknowledge their special festivals as well in the same way.

Again none of this violates the First Amendment because the city is promoting no belief, creed, dogma, denomination, or requiring anybody to believe or profess belief in anything by diplaying any of these things.

 

[Shogun]

Yup, and your comparison makes no sense whatsoever. One instance requires participation by the people. The other doesn't. Most people can make that distinction. I bet you can too if you try really hard.

oh.. so it's NOT the people footing the bill for the government building you want to advertise your dogma at?


ooook.


So, you don't have the slightest problem knowing that your tax dollars helps a SATANIST like Antol LaVey illustrate the rituals of his religion to the population, eh? knowing that your tax money helps HINDU gods appeal to American kids who see the state validate that religion?


So, when did the criteria for your personal religious beliefs become paramount to wearing your dogma on the public sleeve? do you not have the preserved right to advertise jebus on your own personal property? YOUR OWN CHURCH?


good grief. the holidays are over. You can sit on your christian reproach for another year. I can't wait for the exact same silliness next year.

 

[Steerpike]

It would not be a clear violation because of the strong and pervasive history and heritage that Christmas has had in this country along with its strong beneficial influence on the economy that benefits everybody.

I don't think the economic benefit enters into the analysis. History and tradition can, however. One reason things like Xmas trees etc. are allowed is they've been deemed to be more or less secular symbols, regardless of their origin or significance to any particular religion. Same would be true of santa, reindeer, etc.

It's much harder to make that argument with respect to a nativity scene. I think government does it then you have at least a tacit endorsement.

 

[Foxfyre]

oh.. so it's NOT the people footing the bill for the government building you want to advertise your dogma at?


ooook.


So, you don't have the slightest problem knowing that your tax dollars helps a SATANIST like Antol LaVey illustrate the rituals of his religion to the population, eh? knowing that your tax money helps HINDU gods appeal to American kids who see the state validate that religion?


So, when did the criteria for your personal religious beliefs become paramount to wearing your dogma on the public sleeve? do you not have the preserved right to advertise jebus on your own personal property? YOUR OWN CHURCH?


good grief. the holidays are over. You can sit on your christian reproach for another year. I can't wait for the exact same silliness next year.

The issues being discussed go far beyond a nativity scene at Christmas, however. And as I posted to another member, if its okay for the city to buy other decorations to enhance the Christmas spirit and thus boost the economy, that nativity scene is absolutely no different. I do prefer that the citizens donate the scene however, and that is usually the case where you see nativity scenes on public property. They were all over the place in West Texas towns and cities this Christmas. It made for a beautiful sight when driving through those places. And I think there in pretty macho redneck country, the ACLU is probably sort of ignoring that and looking for easier picking elsewhere these days.

And nope, if the Hindus or Satanists or any others have had an influence on the history and heritage of an area, I have no problems whatsoever with that being acknowledged and/or commemorated.

And you know what? If this is just silliness to you and you find it offensive, there really are lots of other threads to spawn red herrings and other non related issues.