What's the most intolerant religion?

[S.J.]

Little punk? I would beat the shit out of you, but I don't hit dumb little bitches.

Yeah, sure you would, bad ass.

You? Yeah maybe.

 

[newpolitics]

Yeah, sure you would, bad ass.

You? Yeah maybe.

It's so funny that when things escalate to a certain point, you bitch out. You instigate and instigate, but back down from the consequences. There's a word for this: it's called being a coward. You are a coward.

 

[S.J.]

You? Yeah maybe.

It's so funny that when things escalate to a certain point, you bitch out. You instigate and instigate, but back down from the consequences. There's a word for this: it's called being a coward. You are a coward.

How do you figure that, fuckface?

 

[newpolitics]

It's so funny that when things escalate to a certain point, you bitch out. You instigate and instigate, but back down from the consequences. There's a word for this: it's called being a coward. You are a coward.

How do you figure that, fuckface?

I'm not going to answer your dumbass questions. Figure it out.

 

[S.J.]

It's so funny that when things escalate to a certain point, you bitch out. You instigate and instigate, but back down from the consequences. There's a word for this: it's called being a coward. You are a coward.

How do you figure that, fuckface?

I'm not going to answer your dumbass questions. Figure it out.

In other words, that's all you've got. Checkmate, punk.

 

[newpolitics]

How do you figure that, fuckface?

I'm not going to answer your dumbass questions. Figure it out.

In other words, that's all you've got. Checkmate, punk.

There are no other words, but you can continue to invent things if it makes you happy.

 

[S.J.]

I'm not going to answer your dumbass questions. Figure it out.

In other words, that's all you've got. Checkmate, punk.

There are no other words, but you can continue to invent things if it makes you happy.

That's right, no other words. Now you can shut the fuck up.

 

[Gadawg73]

Well, next Christmas let's have the Christians come to your town and set up a living nativity at your town hall free of charge. The Jews will not complain, the Moslems will not complain, the Catholics and Protestants will not complain, and the Mormons will not complain ---- I dare say that Hindus will not complain. BUT the ACLU and some other Atheists will show up and claim that they are fighters for freedom and that means a separation of the State from Church and demand its removal. How tolerant of them...

This has nothing to do with tolerance. It has to do with the constituation. If atheists are paying for christian disaplays, that is a violation of the first amenment. This is not arguable. It is the not motivation of atheists to suppress christian belief or celebration, but merely, the demolition of the first ammendment, because as it is, christians have been getting by with a special exemption from the first amendment in having public town displays, because of an argument from popularity, essentially. Well, christianity just isn't that popular anymore. Atheists are merely callying you on and it, and you don't like it. Boo fucking hoo. This is the usual christian victimization complex. I'll say it again: you have been getting away with breaking the first ammendment for a long time. That time is over.

Personally, I like christmas displays, so this is not about my personal dislike or like of christmas displays, but about constitutional consideration.

Why shouldn't Christians be able to have beautiful Christmas displays if they want them and pay for them? Even in the town's square which also belong to the Christians. The whole community celebrates Christmas, it usually is the season that creates a profit for many local businesses, and it is a federally established national holiday. So long as the town doesn't restrict a display to ONLY Christians, but would also allow the Jews to celebrate Hannukah with their own display or the Muslims, if any, to celebrate Ramadan or whatever, how does it possibly hurt any soul for the Christians to celebrate Christmas on property they pay taxes on and own as citizens of that community?

How is it not intolerant to take offense at a Christian display and demand that it be removed from public property? It isn't costing the Atheist anything. Nothing whatsoever is required of the Atheist other than his/her non interference. And such non interference is what tolerance is. Trying to make a historic creche on a courthouse lawn, one built, erected, and maintained by private citizens, some kind of Constitutional violation is not only disingenuous, but clearly intolerance.

I agree but here is where the problem exists as I have been part of the process before.
The community wants to put up Christmas display in the park. They allow it. 47 people come, most of them women and please do not take offense to this as this is what always happened with my experience with this as a local person involved in these matters before for many years. So out of these 47 people we have about 15 ideas and 8 people that want to be the leaders of the project. Not acceptable. We wanted you to come to us WITH YOUR PLANS IN HAND. So now we are in the position of who's ideas to take, how do we determine who wants what and what we are always are left with is GOVERNMENT having to pick the person to head up this decorating project, where it will be, how big an area and what the net result is most of the people that are from that religion are UPSET AT US for making all of those decisions as they came to us AS AN UNORGANIZED GROUP.
Nothing much to do with religion when we banned it.
Everything to do with masses of citizens coming with dozens of ideas, wanting us to make the decisions for them, picking up the pieces when their unorganized effort always falls apart and when it was over 3 show up mid January to clean it all up.
With the help and assistance of city workers because "My back hurts, Susie is sick, Carl has arthritis, I have to go to the doctor", etc.
And the people that were not picked to do things and wanted to be the leader complain about everything else and label everyone and anyone in government as "anti Christian" for not accepting them as the leader or their own side project.
Then they come at Easter and other events and then at Memorial Day, 4th of July, Veterans Day, Presidents Day and Labor Day they come and want to put a Christian touch to those events also. And every other event they want to have a "ministry" for this and that and want to display that in the park also.
On and on and on and on and on. And each time it is a melee of ideas and people and if we try to tell them that their ideas need to be organized and/or they are inappropriate we were labeled as "non Christian", "atheists" and worse.
Real world, no offense to anyone. Happens this way 95%+ of the time.

Government needs to stay out of this and when I was involved WE WANTED TO STAY OUT IF IT.
And we were all Christian!
So please, respectfully, DO NOT COME TO YOUR LEADERS ever again and ask them to do these things.
THE FLOOD GATES WILL OPEN!!!!!

 

[newpolitics]

In other words, that's all you've got. Checkmate, punk.

There are no other words, but you can continue to invent things if it makes you happy.

That's right, no other words. Now you can shut the fuck up.

Heres an idea: Spend a little less energy on shit talking and actually try to understand what is being said. Then maybe you wouldn't have to bitch about evolution the way that you do.

 

[newpolitics]

Well, next Christmas let's have the Christians come to your town and set up a living nativity at your town hall free of charge. The Jews will not complain, the Moslems will not complain, the Catholics and Protestants will not complain, and the Mormons will not complain ---- I dare say that Hindus will not complain. BUT the ACLU and some other Atheists will show up and claim that they are fighters for freedom and that means a separation of the State from Church and demand its removal. How tolerant of them...

This has nothing to do with tolerance. It has to do with the constituation. If atheists are paying for christian disaplays, that is a violation of the first amenment. This is not arguable. It is the not motivation of atheists to suppress christian belief or celebration, but merely, the demolition of the first ammendment, because as it is, christians have been getting by with a special exemption from the first amendment in having public town displays, because of an argument from popularity, essentially. Well, christianity just isn't that popular anymore. Atheists are merely callying you on and it, and you don't like it. Boo fucking hoo. This is the usual christian victimization complex. I'll say it again: you have been getting away with breaking the first ammendment for a long time. That time is over.

Personally, I like christmas displays, so this is not about my personal dislike or like of christmas displays, but about constitutional consideration.

Why shouldn't Christians be able to have beautiful Christmas displays if they want them and pay for them? Even in the town's square which also belong to the Christians. The whole community celebrates Christmas, it usually is the season that creates a profit for many local businesses, and it is a federally established national holiday. So long as the town doesn't restrict a display to ONLY Christians, but would also allow the Jews to celebrate Hannukah with their own display or the Muslims, if any, to celebrate Ramadan or whatever, how does it possibly hurt any soul for the Christians to celebrate Christmas on property they pay taxes on and own as citizens of that community?

How is it not intolerant to take offense at a Christian display and demand that it be removed from public property? It isn't costing the Atheist anything. Nothing whatsoever is required of the Atheist other than his/her non interference. And such non interference is what tolerance is. Trying to make a historic creche on a courthouse lawn, one built, erected, and maintained by private citizens, some kind of Constitutional violation is not only disingenuous, but clearly intolerance.

If they want to pay for them, I honestly don't see why it's a big deal. However, what if Muslims put up a religious display during a time of celebration at the center of your town square, would you have a problem? Buddhist display? Hindu display? I venture to guess that most christians would be extremely uncomfortable with that, and therein lies the hypocrisy. It comes down to Christians wanting their religion main staged, for the same reason that a Yankees bar in the bronx doesn't like any Red Sox jackets to be worn inside. It's a primal, primitive territorial response. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can change it. A precedent needs to be set in the minds of christians that Christianity will have no more privilege than any other religion when it comes to public life.

 

[Gadawg73]

Every time a Muslim mosque wants to expand, buy property or whatever here they always get denied their permits on BS charges.
Always.

 

[Hollie]

This has nothing to do with tolerance. It has to do with the constituation. If atheists are paying for christian disaplays, that is a violation of the first amenment. This is not arguable. It is the not motivation of atheists to suppress christian belief or celebration, but merely, the demolition of the first ammendment, because as it is, christians have been getting by with a special exemption from the first amendment in having public town displays, because of an argument from popularity, essentially. Well, christianity just isn't that popular anymore. Atheists are merely callying you on and it, and you don't like it. Boo fucking hoo. This is the usual christian victimization complex. I'll say it again: you have been getting away with breaking the first ammendment for a long time. That time is over.

Personally, I like christmas displays, so this is not about my personal dislike or like of christmas displays, but about constitutional consideration.

Why shouldn't Christians be able to have beautiful Christmas displays if they want them and pay for them? Even in the town's square which also belong to the Christians. The whole community celebrates Christmas, it usually is the season that creates a profit for many local businesses, and it is a federally established national holiday. So long as the town doesn't restrict a display to ONLY Christians, but would also allow the Jews to celebrate Hannukah with their own display or the Muslims, if any, to celebrate Ramadan or whatever, how does it possibly hurt any soul for the Christians to celebrate Christmas on property they pay taxes on and own as citizens of that community?

How is it not intolerant to take offense at a Christian display and demand that it be removed from public property? It isn't costing the Atheist anything. Nothing whatsoever is required of the Atheist other than his/her non interference. And such non interference is what tolerance is. Trying to make a historic creche on a courthouse lawn, one built, erected, and maintained by private citizens, some kind of Constitutional violation is not only disingenuous, but clearly intolerance.

If they want to pay for them, I honestly don't see why it's a big deal. However, what if Muslims put up a religious display during a time of celebration at the center of your town square, would you have a problem? Buddhist display? Hindu display? I venture to guess that most christians would be extremely uncomfortable with that, and therein lies the hypocrisy. It comes down to Christians wanting their religion main staged, for the same reason that a Yankees bar in the bronx doesn't like any Red Sox jackets to be worn inside. It's a primal, primitive territorial response. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can change it. A precedent needs to be set in the minds of christians that Christianity will have no more privilege than any other religion when it comes to public life.

This is precisely the same dynamic whereby Christians want “creationism” taught as part of the public school syllabus but with the presumption that it is Christian creationism exclusively.

I would expect the howling of “we’re being persecuted”, if other religious ideologies then demanded similar time for their particular creation myths to have equal representation.

 

[newpolitics]

Why shouldn't Christians be able to have beautiful Christmas displays if they want them and pay for them? Even in the town's square which also belong to the Christians. The whole community celebrates Christmas, it usually is the season that creates a profit for many local businesses, and it is a federally established national holiday. So long as the town doesn't restrict a display to ONLY Christians, but would also allow the Jews to celebrate Hannukah with their own display or the Muslims, if any, to celebrate Ramadan or whatever, how does it possibly hurt any soul for the Christians to celebrate Christmas on property they pay taxes on and own as citizens of that community?

How is it not intolerant to take offense at a Christian display and demand that it be removed from public property? It isn't costing the Atheist anything. Nothing whatsoever is required of the Atheist other than his/her non interference. And such non interference is what tolerance is. Trying to make a historic creche on a courthouse lawn, one built, erected, and maintained by private citizens, some kind of Constitutional violation is not only disingenuous, but clearly intolerance.

If they want to pay for them, I honestly don't see why it's a big deal. However, what if Muslims put up a religious display during a time of celebration at the center of your town square, would you have a problem? Buddhist display? Hindu display? I venture to guess that most christians would be extremely uncomfortable with that, and therein lies the hypocrisy. It comes down to Christians wanting their religion main staged, for the same reason that a Yankees bar in the bronx doesn't like any Red Sox jackets to be worn inside. It's a primal, primitive territorial response. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can change it. A precedent needs to be set in the minds of christians that Christianity will have no more privilege than any other religion when it comes to public life.

This is precisely the same dynamic whereby Christians want “creationism” taught as part of the public school syllabus but with the presumption that it is Christian creationism exclusively.

I would expect the howling of “we’re being persecuted”, if other religious ideologies then demanded similar time for their particular creation myths to have equal representation.

The funny thing is, if we did allow equal representation for all possible creation stories taught as science, there would be no time for other classes. The school day would be one "science" class after another.

The real rub for me is that creation stories can be taught where they belong, and there is a time and place that is theirs: church and bible study. They don't need ID to be in schools whatsoever, as is evidenced by the fact that many people understand creationism, so obviously they are finding the time to learn it. Also, this is more efficient allocation of resources for creationism to be taught in a setting where people want to learn it. It is only christians who want to learn creationism/ID, and it is only they who are being taught it at church or bible study. In this setting, it is %100 efficient. Were it to be taught in public schools, it would be far less efficient, being transmitted to students who simply don't believe it, and therefore, it would be an utter waste of time for the teacher and student, and a waste of money for everybody. Their response would obviously be, this is the same for teaching evolution, and here we arrive at the same issue: evolution is science. creationism is not.

Epistemology aside, as this topic is too big, I believe the issue for them, is a matter of equal representation. Their flaw is in thinking creationism should be represented by science. Creationism is no more scientific than teaching Buddha came out of the side of his mother (virgin, by the way). We might as well teach people about Xenu, and the spaceships. Categories of thought and discipline need to be respected for the boundaries they possess. Anyhow, I'm probably teacing to the choir. It's just so pathetic that fundamentalist christians need to be validated by science in order for them to be secure in their RELIGIOUS belief. Atheism is not a religion. Fundie christians have churches, families, and entire socieites to validate their beliefs as "true." Isn't that enough? They seem to see this as some kind of moral issue, when it is simply an epistemic one.

 

[ima]

The second most intolerant religion is Republicanism.

 

[Foxfyre]

This has nothing to do with tolerance. It has to do with the constituation. If atheists are paying for christian disaplays, that is a violation of the first amenment. This is not arguable. It is the not motivation of atheists to suppress christian belief or celebration, but merely, the demolition of the first ammendment, because as it is, christians have been getting by with a special exemption from the first amendment in having public town displays, because of an argument from popularity, essentially. Well, christianity just isn't that popular anymore. Atheists are merely callying you on and it, and you don't like it. Boo fucking hoo. This is the usual christian victimization complex. I'll say it again: you have been getting away with breaking the first ammendment for a long time. That time is over.

Personally, I like christmas displays, so this is not about my personal dislike or like of christmas displays, but about constitutional consideration.

Why shouldn't Christians be able to have beautiful Christmas displays if they want them and pay for them? Even in the town's square which also belong to the Christians. The whole community celebrates Christmas, it usually is the season that creates a profit for many local businesses, and it is a federally established national holiday. So long as the town doesn't restrict a display to ONLY Christians, but would also allow the Jews to celebrate Hannukah with their own display or the Muslims, if any, to celebrate Ramadan or whatever, how does it possibly hurt any soul for the Christians to celebrate Christmas on property they pay taxes on and own as citizens of that community?

How is it not intolerant to take offense at a Christian display and demand that it be removed from public property? It isn't costing the Atheist anything. Nothing whatsoever is required of the Atheist other than his/her non interference. And such non interference is what tolerance is. Trying to make a historic creche on a courthouse lawn, one built, erected, and maintained by private citizens, some kind of Constitutional violation is not only disingenuous, but clearly intolerance.

If they want to pay for them, I honestly don't see why it's a big deal. However, what if Muslims put up a religious display during a time of celebration at the center of your town square, would you have a problem? Buddhist display? Hindu display? I venture to guess that most christians would be extremely uncomfortable with that, and therein lies the hypocrisy. It comes down to Christians wanting their religion main staged, for the same reason that a Yankees bar in the bronx doesn't like any Red Sox jackets to be worn inside. It's a primal, primitive territorial response. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can change it. A precedent needs to be set in the minds of christians that Christianity will have no more privilege than any other religion when it comes to public life.

I absolutely have no problem with the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists putting up a tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display celebrating a religious festival any more than I have a problem with the Christians doing so. The key concept is celebration of a religious festival offered in good will and inclusive spirit. A Christian message of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men is entirely appropriate. What reasonable person of any faith could have a problem with that?
A Christian message of "Repent for the End is Near" or "Believe and be saved" would not be appropriate for such a shared public display.

The argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is on the grounds that 'everybody else isn't represented.' Well no, Christmas has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Christmas is a uniquely Christian observance and the Christians should not be required to include everybody else in their recognition of it. Any more than Muslims should be required to include something Christian in theirs.

And certainly the argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is that 'somebody might find it offensive.' I get sick and tired of the intolerance of a very few being allowed to deny simple harmless pleasures to everybody else.

 

[Hollie]

Why shouldn't Christians be able to have beautiful Christmas displays if they want them and pay for them? Even in the town's square which also belong to the Christians. The whole community celebrates Christmas, it usually is the season that creates a profit for many local businesses, and it is a federally established national holiday. So long as the town doesn't restrict a display to ONLY Christians, but would also allow the Jews to celebrate Hannukah with their own display or the Muslims, if any, to celebrate Ramadan or whatever, how does it possibly hurt any soul for the Christians to celebrate Christmas on property they pay taxes on and own as citizens of that community?

How is it not intolerant to take offense at a Christian display and demand that it be removed from public property? It isn't costing the Atheist anything. Nothing whatsoever is required of the Atheist other than his/her non interference. And such non interference is what tolerance is. Trying to make a historic creche on a courthouse lawn, one built, erected, and maintained by private citizens, some kind of Constitutional violation is not only disingenuous, but clearly intolerance.

If they want to pay for them, I honestly don't see why it's a big deal. However, what if Muslims put up a religious display during a time of celebration at the center of your town square, would you have a problem? Buddhist display? Hindu display? I venture to guess that most christians would be extremely uncomfortable with that, and therein lies the hypocrisy. It comes down to Christians wanting their religion main staged, for the same reason that a Yankees bar in the bronx doesn't like any Red Sox jackets to be worn inside. It's a primal, primitive territorial response. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can change it. A precedent needs to be set in the minds of christians that Christianity will have no more privilege than any other religion when it comes to public life.

I absolutely have no problem with the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists putting up a tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display celebrating a religious festival any more than I have a problem with the Christians doing so. The key concept is celebration of a religious festival offered in good will and inclusive spirit. A Christian message of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men is entirely appropriate. What reasonable person of any faith could have a problem with that?
A Christian message of "Repent for the End is Near" or "Believe and be saved" would not be appropriate for such a shared public display.

The argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is on the grounds that 'everybody else isn't represented.' Well no, Christmas has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Christmas is a uniquely Christian observance and the Christians should not be required to include everybody else in their recognition of it. Any more than Muslims should be required to include something Christian in theirs.

And certainly the argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is that 'somebody might find it offensive.' I get sick and tired of the intolerance of a very few being allowed to deny simple harmless pleasures to everybody else.

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

 

[Foxfyre]

If they want to pay for them, I honestly don't see why it's a big deal. However, what if Muslims put up a religious display during a time of celebration at the center of your town square, would you have a problem? Buddhist display? Hindu display? I venture to guess that most christians would be extremely uncomfortable with that, and therein lies the hypocrisy. It comes down to Christians wanting their religion main staged, for the same reason that a Yankees bar in the bronx doesn't like any Red Sox jackets to be worn inside. It's a primal, primitive territorial response. The sooner we recognize this, the sooner we can change it. A precedent needs to be set in the minds of christians that Christianity will have no more privilege than any other religion when it comes to public life.

I absolutely have no problem with the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists putting up a tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display celebrating a religious festival any more than I have a problem with the Christians doing so. The key concept is celebration of a religious festival offered in good will and inclusive spirit. A Christian message of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men is entirely appropriate. What reasonable person of any faith could have a problem with that?
A Christian message of "Repent for the End is Near" or "Believe and be saved" would not be appropriate for such a shared public display.

The argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is on the grounds that 'everybody else isn't represented.' Well no, Christmas has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Christmas is a uniquely Christian observance and the Christians should not be required to include everybody else in their recognition of it. Any more than Muslims should be required to include something Christian in theirs.

And certainly the argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is that 'somebody might find it offensive.' I get sick and tired of the intolerance of a very few being allowed to deny simple harmless pleasures to everybody else.

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

I have lived most of my life in small towns. We currently live in the big city and so far as I know, nobody has requested to put a celebratory exhibit at the County Court House or City Hall. In the city where no single prevailing culture exists, it doesn't ever seem to be an issue.

Everywhere else that we have lived have had long standing community traditions involving historical displays such as an old creche that sort of falls to a few people by default to put it up and take it down each year. It isn't any kind of organized thing but it has become a part of the culture of the community, much appreciated and beloved by most. And yes, the ACLU or one or two disgruntled people have complained or attempted to interfere now and then, but because the displays were tasteful, non coercive, and discriminated against nobody beliefs, so far they have prevailed.

All that is required for such lovely and enjoyable traditions to continue is the non interference of those who don't care about them. And that is the very essence of religious tolerance or any other kind of tolerance.

 

[Hollie]

I absolutely have no problem with the Hindus or Muslims or Buddhists putting up a tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display celebrating a religious festival any more than I have a problem with the Christians doing so. The key concept is celebration of a religious festival offered in good will and inclusive spirit. A Christian message of Peace on Earth, Good Will Toward Men is entirely appropriate. What reasonable person of any faith could have a problem with that?
A Christian message of "Repent for the End is Near" or "Believe and be saved" would not be appropriate for such a shared public display.

The argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is on the grounds that 'everybody else isn't represented.' Well no, Christmas has nothing to do with Hinduism or Buddhism or Islam. Christmas is a uniquely Christian observance and the Christians should not be required to include everybody else in their recognition of it. Any more than Muslims should be required to include something Christian in theirs.

And certainly the argument that should not be allowed to forbid such a display is that 'somebody might find it offensive.' I get sick and tired of the intolerance of a very few being allowed to deny simple harmless pleasures to everybody else.

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

I have lived most of my life in small towns. We currently live in the big city and so far as I know, nobody has requested to put a celebratory exhibit at the County Court House or City Hall. In the city where no single prevailing culture exists, it doesn't ever seem to be an issue.

Everywhere else that we have lived have had long standing community traditions involving historical displays such as an old creche that sort of falls to a few people by default to put it up and take it down each year. It isn't any kind of organized thing but it has become a part of the culture of the community, much appreciated and beloved by most. And yes, the ACLU or one or two disgruntled people have complained or attempted to interfere now and then, but because the displays were tasteful, non coercive, and discriminated against nobody beliefs, so far they have prevailed.

All that is required for such lovely and enjoyable traditions to continue is the non interference of those who don't care about them. And that is the very essence of religious tolerance or any other kind of tolerance.

I think you’re underestimating the potential frictions between religious ideologies.

I do know of several cases (I’m on the East coast), of where religious displays were required to be removed from public (Municipal) property. Here's one.

Judge Orders Vienna to Remove Creche From Town Property - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research

I’m not clear as the origin of the legal action.

Except for not wanting to be upstaged, I’m not clear that, for one example, moslems would have an interest in a Christmas display. However, they might similarly demand a “season” whereby their religious traditions could be on public display. Around my parts of the country, the Christmas season begins in earnest before Thanksgiving. That’s a solid 6 or 7 weeks of Christmas music, sales and displays.

How about a seasonal time period for the adhan: the moslem call to prayer, heard five times per day to call people to pray. How about the adhan “season” beginning on… oh, say…July 4th and continuing for 6 or 7 weeks


The adhan is a nasal-sounding, dissonant, aural affront. It is traditionally called from a minaret (spire) of a mosque by a human (a muezzin or muadhdhin in Arabic), although, it is now increasingly broadcast from mosque loudspeakers--like in Hamtramck, Michigan, for example. Here are the words:

God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest. God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but God. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but God. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Hasten to the Prayer, hasten to the Prayer. Hasten to real success, hasten to real success. God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest. There is none worthy of worship but God.

You’re good with that, right?

 

[Foxfyre]

Who decides what a “tasteful, non judgmental, non coercive display” is?

What are the standards?

How are disagreements resolved?

Are you suggesting that 6, 8, or a dozen religious groups representing competing religions are going to be accommodating of each other?

"Simple harmless pleasures"? Not when it comes to competing religions.

I have lived most of my life in small towns. We currently live in the big city and so far as I know, nobody has requested to put a celebratory exhibit at the County Court House or City Hall. In the city where no single prevailing culture exists, it doesn't ever seem to be an issue.

Everywhere else that we have lived have had long standing community traditions involving historical displays such as an old creche that sort of falls to a few people by default to put it up and take it down each year. It isn't any kind of organized thing but it has become a part of the culture of the community, much appreciated and beloved by most. And yes, the ACLU or one or two disgruntled people have complained or attempted to interfere now and then, but because the displays were tasteful, non coercive, and discriminated against nobody beliefs, so far they have prevailed.

All that is required for such lovely and enjoyable traditions to continue is the non interference of those who don't care about them. And that is the very essence of religious tolerance or any other kind of tolerance.

I think you’re underestimating the potential frictions between religious ideologies.

I do know of several cases (I’m on the East coast), of where religious displays were required to be removed from public (Municipal) property. Here's one.

Judge Orders Vienna to Remove Creche From Town Property - The Washington Post | HighBeam Research

I’m not clear as the origin of the legal action.

Except for not wanting to be upstaged, I’m not clear that, for one example, moslems would have an interest in a Christmas display. However, they might similarly demand a “season” whereby their religious traditions could be on public display. Around my parts of the country, the Christmas season begins in earnest before Thanksgiving. That’s a solid 6 or 7 weeks of Christmas music, sales and displays.

How about a seasonal time period for the adhan: the moslem call to prayer, heard five times per day to call people to pray. How about the adhan “season” beginning on… oh, say…July 4th and continuing for 6 or 7 weeks


The adhan is a nasal-sounding, dissonant, aural affront. It is traditionally called from a minaret (spire) of a mosque by a human (a muezzin or muadhdhin in Arabic), although, it is now increasingly broadcast from mosque loudspeakers--like in Hamtramck, Michigan, for example. Here are the words:

God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest. God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but God. I bear witness that there is none worthy of worship but God. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of God. Hasten to the Prayer, hasten to the Prayer. Hasten to real success, hasten to real success. God is the Greatest, God is the Greatest. There is none worthy of worship but God.

You’re good with that, right?

What you are describing is the kind of coercion that should not be part of a public religious celebration. "Peace on Earth, Good Will to Men" is a generic all encompassing, non threatening, non insulting, non doctrinal blessing that anybody could appreciate and that should offend nobody. If Islam used a similar non doctrinal, inclusive phrase in their display, that would be appropriate and should offend nobody.

Broadcasting the Adhan would not be appropriate in a public display any more than broadcasting "Jesus Saves" would be appropriate in a Christian one.

Either could use a reasonable level of their traditional music in their display but not to the extent that it disturbs the peace of others who must live and work in the area.

If something does not violate the unalienable rights of others in any way, it does not offend the reasonable cultural standards of the community, it requires nothing of you other than your non interference, and it does not constitute the government pushing a religious doctrine as a religious doctrine, then it is okay.

Tolerance is allowing what others need, want, care about, believe, cherish, etc. etc. etc. that does not affect others in any negative way.

 

[S.J.]

There are no other words, but you can continue to invent things if it makes you happy.

That's right, no other words. Now you can shut the fuck up.

Heres an idea: Spend a little less energy on shit talking and actually try to understand what is being said. Then maybe you wouldn't have to bitch about evolution the way that you do.

"Talking shit"? You mean like this?

Little punk? I would beat the shit out of you, but I don't hit dumb little bitches.

Here's an idea: Treat others with respect and you might find that they would do the same.