“Anybody walking by that is going to say, ‘Hmmm. This is a Christian government building. I’m not welcome here if I’m not Christian,’” she told the television station.

I wonder if she can prove that or is she just talking out of her ass (which you know she is). No one is going to say if you are not Christian, you cant come in. It's a bunch of bullshit.

#1 | Posted by boaz at 2011-12-09 02:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Only a complete moron who has no understanding of the America system would be able to make the statement that you mention in your post. Yes... it OBVIOUSLY means that it is a Christian government building and thus only Christians are allowed in the building....

I guess only secularists are allowed in the secular government buildings that are everywhere else beside this alleged Christian government building.

Strange minds.

thus only Christians are allowed in the building

What? We arent like your beloved muslims who dont let anyone in the buildings. And they are just celebrating Christmas which has been done for many years.

"until Hell freezes over"

Now that is great use of taxpayer's money!

Good for that town and its' citizens---tell those worthless lefties from Madison, Wisconsin to stuff it and stay home.

I'm not a Christian but I have no problem with religious themed X-Mas decorations on public property as long as it's paid for by private funds but I do get pissed by folks who get offended by my opinions as if only their politically correct opinions are the only ones that count

And in CA they respond by saying "we're sorry, we don't know what we were thinking...we will take it down immediately".

"And in CA they respond by saying "we're sorry, we don't know what we were thinking...we will take it down immediately".

#7 | Posted by KBM

Is that what "Gateway Pundit" told you?

The point is "have your primitive little ritual, but not on MY buck." The wonderful Americans for Separation of Church and State have long made in court the point that such displays are unconstitutional. herm

Great get the religious conservatives all stired up right before the election that will ensure that our next president is a rational choice.

The point is "have your primitive little ritual, but not on MY buck."

#9 | Posted by herm

I can get behind that "not on my buck" part. The use of the word "primitive", however, when applied to an atheist, would likely be seen by the atheist as a sign of irrational hatred.

Talk about selfish.

Selfish? Selfish? BBob, you wanna take this one?

I can ignore this kind of stuff, but absent any non-Christian displays it's pretty obviously a government endorsement of a religion. The argument that getting a Nativity off government land is persecution of Christians is a joke. Move it to private property and you don't have to listen to those of us who appreciate the secularism in the Constitution.

What about those who appreciate the non-secularism of the constitution?

My First Amendment rights wants the Nativity scene. Why do the God hating bastards get their way on this? We are going down the shitter faster every damn year. baaaaaaaa :o(

My First Amendment rights wants the Nativity scene.

The First Amendment does not entitle you to Christian displays on government property.

"Move it to private property and you don't have to listen to those of us who appreciate the secularism in the Constitution."

Liberals sticking their nose in where it doesnt belong?

About as bad as Dubya using the military to march democracy through the middle east, right? Ir was that just some socialist job creation scam?

"The First Amendment does not entitle you to Christian displays on government property."

Nor does it prohibit them, Rcade. This has been decided dozens of times in court.

Try and follow me on this one....

Isn't allowing NOTHING of a religious nature to be displayed on government property to celebrate Christmas and/or Hanukkah in deference to the atheist protestors, in essence be just a backdoor way of government then catering to, and acknowledging, the "religion" of atheism -- since they believe in NOTHING religious?

And atheism has more and more been turning into a "religion" of its own - so don't kid yourselves. Fanatical atheists protect their belief in atheism -- and look to prosecute anyone who disagrees with them -- just as strongly as the most fanatical Christian or Jewish person might go about defending theirs.

His Truth Is Marching On!

I find it hilarious that christians are going nuts because they can't have a Nativity scene, even though the Nativity scene they want is pure bullshit, even if you accept the birth story. The three wise men didn't get there in 30 minutes or less, and Jesus wasn't born in December. It's not quite as stupid as believing Jesus was crucified on no particular day, but the third Sunday after the last blue moon before Opening Season, whenever that gets around to happening.

and look to prosecute anyone who disagrees with them

Atheists haven't blown anyone up because they didn't not believe, Chris. Nobody said of afghanistan, "our non-existant God is stronger than their non-existant God", so we're gonna kill them all.

And when Buttfuck County Texas allows atheists to put up a sign on public property, for a month saying, "God is a myth", get back to me.

"christians are going nuts"

Going?

You have to be nuts to believe that forged nonsense.

What? We arent like your beloved muslims who dont let anyone in the buildings.

No Boaz, the Godly Christians just don't let muslims BUILD buildings to go into. Ask your hero Squirmin' Herman.

There was a sign on private property, I forget the town, northwest of San Antonio, that said Happy Winter Solstice, The Real Reason For The Season of some such.
It didn't take long for the local superstitious vermin to deface it.

It's the Mormons who won't let you in.

Nor does it prohibit them, Rcade. This has been decided dozens of times in court.

You must have missed the numerous times that religious displays were removed from government property on the order of a court.

#23 | Posted by northguy3

You're really stretching there to make your point, NorthGuy3.

Don't try and drag America's long-held traditions, heritage, and religous beliefs in Christianity's and Judaism's celebration of Christmas and Haunukkah in with the most fanatical elements of belief in Islam -- 99% of which is primarily centered and practiced over in the Middle East. I don't ever recall any "honor killings" or beheadings being done in this country by those of the Christian or Jewish faiths.

What next? You're going to pitifully attempt to counter this with now bringing up the European Crusades?

I'm talking about our country.

hmm. never heard of the salem witch trials...in the name of JESUS

I support the display of the Nativity scene on anyones personal property. Nativitlyu scenes on government property are out of place. Idiot towns who try to force their religious views on their citizens should be sued into oblivion.

To say it is just ONE person who is offended is enough. That's the whole point behind religious freedom.

Put the Nativity scene in your own yard and STFU.

Simple isn't it.

Regarding the First Amendment...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

Seems simple enough to me, I don't think Congress has done that. But I'm aware of all the BS that has been going on and on for decades now. I can pretty much understand why some object to religious symbols on government property but I think it has gone overboard. I haven't been to a church since a niece's wedding about ten years ago, but I'm not offended or feel like my rights have been violated every time I see a cross, star of david, menorah or whatever. I'm going to be very pissed if they start to replace all the headstones in Arlington National Cemetery though.

Why do Christians insist upon placing their displays on public property?

If these scenes aren't a demonstration for the promotion of their religion, why can't they simply keep their displays to their own church lawns?

I'm going to be very pissed if they start to replace all the headstones in Arlington National Cemetery though.

#32 | Posted by jestgettinalong

I have no problem with displays of religion on headstones, unless the person buried there would have objected. Graves belong to the bodies that lay in them.

but I'm not offended or feel like my rights have been violated every time I see a cross, star of david, menorah or whatever.

#32 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2011-12-10 01:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

No one else is either. Do you know what this thread is about?

"headstones in Arlington National Cemetery"

Maybe if people started ignoring these dumbass lawsuits the courts would realize there is only so far you can go in using the authority of the bench. Civil disobedience has its place. Ask OWS. The judges that permit this nonsense erode the authority of the court on worthless points. People only tolerate so much before they repudiate bad governance.

I am pretty sure that a local municipality does not have the power to enact laws of the land. Nor does displaying a nativity force one to practice christianity. If you live in a small town that chooses to display a nativity and it so offends you then you are of course free to move. However do not delude yourselves that displaying a nativity is on par with being forced to go to church. Heck even if the law of the town was that you had to belong to a church I do not belive that it would be a constitutional issue as it is 1 town not the whole country.

It's evident that these liberal bastards haven't taken the time to research where they came from or are ignorant of our early history. The early settlers of American believed in God and his support in order to suffer the hardships they endured to grown things to where you stupid jerks can exercise your foul beliefs. Unfortunately, the Constitution does not allow our sane half to gather you all up and export you to live in one of the wonderful countries where they believe like you do. Why on earth do you think they are waiting in line and chancing death to get to our country? Why do you think the evil governed countries want to destroy the USA? Because, Satin has converted them to his beliefs and is working in doing the same thing in the USA through persons like most of our liberal, socialistic types. Their reward awaits them.

docforyou

#39

Be sure to say the same to the Christians living in Dearborn...once the proper substitutions of "mosque", "Muslim", and "Ramadan Diorama" are made, of course....

-Satin has converted them to his beliefs

Twill is SO pissed!

There was so much to mock in that post, Corky. Good choice.

Docforyou, do you realize that your rambling is un-American? Really? Ship off people to another country because they don't share your beliefs? Brilliant. And ever so patriotic. And I think you should go read some history, something other than the Bible (if you've even read all of that).

"Satin has converted them to his beliefs "

Satin can't carry Silk's jockstrap.

(if you've even read all of that).

I put that as 70-30 against.

#41

I would if I knew any. I don't know where we got so scrwed up in religion free religion means just that. If Dearborne wants to put a mosque up in a public park and the majority of the citizens vote for it I don't see the problem. I would not be happy with my tax dollars being used for that but I don't live in Dearborne so they aren't. If my town votes for some muslim thing or another and I disagree I'll move, I doubt I would disagree since I don't care but if I did I would.

"If Dearborne wants to put a mosque up in a public park and the majority of the citizens vote for it I don't see the problem. I would not be happy with my tax dollars being used for that"

You've hit on the exact reason I'm against any religious displays on public property: if I'm not comfortable with my tax dollars going to erect a mosque on public ground even if I was in the minority, I'd be a hypocrite if I made an exemption just because it was Christian display and I'm in the majority.

Dan,

If it were the congress doing it then that would be a valid point but if it is a municipality then you can leave the area heck most towns you could move a mile outside town and no longer be in the tax base. So if you are in the minority and you are offended then move. If you are in the minority and not offended who cares?

#47 this is all a matter of degree though, isn't it? at what point does government not lease property to an organization that has some religious underpinning? are the tax breaks given to charitable donations to a religious institution not some form of government-subsidy to a church?

i think we've come a long way from the concept of prohibition of the government "establishing" a religion.

i think we've come a long way from the concept of prohibition of the government "establishing" a religion.

#49 | Posted by somoco at 2011-12-10 03:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

I think if you start putting religious symbols on government property, we go a long way backwards.

It's Goddamn funny we had Nativity scenes in schools and sung the traditional Christmas songs there since this country was founded..*NOW* in the last few years the traditions that we all loved as kids are being shit on and are being *forced* to be discontinued.
If this is considered "progress" I would sure as hell hate to see a step backwards.

-I think if you start putting religious symbols on government property, we go a long way backwards.

we haven't "started" it. we have been doing it for some time.

but I have no problem with not continuing with that practice.

The First Amendment does not entitle you to Christian displays on government property.

Not FEDERAL property. A local town in one of our free and separate states can do what it wants...

Idiot towns who try to force their religious views on their citizens should be sued into oblivion.

Even if the town agrees on it's religious view? If you dont like the town's religious view, you can leave and go to a town that more suits you.. It's one of the beauties of the United States...

You can celebrate anything you like any time you like, but if I want to mark - say - Chris Hitchens' birthday, I still can not erect a statue of Chris on our courthouse lawn . Sorry, Fester. Well, not very. herm

I find it hilarious that christians are going nuts because they can't have a Nativity scene,

#22 | Posted by northguy3 at 2011-12-10 12:34 PM | Reply

That's not why I want it there; I want this kind of stuff to happen over and over and over again just to tick off the ACLU, lefties, northgal, rcade, etal. and all the rest of the PC crowd. It's really enjoyable watching them-all get perpetual wedgies when they don't make any progress toward their perceived nirvana.

This story is dripping with silly. On BOTH sides.

"It's time that Americans stand up and take America back for the faith that we were founded upon," said Nathan Lorick, pastor of the First Baptist Church in Malakoff.

Horseshit. This has nothing to do with "taking America back for the faith we were founded upon."

Ah, but not to be out-retarded, FFRF co-founder Annie Laurie Gaylor says, "It sends a message of intimidation and exclusion to non-Christians and non-believers this time of year."

Horseshit. There's no intimidation, there's no exclusion.
It's a nativity scene. And that's ALL it is.

"Anybody walking by that is going to say, 'Hmmm. This is a Christian government building. I'm not welcome here if I'm not Christian,'".

Really??? No, only stupid people are going to draw that conclusion.
What a fucking stupid thing to say.

The Wisconsin-based atheist organization sent a letter to the county explaining that a local resident had complained and they wanted the Nativity removed.

This "local resident", apparently one of the aforementioned stupid people, REALLY needs to get some hobbies.

The First Amendment does not entitle you to Christian displays on government property.

#16 | Posted by rcade

I know this is hopeless, but would someone any one show me where in the Constitution it says or even infers that religious symbols can't be on state or Govt. owned land.

Now if the Govt. said you can only show this kind (What ever)of religious symbol on Govt. land, that would be wrong as per the Constitiution.

The part you are wet dreaming about for the millionth time is not real.

The Separation Of Church and State

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the 1st Amendment erected a "wall of separation" between the church and the state (James Madison said it "drew a line," but it is Jefferson's term that sticks with us today). The phrase is commonly thought to mean that the government should not establish, support, or otherwise involve itself in any religion.

And Just to be clear under the "Bill of Rights" 1st Amendment.

Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition.

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.

As you can see Rcade is wrong.

The First Amendment CLEARLY says you do have the right to have your Nativity scene just where it is.

.....NOPE....in 2012.....Then the teachers and their unions.

#57 | Posted by MENSAKOOK at 2011-12-10 10:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

Every American should be against the display of religious icons on public buildings. Religious government has never worked for the common man. Have you heard about the governments in the middle east? How about a little closer to home. Try Utah--if you aren't a Mormon, it is very hard to run a business or get a decent job. Put all the religious icons you like on our own property---government property should not promote any religion, any more than it should promote a particular race. We have pretty much eliminated government sanction of racial discrimination, we should not promote government discrimination by religion. Conservatives should consider this topic to be a true candidate for a "slippery slope", not gay marriage.

#13 | Posted by rcade
I can ignore this kind of stuff, but absent any non-Christian displays it's pretty obviously a government endorsement of a religion. The argument that getting a Nativity off government land is persecution of Christians is a joke. Move it to private property and you don't have to listen to those of us who appreciate the secularism in the Constitution.
---------------
So the Founders would have said that a Nativity scene on government land was violation the Constitution.

Didn't know!

On the morning of December 25, 1889, President Benjamin Harrison gathered his family around the first indoor White House Christmas tree. It stood in the upstairs oval room, branches adorned with lit candles. First Lady Caroline Harrison, an artist, helped decorate the tree. As our nation's hostess, she set the stage for what would eventually become a much-beloved holiday tradition.

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 when we display the Nativity scene on Government property what law was passed respecting an establishment of religion to violate the Constitution?

Where's the one for scientology? Xenu cannot be happy!

Rcade, read the decision at the link. It has been affirmed by the supreme dorks three times:

These wackjobs who go around suing towns over plastic lawn displays need to have a new word applied to them. As an atheist, it offends me that these attention seeking busy-bodies hide behind "atheism". They should be called "doucheists" of something like that.

#58 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob
"Every American should be against the display of religious icons on public buildings."
"Religious government has never worked for the common man."

The second sentence is written so as to appear to support the first, but it really doesn't.
You've made two separate, absolutist theses here, that are unrelated.

".....NOPE....in 2012.....Then the teachers and their unions."

It appears Mensakook has added to his meaningless dibble at the end of the post. (In e-mail, we call it a sig.) WTF, Mensa? Random drive-by against teachers and unions? Relevance here? (And if you say it's about understanding the Constitution, well, that's ironic, 'cause you just oversimplified the shit out of an issue that is still very much contested in jurisprudential circles.)
+++++

"So the House has its own Chaplain, which is Constitutional, but displaying the Nativity on government property is in violation of the Constitution."

Interesting. I just heard a bit on the radio recently about a movement to have atheist chaplains in the military. If you can keep your mind open, it's not as weird as it sounds. But then, a whole lot of so-called Christians on this board don't seem to understand atheism--or only to understand the cranks among us.
+++++

"So having a Christmas tree in the White House is not a violation of the Constitution, but a Nativity scene is."

A Christmas tree is not inherently religious. (Oh, watch me get attacked for that one.) A Nativity scene is.

65--FF.

I have no problem with a nativity scene on public grounds, btw. I do have a problem (small) with the Ten Commandments at the courthouse (unless maybe we get Hammurabi and other relevant representations up there). Does that confuse anyone?

a movement to have atheist chaplains in the military

67 | Posted by pragmatist

You're going to have to advance an entirely new, and by definition much more limited, concept of spirituality for this.

In fact, spirituality will be dumbed down into just one more potentially useful idea, to be discarded as soon as neuroscience finds a better cure for whatever it is you came to the Godless chaplain for.

"You're going to have to advance an entirely new, and by definition much more limited, concept of spirituality for this."

I don't have to do any such thing. : ) But you didn't mean me, did you? If you did, you're barkin' up the wrong cross.

If you're interested, I'm sure you can Google it and see what the folks behind it are arguing. It was an interesting piece. He talked about serious atheists having seriously developed belief systems in regard to morality and humanity. Most atheists I have known would recognize that in themselves. Anyone who argues that atheists are immoral need to spend some time considering what morality is.

Also interesting was his response to the interviewer who said, "Why not just add more counselors instead of trying to admit atheist chaplains?" Fascinating, really, if you are interested in discussions of morality and spirituality (actual discussions, not assertions that one faith or presence of faith is better than another faith or lack of faith).

"Why not just add more counselors instead of trying to admit atheist chaplains?"

Well, that cuts to the logical nub of things, doesn't it?

Sure atheists can be moral. They might also be saved in spite of their condition from time to time, although such questions are well above my pay grade.

What an "atheist chaplain" movement suggests to me is a sense of inferiority on the part of atheists. They want to have the same toys as everyone else or they feel bad.

"Sure atheists can be moral. They might also be saved in spite of their condition from time to time, although such questions are well above my pay grade."

And your reference to "saved" suggests to me an exclusionary sense of faith and morality.

"What an "atheist chaplain" movement suggests to me is a sense of inferiority on the part of atheists. They want to have the same toys as everyone else or they feel bad."

You can certainly feel that way, but your simply leaping to the assumption suggests to me an unwillingness to consider a deeper argument. Even were I not an atheist, I might find his argument at least worth listening to.

Well, this written version doesn't do it justice, but here you go:

"They might also be saved"

Imagine Jeff Foxworthy ...

You might be a pompous idiot if you believe ...

"These wackjobs who go around suing towns over plastic lawn displays need to have a new word applied to them."

"Histrionic" comes to mind. Actually, most atheists I have known are anything but like these fanatics. They might not believe, but they respect and let be those who do believe.

And your reference to "saved" suggests to me an exclusionary sense of faith and morality.

#72 | Posted by pragmatist at 2011

Only if you want to be perverse. I said Salvation might be open to atheists.

But only, of course, if there is a God to make that decision.

You can certainly feel that way, but your simply leaping to the assumption suggests to me an unwillingness to consider a deeper argument.

Posted by pragmatist

I'm not sure what the deeper argument is. Atheists long ago convinced me that they really see no deeper argument, in fact. What you see is what there is, and any moral formulations start and end with that.

You don't need a chaplain to help you consider such things. Pick on a philosophy major or a therapist.

From your link:

Torpy says he has felt excluded in the military because of his beliefs. Once, before his unit deployed on a mission, the commander gathered everyone together for a Christian prayer.

"So I had to opt myself out of that situation, to out myself because this commander took it upon himself to have a personal religious activity in the midst of a military mission," he says.
_____________________________

This is the problem with the movement for an atheist chaplain. He wasnt in any way excluded. He could choose to engage in the ritual of another group. That is where cultural tolerance comes into play.

I have been to chaplains of several different denominations, and I am blissfully agnostic. The chaplaincy is for soldiers of faith, and atheists by definition have divorced themselves from faith.

This idea that people are excluded because of displays is ridiculous. This argument that a display is in violation of the first amendment is false because displays are by nature an expression. The first amendment was worded to specifically prevent federal law from interfering with the ability of people to exercise religious freedom. By ordering the removal of displays is outright censorship. People that argue for the removal of these displays are argueing for religious censorship. I know its been stated prior, but the point needs to be emphasized.

"Only if you want to be perverse. I said Salvation might be open to atheists. "

No, you used the word "saved," which in American religious circles has a fairly specific meaning and at least hints at a kind of fundamentalism that tends to be exclusionary (believing itself to the one true way). If you're not of that ilk, then you might choose your words more carefully. If you are, then you know exactly what I'm talking about. Of course, God (if there is one) and Jesus (if he's divine) accept last-minute conversions, or so the stories would have us believe. So, yeah, salvation is open to atheists and buddhists and Satanists and child rapists and... As long as said converts are sincere at the moment they open their hearts to Jesus.
+++++

"I'm not sure what the deeper argument is."

Right. Because you're not willing to go read about it or listen to the guy's point. The argument is not about faith, btw. The argument is about the role of chaplains in soldiers' lives. And yes, the guy has an axe to grind, but in the radio presentation I heard, he had thought-provoking stuff to say.

"Atheists long ago convinced me that they really see no deeper argument, in fact. What you see is what there is, and any moral formulations start and end with that."

It would seem to me that you are in that camp I mentioned earlier--those who are interested simply in asserting their faith, not in open dialogue about spirituality and faith. Oh, well. (Your comments like this are like your comments on pot: full of utter superiority and unshakable belief that your understanding is the right one.)

So if you're not interested in such dialogue, we have nothing to say to one another about the topic (or about religion, I'd say). I can live with that.

77--You're conflating displays with a group ritual. I agree (mostly) with the displays argument. I sort of see this guy's point, though.

But whatever, I just wanted to point to it 'cause I thought it was interesting. (shrug)

It would seem to me that you are in that camp I mentioned earlier--those who are interested simply in asserting their faith, not in open dialogue about spirituality and faith.

The argument is about the role of chaplains in soldiers' lives. And yes, the guy has an axe to grind, but in the radio presentation I heard, he had thought-provoking stuff to say.

Joining displays with rituals was not my intent. A ritual, in my reasoning, is separate from a display. A nativity scene is a display. A sunday morning mass is a ritual. If they were holding a church service in the building and making it mandatory to attend, then there would be a good argument for an injunction.

On the opposite side, there was a story a while ago about a general who was making his soldiers attend a christian rock concert. There are people on both sides of this argument who step on the toes of the other.

A helpful diagnostic tool is to take a step back and look at which side of an argument is the intrusive party. Clearly in this case it is the atheists.

"A helpful diagnostic tool is to take a step back and look at which side of an argument is the intrusive party. Clearly in this case it is the atheists."

Nonsense. If your tax dollars went to Ramadan Dioramas and nothing else, you'd be bitching to high heaven. This is all about whose ox is being gored, and the hypocrites who'll give church and state a pass, as long as its their church married to the state.

What makes you think that tax-dollars are being used here to erect the nativity scene?

The only thing I see tax-dollars being used for is giving these atheist litigators a place to force their religious-political views on others via the courts.

"What makes you think that tax-dollars are being used here to erect the nativity scene? "

What part of "religious display on public grounds" did you miss?

"What makes you think that tax-dollars are being used here to erect the nativity scene? "

Of course, using that logic, Muslims could use oil money to erect countless peons to Islam on public property all over the US, provided they paid to put it up.

#85 and #86.

The genetic fallacy rears its ugly head. As far as religious displays on public grounds, thats the subject of the debate, not a valid rebuttal. The whole argument that religious displays are not permitted on public grounds is revisionist and itself unconstitutional.

So, please demonstrate where in this situation that tax-dollars are being used to establish a religion.

These displays are usually long-bought and paid for or procurred and set up with donations. Case in point, the memorials to slain state troopers in Utah that the atheists sued to have taken down. They were set up with donated money, but because they were in the shape of a cross and on public owned land, according the atheists and a couple of very stupid judges they had to be removed.

This isnt about money. Its cultural antagonism. An example of humanities resounding failure to balance itself. Either the majority is belligerent towards the minority or the minority is belligerent towards majority. In either way, the argument that religious displays infringe upon the rights of others is ridiculous and antagonistic to freedom.

If people of other faiths were excluded from applying (or petitioning) that the display either be removed, or that they be represented with a display of their own by law, that would be a legitimate argument.

If those groups were allowed to apply and were duly rejected, they lose fair and square. If they dont have the community support to elect officials to amend the law in their favor, they should be adults and accept the fact that they are in the minority.

The culture of a people is going to well up and be expressed through their representatives. For people who have no faith, this shouldnt be an issue. There is no infringement on the rights of the minority in this case, because there is no act of obeisance being required. The First Amendment was written at a time when church attendance and patronage was mandatory. There is no such thing nowadays. Symbols are representative of history and culture. The flag of Maryland is an excellent example, as it has the coat of arms of the founding family. In most cases the flagpole that the state flag is displayed on is surmounted by a cross. Religious? Yes in origin, but it is also historical. Same thing with the nativity scene. It is a representation of a historical event, displayed in the time of year that it is traditionally believed to have occurred.

"These displays are usually long-bought and paid for or procurred and set up with donations. "

So? Would that mean it be okay if Muslims procured donations long ago...it's okay if they put up Ramadan dioramas all over the country, just because they paid for it, and raised the money a long time ago?!?

"There is no infringement on the rights of the minority in this case, because there is no act of obeisance being required."

What part of "religious display on public property" did you miss?

"If they dont have the community support to elect officials to amend the law in their favor, they should be adults and accept the fact that they are in the minority."

Someone should buy you a history book before you embarrass yourself any further.

"This isnt about money. Its cultural antagonism."

You bet your ass. It's about a tyrannical majority telling the religious minorities they can go stuff it.

"Same thing with the nativity scene. It is a representation of a historical event"

The stupid is strong with this one.

Someone should buy you a history book before you embarrass yourself any further.

#90 | Posted by Danforth

Someone needs to buy you a course in debate so that you can learn the proper way to present and argue a point. Parroting the same bullshit interspersed with questions and vague claims doesnt win a debate.

Coincidentally, yes if it was the elected bodies desire that a Muslim diorama be erected on public property, then it is permitted.

Again, genetic fallacy rears its ugly head. You assume that because I am argueing that a Christian community should be allowed to erect a nativity scene that I am anti-Muslim.

"It is a representation of a historical event"

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhAHAHAAhHAah
AHAHAhAhAA

It's about a tyrannical majority telling the religious minorities they can go stuff it.

#91 | Posted by Danforth

Yeah, a baby doll in a manger just drips with oppression.

Atheism isnt a religion. It's repudiation of religion. You have to have a faith to be religious. Apart of faith is believing in a God. If I dont believe in a God, then there is no faith. What these atheists are, are pussies whose delicate (in)sensibilities dont allow them to tolerate the fact that there are others who have found a peace and joy that eludes them.

"Someone needs to buy you a course in debate so that you can learn the proper way to present and argue a point. Parroting the same bullshit interspersed with questions and vague claims doesnt win a debate."

How clueless do you have to be tell the minority to fuck off, and then claim the nativity is a historical event?

"Coincidentally, yes if it was the elected bodies desire that a Muslim diorama be erected on public property, then it is permitted. "

Coincidentally, no, it shouldn't. What part of "religious display on public property" don't you understand?

"You assume that because I am argueing that a Christian community should be allowed to erect a nativity scene that I am anti-Muslim."

No, I assume you're pro-Christian, and if you saw all your tax dollars go to erect one pro-Islam scene after another, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

"Yeah, a baby doll in a manger just drips with oppression."

Telling non-Christians to suck it because they're in the minority drips with oppression, yes.

"Atheism isnt a religion."

Who's endorsing atheism? I can't say I'd be happy if my tax dollars went to erect religious Muslim icons, so I can't in good conscience endorse my tax dollars going to religious icons just because it happens to coincide with my personal beliefs.

"What these religionists are, are pussies whose delicate (in)sensibilities dont allow them to tolerate the fact that there are others who have found a peace and joy that eludes them."

FTFY.

"Atheism isnt a religion."

You better tell that to your theist friends. They are always arguing that non-theism is a religion, which is kinda like saying, "yes I know I'm irrational but so are you."

Coincidentally, no, it shouldn't. What part of "religious display on public property" don't you understand?""

Again, you jackass, whether religious displays are consitutionally allowed on public property is the overlying theme of the debate, not a valid point.

""No, I assume you're pro-Christian, and if you saw all your tax dollars go to erect one pro-Islam scene after another, you'd be squealing like a stuck pig.""

You assume wrong.

""Telling non-Christians to suck it because they're in the minority drips with oppression, yes.""

and they can suck it. Thats what America is about. Freedom. Being able to act beyond the influence of retards. This bunch of whining pussies need to understand that just because they have an opinion doesnt make it profound or worthy of the attention of others. Were in the economic doldrums with a massive deficit and we have to pay for a court system so that losers and busybodies can sue over a christmas display. This is how stupid America has gotten.

""Who's endorsing atheism? I can't say I'd be happy if my tax dollars went to erect religious Muslim icons, so I can't in good conscience endorse my tax dollars going to religious icons just because it happens to coincide with my personal beliefs.""

Nice attempt to hijack my points on consistency. The point of the argument isnt tax dollars. If you want to argue lawful expenditure, we can open this up into a debate on the federal Department of Education and the Department of Energy and bailouts and a whole load of other shit that goes on that isnt supposed to. When you can prove that public money was used in this instance, then tax money becomes into the picture. Until then, its not within the scope of the debate.

"whether religious displays are consitutionally allowed on public property is the overlying theme of the debate, not a valid point. "

So yes or no, would it be alright for oil-rich Muslim countries to erect thousands of icons to Islam in every city, just because they raised the money to put them up on public land?

"You assume wrong. "

I have no doubt the only reason you're willing for a religion to foot the bill is it's YOUR religion.

"and they can suck it. Thats what America is about. Freedom. "

World-class cluelessness. I love it!

" The point of the argument isnt tax dollars."

It's on public property. OF COURSE it's partially about tax dollars. You're either a liar or an idiot to claim otherwise.

"If you want to argue lawful expenditure, we can open this up into a debate on the federal Department of Education and the Department of Energy and bailouts and a whole load of other shit that goes on that isnt supposed to."

IOW, anything except the issue at hand: is it okay for Sikhs to erect thousands of shrines on public land, just as long as they pay for it?

#98 | Posted by nullifidian

It's a stylish approach among the feeble-minded.

#89 | Posted by americanPLY
"It is a representation of a historical event, displayed in the time of year that it is traditionally believed to have occurred."

I understand your reasoning, but a couple things...

One, the nativity is not a representation of an historical event.
It's a representation of a part of a culturally significant story.
While I have no problem believing that a Jesus of Nazareth existed, calling the manger story "historical" is a bit much.
There's no reason to think that particular part of the story, occurring in a tiny town in Judea over 2000 years ago, is historically accurate, especially with no corroboration.
It's simply a traditional part of the story.

Two, aside from those who just don't bother to think about it, I don't think anyone honestly thinks Jesus was born on or near December 25.
We all know that was simply the date decided on.
It's not the date the event is "traditionally believed to have occurred", but simply the date it is traditionally celebrated.

""I have no doubt the only reason you're willing for a religion to foot the bill is it's YOUR religion.""

I've stated before my religious inclinations. Do some research, digest it, then get back to me.
______________________________
_

""World-class cluelessness. I love it!""

No, tard its spot-on. Freedom, assholes. The ability to live without a list of do's and do not's. The right of self determination. The ability to give stupid people the finger and go about your business.
______________________________
_

""It's on public property. OF COURSE it's partially about tax dollars. You're either a liar or an idiot to claim otherwise.""

No, I'm aware of the fact that you have no clue as to whether or not this was done with public money. You are trying to build a winning argument, and its based on facts you assume and cannot prove.

Danforth,
Show where tax dollars were used. He's asked a couple of times, as you're aware. Show him where, and see where it goes from there. Or you can pretend you didnt purposefully ignore the request for the 3rd time...

...and of course whether or not it was done with public money is none of your or anyone elses damn business. That locality has elected representatives, and if the voters of that locality dont agree with how money is being spent, they can vote them out. The problem is, is that its kind of hard to bounce elected officials if you have no support, which is why they are sueing. Just like any other sniveling peice of shit they cant win straight up so they are going to back-door these guys into getting their way.

#103 | Posted by TheTom

I had a conversation with my grandmothers priest (catholic) about the timing and certain details about Christmas. Hes very down to earth, doesnt proselytize about mystical details. He was straight up about the correlation between Sol Invictus and Christmas. The importance in his mind was celebrating the event and focusing on the reason for it's occurrence. Whether or not it happened on the date we determine it to was secondary. I've kind of adopted that mindset on alot of things because to me it makes a lot of sense.

I'd also say that the birth of Christ is generally accepted as historical fact. There are tons of other historical figures that have nothing more than literary tradition to justify their existence.

__________
""It's a representation of a part of a culturally significant story.""

Bingo. If we are going to dabble in analogy, then it would be like having the Fourth of July without the American Flag. Christmas is celebrated by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Just because it is religious doesnt make it wrong or insensitive to visually demonstrate the origin of the holiday.

of course, with the increasing number of foreigners living in the country I'm sure it is only a matter of time before the Fourth of July is whitewashed. Oh... wait...

Such tradition is not unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court had already ruled on the issue of paid Chaplains.

The House and Senate have paid Chaplains.

There are States with paid Chaplains.

If these positions have stood the scrutiny of the Supreme Court, the traditions of prayer, displays of the 10 Commandments, the Nativity, pictures and paintings...

none of these are any more agregrious than PAID RELIGIOUS GOVERNMENT POSITIONS.

Those that must defend these displays should raise Chaplains every time there is a separate of church and state argument.

After all, the SCOTUS ruling of Chaplains set precedence.

The opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles of disestablishment and religious freedom. In the very courtrooms in which the United States District Judge and later three Circuit Judges heard and decided this case, the proceedings opened with an announcement that concluded, "God save the United States and this Honorable Court." The same invocation occurs at all sessions of this Court.

In light of the unambiguous and unbroken history of more then 200 years, there can be no doubt that the practice of opening legislative sessions with prayer has become part of the fabric of our society. To invoke Divine guidance on a public body entrusted with making laws is not, in these circumstances, an "establishment" or a step toward establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgement of beliefs widely held among the people of this country.

Marsh v. Chambers (1983)

And the atheists look like douchebags again. Nice werk!

They just can't help themselves.

The Supreme Court ruled on this in 1984.

"That's fine, and he deserves to have it. I'm sorry that he's felt left out of things at times. I suppose at an atheist convention I'd feel left out, as well."

Except that the military should not be a Christian convention. Whatever.
+++++

"Bingo. If we are going to dabble in analogy, then it would be like having the Fourth of July without the American Flag. Christmas is celebrated by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Just because it is religious doesnt make it wrong or insensitive to visually demonstrate the origin of the holiday. "

Well, that would be cool, given that the origin of the holiday (the tree anyway) is pagan. Let's put up some pagan, pre-Roman, pre-Christian displays on public grounds and see how that goes over. By the by, we just put up our tree yesterday and decorated it, complete with Simpsons and superhero ornaments. Nothing Christian about it whatsoever. Nary a Christian symbol to be found in our house. Do all you theists realize that Christmas is pretty much a secular holiday in America these days? At least for millions of Americans?
+++++

As for the chaplain argument: As I understand it, chaplains come in many flavors these days. Is that true of holiday decorations? Apparently, the military even has some Buddhist chaplains now. Got some Buddhist festivals goin' on in courtrooms or public malls (not shopping malls) around the country?

"Show where tax dollars were used. "

It's on public property.

"Show where tax dollars were used."

"It's on public property."

And WTF does it ultimately matter if tax dollars are used? Religions don't get to erect shrines on public property, even if I agree with the religion.

"Or you can pretend you didnt purposefully ignore the request for the 3rd time..."

Too rich...my question has been out there longer; he's dodged it since the beginning:

Is it acceptable for ANY religion to put up ANY display on public property, as long as they pay for it?

Thinskinforth strikes again...how does the fact you ignored it change because you asked a question first? The answer is "it doesn't"...thanks for playing.

"how does the fact you ignored it change because you asked a question first? "

I didn't ignore anything; I stated it doesn't matter whether or not tax dollars are used, we don't allow religious shrines on public property.

"The answer is "it doesn't""

The real answer is you keep running away from the question. Are you really endorsing allowing whatever any religion wants to erect on public property, as long as the religion in question pays for the expenses?!?

If Danforth had a brain...

It would say "my brain aint good enough" to give head to chair bourn or Rexx...I'm feeling the pain...must have some pain....

Fuckin pussy!

"It would say "my brain aint good enough""

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

Come on Danny boy you fucking pussy....The boys are waiting...

"The boys are waiting..."

Great. The Drunken Dumbshit is here.

"my brain aint good enough...Danny Boy"

Really dick job?

What the fuck are you doing here?

Ads for Rcade? Do you get a cut?

"my brain aint good enough...Danny Boy"

Embarrassing himself, as usual.

Step away from the bottle, dipshit. Step. away. from. the. bottle.

#111 | Posted by Grendel

Thanks Grendel.

So the question for you is Danforth;

What the hell do you not understand about Lynch v. Donnelly?

LEAVE PEOPLE THE FUCK ALONE

"What the hell do you not understand about..."

What the hell do you not understand about answering a question? Is it alright for Muslims to use Middle East oil money to erect Islamic icons all over public land, provided they pay the expenses for erecting and maintaining it?

"Lynch v. Donnelly"

I agree with the dissent more than the majority in that 5-4 decision.

"Every American should be against the display of religious icons on public buildings."
"Religious government has never worked for the common man."

The second sentence is written so as to appear to support the first, but it really doesn't.
You've made two separate, absolutist theses here, that are unrelated.

#66 | Posted by TheTom at 2011-12-11 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

So what? Both statements are true.

This from Wikipedia:
The Christmas tree is a decorated evergreen coniferous tree, real or artificial, and a tradition associated with the celebration of Christmas. The Christmas tree is traditionally brought into the home and decorated with Christmas lights (originally candles), ornaments, garlands, tinsel, and candy canes during the days around Christmas. An angel or star is placed at the top of the tree, representing the host of angels or the Star of Bethlehem from the Nativity.

Sounds religous in nature to me. Also the word Christmas has the word Christ in it.

"I agree with the dissent more than the majority in that 5-4 decision."

I say exactly the same about Roe v. Wade

You can celebrate anything you like any time you like, but if I want to mark - say - Chris Hitchens' birthday, I still can not erect a statue of Chris on our courthouse lawn . Sorry, Fester. Well, not very. herm
#54 | Posted by herm

Your analogy of a no-name's birthday is weak. Nativity scenes transcend a birthday. It's a total event that we have had since our country was founded. Oh I know you liberal haters want to erase God and everything associated with our "traditional" Christmas experience just win a point. But down deep our little kids hate you - most teachers hate you and most normal people that hold the traditional Christmas scene dear hate you.