The War on Christmas continues...

Is it legal?

If your are so terribly butthurt about the War on Christmas, then change the U.S. Constitution.

I think the US would be a better place if we all stopped looking around for things to get ticked off about.

If you don't celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, FSM day, Hanukkah, or Groundhog Day, fine, then don't celebrate it. But is the world somehow a worse place if others do?

Unavailable for comment.

mr_a: I think the US would be a better place if we all stopped looking around for things to get ticked off about.

If you don't celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, FSM day, Hanukkah, or Groundhog Day, fine, then don't celebrate it. But is the world somehow a worse place if others do?

Yes, the world--or the country anyway--is in fact a worse place when government officials feel that they do not need to follow the First Amendment.

mr_a: If you don't celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, FSM day, Hanukkah, or Groundhog Day, fine, then don't celebrate it. But is the world somehow a worse place if others do?

No, but the world becomes a worse place when the majority manufactures a persecution complex over shiat like this.

There are TWO birth stories of Jesus in the New Testament. Matthew and Luke. The TFA assumes there is only 1 Christmas story. (If you count the cosmogenesis in John, there are 3 different ones, even.) Why are they reading Luke and not Matthew? If the city's official Yuletide Celebration is about the birth of Jesus, then its clearly not legal. If its about "Christmas trees...Santa Claus...elves and reindeer" then its fine. You don't get to have it both ways. Thankfully, this is not Saudi Arabia. You can have your religion, or you have have State sanction. Not both.

I don't know, it is legal to have religious stories read by public officials? Because that seems like government endorsing a religion, which is expressly illegal.

Another victory for the War on Christmas! *HIGHFIVE*

GAT_00: I don't know, it is legal to have religious stories read by public officials? Because that seems like government endorsing a religion, which is expressly illegal.

Unfortunately, that line is getting blurrier and blurrier it seems.

FTFA:

It has been a part of Maryville's holiday traditions for nearly a quarter of a century, but Monday night the Bible was removed from their Christmas celebration.

One complaint changed the local ceremony, with the long-time argument of separating Church and State.

a whole 22 years? really? that's a helluva "tradition" you've got there, pal. and that pesky "argument' is a farking constitutional amendment, you stupid "journalist."

worship in your own way in your own home or in a church or other private place - BUT DON'T F*CKING READ A RELIGIOUS TEXT AS PART OF A MUNICIPAL CEREMONY, you stupid farks!

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

Reading a Christmas story at a town party doesn't seem to establish a religion, particularly as it's not mandated that all residents attend the party. But, it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

Before Picture Model: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Reading a Christmas story at a town party doesn't seem to establish a religion, particularly as it's not mandated that all residents attend the party. But, not allowing it it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

/ftfm

JerseyTim: Another victory for the War on Christmas! *HIGHFIVE*

FlashHarry: FTFA:

It has been a part of Maryville's holiday traditions for nearly a quarter of a century, but Monday night the Bible was removed from their Christmas celebration.

One complaint changed the local ceremony, with the long-time argument of separating Church and State.

a whole 22 years? really? that's a helluva "tradition" you've got there, pal. and that pesky "argument' is a farking constitutional amendment, you stupid "journalist."

worship in your own way in your own home or in a church or other private place - BUT DON'T F*CKING READ A RELIGIOUS TEXT AS PART OF A MUNICIPAL CEREMONY, you stupid farks!

Tradition worked well as an argument for Justice Breyer in allowing a 10 Commandments display in Texas but not Kentucky.

Before Picture Model: Reading a Christmas story at a town party doesn't seem to establish a religion, particularly as it's not mandated that all residents attend the party. But, it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

If the President closed an official speech with, "Go Steelers!" would you not interpret that as he - and by extension the country - showing an endorsement of one NFL team? How do you think the fans of the other 31 teams would feel? Do you think that they would feel they could get a fair shake? Do you think they might feel that even if they weren't treated badly, they might not get shown the same favoritism as Steelers fans would? What if they were rabid Browns fans? Do you think that would garner good well and a general sense of happiness with most of the populace?

Even if you don't think it's a First Amendment violation, it's a bad idea. *Especially* in this day and age when they should know better. In fact, I would say that 50 or 60 years ago, it *was* probably just harmless tradition. Nowadays, knowing that it will likely not be well received, I think that more and more often it is done maliciously.

Gecko Gingrich: Even if you don't think it's a First Amendment violation, it's a bad idea. *Especially* in this day and age when they should know better. In fact, I would say that 50 or 60 years ago, it *was* probably just harmless tradition. Nowadays, knowing that it will likely not be well received, I think that more and more often it is done maliciously.

Any hope for the Establishment Clauses' continued vitality was extinguished when Souter stepped down. I think our best hope now is Stevens, and he's not gonna last much longer.

Gecko Gingrich: mosta good chunk of the populace

Edit before the, "B-b-b-but, most Americans identify as Steelers fans!"

Before Picture Model: Reading a Christmas story at a town party doesn't seem to establish a religion, particularly as it's not mandated that all residents attend the party. But, it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

Well, it is a government official reading at an official event the sanction of a religious ceremony. One religion. How does that not contradict the NO religion part Freedom of Religion? It is establishing one religion at an official ceremony. Strictly no go.

Gecko Gingrich: Before Picture Model: Reading a Christmas story at a town party doesn't seem to establish a religion, particularly as it's not mandated that all residents attend the party. But, it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

If the President closed an official speech with, "Go Steelers!" would you not interpret that as he - and by extension the country - showing an endorsement of one NFL team? How do you think the fans of the other 31 teams would feel? Do you think that they would feel they could get a fair shake? Do you think they might feel that even if they weren't treated badly, they might not get shown the same favoritism as Steelers fans would? What if they were rabid Browns fans? Do you think that would garner good well and a general sense of happiness with most of the populace?

Even if you don't think it's a First Amendment violation, it's a bad idea. *Especially* in this day and age when they should know better. In fact, I would say that 50 or 60 years ago, it *was* probably just harmless tradition. Nowadays, knowing that it will likely not be well received, I think that more and more often it is done maliciously.

No, if he rooted for the Steelers I'd think he had deplorable taste in teams, but not that the nation endorsed them in any official capacity. Then again, I'm secure enough in my beliefs to not be threatened by someone else's, especially as there are protections in place assuring that I am not compelled to adhere to them.

As far as it being a bad idea "especially in this day and age", isn't that kinda what the problem is to begin with? As posted earlier, we, as individuals and as a collective, need to stop getting our panties in a twist over stupid things like this.

I'm not a Christian, but again, I'm not threatened by their faith. And how funny would it be if the last sentence of the Bible was supposed to be the same last sentence in Illusions by Richard Bach:
"Everything in this book may be wrong"

Before Picture Model: But, it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

Does it?

FTA: But, one Maryville resident told Volunteer TV there were a lot of people that decided not to attend this year, because of the change.

They could have brought their own Bibles and read them out loud. There has never been any question about that. They freely exercised not to. Free exercise indeed. If you only go to a public ceremony because the State privileges your specific tradition, that's not a sincerely held-belief anyway.

/Pagan
/Loves Solstice and Christmas

GAT_00: Before Picture Model: Reading a Christmas story at a town party doesn't seem to establish a religion, particularly as it's not mandated that all residents attend the party. But, it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

Well, it is a government official reading at an official event the sanction of a religious ceremony. One religion. How does that not contradict the NO religion part Freedom of Religion? It is establishing one religion at an official ceremony. Strictly no go.

My understanding is to "establish a religion" would mean it would be mandatory for all citizens to abide by it. This isn't the case in this instance. Also, it's not a government official doing the reading, it's the "master of ceremonies" according the article.

Before Picture Model: My understanding

You don't quite understand scope and precedence, do you? It's a city ceremony, and they're reading from a Bible. Big no no. This is an official religious ceremony held by the government. How do you not see that this is blatantly against the Constitution?

Before Picture Model: Then again, I'm secure enough in my beliefs to not be threatened by someone else's, especially as there are protections in place assuring that I am not compelled to adhere to them.

As am I.

I, and you, are neither everyone nor the official spokesperson for them.

Before Picture Model: As far as it being a bad idea "especially in this day and age", isn't that kinda what the problem is to begin with? As posted earlier, we, as individuals and as a collective, need to stop getting our panties in a twist over stupid things like this.

The problem with illegal traditions is, you gotta adhere to the law when called out on them. They're fine as long as no one complains, but as soon as someone does - and they have the law on their side - you have to stop.

You and all your neighbors may have a decades old tradition of lighting off fireworks until 3AM July 5th. But, when the new guys moves into the neighborhood and asks you to stop. You gotta stop.

I'd argue that we, as individuals and as a collective, need to realize we don't live in a bubble. As such, we need to consider the consequences of our actions upon *everyone* around us.

Before Picture Model: I'm not a Christian, but again, I'm not threatened by their faith. And how funny would it be if the last sentence of the Bible was supposed to be the same last sentence in Illusions by Richard Bach:
"Everything in this book may be wrong"

James Madison, who fought hard for the Establishment Clause, reasoned that the need for the "wall of separation between church and state" was necessary since "that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free"

They were concerned that at the time of this countries founding, a lot of the various sectarian conflicts that people fled Europe to avoid were becoming entrenched in colonial society, most noticably by the Anglican Cavaliers in VA who would hold trials at their churches.

Ironically, the First Amendment became a rallying cry by the states to avoid having the Federal Government, early on heavily influenced by Virginians, from imposing their religion on the other states which were heavily Quaker, Protestant, and Puritan.

Eventually there was a move to force a State-level first amendment through the failed Blaine Amendment, but until the 1st Amendment was incorporated in the early 20th century, there really was no such protection. I think Massachusetts still had an established church through the mid 1800s.

The best years for secularism ran from the 1940s through the late 80s/early 90s. Since then, the Establishment Clause has been largely rendered toothless and the Free Exercise Clause has almost been eradicated and made a legislative issue, just like Scalia wants it.

Before Picture Model: My understanding is to "establish a religion" would mean it would be mandatory for all citizens to abide by it. This isn't the case in this instance. Also, it's not a government official doing the reading, it's the "master of ceremonies" according the article.

The proper understanding is that the government establishes a religion when it either aids or hinders it. It doesn't have to say "ok, you all have to be Protestants", all it has to do is say "everyone has to go to church" or have your school board write up a "non sectarian, theistic prayer" for students to say in public schools.

Manger scenes arne't permitted unless they're part of a commercial display really, which is sort of weird since it's borderline commercial speech.

Before Picture Model: My understanding is to "establish a religion" would mean it would be mandatory for all citizens to abide by it. This isn't the case in this instance. Also, it's not a government official doing the reading, it's the "master of ceremonies" according the article.

A government can establish a religion by proxy, of sorts, without establishing it by writ. Say you have a small town led by a mayor, a city council comprised of three people, a police chief and a judge. Those six people also are very vocal snake handler type Pentecostals. They all belong to the same church. No "official" religion is established, but would you want to be a Jew in that town?

mr_a: I think the US would be a better place if we all stopped looking around for things to get ticked off about.

If you don't celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, FSM day, Hanukkah, or Groundhog Day, fine, then don't celebrate it. But is the world somehow a worse place if others do?

People celebrating a holiday: Cool

City government celebrating a religious holiday (and thereby respecting an establishment of religion by law): Unconstitutional

/Atheist
//Celebrates Christmas

It amazes me that people get butthurt over this crap. Maybe it's just me, but even though I'm not a christian I don't give a shiat about someone wishing me a Merry Christmas because honestly I have bigger fish to fry than that. Seriously, if a tree in a public square or a person saying Merry Christmas is your biggest worry in your life then shut the hell up and thank your god for having a life that's pretty damn sweet.

/unemployed and pretty pissed off at people who biatch about crap like this

I want to get elected Mayor somewhere, just so I can use my official podium to tell the story of the night the Koran was revealed to Muhammad.


/Atheist

eddyatwork: It amazes me that people get butthurt over this crap. Maybe it's just me, but even though I'm not a christian I don't give a shiat about someone wishing me a Merry Christmas because honestly I have bigger fish to fry than that. Seriously, if a tree in a public square or a person saying Merry Christmas is your biggest worry in your life then shut the hell up and thank your god for having a life that's pretty damn sweet.

[rereads article]
[rereads headline]
[rereads thread]
[rereads above comment]
[is confused]

Gecko Gingrich: If the President closed an official speech with, "Go Steelers!" would you not interpret that as he - and by extension the country - showing an endorsement of one NFL team? How do you think the fans of the other 31 teams would feel?

I don't like football and I resent people trying to shove it in my face. I especially dislike Lombardi's Witnesses banging on my door on Saturday morning before the single malt has had a chance to work it's way out of my system.

Now that's the fark CHRISTMAS spirit that warms my heart.

Before Picture Model: Before Picture Model: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Reading a Christmas story at a town party doesn't seem to establish a religion, particularly as it's not mandated that all residents attend the party. But, not allowing it it does seem to prohibit the free exercise part, doesn't it?

/ftfm


I can't see how.

If the city officials said "citizens may not go to church," that would be prohibiting free exercise, and I (for one) would be completely outraged.

But city officials saying "Oh- we're not going to read a specific text" doesn't prevent any citizens from exercising their faith, as far as I can tell. It just refrains from giving official support to one specific denomination.

How is that bad?

As long as we don't have a war on non-Whitey religions, like Tibetan Buddhism or something.

/I HATE WHITEY!

eddyatwork: It amazes me that people get butthurt over this crap. Maybe it's just me, but even though I'm not a christian I don't give a shiat about someone wishing me a Merry Christmas because honestly I have bigger fish to fry than that. Seriously, if a tree in a public square or a person saying Merry Christmas is your biggest worry in your life then shut the hell up and thank your god for having a life that's pretty damn sweet.

/unemployed and pretty pissed off at people who biatch about crap like this

The stupid. Does it ever burn?

The clergy must have really been efficient with molesting its younger members to have so many atheist/anti Christmas people around.

To you idiots that say that there is no war on Christmas, there definitely is one. I am not a practicing Jesus Freak, nor an atheist. I just sit on the sidelines and observe and their does seem to be one.

/I still put up a christmas tree and lights mostly because I like shiny colorful things.

My God is an awesome God. How awesome is He? So awesome that, um, well, so awesome that He can't maintain a following without government support.

Is it safe?

Annual reading of the Christmas Story cancelled?



/...dge

Earl of Chives

The stupid. Does it ever burn?

You tell us, does it get in your eyes often?

mr_a: I think the US would be a better place if we all stopped looking around for things to get ticked off about.

If you don't celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, FSM day, Hanukkah, or Groundhog Day, fine, then don't celebrate it. But is the world somehow a worse place if others do?

so why did you look for this story to get ticked at?

MesaMike85: To you idiots that say that there is no war on Christmas, there definitely is one. I am not a practicing Jesus Freak, nor an atheist. I just sit on the sidelines and observe and their does seem to be one.

Oh, well your not even anecdotal evidence has convinced me...


/seriously?

El Chode: Before Picture Model: I'm not a Christian, but again, I'm not threatened by their faith. And how funny would it be if the last sentence of the Bible was supposed to be the same last sentence in Illusions by Richard Bach:
"Everything in this book may be wrong"

James Madison, who fought hard for the Establishment Clause, reasoned that the need for the "wall of separation between church and state" was necessary since "that the best interest of a society required that the minds of men always be wholly free"

They were concerned that at the time of this countries founding, a lot of the various sectarian conflicts that people fled Europe to avoid were becoming entrenched in colonial society, most noticably by the Anglican Cavaliers in VA who would hold trials at their churches.

Ironically, the First Amendment became a rallying cry by the states to avoid having the Federal Government, early on heavily influenced by Virginians, from imposing their religion on the other states which were heavily Quaker, Protestant, and Puritan.

Eventually there was a move to force a State-level first amendment through the failed Blaine Amendment, but until the 1st Amendment was incorporated in the early 20th century, there really was no such protection. I think Massachusetts still had an established church through the mid 1800s.

The best years for secularism ran from the 1940s through the late 80s/early 90s. Since then, the Establishment Clause has been largely rendered toothless and the Free Exercise Clause has almost been eradicated and made a legislative issue, just like Scalia wants it.

Hey...I've seen these somewhere before

Man On Pink Corner: My God is an awesome God. How awesome is He? So awesome that, um, well, so awesome that He can't maintain a following without government support.

If only someone could invent a place where people could go and communicate with their magical sky person without disturbing others.

Abstruse: City government celebrating a religious holiday (and thereby respecting an establishment of religion by law): Unconstitutional

Erm, the University of Oregon had Yom Kippur off this year and stated it was because of the religious observance. Hypocrisy ftw.

Bolded is something that I don't get. There is nothing wrong with respecting any religion since places of worship qualify as nonprofits. How is respecting something unconstitutional?

Somacandra: There are TWO birth stories of Jesus in the New Testament. Matthew and Luke. The TFA assumes there is only 1 Christmas story. (If you count the cosmogenesis in John, there are 3 different ones, even.) Why are they reading Luke and not Matthew? If the city's official Yuletide Celebration is about the birth of Jesus, then its clearly not legal. If its about "Christmas trees...Santa Claus...elves and reindeer" then its fine. You don't get to have it both ways. Thankfully, this is not Saudi Arabia. You can have your religion, or you have have State sanction. Not both.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

The people participating have the right to exercise their beliefs. Working for the city, state, whatever does not remove your rights to participate in religious expression. People don't seem to understand that.

Cyberluddite: mr_a: I think the US would be a better place if we all stopped looking around for things to get ticked off about.

If you don't celebrate Christmas, Ramadan, Kwanzaa, FSM day, Hanukkah, or Groundhog Day, fine, then don't celebrate it. But is the world somehow a worse place if others do?

Yes, the world--or the country anyway--is in fact a worse place when government officials feel that they do not need to follow the First Amendment.

Exactly what part of the first amendment are they not following?

Abstruse:

Okay, I got the context with Mija's post. Anyhoo, I wish we celebrated more religious holidays, personally, just 'cos I like days off. I wasn't trying to troll or anything!

GAT_00: I don't know, it is legal to have religious stories read by public officials? Because that seems like government endorsing a religion, which is expressly illegal.

I guess maybe if you're high it does.