Pray for Mercy.

ThatDevGuy: That's what you get for being in the majority, buddy.

True, most people do wait until the last minute to take care of their Christmas affairs.

"Freedom of speech" does not guarantee the government provides you a forum for your speech, it merely means that you (in theory) cannot be arrested for speaking your opinions.

It's a judeo christian civilization we live in, learn to farking deal with it.

Men who file lawsuits like this have extremely small penises.

BlindMan

It's a judeo christian civilization we live in, learn to farking deal with it.

Why did you have to troll like that so early and spoil things?

Am I the only one who gets the South Park "Antonio Banderas" blow up doll reference?

Just call it a god damn Christmas tree. Even if you are not Christian the tree represents Christmas. I don't see them calling the Menorah the "Holiday Candle Stick holder"

/not Christian but it still pisses me off.

What an asshat.

Another case of an asshat having too much free time on hands whining for attention.

I think his free speech was violated. Why the baby Jesus hate?

So a creche is a religious symbol but a menorah isn't? Just checking.

meekychuppet

How is he trolling, he is making a rational point that every Farker loves to quote about how the Christians/Jews are the majority.

Where can I get that blow-up doll?

koniver: Just call it a god damn Christmas tree.

But it's not a "Christmas" tree. It's a holiday tree. They were around before Christmas. It's a Saturnalia tree. That's what it should be called. The tree has nothing to do with Jesus being born (just like December 25th, actually.)

/but I digress.

MBA Whore

Two words for you: realistic genitalia.

koniver

Because the statement is bollocks.

leave all religion out of politics.

Christmas is in fact a Christian holiday. Lots of religions celebrate holidays, and most of the time everyone is free to participate. I went to a friends house a few years back as part of his menorah lighting, and I will be visiting with a friend this weekend as part of their celebrating the feast of eid, whatever it is exactly. They are free to celebrate their respective holidays as they wish. That's how America is supposed to work, and we do a half decent job of it.

Christians have all the rights as Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, and everyone else I didn't mention. I don't find a Christmas tree (referred to as such) a big problem. This doesn't have to be exclusionary or mean.

What's wrong with you people?

MBA Whore: Nope. Not at all.

Anything backed by the Alliance Defense Fund (aka, Lawyers for the XTian Taliban) is immediately suspect.

lionfish

koniver: Just call it a god damn Christmas tree.

But it's not a "Christmas" tree. It's a holiday tree. They were around before Christmas. It's a Saturnalia tree. That's what it should be called. The tree has nothing to do with Jesus being born (just like December 25th, actually.)

/but I digress.

But it's not a pagan tree either because trees were around long before pagans, and cakes were around long before birthdays so they aren't birthday cakes.

Because symbolism is an intrinsic part of physical objects and not one we create and change through language and cultural discourse.

GoldSpider: So a creche is a religious symbol but a menorah isn't? Just checking.

Yep. Only Christians have religious symbols, which violate the First Amendment. Other religions have symbols of diversity which we tolerate and value in our enlightened society.

fireclown

FOTR farkS SAKE IT'S SATURNALIA.

Better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Realtors are almost always unethical, useless, scum sucking leeches.

And that includes Ron Wesselius of Tumwater.

.

We should start a movement to get all religions represented on public land. Only then will the majority religions see why it's in their best interest to stay the fark off public land. Nobody is suppressing the right to express your religion. Do it all you want on your land, on your time.

As a devout pastafarian, I am gonna sue them unless they allow me to place a plate of spaghetti and meatballs between the holiday tree and the menorah.

lionfish: But it's not a "Christmas" tree. It's a holiday tree. They were around before Christmas. It's a Saturnalia tree. That's what it should be called. The tree has nothing to do with Jesus being born (just like December 25th, actually.)

When I put MINE up, it's a Christmas tree. Celebrating the birth of Jesus. As an actual religious participant, I claim gravitas over your sophomore philosophy student angst. If when my eye-talian friend Mark puts his up it's a Saturalia tree, then his is a Saturnalia tree.

lionfish: It's a Saturnalia tree.

Were the Romans into trees? I thought the tree bits were from the Germanic pagans, whereas timing came from the Romans.

It's a shame the guy's an asshat. If the government HAD put up a Menorah but not a Christian display, he'd have a legitimate case.

But waiting until the last minute and then saying, "put this up RIGHT NOW without talking about it or I sue?"

Giant douchebag.

fireclown

When I put MINE up, it's a Christmas tree. Celebrating the birth of Jesus. As an actual religious participant, I claim gravitas over your sophomore philosophy student angst. If when my eye-talian friend Mark puts his up it's a Saturalia tree, then his is a Saturnalia tree.

As a taxpayer he's got you over a barrel ready to be buttfarked. PUBLIC LAND.

meekychuppet: FOTR farkS SAKE IT'S SATURNALIA.

You too. And fix your cap lock key.

fireclown

Caps were intentional. Typo not so much.

WizardX


But waiting until the last minute and then saying, "put this up RIGHT NOW without talking about it or I sue?"

Yup


Make note of what you feel needs to be corrected, offer to sponser those items NEXT year.

This doesn't surprise me.

What surprises me is that there are still people out there who believe the apostles actually wrote the gospels.

meekychuppet: As a taxpayer he's got you over a barrel ready to be buttfarked. PUBLIC LAND.

Then I demand he take down the Menorah, AND the Bandaras doll. And stop with the Holiday trees, because that is sort of insulting.

The menorah is abstract. A creche, much less so.

If the menorah had candles that looked like circumsized penises, it wouldn't be allowed.

fireclown: When I put MINE up, it's a Christmas tree. Celebrating the birth of Jesus. As an actual religious participant, I claim gravitas over your sophomore philosophy student angst. If when my eye-talian friend Mark puts his up it's a Saturalia tree, then his is a Saturnalia tree.

And how, exactly does your tree signify the birth of christ?
You put it up because its a Saturnalia tradition, plain and simple.

ChairmanKaga: Make note of what you feel needs to be corrected, offer to sponser those items NEXT year.

If there was, in any way, a rational request, the Alliance Defense Fund would not be involved.

fireclown: When I put MINE up, it's a Christmas tree. Celebrating the birth of Jesus. As an actual religious participant, I claim gravitas over your sophomore philosophy student angst.

So it's ok to appropriate symbols with a long history for your own purposes and demand others respect them?

Awesome!

You're gonna love my Halloween "tortured hippie on a cross" display on my front lawn.

See, as an actual non-religious participant, I claim gravitas over your sophomore fundamentalist student angst.

fireclown: Then I demand he take down the Menorah, AND the Bandaras doll. And stop with the Holiday trees, because that is sort of insulting.

I completely agree, we should leave religious expressions to the churches and private citizens. That was the whole intention behind the establishment clause/separation of C&S in the first place. When Government and Religion mingle, they just end up farking each other up. They should each keep to their own and both sides would be happier.

I find that, more often than not, people who support the intermingling of government and faith only support the mingling of government and *their* faith.

fireclown

Then I demand he take down the Menorah, AND the Bandaras doll. And stop with the Holiday trees, because that is sort of insulting.

You have the right to do so.

How many wrings make a right BTW?

Wrongs.

>>And how, exactly does your tree signify the birth of christ?

With repetition, anything can represent anything. I fully buy his argument that his is a Christmas tree.

So is mine, even though I'm an atheist. I don't put it up for Saturnalia, I put it up for Christmas (or, more specifically, I put it up as a place for the Christmas presents that my family of atheists give each other every year).

There's a difference between an origin and a reason. The origin may be one thing, but the reason we do it now may be something else.

Same Rabbi in the Xmastree vs Menorah contest at Seatac involved with WA state capitol display. I wonder if he's gonna sue?
I knew Christine G. should have had her Rabbi Vaccine updated.

MrToast: There's a difference between an origin and a reason.

So, as an Atheist, you'd rather say you have a Christ-mass tree in your living room than give a nod to the true purpose and origin of the tree/gift giving thing? Why give Christians the credit? They just piggy backed an already existing holiday. If Christ's birthday is so important why not celebrate it when it actually happened?

I understand the argument that he didn't get his proposition in time to allow debate and being dismissed for that reason. I understand the Menorah was proposed early in the year... but what was the reasoning and debate that decided that the Menorah was ok without automatically allowing any, if not ALL, other religious displays at any time of the year.

2006-12-29 11:53:19 AM Zaphod42

We should start a movement to get all religions represented on public land. Only then will the majority religions see why it's in their best interest to stay the fark off public land. Nobody is suppressing the right to express your religion. Do it all you want on your land, on your time.

I find this idea to be grand. I like the cut of your jib.¹

A 40 x 40 foot square somewhere in a small town. All displays must be under 5 feet tall and set a limit on square footage occupied. If the entire ground area is taken, start stacking the new ones on top. No repositioning of displays, they come in the order they were requested and received.


_{1) as relating to this specific post. You might be a complete turd otherwise, and I cannot go research all of that in advance!}

>>MrToast what you're claiming however is that there can be no altering of the symbolism, while simultaneously noting that the symbolism was altered. This represents it in no way except because of tradition, but tradition alone is not realistically a good reason to continue anything.

I'm not claiming anything of he sort. Obviously, the tree was co-opted. My argument is that with repetition, anything can stand for anything. I also would argue that the same tree can mean one thing to someone and another thing to someone else. To me it's a Christmas tree. In my life, it always has been. To you, it may be something else.

It's ludicrous to tell someone that put up a Christmas tree that it's not a Christmas tree. If it was put up as a Christmas tree, obviously that's what it is.

>>So, as an Atheist, you'd rather say you have a Christ-mass tree in your living room than give a nod to the true purpose and origin of the tree/gift giving thing? Why give Christians the credit? They just piggy backed an already existing holiday.

Yes. I'd rather say it's a Christmas tree. For 43 years, that's what it's been. Why would I decide all of the sudden that it's not? I know its origin, but I don't give a damn about that when I put it up. I put it up as a Christmas-present-locating-device known as a "Christmas tree."

>> If Christ's birthday is so important why not celebrate it when it actually happened?

Because I don't give a damned about his birthday? All I care about is the nationally-recognized holiday where we have a good family time and exchange gifts. Where I get to see the kids' faces light up with thrill and excitement.

Man, I always thought this whole war on Christmas crap was just a bunch of media tomfoolery... But, do people - REAL, live people - actually call it a "Holiday Tree"...

I'm sorry, but does ANYONE do this?

I'm serious. Please tell me if you do it/you've met someone who does it. Furthermore, has anyone actually ever met another person who was offended by "Christmas"? The two Muslims and one Jewish person I work with don't give a rat's ass about it... In fact, just the opposite, they don't see how anyone could make the case that the huge majority of the population shouldn't be able to celebrate something that really doesn't have any negative effects on people (except, possibly, some wallets). It's not like Christmas suddenly results in some form of discrimination against another people, unless you consider people being happy and shopping a lot a form of discrimination.

stebain - good point, but we don't know the full history of what was proposed and decided prior to the late entry. That could be interesting.

I tend to think along the lines of menorah = nativity scene and draedel = christmas (holiday) tree. I know opinions vary.

My last job had a menorah and a Christmas tree which was called the holiday tree. So I went with Koniver and called the menorah a "holiday season candlestick holder." Holiday tree, what a pile of crap.

Dachande18
You don't grasp the reality of the topic. There's not much in telling someone else they cannot celebrate their religious event/holiday. The discomfort comes in the government endorsing a religion.

This time of year I say Merry Christmas as much as possible to anybody, anywhere. And I mean it in the very best of intention as Christmas to me is about the Prince of Peace and all the goodwill of humankind. It's all love here brothers and sisters.

In return, when someone says to me Shalom or namaste or Happy Kwanza or Inshalla or peace bro' or blessed-be (the local Wicca thing) I take it in with the love and good will intended, with deep appreciation.

Vangor
The Menorah is a religious icon (phrasing might be better), is it not?
What discussion would approve one icon and not already consider the possibility of further religious iconography?

meekychuppet: FOTR farkS SAKE IT'S SATURNALIA.

So, let's all sing "The Saturnalia Song"!

(sung to the tune of "Home For the Holidays")

Oh, there's nothing like Rome's Saturnalia!
How they partied in the old Imperium,
Drinking wine like they were in a Bacchanalia,
And they'd wind up in the Vomiturium!

I've seen a Citizen do things with slaves they'd never do at home,
And while I can't get too specific,
Man, the orgies are terrific!

Yes, there's nothing like Rome's Saturnalia,
`Cause if you're a man, you're master of your home!
And your word there is the law: Paterfamilias!
Saturnalia! There's just no place like Rome!

Vangor - how can you weigh any symbol to be "symbolic to all citizens" or not?

I feel public display of religious themes are not endorsements of a public religion, especially if all applicants are allowed. This is blind to the amount of followers, believers or even recognizers of the symbols.

I know many interpret the "establishment clause" as separation of church and state. The ACLU and others really go after this slippery slope and in many court cases have drawn the line to purge religious mention from public property.

Frankly, I cannot find this line. "In God We Trust?" The Pledge of Allegiance? The Ten Commandments in the courthouse lobby? The secular belief in the environment and all things green?

Vangor - I agree that if a menorah is cool so should a nativity scene. I am not sure in this case there was honestly enough time to act on the request. Next year we'll see.

Again, I say, to me, menorah = nativity scene and draedel = christmas (holiday) tree.

Holiday tree = cheap copout. Be a Christian, say it loud and say it proud!

ChicoEscuela: The ACLU and others really go after this slippery slope and in many court cases have drawn the line to purge religious mention from public property.

Shenanagins.

Cite a case where that's actually happened.

I got a buck that says you can't.

Anyone else want a piece of the action?

The secular belief in the environment and all things green?

The religious do not believe that the environment and green things exist?

Who knew?

Okay, to be fair, if they allowed a Menorah, they should have allowed the nativity scene. I don't really think either one belongs in a state building, but I could deal with it if everyone had equal opportunity for expression. Of course, they would also at that point have had to allow for decorations for Tet, Ramadan and whatever else. If you're going to include anyone you have to include everyone.

The "holiday tree" is such a mixed-up, multireligious symbol that I more or less just consider it a secular decoration. People can put up Christmas trees wherever the hell they want. I like 'em.

lionfish

But it's not a "Christmas" tree. It's a holiday tree. They were around before Christmas. It's a Saturnalia tree. That's what it should be called. The tree has nothing to do with Jesus being born (just like December 25th, actually.)

That's why I call the holy land Israel and not Palestine. :)

shadesofblack
If you're going to include anyone you have to include everyone.

Exaaactly! And that's why it is best to keep government out of the business of religion with no exception. That's why the tree should be proudly displayed (Be a Christian, say it loud and say it proud!) on YOUR property!

Hello Deucednuisance, Seasons Greetings

1. Two citings - the courthouse in Alabama and the Mt. Davidson Cross in San Francisco. The former was removed, and the latter the public property the cross was sitting on was sold to private land (Greek Orthodox if I recall correctly). Even then there was a lawsuit over the land deal (someone wanted to buy it and tear it down). If it has stayed on public land it would have been razed.

2. That was my jab at how many tend to prick at religion as being old and too dogmatic and The Cause of All Things Wrong in the World, but then in their oh so secular ways have every biy as much dogma and "religion" in their defined and shared views and morals. The green view is not exclusive, of course, I agree with you, but to me I think many environmentalists, for example, are categorically "religious."

MrToast
The menorah is abstract. A creche, much less so.

Just wanted to repeat that. What most christians don't understand is that Hanukkah does not mean shiat to Jews. If there were a mini-diorama of the Angel of Death slaying all the first borns of the Egyptians at Passover, then I would say you had a viable comparison. But honestly, a menorah's just a candle holder, there's no infant god there.

/Infant part of god?
//never could figure out the whole trinity thing

stebain
You don't grasp the reality of the topic. There's not much in telling someone else they cannot celebrate their religious event/holiday. The discomfort comes in the government endorsing a religion.

First off, I was asking outside the terms of just the government issue on purpose, not failing to grasp the so-called "reality of the topic". Maybe these discussions were already had last year or something, but I obviously missed the boat. I wanted to know if there was an actual, widely held societal support for the downgrading of "Christmas" to "Holidays", because I just don't see it happening around me - I only hear about it.

However, ON the topic of the government, I agree with what you've already stated in the thread. No one religious symbol can be accepted without immediately allowing for any and all others. Just the fact that there is a "menorah" beside a "holiday tree" is a contradiction. Either it should be a "menorah beside a Christmas tree", or a "festive candlestick holder beside a holiday tree". They should at least be consistent in their debauchery.

People! He waited till three days before Chrismas to demand a vague nativity scene be put up in a public space to a buracracy. If this was denied the same time the menorah was approved (the rabbis did follow procedure), I'd be on this guys side and I'm an atheist.
This asshat waited THREE DAYS before Chrismas.

We could solve the Christmas tree debate if Jehovah/YHWH/God said in his book that he hated trees that were cut and nailed in place then decorated in silver and gold.

/Wait...
//What?!?

MrToast: Because I don't give a damned about his birthday? All I care about is the nationally-recognized holiday where we have a good family time and exchange gifts. Where I get to see the kids' faces light up with thrill and excitement.

You missed my point. That part wasn't directed at you directly. I realize it's easier to call it christmas. Thanks to commercialism.

All these christmas fundies that want "christmas" to inlcude a nativity scene are wrong. They don't win to me. It's not "jesus' birthday" and wont ever be. They should change the name back is all Im saying.

It'd be like if the church went
"we think jesus broke the bread and fish on october 31st, so "Halloween" is out. You are to have fish and bread that day from now on." and everyone does. only with candy fish and bread.

I_Can't_Believe_it's_not_Boutros: Instead of crying, he should be getting the process underway for next year.

I can at least agree with that.

Vangor: fireclown what symbolism does it offer besides the fact that it is used for Christmas now?

Because that is the symbolism assigned to it by the Christian community.

ChicoEscuela: 1. Two citings - the courthouse in Alabama and the Mt. Davidson Cross in San Francisco.

Neither supports your contention that the rulings

purge religious mention from public property.

Particularly egregious individual objects were removed.

Folks may mention religion all they like.

I trust you can see the difference.

And in the Alabama courthouse case, the content was not only historically incorrect, leading to conclusion that the justices in the building don't know the law, but it was prejudicial (in the legal sense) to non-christians.

It had to go.

You may recall that Barrow County, itself, was one of the parties asking the higher court to remove the statue, so that was hardly the ACLU acting on its own.

What the ACLU does it petition courts to remove objects that act as endorsements of a particular religion by government.

One wonders why governments can't wrap their heads around this simple concept.

You can mention religion all you like.

I'm sure Grace is said by many in the lunchroom in the Alabama courthouse.

As far as the cross was concerned, the courts rightly determined that the land transfer attempt was a transparent dodge by the parties involved.

Now, how about you get me citations for the ACLU supporting individual religious expression in the face of governmental suppression?

They do that, too, you know.

A lot more that they ask courts to take down displays on state property.

I simply do not understand the "ACLU is de debbil" types.

ChicoEscuela: their oh so secular ways have every biy as much dogma and "religion" in their defined and shared views and morals.

Bullshiat. I'm sorry, but that is the only word for that.

A lot of folks want this to be so, but it is utter and unmitigated bullshiat.

Faulty rhetoric, on its face, too. "Just as much"? Not hardly, despite an ubundance of idiots on the left side of the aisle.

Vangor - good points, you make this a better thread.

If you tend to follow the ACLU then the significance towards "enough of the public's observances" is lost. That is of no concern to those who seek 'separation' by complete exclusion. So, then, the line becomes "everybody out of the pool" and NO religious symbols on/in public life. Find it, get rid of it. This cowers goverment into avoiding lawsuits by pulling questioned material when a vocal minority challenges them.

This line, to me, is too far and not equally applied.

I tend to see it as "it's a big pool, everybody who wants in come on in" and I do not see this as Government promoting religion at all. Religious symbols, observances and such can be held on public land.

I think the Founding Fathers spoke more of a time when religions were prosecuted as law of the state. We're nowhere near that by putting up menorahs and crosses as long as we say yes to one then yes to all.

I do, too, know how to spell "abundance"!

/Management regrets the error.

Let's turn this on its head:

WHY do certain people want their religious symbol placed on governmental spaces?

What is the intended communication?

(Personally, I think its intended to say "Here Be Christians" or some other blank-filler.)

You guys who argue so for the proposition: Why do you want them erected?

fireclown

When I put MINE up, it's a Christmas tree. Celebrating the birth of Jesus. As an actual religious participant, I claim gravitas over your sophomore philosophy student angst.

I think the bible is pretty clear on the whole "decorating trees" thing. It's a heathen act, and vain.

Jeremiah 10:2-4 (King James Version)

2Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen, and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are dismayed at them.
3For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe.
4They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not.

Deucednuisance - easy, killer, respect bro' :)

Ultimately I am the only one who can fully convey my meaning, so I will try one more time.

First, I tend to agree with you in the machinations of the cases and I also admit overplaying the ACLU. Yes, they do great work and yes, they are sometimes lampooned unfairly as anti-religious. I'll cool my rhetoric there. And to my credit I did say "and others."

When I said "purge religious mention from public property" I included "particularly egregious individual objects" since I see the Cross as a religious symbol and others, as you mention, saw it as an egregious object.

Your point is well made, I get it, thanks, but in my opinion (which you are welcome to agree with or not) the fixation over "separation" is acted upon by removing these symbols and, to me (again, my opinion) indicates an effort to remove religious objects from public space. I don't think that's the best path at times.

As for the cross, the land is still in the hands of the Greek Orthodox church so obviously those who compalined about the back-door deal lost. The CROSS STILL STANDS TODAY!

You can keep your buck because you make good points. I am right from my side, and you from yours. Respect.

The normal supporters of "not having anything on public property" don't seem to be in this thread, maybe because their heads exploded because of this double standard.

Deucednuisance -

It is my opinion that those who claim to be not religious sometimes observe a "religious" way of life with every tradition, more, tenet etc.. At times as much, at times more, at times less.

So, lay off my rhetoric and don't call bullshiate. We disagree, live with it. Be nice.

In fact, your tone notes some defensivness. What gives?

Come hang out in the Bay Area. You will see blind faith, but it ain't a "religion" per se, but I tend to think so. Trust me.

because of this double standard.

What double standard? You've seen my arguments about the Menorah. However wrong I see the reasoning of the decision, the decision wasn't based upon the slighted religion.

So, lay off my rhetoric and don't call bullshiate. We disagree, live with it. Be nice.
You're rhetoric assumes absurd ends and draws argument. "Be nice" or "It's my opinion" are cop outs.

Deucednuisance - funny line with "Here be Christians" and a good question.

It's tough for me to speak for so many folks who want a given school play, public expression, art, parade, holiday observation etc. Perhaps it's a shared expression, a celebration, often part of cultural history. I certainly never take them as a "join us" roll out the missionaries drive.

Can I ask you a similar question -

WHY do certain people want religious symbols removed from governmental spaces?

stebain

because of this double standard.

What double standard? You've seen my arguments about the Menorah. However wrong I see the reasoning of the decision, the decision wasn't based upon the slighted religion.

Isn't the menorah a religious symbol like the Nativity scene?

They shouldn't be allowed on public grounds according to many people on FARK. Where is the outcry that a menorah was there?

Stebain - please go back a few entries.

2006-12-29 01:30:09 PM - Deucednuisance

"Bullshiat. I'm sorry, but that is the only word for that.

A lot of folks want this to be so, but it is utter and unmitigated bullshiat.

Faulty rhetoric, on its face, too. "Just as much"? Not hardly, despite an ubundance of idiots on the left side of the aisle."



I, for one, prefer respectful disagreement and dialogue. Read my notes in this thread. I make my points, I acknowledge and respect others' points. At times maybe you don't agree, maybe you do.

I know this is the Internet and this is Fark but I command a better tone in my dialogue. That's all.

I celebrate X-mas, not Christmas and I only celebrate for the gifts. Not giving but receiving. Also, gives me a reason to drink, just like Easter, St Patrick's Day, Labor Day, and Cinco de Mayo. I am not Christian, Irish or Mexican but that doesn’t stop me from benefiting from their holidays. I think we should all just get drunk, someone; somewhere has to have a holiday I can celebrate.

Can someone tell me when they redacted the first two words from the First Amendment and repealed the Tenth?

Chiggity Chza wins!

Today is the feast day of St. Albert of Gambron, so knock yourself out.

Isn't the menorah a religious symbol like the Nativity scene?

Yes.


They shouldn't be allowed on public grounds according to many people on FARK. Where is the outcry that a menorah was there?


YES! That's what I said... however, the Menorah guy apparently followed some rules about proposing the display.

I disagree with holding the display of either (or any) on govt property, but this guy wasn't booted because he was Christian (at least there is a valid non-Christian based reason given. The reason is defensible). Do you not see that?

Now, I'm against the displays. There are posts saying that neither should be there, do you purposely skim over posts?
2006-12-29 11:47:13 AM GoldSpider
2006-12-29 11:50:02 AM dallashockey69
2006-12-29 11:53:19 AM Zaphod42
2006-12-29 11:53:27 AM TechnoHead
2006-12-29 11:58:41 AM fireclown

for starters.

Score, it's Friday and The feast day of St. Albert of Gambron. I will do the google-fu and find more about what I will be celebrating. Feasting is good, tonight we feast!

ChicoEscuela: It is my opinion that those who claim to be not religious sometimes observe a "religious" way of life with every tradition, more, tenet etc..

Having a way of living is not equivalent to a Way of Life.

Think about it.

I called "bullshiate" above because this is an argument that gets trotted out almost daily on Fark and it is patently false.

Sometimes, one must call a spade a spade, rather than an attractive and successful... Oh, nevermind.

Come hang out in the Bay Area. You will see blind faith, but it ain't a "religion" per se, but I tend to think so. Trust me.

I've been there.

Those types would be an example of the "idiots" I mentioned above.

The anomaly does not define the whole.

WHY do certain people want religious symbols removed from governmental spaces?

Because the Founders, in an Age of Enlightenment, saw the mischief that an entanglement of government and religion causes, and crafted a new system of self-governance, which by its very creation would remove religion from governance.

Pretty basic and intrinsic to the very essence of the nation, despite what a cadre of well financed professional liars repeat this being a "Christian Nation".

How far we have fallen.

I certainly never take them as a "join us" roll out the missionaries drive.

May I submit that you are viewing the issue exactly backwards?

The displays do not say "join us", they say "keep out".

That's the problem.

>>Because the Founders, in an Age of Enlightenment, saw the mischief that an entanglement of government and religion causes, and crafted a new system of self-governance, which by its very creation would remove religion from governance.

I'm all for removing religion from governance, but I'm all for allowing religious symbols on public property. I think people can govern under secular principles even while surrounded by holiday decorations.

Chiggity Chza: Feasting is good, tonight we feast!

Here's a page that has all of the Saints who are Feasted on December 29th.

http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/1229.htm
I imagine the whhole calandar is available.

(Apropos of nothing, St Patrick's in DC is the only Church where I was fired from singing. My offense? I referred to my position a Saturday Mass Cantor as a "gig".)

St. Albert is a good choice for the Saint you wish to commemorate this day. Having founded the Benedictine Order, he is well-remembered by the copious consumption of alcohol.

Drinking Benedictine may be appropriate, but, inasmuch as it is nasty shiate (IMHO) I do think that the potent potable of your choice is an acceptable substitute in the Saint's eyes.

Blessed be St. Albert! Raise him a glass!

Deucednuisance

LOL, cheers.

All I see in the story is some wanker crying because his religion isn't being given special treatment. In other words; same shiat, different day.

Just call it a "war on Christmas" tree and all will be well.

ChicoEscuela

Hello Deucednuisance, Seasons Greetings

1. Two citings - the courthouse in Alabama

You mean the one that (wrongfully) pushed the "This is a Christian Nation built on Christian laws" meme? Yeah, nothing about that display violated the establishment clause.

and the Mt. Davidson Cross in San Francisco.

This has nothing to do with the establishment clause of the United States, but a statute in the California constitution itself.

The former was removed, and the latter the public property the cross was sitting on was sold to private land (Greek Orthodox if I recall correctly). Even then there was a lawsuit over the land deal (someone wanted to buy it and tear it down).

If the deal was struck as underhandedly as the one regarding the San Diego easter cross then the challenge was/is legitimate. That is, unless you are trying to say that the government being underhanded in its dealings with the public is ok as long as it benefits your religion.

ChicoEscuela

What is your position on Scientology, or the unification church?

They should go door to door and remove the offending Christmas trees, burn down all churches (except the Jewish ones, cause they're not Christian), so we can just celebrate Jew Day, Kwanza whatever the fark that is, and whatever religion is politically correct.

Deucednuisance - I was away for a bit.

I don't think we'll agree on the non-religion as religion point, which is fine. I am coming from the point as a moderately religious person amongst many who have disdain to organized faith (in my case, Catholicism) and who are quite vocal about it towards me directly as well as in general statements. We do agree on the idiot thing. But, from my perspective it goes farther in that there are several threads in some of these groups that speak to me no differently than how others' speak and act within their religion. I was not trying to make this 'anomaly' a whole, it is my observation and that is how I see it. Sorry, my view has not budged. It has nothing to do with Fark or other posts or what not.

On the second point I must say I enjoy your writing and your views, and that we are not far off. I think the Founding Fathers enlightened path was closer to law under God but not a law determining specific religious adherance. We were never free from God and yet citizens were allowed their right to pursue their faith freely. That was a HUGE step back then. The entanglement was not in mixing but in not allowing the government to establish, declare, sponsor, enforce or define any one religion as being the religion of the state.

To me it's a degree of severity, perhaps not a small one. And I am sure obviously many rulings, state and fed, have shifted the definition of 'establishement' further than I happen to see it. Fair enough. I just don't think many of these controversies constitute an official establishment of any religion, especially when all others have the same freedoms to do the same. And I also think those who are against milder expressions honestly are not threatened in any way their rights of freedom to express their faiths.

As for the "keep out" I am following you but, I think, then again, would any symbol of any group also convey "in" or "out?" The very definition of "group" means the group has members and does not have members at any given time. How does a symbol keep anyone from their faith or from any other? Restriction is a serious issue, but I don't see it. Did the menorah keep me from doing anything? The manger? How?

The Dynamite Monkey - good question, and cool name

Guess if I am in for a dime, I'm in for a dollar. I don't like my government saying no, so I guess I have to say yes. Unless someone can for tax purposes define what is and is not a church.

Others may think the line is more easily drawn with NO instances of religion ANYWHERE. I think that's too convenient and in the long run prohibits far more than it portends to allow.

But, hey, I'm just a farker...

Murkanen - thanks for the note

There are many more instances of the Ten Commandments being honored as being part of the basis of our Constitution, along with other codes of law etc. Is it safe to assume our Founding Fathers drew upon these as guidelines for our laws? I don't look at this as "Christian nation built on Christian laws."

I can live with the Alabama case being over the top, that fuzzy in-your-face line. But I don't think we can remove all instances, and that's where I was coming from initally. I am not for the mindset that says "look, a perceived religious symbl in public, get rid of it!"

I don't see the difference between California or US Constitutional law in the Mt. Davidson case. The Clifornia law may be less vague but it was either settled in California or it wasn't, pending appeal, but it never went that far because of the land transfer. Despite the challenges over the transfer, the cross still stands.

BTW - there is another cross in Golden Gate Park, near a waterfall near the rose garden, honoring De Anza and the first mass held in 1797 or whenever. Are you cool with this? I am.

Happy New Year (or catch you on this thread later).

Chico

ChicoEscuela

Is it safe to assume our Founding Fathers drew upon these as guidelines for our laws?

Since the laws are based on English common law (not to mention only 3 of the Ten commandments have anything to do with the law), no it isn't a safe assumption.

There are many more instances of the Ten Commandments being honored as being part of the basis of our Constitution, along with other codes of law etc.

That sort of display is very different from having only the ten commandments displayed prominently before a courthouse.

BTW - there is another cross in Golden Gate Park, near a waterfall near the rose garden, honoring De Anza and the first mass held in 1797 or whenever. Are you cool with this? I am.

If the Cross is on private land or they have areas open to any religious display then I'm fine with it since no preferential treatment is being given to a religion by the government. I'm a firm believer in an "All or none" stance, however, since "all" is highly unrealistic "none" makes more logical sense.

Then I demand that this be put on display too:

Murkanen - thanks again

Maybe we have our basic difference. I would rather risk the addition and inclusion of every display than remove the possibilties of any display.

I prefer risks of our shared liberties through inclusion. I fear more exclusion from government fiat.

Go ahead, go after the other San Francisco cross - and please tell me what harm something you never knew existed has done to you? Do you seek to go over something that does you no harm?

It is on gov'mint property as far as I can tell.

Murkanen - I seem to be answering far more questions than I ask.

my turn

Do you think the United States of America originally drew no inspiration from the Ten Commandments? And what of English Law? Of the Magna Carta?

Can we deny this relgious and cultural heritage over the centuries, is it not deeply woven in the fabric and being of our patriots?

I'm not asking special favor to all things Christian, but please don't give me a godless interpretation of the Constitution.

ChicoEscuela

Do you think the United States of America originally drew no inspiration from the Ten Commandments?

Not even the tiniest smidgeon. The only three commandments that get any sort of nod are those involving murder, theft, and (arguably) purgery. All three of which have been against the law long before the 10 commandments arrived.

And what of English Law?

Didn't I already say it was built on english common law?

Of the Magna Carta?

This was one of the influences for the Constitution, yes.

Can we deny this relgious and cultural heritage over the centuries,

What religious heritage? Your founders were primarily deists and Quakers, both of whom wanted religion out of the governmental process.

is it not deeply woven in the fabric and being of our patriots?

Not really, no.

I'm not asking special favor to all things Christian, but please don't give me a godless interpretation of the Constitution.

What other interpretation is there? There's a reason why "god" isn't mentioned in the text anywhere (excluding the date).

Murkanen

I think it is in turn safe to assume that both English Law and the Magna Carta were infuenced by the TC and Christian religion traditions. I think those influences are very much there. No, not direct Articles I through X and God splashed throughout, and of course no Christian Nation by and for Christians, that's not my trip. But, I believe our influences from European history are very much shaped by the TC and those traditions. That was my point.

Deism was a perfect fit for the separation of Church and State and is influential in embracing the law of men as men, and not making our Constitution a Holy Order. Again, I see the intent as to not allow the state and union to define religion or to deny anybody's right to pursue or not pursue the religion of their choosing.

As far as I can tell the numbers are not quite Deist and Quaker. Larger numbers of the signers were Episcopalian/Aglican, Presbyterian and Congregationalist. All were Protestant except the listed Deists (Franklin, Jefferson and Cornelius Harnett who signed Articles of Confederation), and one Catholic. I counted the Consititution, Articles of Confederation and the Declaration of Independence.

We should not discount the influences of Thomas Payne who I believe was a Deist.

Anyway, these were bye and bye men of God who were wise not to lay God onto us by law, and to remove any boundaries on what to preach and what to believe. Am certain we agree. I bet those debates would have been great to see.

But these men were of deep faith and I cannot escape seeing these influences. Their pursuits of freedom are dripping with divine guidance. I beleive that, but you don't have to (kinda their point).

But that gets me off track, because I think we agree that the extraction of Religion from State, this separation, was the intention and I support that. It kinda blows me away how far-sighted they were.

But again, I suppose I draw a line of establishment differently and am more liberal in allowing public displays as they do not seem, in my opinion, to either establish a religion or deny others to practice theirs.

If others are strongly in favor of removing any chance by not allowing any displays, I can see that point and respect it. I just don't agree, that's all.