 |
OK Synnen, it would be like you posting that image and me saying "You're an idiot." No, a sign from Christians or any other religion or group making a similar attack is also inappropriate. I think I've been quite fair about it, you just can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge this particular sign is inappropriate.
Ex I would say that is your opinion of what the founders thought. I have studied the 1st amendment for a long time ,read a lot on it and have yet to find a consensus opinion about it. Judges are just as perplexed to find a consistent set of standards to apply.
My own opinion is that they wanted to avoid the excesses of Europe ,but were not absolutists either way. Almost all of them believed in a universal God (even Jefferson who was torn between atheism and his Episcopalian roots) .But even there varying positions were in play .Jefferson and Madison believed that the state should not support a particular church at all . Others, such as John Adams and Washington, believed it was entirely permissible for the state to financially support churches in a non-preferential way.
The one thing I think is universally agreed upon is that they did not want an established national church . However they added the free exercise clause in the same amendment for very real reasons. I do not find evidence that they wanted to restrict the free exercise of religion in the public square. In fact I'm almost sure of that . Why would they include that in the same amendment with an almost absolute free speech in public clause if they did not find the 2 related ?
Anyway ; this is a state matter. There was never a restriction of state religion at the local level that any of the founders supported . In fact in the 1800s many states had established churches .
An offensive commemoration is still state-sponsored offence.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
And what might I ask was overtly, expressly offensive about the nativity scene? Don't answer that, we'll just be back to square one. The difference between a harmless commemoration of an event and a display expressly telling people they're fools in writing is beyond obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes, indeed. Perplexion rules. Hence, this discussion... and, many before... and many to come if we don't find a solution...
And, I think it WAS found, when the wall of separation came into existence... Now, I know it doesn't SAY those words... And you should know that I'm personally appalled at adding words to the Constitution that weren't already there...
But, I'm looking for a SOLUTION to the problem, not a legal argument one way or the other.
The solution IS to keep the public square FREE from ANY religious material. That would just plain solve it, no if's and's or but's. Simple... Problem solved. Let's get on to more pressing matters.
The problem is with your Christianity and your thinking that YOU have the public square to yourself because most of you are Christians, and so were the founders... You seem to let THAT part take over from your ordinarily sensible part... Because you SEE the argument and you think the solution is for everybody else to be banned from the square BUT YOU.
You KNOW that's not going to work. YOU KNOW IT! If you allow YOUR message, shortly, there will be one from your local mosque telling you that Christians are infidels... And, you're going to have to KEEP that message there...
But, you don't see that, do you?? I don't know why.
excon
Too bad! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I don't think the nativity is offensive. I don't think the sign is offensive. Someone on each side, however, thinks it is offensive. You say the nativity is a "harmless commemoration"; many people probably agree with you. The sign, on the other hand, I think is harmless; many people probably agree with me. The sign is an expression, an opinion - it says religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds. It's an opinion, that's all.
Why is it OK for the Christian group to offend the atheist group? Why are you dismissing the offense of the atheist group?
My public square message does not condemn anyone . If the Muslims want to make a positive case for their peaceful religion then go for it. I would not object. If Synn wanted a tribute to Gaia... no problem.Quote:
If you allow YOUR message, shortly, there will be one from your local mosque telling you that Christians are infidels... And, you're going to have to KEEP that message there...
Why do you guys keep asking me why I dismiss the offense to the atheists? I never dismissed it, in fact in this response to you I said "I don't deny it may offend some," so can we all please stop suggesting things about me that aren't there? I can't explain it any clearer than I have already Jillian, the atheist sign is openly, directly, expressly, clearly hostile. The nativity scene is not. I've acknowledged atheist's rights, that the nativity scene offends some, and said if the situation were reversed it would be equally wrong, so there's nothing more for me to add... unless someone again attributes something to me that doesn't exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Use the child test (of reading age) to determine the appropriateness of a display.
If a child sees a nativity scene for the first time they will see a bunch of people, a baby, and some animals. There is no message to either inspire or to infect the child's mind. If the child should ask their parents what it is, the parents can choose to either explain it fully from a Christian point of view, or say that it's a symbol of myth, etc. The scene itself
has no meaning unless it is explained, researched or asked about either by children or adults. It is not offensive in any way unless you choose for it to be offensive by you, formed by your own opinion; not the display itself.
The sign on the other hand incorporates an opinion; an opinion that some parents do not want their child exposed to and have no way to shield them since the child can read it themselves.
While as a taxpayer I don't mind symbols of the season, nativity scenes, menora's, Santa Claus, Christmas trees adorning public areas. I don't want any interest promoting it's opinion in these public areas.
If the "Celebraters of the Winter Solctice" want to display a symbol on public property, I have no problem with it, but keep your opinion to youself; if I want to know more I will research it myself.
I know someone will eventually say by the "child test standard" it would be appropriate to display a Swastika in a public place. No it wouldn't, society/community has standards which it can impose. Such as choosing not to display pornographic material, etc.
Would the people who provided the sign past such a test, I doubt it because of if the sentence "religion hardens hearts, and enslaves minds". If that is their goal and at the core of their movement rather than a more moderate expression like "we are alone on this world and the choices we make can make us a better place, so lets celebrate this Winter Solctice with love and kindness towards each other"; then I doubt the community would approve a symbol from them in a public place based on the "religion hardens hearts and ensalves minds" core belief as it is devisive; but would approve a symbol if they used a non-devisive expression of their belief like the one I proposed above.
Can you imagine doing this to a muslim holiday? I just don't get it. This is OUR celebration of OUR Lord's birth. Why in the WORLD do atheists even care? They don't have to celebrate it. I am SICK to death of being polically correct. It is disrespect to the Christian Faith and I for one am HIGHLY offended. What is it to an atheist? Geesh.
What it is to an aethist is what it would be to you if our country became prodominately Muslim and the majority only approved of Muslim displays in public places and found your Christian displays an attack on Islam.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
What is at stake here is higher than your God, my God, or no God; it's the principle of Freedom of Religion even if that Religion is Atheism. Without that freedom, the majority wins and all other faiths are oppressed. It's great while your in the majority, but it's life threatening when your in the minority.
It's about upholding a principle that allows everyone to celebrate their own faith, and protects it through that freedom. To restrict even one faith opens the door for restricting your own.
You call it political correctness, I call it freedom.
Texas,
Well you can call it freedom if you like. I call it disrespect to MY FAITH. As far as I am concerned... we are living in a POST Christian nation anyway. If you don't like Christmas don't celebrate it... but don't disrespect it either.. that isn't freedom.. it is RUDE.
As far as the part of the sign which said that "Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds" I do agree it was rude, offensive and should not have been displayed on public property.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
However, it did not attack your faith in particular; and might I remind you that the season is celebrated by Jewish people as well; not just Christian's. Furthermore, Christmas has long lost it's Christian only meaning. I loved Christmas growing up, it meant forgiveness, kindness, thinking about others; but not once did I ever know it was Christian, it was Santa, family, and giving.
It no longer belongs just to Christian's, and it's been argued that it was never truly Christian in origin either; it started as a pagan celebration.
So plenty of people choose to celebrate it in different ways, and what it means to people differs dramatically and all should be free to celebrate the season in anyway they see fit; provided it doesn't 'directly' insult anyone else's belief of what it is and stands for.
That is Freedom.
Texas,
Jewish people celebrate something other than the birth of Christ. And guess what, they haven't tried to disrespect the Christian Holiday. This is a Christian Holiday... DEAL WITH IT. You want to celebrate something? GREAT... pick another day and GO FOR IT. . It belongs to OUR faith, our savior, HIS BIRTH. You don't Like Jesus? You don't believe in him? FINE. Ain't no one making you.
Hello again, T:
The issue here isn't Christianity, Christmas, atheists, or ANYTHING religious, actually.
I think Christmas is great. When we were kids, we could still have a Christmas play every year. I loved playing Jesus... I'm a supporter of Christmas, the holiday and I'm respectful of it's religious implications, and of the people who believe in them.
The issue HERE is whether the state should support one religion over another or should it support any of them.
Putting a manger in a state building IS a message FROM the state, just like Christmas ornaments in your front yard deliver a message from you. It's FINE for you. It ISN'T fine for the state.
excon
Really, Christmas belongs to you; Christian's? That is where you are mistaken. No where does Santa tell kids that it's a Christian holiday; and in my house we had a Christmas tree, family dinners, love; but it was not a celebration of Christ. Did I know it represented the day Christ was born, yes; but more as a history of how it came about as well as the pagan celebrations that it was also born from.Quote:
Originally Posted by classyT
How dare you call it your holiday! How dare you dismiss a family celebration that I have been a part of for over 50 years. What gives you the arrogance to call it your own!
It's not even in the bible, it's not even God sanctioned as it were, it's origins are pagan celebrations and the state gives everyone a holiday, not just Christian's.
For you I imagine it's a celebration of Christ's birth, for millions of other American's it something else entirely but just as much theirs as it is yours.
I imagine in your world, only Christian's would be allowed to celebration Christmas; would the rest of us have to roast like the chestnuts if we committed heresy by celebrating our version of Christmas?
For a Christian you would think you would want everyone to celebrate Christmas rather than keep it Christian so as to help bring others to Christ; but it doesn't sound to Christ like for you to be divisive.
I know this for sure I wouldn't want YOU in charge of Christmas even if I were a Christian.
Lol... THE HECK with Christmas.. I'd just like to be in charge of YOU:p... LOL. Hey stop trying to imagine my world. I don't care if you celebrate it as Christ birth or not... just don't disrespect it. That is ALL I'm asking.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
On that point, we can agree :DQuote:
Originally Posted by classyT
OH GOOD GOSH! You are kidding right? We got people starving in the world but we are going to argue our rights if we put Jesus in a manger on a state building lawn. See, You aren't even upset about that.. you just are picking a fight. I know your type mister... sides Christmas IS fun just like you remember it as a kid. AND I might add.. this wouldn't even have been an issue back in those days but now we can't offend anyone. UGH! We really are a post Christian nation and thin skinned to boot! Sad.. sad indeedyQuote:
Originally Posted by excon
IF that is all this is about then no one should be able to erect anything and should keep it in your own home. I think that if Christians want to show what they want, then others should be allowed too. BUT messages like that signs make me want to say screw it for everyone...Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
If they still do allow it after this year, then a rule should be applied... "dont show respect then don't erect anything." Common sense really, but who uses that anymore? Not many as far as I am concerned.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:02 PM. |