icky

And since this has nothing to do with what I said, the "Nope" doesn't make any sense.

__________________
Peace through fear... since 1947!

Pickle

Ahhhh, but it does have to do with you said.

LOL. Seems to have made sense to others. One more time.

You said,
In response I said
So "nope" is in response to the world is going insane. Not all forms of religious tradition are being swept under the rug. Just the Christian ones.

BTW, in everything else I agree with you.

__________________

TychoCelchuuu

You'll forgive me if I do not find "American Family Association" to be an unbiased reporter of facts.

For example:

Censored? What did they do, refuse to publish his work in a book or something? Stick a black bar over Baby Jesus?

Did they allow a cross? There's a large difference between a star and crescent and an entire scene set up with a barn and Jesus and the 3 wise men and Mary and so on. I mean, one you can stick on a flag, one you have to cordon off an area. And exactly where are they allowing or disallowing display?

If you can link me to a news site that isn't run by people who threaten to sue because instead of a nativity scene a holiday display had a Christmas tree to represent Christmas, I'll believe you. As it stands, if I linked you to some sort of crazy ultra-liberal website, you'd probably dismiss it as biased. Because that's what these things are: they only report things that seem beneficial to them, and they report them in a way that usually distorts the truth.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

leejo

Fine fine. Then cite your own sources and statistics. I can pretty fast pull up a story about Palm Beach refusing to show the crucifix but displaying a menrorah, for example. Go on, google it!

CingularDuality

This is how it should be.

If you want a religious symbol displayed, put it up your own damn self on your own damn property. Don't use MY tax dollars to promote your religion.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Spyder

Have you ever BEEN to St. Paul?
If not, enough said. Nothing we do in MN surprises me anymore.

__________________
a.k.a. NinjaPirateAssassin
Celibacy is not Hereditary.
Everybody should believe in something - I believe I'll have another drink.
Happiness is like wetting your pants, everyone can see it but only you can feel the warmth.
Flying is easy, Just throw yourself at the ground and miss!

TychoCelchuuu

I Googled it and the same city also refused to display a menorah the previous year. In addition, they formally apologized to the people who offered the nativity scene. It looks like each year they add another religious symbol they didn't want to the year before.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

leejo

I think the problem isn't that government is promoting religion but that government is simply much more pervasive than the framers envisioned.

In their world, government could be disassociated with religion and communities would barely notice. Today, mostly because of a public school they didn't have, when a community celebrates a religious holiday, government's involvement becomes an issue.

Personally, I think the answer is to use government dollars to celebrate various religions equally if what we're talking about is an occasionaly display (nothing elaborate), and we can celebrate your non-faith on all the other days - sure its disproportionate in your favor, but I can live with it. Hopefully none of my sister faiths will want to kill you for insulting their religion by daring to believe something else.

CingularDuality

Who gets to decide what is "elaborate"? And why should tax dollars be spent on any religion? I'm certainly not asking for the government to pay for any "there is no god" displays...

The government (at all levels) should simply stay away from promoting religion.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

Who decides? Goverment makes arbitrary decisions all the time. That's a lot of what government does. Why can a 16-year old drive but a 15 year old can't? Why can a convicted pedophile live within 500 yards (or whatever it is) of where children play but not 400?

Of course a city hall in a town that is largely <religion> and which community practices their religion should be able to use their tax revenue to put up a stupid bunny at easter or a menorah for a few days in winter if that's what the voters wish. If you don't like how they're spending the money, vote about it like you would any other fiscal issue.

TychoCelchuuu

Saying "if you don't like it, vote about it" isn't quite how it works. When women didn't have the right to vote, you couldn't just say "if you don't like it, vote about it." When black people were slaves, you couldn't just say "if you don't like it, vote about it." Our country is supposed to protect the rights of everyone, not just the rights of the people who can form a voting majority. What if 75% of the country voted to execute the other 25%? Obviously we wouldn't do it. You can't settle everything by voting. The same thing goes for religion. America is largely Christian. Does that mean we can all vote and decide that every citizen has to pay money to support teaching kids about Jesus? No; religion is something where if you want something, you do it for yourself, and the government stays the heck away. If you want to put up a display, put it up at your house. As it stands, I don't want MY tax dollars to go a nativity scene, even if my neighbors voted for it.

__________________
|TG-Irr|TychoCelchuuu

CingularDuality

No. Our constitution was written specifically to ensure that the majority religion was not able to use government to promote that religion. Don't try to mix public safety laws with laws written to prevent the state establishment of religion...

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

leejo

The constitution says " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", not "no town shall display a plastic rabbit" or "no city shall join in celebration with its constitutions on certain religious holidays".

I would agree completely with you that government should not be used to celebrate only one form of religion, but when a municipal, state, or federal entity make a sincere effort to include and celebrate various religious, I think the spirit of the 1st amendment is safe. IMO the anti-religion crowd has latched onto the "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of a religion" to utterly trample the spirit of the second part "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise (of a religion).

derdmeh

Prohibiting the use of government funds to facilitate, promote, or display the images of any religion whatsoever is not anti-religion. Today we understand the establishment clause the same way it was understood in the 19th Century when de Tocqueville wrote the following:

Taken from the following essay, about half-way down the webpage:

PRINCIPAL CAUSES WHICH RENDER RELIGION POWERFUL IN AMERICA

With respectful sincerity, the only truly anti-religious move that can be made here is to bring religion and government together. As de Tocqueville points out, it is by keeping them apart that Christianity held complete sway over America in the 19th Century. Once they are conjoined (even symbolically), Christianity would begin lose what rightful authority it holds over the hearts of people, because once Christianity and State power are conjoined, Christianity would be subject to the same animosity that the State naturally engenders.

In my view, all meaningful animosity towad religion in this country can be attributed to the way Church and State have been joined for political advantage.

This conjunction of Church and State serves the immediate political interests of particular sectors of society at the expense of their long-term political interests and the interests of the country as a whole.

leejo

Provided the state does not endorse a single religion or take steps to harm any single religion, I see no conflict with the Constitution or DeToqueville.

I also think that the separation of church and state that he and his contemporaries were discussing is a radically different thing from what you are thinking. To demand that the public square ignore a popular celebration of a certain holiday is a long way from requiring office holders to affirm a religious oath or incorporating religous texts and dogma in official documents.