Christmas Trees on government property are unconstitutional

Abookamongstthemany

know1 wrote:

I see plenty of non-religious people wearing crosses as jewelry as well, so by your logic since it's not a big deal we should be able to put crosses in government buildings, right?

I haven't seen this happening. Maybe they aren't devout followers but they obviously must believe. It's a Christian symbol. What else is it for? If it is being used to represent a religion in school then it shouldn't be used.

Abookamongstthemany

know1 wrote:

What about a cross, then? That doesn't affect decision making...

The cross only represents Christian faith and with that comes a certain idealogy.

RainDog

know1 wrote:

Ahh, but one might argue that there are more urgent things to worry about than banning the 10 Commandments, as well.

You're right there. The problem is, while more important things are being banded about in the public sphere, it was the religious right - who knew full well what would happen - that decided to push the issue. It's kind of like what's going on in this thread. Someone told you there was a war on Christmas or Christianity or something, or maybe you really believe it, I don't know; but, as with any war, a good base rasing event like the banning of Christmas trees would really do wonders for recruiting.

Christians on the right worried about the Iraq conflict and its reprecussions? Put up the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse and rally the troops when the expected outcry occurs. Can translate into some sweet election results as Christians drop the more complex and morally ambigious ideas behind war and get behind something solid like a big stone tablet.

Republicans reelling from the last election? Hey, nothing gets people worked up like a perceived assault on their religion (just look at the war on terror). Shore up the base by inventing something. Hey, how about a ban on Christmas trees - though it doesn't look like anyone on the left's trying that right now. Maybe we can coax them into it!?

RainDog

know1 wrote:

What about a cross, then? That doesn't affect decision making...

Maybe not - but if you ask me, we should modernize it. Maybe an electric chair or lethal injection syringe.

Collin

know1 wrote:

Right - it's a symbol of paganism if you believe many people on this board.

So I guess the only symbols that should be banned from government buildings are the Christian ones, right? I mean, if it's a pagan religious symbol, then it's fine.

Don't put words in my mouth.

A Christmas tree is a symbol of Christianity if you're a Christian, it's a symbol of paganism if you're a pagan and it's a symbol of family warmth if you're non-religious (and probably if you are religious as well, I sure hope so).

And I think all religious symbols should be banned from gov't buildings or, which I am less in favour of, all symbols should be in gov't buildings not just Christian ones.

Do you wear a small silver tree around your neck? Are there a lot of trees in your Church or any church?

Abookamongstthemany

RainDog wrote:

Maybe not - but if you ask me, we should modernize it. Maybe an electric chair or lethal injection syringe.

Nice.

farfromglorified

There's nothing unconstitutional about any of the examples people have used here. The "separation" of church and state doesn't ban the co-existence of government and politics, it bans the centralization of both under one authoritative organization.

Somehow, we've decided that having religious aspects in government somehow equates to a violation of this, which is a logic that makes no sense to me. That logic states that we can't have the Ten Comandments in a town hall or a Quran in the Supreme Court or a Christmas Tree/nativity scene on government property. Based on that kind of logic, why do we allow politicians with any faith whatsoever to hold office?

All of this actually undermines religious freedoms in this country -- you're banning people from expressing their religions, and you're doing so in a very aggressive manner.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

There's nothing unconstitutional about any of the examples people have used here. The "separation" of church and state doesn't ban the co-existence of government and politics, it bans the centralization of both under one authoritative organization.

Somehow, we've decided that having religious aspects in government somehow equates to a violation of this, which is a logic that makes no sense to me. That logic states that we can't have the Ten Comandments in a town hall or a Quran in the Supreme Court or a Christmas Tree/nativity scene on government property. Based on that kind of logic, why do we allow politicians with any faith whatsoever to hold office?

All of this actually undermines religious freedoms in this country -- you're banning people from expressing their religions, and you're doing so in a very aggressive manner.

If all religions are given an equal opportunity to be represented and we don't have laws and curriculum based on religious beliefs, the I wouldn't have a problem with it. But I have a hard time believing that the Quran would be allowed on display in our court rooms or any other Islamic symbols for that matter. What about Peagan symbols, Satanic symbols? If you're going to allow one, you have to allow them all. It seems like a lot to take on to allow them all.

Vedderlution_Baby

jlew24asu wrote:

Merry Christmas

Happy Holidays

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If all religions are given an equal opportunity to be represented and we don't have laws and curriculum based on religious beliefs, the I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I'm not sure what you mean here. By "equal opportunity" to be represented, do you mean equal freedoms to be represented, or do you mean an unequal representation wherein less popular religions have the right to enforce an equal representation???

But I have a hard time believing that the Quran would be allowed on display in our court rooms or any other Islamic symbols for that matter.

Really? You should visit the Supreme Court then where a frieze shows Muhammed along with Moses, John Marshal, Charlemagne, Hammurabi and others.

What about Peagan symbols, Satanic symbols?

What about them???

If you're going to allow one, you have to allow them all. It seems like a lot to take on to allow them all.

See, I think you're using the word "allow" when you want it to mean something else. It takes nothing to "allow them all" other than a respect for people's choices. However, it takes much for force people to represent things that they have no wishes to represent.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean here. By "equal opportunity" to be represented, do you mean equal freedoms to be represented, or do you mean an unequal representation wherein less popular religions have the right to enforce an equal representation???



Really? You should visit the Supreme Court then where a frieze shows Muhammed along with Moses, John Marshal, Charlemagne, Hammurabi and others.



What about them???



See, I think you're using the word "allow" when you want it to mean something else. It takes nothing to "allow them all" other than a respect for people's choices. However, it takes much for force people to represent things that they have no wishes to represent.

The government represents us all. And I don't think there is enough respect of other religions for them all to be allowed representation.

I've never been to the Supreme Court building and that is only one example. And why are religious figures needed in a court room that shouldn't use those ideaolgies in it's rules?

know1

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

If all religions are given an equal opportunity to be represented and we don't have laws and curriculum based on religious beliefs..

This is the crux of the issue, in my opinion. Displaying a symbol is far different from passing a law. I think passing the law in unconstitutional, but the symbols are not.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The government represents us all. And I don't think there is enough respect of other religions for them all to be allowed representation.

Help me out here -- where are they being "disallowed"?

I've never been to the Supreme Court building and that is only one example. And why are religious figures needed in a court room that shouldn't use those ideaolgies in it's rules?

Despite any hostility you may have to religion, religion is in itself an ideology that is not really that much different from your own. Furthermore, one cannot escape the influence, both positive and negative, of religious ideology on our justice system and other political systems. There's nothing inherently bad about such influence, so long as it does not create contradictions with the fundamental rights of the people.

The only contradiction I see here (at least on the surface), is the one created by those who profess to believe in religious freedoms who then run around trying to decide what is "allowed" and what is not.

know1

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The government represents us all. And I don't think there is enough respect of other religions for them all to be allowed representation.

I've never been to the Supreme Court building and that is only one example. And why are religious figures needed in a court room that shouldn't use those ideaolgies in it's rules?

Isn't it something like 90% of Americans identify themselves as Christian? Wouldn't it make sense for the majority of the religious symbols to be allowed to be Christian?

Abookamongstthemany

know1 wrote:

Isn't it something like 90% of Americans identify themselves as Christian? Wouldn't it make sense for the majority of the religious symbols to be allowed to be Christian?

That doesn't allow for much freedom of religion to me if only one is in your face at school, court rooms and other govt offices.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

That doesn't allow for much freedom of religion to me if only one is in your face at school, court rooms and other govt offices.

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Help me out here -- where are they being "disallowed"?



Despite any hostility you may have to religion, religion is in itself an ideology that is not really that much different from your own. Furthermore, one cannot escape the influence, both positive and negative, of religious ideology on our justice system and other political systems. There's nothing inherently bad about such influence, so long as it does not create contradictions with the fundamental rights of the people.

The only contradiction I see here (at least on the surface), is the one created by those who profess to believe in religious freedoms who then run around trying to decide what is "allowed" and what is not.

So all religions are the same? There are religious beliefs that have no reasoning other than being in religious text. They have no place in our court rooms or class rooms because laws are for us all not just those of us that are Christian, same thing with curriculum. It's not freedom if only one is being represented.

Abookamongstthemany

farfromglorified wrote:

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.

You have to go to school, court and use govt offices. They should represent us all or none at all.

farfromglorified

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

So all religions are the same?

All things included? No.

In the context of freedom of religion? Yes.

There are religious beliefs that have no reasoning other than being in religious text.

So?

They have no place in our court rooms or class rooms because laws are for us all not just those of us that are Christian, same thing with curriculum.

Who do you mean by "for us all"? Surely the vast majority of this country who are Christian would be included in that, as well as those who are not, right?

It's not freedom if only one is being represented.

This makes no sense. It's not freedom is only one is allowed to be represented. I don't hear anyone telling you that non-Christian symbols should be banned.

know1

farfromglorified wrote:

Freedom of religion has nothing to do with "what's in your face", unless it's the government telling you that you have no right to practice, represent, or celebrate your own religious choices.

Bingo!