Hey, if you're pushing to have Christmas removed from the Federal Holiday list, I'm all for it. Hell, the result would probably be a more religious observation of Christmas.
I'm not pushing for anything. Just having a discussion. I would like it if Christmas became a more religious observation, though.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yes, you have. You've attached an obligation to my religious expression. If I am a government employee, I no longer have the right to freely express my religion.
Same goes with just about any employee, anywhere. Here, I thought you always argued that employment was contingent on the rules of the employer.
OK. If we accept the notion that it is neither pagan or Christian, then we still have the situation that we are endorsing a holiday that people from other religions may not choose to celebrate and displaying its symbol on our government buildings and in our schools.
So what? Where in the constitution does it say that the government can't put up seasonal decorations?
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Yes, you have. You've attached an obligation to my religious expression. If I am a government employee, I no longer have the right to freely express my religion.
Sure you do, you just can't do it while you're on the clock.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Sorry, the previous poster used the word "purpose".
Now, for you: in a courtroom in a town whose tax payers were 100% Christian -- are they allowed to put any religious symbol they'd like in there?
The answer is always no if the building is paid for with tax dollars.
I'm sure it wouldn't be so bad because there could be a manger on every single lawn except the public buildings in the whole town. Nobody driving through would miss that I'm sure.
Same goes with just about any employee, anywhere. Here, I thought you always argued that employment was contingent on the rules of the employer.
It should be contingent on the rules of the employer. Correct me if I'm wrong if it is not the rule in this country that people should be free to express their religion.
It should be contingent on the rules of the employer. Correct me if I'm wrong if it is not the rule in this country that people should be free to express their religion.
Yes, and employees of the government are just as free to express their religion as employees of any given private company. However, if any employee wants to erect sculptures of Jesus on company property, I'd imagine they'd need their employer's permission first. And, the government, as employer, doesn't allow that.
I so a nativity scene at my local Dunkin doughnuts...god damn was i proud. Next to it was the star of david. I had no problem with that whatsoever.
That was also private property. No one's trying to ban displays on private property as far as I know (except in that one community where christians tried to ban the peace symbol during Christmas - but that's a different thread).
It should be contingent on the rules of the employer. Correct me if I'm wrong if it is not the rule in this country that people should be free to express their religion.
again I ask, would you be ok with a monument devoted to the Koran paid for by taxpayer money...?
I think it's pretty simple, all or none...if you want to display religous symbols in gov't buildings, the allow all religions to do the same, be it paganism, islam, christianity, or satanism....or none, which includes the dreaded xmas tree...cut 'em down...get rid of them, toss them in a dumpster....
So if I show up after hours on my own time and put up a nativity scene, that's ok?
Actually, yes. A government that makes public property available to one group must make it equally available to all though, so you're not allowed to complain when I put a Festivus pole next to your manger scene.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Yes, and employees of the government are just as free to express their religion as employees of any given private company.
Really? If I fired someone for wearing a cross to work, I'd likely lose if I were sued. However, if a school fires someone for the same, they'd likely not lose.
However, if any employee wants to erect sculptures of Jesus on company property, I'd imagine they'd need their employer's permission first.
Certainly. I'm not advocating that government employees be able to eract a statue of Jesus on company property without the permission of their employer. I'm advocating the right of that employee to do so with their employer's permission without a third party invalidating the will of both. In the vast majority of these cases, the employer is the people of a given town, not the federal or even a state government.
And, the government, as employer, doesn't allow that.
"The government" you're talking about is the federal government. The federal government is not the employer of most judges, teachers, etc - the people of the town, county, or state are typically their employers.
Which is it, Raindog? If my local courthouse erects the Ten Commandments in its lobby, and that courthouse is paid for and operated by the Orthodox Catholic people that comprise my town, on what logic should they be unable to do so?
Actually, yes. A government that makes public property available to one group must make it equally available to all though, so you're not allowed to complain when I put a Festivus pole next to your manger scene.
Really? If I fired someone for wearing a cross to work, I'd likely lose if I were sued. However, if a school fires someone for the same, they'd likely not lose.
A "what-if" scenerio - and one that likely will never come true. I imagine the school would lose.
Certainly. I'm not advocating that government employees be able to eract a statue of Jesus on company property without the permission of their employer. I'm advocating the right of that employee to do so with their employer's permission without a third party invalidating the will of both. In the vast majority of these cases, the employer is the people of a given town, not the federal or even a state government.
Expected to follow the rules and regulations of their parent company - the Federal Government. Think of them as "independently owned" franchises that must keep to company policy.
"The government" you're talking about is the federal government. The federal government is not the employer of most judges, teachers, etc - the people of the town, county, or state are typically their employers.
Which is it, Raindog? If my local courthouse erects the Ten Commandments in its lobby, and that courthouse is paid for and operated by the Orthodox Catholic people that comprise my town, on what logic should they be unable to do so?
The logic that they violate the rules set forth by the government of which they represent.
again I ask, would you be ok with a monument devoted to the Koran paid for by taxpayer money...?
No. I'd be equally upset as a I would be with a monument devoted to the Bible paid for by taxpayer money.
But I wouldn't be upset with the person who built it, be it the Koran or the Bible. I think any Muslim or Christian should be free to eract any monument to their faith that they choose.
I think it's pretty simple, all or none...if you want to display religous symbols in gov't buildings, the allow all religions to do the same, be it paganism, islam, christianity, or satanism....or none, which includes the dreaded xmas tree...cut 'em down...get rid of them, toss them in a dumpster....
All is fine with me. What do I care what monuments people build or statements people make so long as I'm not forced to build them or say them?
You're way off there. I think it means something religious to a much higher percentage than that.
If we take the population of the world as a whole, I'd say that 1% Christian is a fair estimate. Not many people pretend to be Christians at Christmas time, and those that do are irrelevant in their phoniness.
A "what-if" scenerio - and one that likely will never come true. I imagine the school would lose.
Fair enough.
Expected to follow the rules and regulations of their parent company - the Federal Government. Think of them as "independently owned" franchises that must keep to company policy.
They own a franchise, yes.
Yikes. Local governments are not "franchises", nor is the federal government a "parent company". The federal government is an institution representing the common interests of all the states. I highly doubt that Mississippi and California share common interests on this issue.
The logic that they violate the rules set forth by the government of which they represent.
The federal government's rights are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim that they have the right to tell you how to build a school, or how to build a courthouse, and which monuments to what should be allowed.
I also think that if the government wants avoid having some ridiculous hodge-podge of displays on the city hall lawn, and doesn't want to deal with the public outcry when some satanist puts up his decorations, that it's fine for them to say they won't allow any religious displays at all. If the citizens prefer the hodge-podge and satanic ornaments, they can of course vote that government out of office.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
If we take the population of the world as a whole, I'd say that 1% Christian is a fair estimate. Not many people pretend to be Christians at Christmas time, and those that do are irrelevant in their phoniness.
At worst, it's approaching 50%.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I also think that if the government wants avoid having some ridiculous hodge-podge of displays on the city hall lawn, and doesn't want to deal with the public outcry when some satanist puts up his decorations, that it's fine for them to say they won't allow any religious displays at all.
I think that's fine too.
If the citizens prefer the hodge-podge and satanic ornaments, they can of course vote that government out of office.
See, here's what I don't get. The citizens in most of these cases have voted in these people who put up nativity scenes or Ten Commandments or whatever. If the logic here is going to be based on a simple majority, it seems that what is happening now is representative of that, which makes me wonder why those here who constantly cite the "rule of the majority" would take any offense at all.
I don't know why this issue is such a big deal to so many. How hard is it to ignore a nativity scene or a red crescent or a menhorah? God forbid you're exposed to something that runs counter to your beliefs.
Those who understand my political persuasion must realize that the courthouse itself is something that completely runs counter to my beliefs. Am I questioning your right to build it? No. I'm simply questioning your right to make me build it and sanction it. If a Muslim is forced to build a nativity scene against his will, I have a problem with that. If a Catholic is forced to pay for a menorah against his will, I have a problem with that. But if people believe they have a right to simply squash the expressions of others, what right do they have to their own expressions?
Yikes. Local governments are not "franchises", nor is the federal government a "parent company". The federal government is an institution representing the common interests of all the states. I highly doubt that Mississippi and California share common interests on this issue.
The federal government's rights are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim that they have the right to tell you how to build a school, or how to build a courthouse, and which monuments to what should be allowed.
Take a court case decided by both a local/state government and then the Supreme Court. Now tell me which one's the "boss."
And if your actual boss and the people who pay your salary are perfectly ok with that nativity scene?
Well, if it's a private company, I'm completely O.K. with a nativity scene. However, it's already been established where the government stands on these displays outside their own buildings.
My point is, it's definitely a religious symbol - whether pagan or Christian, so why do we turn a blind eye to it when we raise such a stink about other symbols?
Never have...its symbol of the "Holidays" and giving.
Now a nativity scene...different. Now if it means we loose the tree in order to get to seperation of church and state.....bye bye Xmas tree.
Will need to ban any image or representation of Santa as well... after all, it is St. Nicholas......
Tree, Santa, etc.. may have religious origins but Christmas has become so commercialised, no one remembers those things! It's just pretty decoration and a place to put all your presents!
Comments
I'm not pushing for anything. Just having a discussion. I would like it if Christmas became a more religious observation, though.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
The answer is always no if the building is paid for with tax dollars.
I'm sure it wouldn't be so bad because there could be a manger on every single lawn except the public buildings in the whole town. Nobody driving through would miss that I'm sure.
It should be contingent on the rules of the employer. Correct me if I'm wrong if it is not the rule in this country that people should be free to express their religion.
Why not?
So if I show up after hours on my own time and put up a nativity scene, that's ok?
again I ask, would you be ok with a monument devoted to the Koran paid for by taxpayer money...?
I think it's pretty simple, all or none...if you want to display religous symbols in gov't buildings, the allow all religions to do the same, be it paganism, islam, christianity, or satanism....or none, which includes the dreaded xmas tree...cut 'em down...get rid of them, toss them in a dumpster....
down with xmas trees, and lights, too....
Really? If I fired someone for wearing a cross to work, I'd likely lose if I were sued. However, if a school fires someone for the same, they'd likely not lose.
Certainly. I'm not advocating that government employees be able to eract a statue of Jesus on company property without the permission of their employer. I'm advocating the right of that employee to do so with their employer's permission without a third party invalidating the will of both. In the vast majority of these cases, the employer is the people of a given town, not the federal or even a state government.
"The government" you're talking about is the federal government. The federal government is not the employer of most judges, teachers, etc - the people of the town, county, or state are typically their employers.
Which is it, Raindog? If my local courthouse erects the Ten Commandments in its lobby, and that courthouse is paid for and operated by the Orthodox Catholic people that comprise my town, on what logic should they be unable to do so?
Cool. Then you and I agree.
Expected to follow the rules and regulations of their parent company - the Federal Government. Think of them as "independently owned" franchises that must keep to company policy.
They own a franchise, yes.
The logic that they violate the rules set forth by the government of which they represent.
No. I'd be equally upset as a I would be with a monument devoted to the Bible paid for by taxpayer money.
But I wouldn't be upset with the person who built it, be it the Koran or the Bible. I think any Muslim or Christian should be free to eract any monument to their faith that they choose.
All is fine with me. What do I care what monuments people build or statements people make so long as I'm not forced to build them or say them?
It's a very bleak world you're aiming for.
I'm not aiming for anything...:)
talk to knowxmastree, that's the person who is scrooging up me xmas spirts...
If we take the population of the world as a whole, I'd say that 1% Christian is a fair estimate. Not many people pretend to be Christians at Christmas time, and those that do are irrelevant in their phoniness.
Fair enough.
Yikes. Local governments are not "franchises", nor is the federal government a "parent company". The federal government is an institution representing the common interests of all the states. I highly doubt that Mississippi and California share common interests on this issue.
The federal government's rights are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim that they have the right to tell you how to build a school, or how to build a courthouse, and which monuments to what should be allowed.
At worst, it's approaching 50%.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
isn't that violating my religious freedom?
j/k lol ... I surrender, I leave it to you to explain it to the supreme court. I don't think they like to be asked questions though.
And if your actual boss and the people who pay your salary are perfectly ok with that nativity scene?
I think that's fine too.
See, here's what I don't get. The citizens in most of these cases have voted in these people who put up nativity scenes or Ten Commandments or whatever. If the logic here is going to be based on a simple majority, it seems that what is happening now is representative of that, which makes me wonder why those here who constantly cite the "rule of the majority" would take any offense at all.
I don't know why this issue is such a big deal to so many. How hard is it to ignore a nativity scene or a red crescent or a menhorah? God forbid you're exposed to something that runs counter to your beliefs.
Those who understand my political persuasion must realize that the courthouse itself is something that completely runs counter to my beliefs. Am I questioning your right to build it? No. I'm simply questioning your right to make me build it and sanction it. If a Muslim is forced to build a nativity scene against his will, I have a problem with that. If a Catholic is forced to pay for a menorah against his will, I have a problem with that. But if people believe they have a right to simply squash the expressions of others, what right do they have to their own expressions?
Never have...its symbol of the "Holidays" and giving.
Now a nativity scene...different. Now if it means we loose the tree in order to get to seperation of church and state.....bye bye Xmas tree.
Tree, Santa, etc.. may have religious origins but Christmas has become so commercialised, no one remembers those things! It's just pretty decoration and a place to put all your presents!