Christmas Trees on government property are unconstitutional

123468

Comments

  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    farfromglorified wrote:
    But is it not the consensus here that those courtrooms belong to us all? Is that not what I'm hearing? Or do they only belong to those strong enough to enforce their will upon them?

    The purpose of a court room isn't to express your personal, religious beliefs.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Umm...if were weren't talking about people there'd be no issue. "Government" can't build a nativity scene or a red crescent. People do those things.



    It isn't promoting anything. Something, by its mere existence, is not a "promotion".


    If it is someone who works in the building, guess who is paying his salary?
    He is a government worker!

    If it is someone who goes into the building and asks that whatever it is gets displayed who does he ask?
    A government worker!

    Which makes either one a part of the government. Simple stuff really ...
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    The purpose of a court room isn't to express your personal, religious beliefs.

    I'm curious, if religious freedom is dependent on the purpose of a building, shouldn't we ban all religious expression outside churches, mosques, and synagogues?
  • momofglynn
    momofglynn Posts: 849
    know1 wrote:
    Or why do the Pagans need to have their tree displayed on public property?

    I think I agree with I think Colin the non-american. It's not any religion it's a symbol of the season. Your opinion is the tree represents paganism and that opinion is fueled by the fact that specific christian symbols have been required to be removed. I feel that more often then most christians are just getting pissed because their beliefs are being cut from the society more and more and they are just trying to "pick fights" along the way. This is not directed to anyone personally but just my opinion on this thread.

    Going back to the cross on the necklace comments, I would think that most people who wear a cross have some sort of belief. Just because they don;t go to church every sunday doesn't make them less of a believer.

    I guess my questions to know1 are...do you have a tree? Do you like the tree concept? Or because you think it is strictly pagan you have banned it from your own home?
    Let's Go Red Sox!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    WMA wrote:
    If it is someone who works in the building, guess who is paying his salary?

    We are.
    He is a government worker!

    Yes, he is. More importantly, he is also an American and, even more importantly, a person. That means his fundamental rights to express his religion should certainly remain intact.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm curious, if religious freedom is dependent on the purpose of a building, shouldn't we ban all religious expression outside churches, mosques, and synagogues?
    No, because that would be a violation of a person's individual rights.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Hahahaha!!!! I can't believe this has gone on for seven pages!

    Hey folks ... it's a freakin' TREE! It's not a religious symbol, it's a TREE. With pretty lights and decorations, and just about everyone finds it festive. When the pagans start asking to have pentagrams (their closest equivalent to the cross) or copies of the witches creed hung up in city hall, then we can talk.

    It's a piece of shrubbery, for crying out loud. Jesus is laughing at you now.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • WMA
    WMA Posts: 175
    farfromglorified wrote:
    I'm curious, if religious freedom is dependent on the purpose of a building, shouldn't we ban all religious expression outside churches, mosques, and synagogues?

    It isn't the purpose of a building, it is who pays for it. Taxdollars = government.

    Ooh, that was a tough one!
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    inmytree wrote:
    perhaps I missed something...anyhoo...if you want to display a sign in your home saying "I love jesus, he's my buddy"...I think that would be ok...heck, you could wallpaper your walls with pages from the bible for all I care...

    key phrase: your home....

    Here's the thing: it no longer matters what you care about. The instant you make the freedoms of religious expression dependent on an interpretation of venue is the instant you gave up control.

    Look at the logic being espoused here:

    - Freedom of expression includes what you see others do, not just what you say and do.
    - Freedom of expression is dependent on venues judged as those that should be "religion free"

    Now, how long can I expect to have the right to put up such a sign? Certainly others might see that sign. Certainly the "purpose" of my home is to live in first, not to espouse religion in.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    Because one symbol shouldn't be represented by the govt that represents us all.

    So why is it OK to have a Christmas tree?

    Even if you think it is totally secular, there are people who do not celebrate Christmas.
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    - Freedom of expression includes what you see others do, not just what you say and do.
    - Freedom of expression is dependent on venues judged as those that should be "religion free"
    That's the logic as you see it. I've yet to see anyone actually say it, though.

    You have funny logic.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    No, because that would be a violation of a person's individual rights.

    What rights? You've already said that the individuals rights of religious expression are dependent on others interpretations.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    hippiemom wrote:
    Hahahaha!!!! I can't believe this has gone on for seven pages!

    Hey folks ... it's a freakin' TREE! It's not a religious symbol, it's a TREE. With pretty lights and decorations, and just about everyone finds it festive. When the pagans start asking to have pentagrams (their closest equivalent to the cross) or copies of the witches creed hung up in city hall, then we can talk.

    It's a piece of shrubbery, for crying out loud. Jesus is laughing at you now.

    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.
    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.
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    farfromglorified wrote:
    What rights? You've already said that the individuals rights of religious expression are dependent on others interpretations.
    No, I haven't.
  • hippiemom
    hippiemom Posts: 3,326
    farfromglorified wrote:
    Here's the thing: it no longer matters what you care about. The instant you make the freedoms of religious expression dependent on an interpretation of venue is the instant you gave up control.

    Look at the logic being espoused here:

    - Freedom of expression includes what you see others do, not just what you say and do.
    - Freedom of expression is dependent on venues judged as those that should be "religion free"

    Now, how long can I expect to have the right to put up such a sign? Certainly others might see that sign. Certainly the "purpose" of my home is to live in first, not to espouse religion in.
    Well, you've had it for about 230 years now and no one is trying to take it away, so I think you're probably safe for a little while longer.

    Damn, the board is funny today!
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    WMA wrote:
    It isn't the purpose of a building, it is who pays for it. Taxdollars = government.

    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?
  • RainDog
    RainDog Posts: 1,824
    know1 wrote:
    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.
    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.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    hippiemom wrote:
    Well, you've had it for about 230 years now and no one is trying to take it away, so I think you're probably safe for a little while longer.

    So the only protection I have left is history? That doesn't bode very well, particularly considering that I also didn't have people freaking out about religious symbols in government institutions 230 years ago.
  • farfromglorified
    farfromglorified Posts: 5,700
    RainDog wrote:
    No, I haven't.

    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.
  • know1
    know1 Posts: 6,801
    momofglynn wrote:
    I think I agree with I think Colin the non-american. It's not any religion it's a symbol of the season. Your opinion is the tree represents paganism and that opinion is fueled by the fact that specific christian symbols have been required to be removed. I feel that more often then most christians are just getting pissed because their beliefs are being cut from the society more and more and they are just trying to "pick fights" along the way. This is not directed to anyone personally but just my opinion on this thread.

    Going back to the cross on the necklace comments, I would think that most people who wear a cross have some sort of belief. Just because they don;t go to church every sunday doesn't make them less of a believer.

    I guess my questions to know1 are...do you have a tree? Do you like the tree concept? Or because you think it is strictly pagan you have banned it from your own home?

    Ask a Jewish person if they think it is a symbol of the season.

    (and I have nothing whatsoever against Christmas trees. I do think they are a symbol of the Christian religion just like I think this holiday is a religious holiday. I do not have a tree in my house, but that's due to laziness!)
    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.

Categories