Manger scenes for US Governors

[manifold]

Thanks L.K., but I already read up on it myself.

Doesn't make it any less bullshit IMO.


By all means, tell me what the secular purpose of a menorah is?

 

[Ravi]

A Christmas tree is more pagan than Christian Ravi, despite it's name.

I'm surprised you didn't already know that.

It doesn't matter. It is currently used to celebrate Christmas.

And a menorah is used in a similar way to celebrate a Jewish holiday.

Not sure what religious significance the star and crescent have, exactly.

But they are all basically secularish representations of religions and a nativity scene simply doesn't fit that definition.

Again, that's your confirmation bias talking.

In mal's thread you seemed to agree with me that a nativity scene doesn't really serve any secular purpose, but here you seem to believe that a menorah does.

Care to explain exactly what secular purposes those might be?

PS: the phrase "secularish representations of religions" is oxymoronic poppycock.

Argue with the Supreme Court:

The public display of menorahs and Christmas trees on public grounds has been the source of legal battles, due the separation of church and state. Specifically, in the 1989 County of Allegheny v. ACLU case,the majority of the US Supreme Court ruled that the public display of menorahs and Christmas trees did not violate the Establishment Clause because the two symbols were not endorsements of the Jewish or Christian faith, rather the two items are part of the same winter-holiday season, which the court found, had attained a secular status in U.S. society.

Again, a collection of candles is no more putting a God on public display than a Christmas tree is...but a manger scene includes Jesus and is a totally different thing.

 

[manifold]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree Ravi.

It's not the first time I think the SCOTUS got something wrong and probably won't be the last.

Last time I checked it's still my right.

 

[bodecea]

There is absolutely NOTHING secular about a menorah or a crescent & star.

Nothing at all.

On that we agree.....they should not have been allowed on public property paid for by public funds either.

 

[manifold]

Ravi,

How would you feel about a cross (sans Jesus of course).

Would that be secular enough for you?

 

[bodecea]

It sure stirs the hatred in atheists I'll hand you that. They just fucking hate Christians and Christmas. Yep.

Reflect much?


And to show that I am winning this argument with you:

I'm not arguing with you so how are you winning?

Of course not....I'm using YOUR criteria on how one wins arguments.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Thanks L.K., but I already read up on it myself.

Doesn't make it any less bullshit IMO.


By all means, tell me what the secular purpose of a menorah is?

dude, i'd have to read the scotus shit as well.

no way am i gonna do that.

but there is a clear difference between a generic symbol for a religion, and explicit elaborate 3D scenes showing the birth of jesus.

and the secular purpose of showing the generic symbols of several religions
"to foster mutual understanding and respect for the many beliefs and customs stemming from our community's religious, racial, ethnic and cultural heritage" is actually comprehensible.

the secular purpose of showing only one symbol of one religion, nah........

that's BULLSHIT.

the whole skoros case was bullshit.

i despise myself for reading that much of it.

 

[Ravi]

Ravi,

How would you feel about a cross (sans Jesus of course).

Would that be secular enough for you?

Yep...haven't you ever seen a national cemetery?

No one has a fit over the White House Christmas tree or Menorah and the reason is that they are both secular symbols of religious holidays.

You, and the guy in your article, would have a valid complaint if pictures of Mo and the old testament God were allowed while Jesus was excluded. But that isn't the case.

 

[manifold]

I disagree with the notion that ANY religious symbol can be "generic" or "secular."

If you're going to make a case that including symbols from many religions serves a secular purpose, you should at least allow practitioners of those religions to pick the symbols they want to represent their beliefs.

 

[manifold]

Some Christians view the "Christmas" Tree and Santa Clause as the blasphemous work of the devil.

Why should they not be allowed to have their religious beliefs represented with a likeness of the baby Jesus?

 

[Ravi]

They are allowed to, on their own property.

Any religious display that includes a god is simply not permitted under the constitution.

 

[manifold]

Any religious display that includes a god is simply not permitted under the constitution.

I've never heard of that particular litmus test.

I think you made it up.


Edit: Especially since the SCOTUS has ruled in many cases that a nativity scene doesn't violate the establishment clause.

 

[sangha]

I disagree with the notion that ANY religious symbol can be "generic" or "secular."

If you're going to make a case that including symbols from many religions serves a secular purpose, you should at least allow practitioners of those religions to pick the symbols they want to represent their beliefs.

Millions of americans agree with the notion. I know many non-christians (ex jews and atheists) who have a tree in their house to celebrate the holidays. For them, the tree symbolizes the season, and is of no religious significance to them.

The cross, on the other hand, is not a secular symbol of xmas. It is a symbol of christianity. When I see someone wearing a cross around their neck, I don't think "They're celebrating xmas"

 

[L.K.Eder]

enjoy your trolling.

i will now enjoy a kosher wurst and a halal beer, while watching a movie made by catholics ft. a lot of killings with knives.

 

[manifold]

I disagree with the notion that ANY religious symbol can be "generic" or "secular."

If you're going to make a case that including symbols from many religions serves a secular purpose, you should at least allow practitioners of those religions to pick the symbols they want to represent their beliefs.

Millions of americans agree with the notion. I know many non-christians (ex jews and atheists) who have a tree in their house to celebrate the holidays. For them, the tree symbolizes the season, and is of no religious significance to them.

According to that line of reasoning, the tree is not a Christian symbol at all.

So I guess in this case they got screwed.

Which is my point all along, thanks for agreeing with me.

 

[Ravi]

Any religious display that includes a god is simply not permitted under the constitution.

I've never heard of that particular litmus test.

I think you made it up.

Depicting a god is an establishment of religion. If you want to display all gods then fine.

All or none.

 

[manifold]

Any religious display that includes a god is simply not permitted under the constitution.

I've never heard of that particular litmus test.

I think you made it up.

Depicting a god is an establishment of religion. If you want to display all gods then fine.

All or none.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

At least when it comes to cases they had the balls to hear.

 

[sangha]

I disagree with the notion that ANY religious symbol can be "generic" or "secular."

If you're going to make a case that including symbols from many religions serves a secular purpose, you should at least allow practitioners of those religions to pick the symbols they want to represent their beliefs.

Millions of americans agree with the notion. I know many non-christians (ex jews and atheists) who have a tree in their house to celebrate the holidays. For them, the tree symbolizes the season, and is of no religious significance to them.

According to that line of reasoning, the tree is not a Christian symbol at all.

So I guess in this case they got screwed.

Which is my point all along, thanks for agreeing with me.

EXACTLY!!!

When displayed by the govt, a xmas tree is NOT, in any way, a symbol of christianity or any other religion; It's a SECULAR symbol for xmas.

And when it comes to the govt establishment of religion, Christians are SUPPOSED to get screwed. So are muslims, jews, hindus. ertc

 

[manifold]

Millions of americans agree with the notion. I know many non-christians (ex jews and atheists) who have a tree in their house to celebrate the holidays. For them, the tree symbolizes the season, and is of no religious significance to them.

According to that line of reasoning, the tree is not a Christian symbol at all.

So I guess in this case they got screwed.

Which is my point all along, thanks for agreeing with me.

EXACTLY!!!

When displayed by the govt, a xmas tree is NOT, in any way, a symbol of christianity or any other religion; It's a SECULAR symbol for xmas.

And when it comes to the govt establishment of religion, Christians are SUPPOSED to get screwed. So are muslims, jews, hindus. ertc

Yes, but in the case in question only the Christians got screwed.

 

[Ravi]

I've never heard of that particular litmus test.

I think you made it up.

Depicting a god is an establishment of religion. If you want to display all gods then fine.

All or none.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

At least when it comes to cases they had the balls to hear.

I hate to tell you...sometimes the SC is wrong.