O'Reilly's War on Xmas = Owned

Max Power said:
The first amendment doesn't protect people from being offended.

It does, however, prevent an establishment of religion.

Calling it a Christmas tree and putting it in the town square does not establish a gov't religion. That is a Grand Canyon-sized illogical leap. Just who is forcing anyone to pray or worship God?

And just in case looking at a tree or a statue makes anyone feel compelled to fall on their knees and worship the Christian God, here's a helpful hint: just walk on by. And I'll be nice and turn off my TV.
 
Pale Rider said:
Abby's my friend. I was just looking out for her. Big brother syndrome.


639.gif
 
Max Power said:
The first amendment doesn't protect people from being offended.

It does, however, prevent an establishment of religion.

Exactly how do you think a religion is established?
By displaying a Christmas tree and a Nativity scene for a few days?
If it were only so easy.... :halo: <---lordy! did this religious symbol establish religion in you?? :eek:
 
Max. You're an idiot. It's " congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion". That means precisely religions CAN be established, and government CANNOT force you to practice one if you don't want to.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
Exactly how do you think a religion is established?
By displaying a Christmas tree and a Nativity scene for a few days?
If it were only so easy.... :halo: <---lordy! did this religious symbol establish religion in you?? :eek:

That's exactly what Im wondering?
 
no1tovote4 said:
No, but according to recent theory it has established the religion of USMB....

Where is the ACLU when you need them?! For pete's sake (or Max's) this is a public forum!
:death:
 
no1tovote4 said:
:blowup:

Crap, I think I just established Islamofascism as the official religion of USMB!

How so? Anyhoo, Max is probably down with that...libs are OK with Islam in the schools....
 
no1tovote4 said:
Isn't somebody setting off themselves as a bomb the official symbol of Islamofascism?

Could be!

Does that mean we are all going to become Muslims because this public place is displaying Islamofascist symbols?
:eek2:
 
no1tovote4 said:
The Constitution limits congress from making laws, it does not gaurantee that you will not see Christmas trees on public land, nor nativities.

Local governments in the U.S. cannot violate the Constitution, therefore not only is the congress limited from making laws, but every government establishment within the U.S., so yes, it does guarantee that you SHOULD not see any religious displays on public land.

ScreamingEagle said:
Exactly how do you think a religion is established?
By displaying a Christmas tree and a Nativity scene for a few days?
If it were only so easy.... :halo: <---lordy! did this religious symbol establish religion in you?? :eek:
It really depends. Sometimes, a tree is just a tree (or a tree with lights). I don't think the same can be said for a nativity scene.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
Max. You're an idiot. It's " congress shall pass no law regarding the establishment of religion". That means precisely religions CAN be established, and government CANNOT force you to practice one if you don't want to.

Umm, that's not what it means. It means that religions cannot be established BY the government (federal or local).
That is the establishment clause.

You're thinking of the free exercise clause
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So, to sum up, religion cannot be established by the government.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
Where is the ACLU when you need them?! For pete's sake (or Max's) this is a public forum!
:death:

Actually, it's not.
 
ScreamingEagle said:
How so? Anyhoo, Max is probably down with that...libs are OK with Islam in the schools....

So, you think PUBLIC displays of religion on PUBLIC property are comparable to PRIVATE religious practices?
 
Max..It really depends. Sometimes, a tree is just a tree (or a tree with lights). I don't think the same can be said for a nativity scene.

Max I really do get the argument that if a municipality puts up a nativity then they must also put up a Manurah, and then a Kuran, etc and then where does it end? But to me that alternative is much more in keeping with freedom of religious expression than this maddening and ridiculous concept of banning anything that even remotely carries the mark of religion to someone.
 
Bonnie said:
Max I really do get the argument that if a municipality puts up a nativity then they must also put up a Manurah, and then a Kuran, etc and then where does it end? But to me that alternative is much more in keeping with freedom of religious expression than this maddening and ridiculous concept of banning anything that even remotely carries the mark of religion to someone.

It's only banned on public land, though. There's nobody stopping churches from putting up such a display, or people on their own lawns.

It's not an infringement on religious expression to ban it on public property, any more than it would be an infringement on your freedom of speech if I asked you to leave my house because you said something offensive.
 

Forum List

Back
Top