Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays?

[Taomon]

The issues being discussed go far beyond a nativity scene at Christmas, however. And as I posted to another member, if its okay for the city to buy other decorations to enhance the Christmas spirit and thus boost the economy, that nativity scene is absolutely no different. I do prefer that the citizens donate the scene however, and that is usually the case where you see nativity scenes on public property. They were all over the place in West Texas towns and cities this Christmas. It made for a beautiful sight when driving through those places. And I think there in pretty macho redneck country, the ACLU is probably sort of ignoring that and looking for easier picking elsewhere these days.

And nope, if the Hindus or Satanists or any others have had an influence on the history and heritage of an area, I have no problems whatsoever with that being acknowledged and/or commemorated.

And you know what? If this is just silliness to you and you find it offensive, there really are lots of other threads to spawn red herrings and other non related issues.

No fox, that is why the Constitution is in place...because people like yourself will misconstrue the meaning and purpose of religious icons and thereby allow a state agency to endorse a specific religious group...which is wrong unless we embrace a theocracy. That isn't going to happen anytime soon so your comments are incorrect.

 

[Shogun]

The issues being discussed go far beyond a nativity scene at Christmas, however. And as I posted to another member, if its okay for the city to buy other decorations to enhance the Christmas spirit and thus boost the economy, that nativity scene is absolutely no different. I do prefer that the citizens donate the scene however, and that is usually the case where you see nativity scenes on public property. They were all over the place in West Texas towns and cities this Christmas. It made for a beautiful sight when driving through those places. And I think there in pretty macho redneck country, the ACLU is probably sort of ignoring that and looking for easier picking elsewhere these days.

And nope, if the Hindus or Satanists or any others have had an influence on the history and heritage of an area, I have no problems whatsoever with that being acknowledged and/or commemorated.

And you know what? If this is just silliness to you and you find it offensive, there really are lots of other threads to spawn red herrings and other non related issues.

what is silliness is the christian martyr routine every year based on nothing but your own paranoia of the de-monopolization of christian dogma in the US. I applaud that YOU say that YOU wouldn't mind Anton LeVay using the same space on a courthouse lawn as you do during xmas but you'll have to forgive me if Im dubious of the rest of your flock following suit.

Indeed, how is spending government money on YOUR religion no less of a waste of public taxes than any other earmark? Good grief, it's not like money spent on tinsel and colored bulbs once a year creates a viable market anyway. Not to mention that most of the crap hung is made in china anyway.


Like I said, what keeps you from making your CHURCH or YOUR PROPERTY the focus of your holiday dogma sleeve wearing instead of a common public location? Can the public come to your home and church and insist that YOU allow a pagan pentagram? No. I wouldn't be so presumptuous about forcing my beliefs down your throat.

 

[Foxfyre]

what is silliness is the christian martyr routine every year based on nothing but your own paranoia of the de-monopolization of christian dogma in the US. I applaud that YOU say that YOU wouldn't mind Anton LeVay using the same space on a courthouse lawn as you do during xmas but you'll have to forgive me if Im dubious of the rest of your flock following suit.

Indeed, how is spending government money on YOUR religion no less of a waste of public taxes than any other earmark? Good grief, it's not like money spent on tinsel and colored bulbs once a year creates a viable market anyway. Not to mention that most of the crap hung is made in china anyway.


Like I said, what keeps you from making your CHURCH or YOUR PROPERTY the focus of your holiday dogma sleeve wearing instead of a common public location? Can the public come to your home and church and insist that YOU allow a pagan pentagram? No. I wouldn't be so presumptuous about forcing my beliefs down your throat.

I'm sorry, but your inability to focus on whatever point the other member is making and your propensity for twisting it into something that nobody intended and/or nobody but you has said, makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you.

Now if you care to discuss the specific points I've made, that's fine. I think there is room for disagreement and opposing points of view on any subject in which different points of view come into play. I've already answered my opinion on other groups being able to commemorate their special festivals in the public forum and I honestly personally know no human anywhere who would have a problem with that. I do think such commemoration must be within the heritage and history of the area, however, otherwise it could get out of hand and become ridiculous to the extreme. Christmas has been a part of the history, heritage, and more recently the economy of our entire nation since the nation became a nation and has been celebrated by Christians and non-Christians alike and absolutely meets the history and heritage test.

If you have a favorite festival that also meets the history and heritage test of your community, and you are turned down when you want to commemorate that, then you have a case.

Until then, you don't.

 

[Shogun]

I don't recall court lawns being purchased as a personal display case for any demographic of religion. Funny, maybe you can clear that one up. As far as you personally not knowing anyone who would have a problem with Anton LaVey setting up his own nativity excuse me while I laugh out loud. You'll have to forgive me for taking a realistic approach to christian tolerance.

Pagan group gets the boot in Hannibal
http://www.columbiatribune.com/2005/Feb/20050203News007.asp

Now, I'll ask again... and feel free to avoid the question again: Why is it paramount that you wear your dogma on the sleeve of the courthouse lawn when you have every libertay afforded to you by the Constitution to have the merriest display on your church and personal property that the Constitution affords.

Indeed, I love how you slip in this little gem:
I do think such commemoration must be within the heritage and history of the area, however, otherwise it could get out of hand and become ridiculous to the extreme.


THUS, a necessary loophole to disqualify what you may not have the opinion is the heritage of any location. After all, If a Hindu moves to BFE, Missouri and still pays taxes then you could say that their religious symbols are not the HERITAGE of BFE Missouri. Which, of course, is why I"M the one trying to circumvent public property getting "out of hand and ridiculous to the extreme" by having the wisdom to take the toy away BEFORE the children start fighting about who deserves to play with it more than the other.


Indeed, I don't require a public audience to be comfortable in my identity. It's too bad christians can't be similarly fulfilled by their dogma rather than advertising their team in an inappropriate COMMON forum.

 

[Foxfyre]

No fox, that is why the Constitution is in place...because people like yourself will misconstrue the meaning and purpose of religious icons and thereby allow a state agency to endorse a specific religious group...which is wrong unless we embrace a theocracy. That isn't going to happen anytime soon so your comments are incorrect.

An object d' art is an object d' art until somebody requires you to believe something about it or because of it. Unless you can tell me what anybody, let alone a state official or agency or branch of government, requires you to think, believe, profess, or adhere to related to that nativity scene, it is an object d' art commemorating a particular component of the nation's history and heritage and more recently its economy. It is NOT a religious icon to you and nobody requires it to be.

And that is why it is in no way illegal or improper.

Now if the day comes that anybody in government requires you to say "praise God!" or genuflect or bow in homage to that nativity scene, I'll stand beside you to protest that.

Until then, I think a little charity on your part is in order. That scene takes absolutely nothing away from you or anybody else while it brings pleasure to a great many others. There is little enough innocent pleasure these days without a few disgruntled grinches trying to take even that away.

 

[Shogun]

Then have your innocent pleasure on the church lawn where you have every freedom in the United States to convey your object of art.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I'll give you the same advice I give people who don't like the 2nd amendment: start your grassroot effort to repeal the first amendment if you don't like the wording or the Constitutional implications.

 

[Steerpike]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

.

Except that a city putting up a nativity scene isn't Congress making a law...

But I think we agree on the topic.

 

[Shogun]

hehehehe...


dammit, you got me.

but, wouldn't federal supremacy require that the observation of the first amendment in regards to any state or local legislation? Kinda like how Federal law is dominant over California's medical marijuana policy? Wouldn't state and local laws still be subject to the Federal Constitution?


To be honest, if I thought there was even the slightest chance of christians allowing ANY other representative group the same access they are wanting I would back down and agree to such a compromise. BUT, I see this as the same "foot in the door" policy of christians trying to inject ID into the science class. I just don't see the US christian population being open to hindus, muslim, pegans or satanists having equal access to public property. I offer Foxfyre the above example conveying the root of my lack of faith in christian tolerance.

 

[Steerpike]

Shogun:

Yeah, it is very interesting how all of that works. When the country was first founded, the words "Congress shall make no law..." were taken to mean that not only the First Amendment but the entire Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal Government. States could actually have official religions.

When the 14th amendment came along, so did the incorporation doctrine, which applied certain of the Bill of Rights to the state and local governments. So yes, the state and local governments are now bound by the first amendment. Even though it says "Congress" it applies equally to any governmental entity.

Interestingly, not all of the Bill of Rights have been incorporated into the 14th amendment (the incorporation doctrine is a creation of the Supreme Court which over the years decided that the guarantees of the Bill of Rights were included in the 14th amendment and applied to the states. They have decided various cases specifically incorporating certain amendments). One of the amendments that has never been explicitly incorporated is the 2nd, so one could argue technically that the States have the power to regulate guns, but that the feds do not. Once reason it would be nice to see a 2nd amendment case go to the Supreme Court would be to see the Supreme Court incorporate the 2nd into the 14th and rule explicitly that it binds state and local governments.

Constitutional law is pretty damn cool.

Did you know the Congress can regulate the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under the Constitution? Suppose Congress decided tomorrow that the Supreme Court wasn't allowed to hear 1st amendment cases any more....Curiouser and curiouser.

 

[Shogun]

Thats interesting stuff. I admit, I am no Scholar of the Constitution but If I ever get a chance to get into MU's law school... hehehehehe...


I guess it would make sense that states were originally allowed a state religion considering states like PA and getting them to join the original union.


I like to dive into this book from time to time when I get into this kind of discussion. Clearly i'll be reading up on the 14th.

 

[Steerpike]

I've read parts of that book, but I don't own a copy. It's a good resource.

Irwin Chemerinsky has written some good stuff on the Constitution and Federal Courts, although I don't always agree with his analysis (e.g. the Kelo decision).

 

[Taomon]

An object d' art is an object d' art until somebody requires you to believe something about it or because of it. Unless you can tell me what anybody, let alone a state official or agency or branch of government, requires you to think, believe, profess, or adhere to related to that nativity scene, it is an object d' art commemorating a particular component of the nation's history and heritage and more recently its economy. It is NOT a religious icon to you and nobody requires it to be.

And that is why it is in no way illegal or improper.

Now if the day comes that anybody in government requires you to say "praise God!" or genuflect or bow in homage to that nativity scene, I'll stand beside you to protest that.

Until then, I think a little charity on your part is in order. That scene takes absolutely nothing away from you or anybody else while it brings pleasure to a great many others. There is little enough innocent pleasure these days without a few disgruntled grinches trying to take even that away.

Wrong. What if that art was depicting graphically the deaths of Jews at the hands of Nazis. The artist and his fans believe it is art while the Older Jewish population feel it is glorifying a tragic moment in time.

Individually, we can assess it anyway we want. But if that piece of art is hung in a court house, then that state agency is siding with the artist.

Why can't you understand that?

Is it because you want the state department to favor Christmas icons and sayings?

 

[Shogun]

I've read parts of that book, but I don't own a copy. It's a good resource.

Irwin Chemerinsky has written some good stuff on the Constitution and Federal Courts, although I don't always agree with his analysis (e.g. the Kelo decision).

oh man, I really don't care for the Kelo decision. In fact, on my local messageboard i've been taking a little heat lately because I predicted that ED and kelo would be a significant platform during this election cycle. I haven't heard peep about it.

But yea, it's an interesting read. It's a little daunting for us uninitiated and I'd rather be reading some PKD but it was a damn nice gift for, coincidentally, Christmas last year.. hehehehe..

 

[Steerpike]

If by PKD you mean Philip K. Dick, then I agree 100%

I also thought the Kelo decision was terrible.

 

[Shogun]

I have to say, Dick's story "the chomium fence" is something everyone on this board should take a look at.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wrong. What if that art was depicting graphically the deaths of Jews at the hands of Nazis. The artist and his fans believe it is art while the Older Jewish population feel it is glorifying a tragic moment in time.

Individually, we can assess it anyway we want. But if that piece of art is hung in a court house, then that state agency is siding with the artist.

Why can't you understand that?

Is it because you want the state department to favor Christmas icons and sayings?

I'll try once more though you seem to be unable to discuss the issue without creating more red herrings, distorting the argument of others, and casting implied ad hominems.

The Holocaust deserves and receives recognition, and if the community has Jewish members who felt that should be recognized, I certainly would have no problem with it and think the Jewish community should choose how that might appropriately be done. So far as I know, I have no Jewish heritage and would have no part in that other than empathy and understanding, but the commemoration would require nothing of me nor take anything away from me.

Acknowledgment of the death of Jesus is not an integral part of history and heritage of the country, nor is it a component of the our laws, values, mores, culture, or economy. Good Friday is not a national holiday; the Post Office and banks stay open that day. For that reason I see the celebration of Easter as a specifically Christian observance.

However, if the majority in the community wanted to erect a Good Friday display or an Easter display or anything else commemorating a special Christian day, it still takes absolutely nothing away from you, requires you to believe nothing, requires you to act in no way, imposes no consequence of any kind on you for what you think about it or don't think about it. Therefore it would not be illegal and could even be appropriate in a community in which most citizens were adherents of the Christian faith.

It would likely be illegal if Jewish members of the community could not also commemorate Yom Kippor or the Muslim members could not recognize Ramadan or whatever special observance are unique to their particular religions.

Christmas has traditionally been celebrated by everybody either religiously or secularly or both, it is a national Holiday, and it has been a part of our heritage and history from the beginning, and it is a serious component of our national economy. A display commemorating that is absolutely appropriate and should be offensive to nobody any more than a Mayflower or Pilgrims or turkey or cornucopia display should be offensive at Thanksgiving or something commemorating Black history or whatever be put up to mark Martin Luther King's birthday.

The object itself should never be the issue and, until the last few decades, it has not been a problem. The only First Amendment issue related to a community display is whether the State can require you to participate in any way or or what consequence the State can impose on you based on what you do or do not believe or practice in matters of religion.

When it takes nothing away from you, when it requires no participation from you, and when it violates no rights that you have, it is legal and should be decided by the community whether it is something that should or should not be allowed.