O'Reilly's War on Xmas = Owned

[007]

president is sworn in on a Bible, congress prays, has a chaplain, as does the military,,,shall we go on??

Don't worry... the aclu and it's dark band of plundering heathens will get around to that too. It's just a matter of time.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

You're the one who's making references to Nazi Germany, not me.

Since you apparently missed it last time, go read this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

I used to think you were an atheist. Now I know that wikpedia is your Bible.

A nativity scene is not A LAW establishing a religion. period.
with more conservatives on the supreme court, thats how the rulings will be going from now on, get used to it, and get over it. We have taken the country back from you lunatics, bwahhahahahahhahahah

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is no historicity to the birth of Jesus Christ (virgin birth, wise men, etc). I'm sorry, but there isn't. The nativity scene is religious, pure and simple.

What has "historicity" (whatever that is) got to do with it? If nativity scenes need to be banned, per your logic then trees with lights need to be banned too. And the national holiday of Christmas needs to be banned as well - certainly for all the government workers! I'll expect my mail to be delivered on December 25th! :duh3:

NO.
Simply because I don't choose to adopt a specific religion upon entering a building does NOT mean that the religion hasn't been established in said building.

So you are comparing a mosque to a public library which has a nativity scene set up? According to you they both have established religion. Are you saying that if I go to the library I can sign up to join the religion that's been established there?

I never said they're dangerous.

Of course you liberals think nativity scenes are dangerous. Why else would you be fighting so hard to remove them? (You might want to contemplate why the Left fights so hard to remove them.)

Actually, they really don't.

Of course expressions of religion in the public square bother you. Why else would you be fighting so hard to remove them? (You might want to contemplate why the Left fights so hard to remove them.)

That's not true, you simply don't know what established means.

So tell me. What does established mean??

Hey, I'm not the one making the fuss, I'm just laughing at O'Reilly for making a fuss.

The "fuss" was originally started by the Left and its army of well-funded pinhead lawyers who with the aid of activist judges have twisted the meaning of our Constitution and started suing municipalities for displaying religious symbols in their communities which they've had the freedom of displaying ever since this country began.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

The first amendment doesn't protect people from being offended.

It does, however, prevent an establishment of religion.

at the federal level. States had state sponsored religions when it was written.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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..

You have that wrong. Any power not expressly invested in the feds by the constitution is defaulted to the states. The first amendment does not prevent the states from establishing religions, only the federal congress.

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.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

nooooooooooo, it doesnt say local govt cant establish a religion. In fact, many states HAD state sponsored religions and they were sometimes formed by the same guys who wrote and signed the constitution. Somehow I think they knew what they meant by the first amendment regarding "establishment"" more than you or any Supreme court justice would.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

ClayTaurus already has a good post on this
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=362175&postcount=48


You don't have to be forced to adopt it for it to be an establishment of religion. I can go to a mosque without being forced to adopt Islam.

The writers of the Constitution wanted to "establish" their own state sponsored religions in their own various colonies. It was one of their gripes with King George. The king had a "federally'' established religion, and wouldnt allow them to establish their own individual states/colonies religions.

So they wrote in the Constitution, that the FEDERAL congress shall not impose upon the states, an establishment of an official religion. ESTABLISHMENT to them meant an expressed LAW regarding one religion as governmentally established and recognized. IT PREVENTED a FEDERAL LAW from being written so they could establish their own individual State religions, which is what they did.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

How about this for an example of change. When I was a kid, like your age, people said "Merry Christams". Now, people say "happy holidays". Why is that? Why has saying Merry Christmas disappeared from Christmas? Or better yet, why SHOULD Merry Christmas be striken from Christmas? When after all, it is "Christ's birthday" that Christmas is based on.

Now we've spent pages on this debate. Their are those here that are heathens that just simply want Christmas, Christ, and everything religous cleansed completely from view. And then there are those like me, Christians, that just want things to remain AS THEY WERE FOR CENTURIES. I for one don't feel this new change is a GOOD one. There's a sinister force behind this campaign against Christmas and Christians. An evil force. I call it the devil, and it upsets me to see the devil win.

Hows this for change. Its now illegal to ban shirts in schools that say "fuck you" but its illegal to say "God bless you " at a graduating ceremony.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Don't worry... the aclu and it's dark band of plundering heathens will get around to that too. It's just a matter of time.

no, the pendelum is swinging the other way now We have them on the run. It will go that way for a few decades, it always goes like that, back and forth. Its a historical fact.

The supreme court now has a conservative majority. In fact, if reagan and Bush one hadnt screwed up with some of their nominees they "thought" were conservative, we would have been winning this battle for some time now.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

For those of you hating on the ACLU, you might want to take into account that they are the only group out there fighting to maintain your civil liberties. If it weren't for the ACLU, we would be living in an even more restrictive police state than we do now.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

Sigh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law

Talk about an unreliable source. You apparently haven't been paying attention to the news.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

The first amendment doesn't protect people from being offended.

It does, however, prevent an establishment of religion.

How does a nativity scene, a Christmas tree, Christmas songs, etc. establish religion? Is there someone standing next to the nativity scene forcing you into Christianity? Are you still free to be part of any religion you choose, or none at all?

No establishment of religion has taken place.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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.

There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that says anything about guaranteeing you won't see religious displays on public land. That's just stupid.

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.

Again, how does a nativity scene force you into a certain religion?

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

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.

Ok, this brings up an interesting point. I'll set aside the needling for a second and let you in on something.

IF a group of people came forward and said something along the lines of wanting a gesture of fairness, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. If people came forward and wanted a law passed or even a Constitutional amendment that religious symbols were not to be displayed on public property, just as a sign of everyone being treated equally, it would be a good point. It's also something I don't necessarily disagree with. I think it would be a good gesture, particularly in areas with a wide variety of people and religions.

That's not what happens. Instead, you and people like you want to manipulate the Constitution to get your way. You want to add words, give broad definitions, or outright change what the Constitution says. THAT is what I have a problem with. I'm tired of people jumping up and claiming everything that doesn't go their way, everything they disagree with, everything that goes against their mind set is somehow a violation of their Constitutional rights, when it is nothing of the kind.

To use a variation of your own example: Saying that a nativity scene is establishing a religion is like saying that if you kick me out of your house for calling your wife a bitch, it's a violation of my freedom of speech. A nativity scene on public property might be seen as unfair to some, but it's not a violation of the Constitution. It might not seem fair for you to kick me out of your house, because maybe your wife is a bitch, but it's not a violation of the Constitution either.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

For those of you hating on the ACLU, you might want to take into account that they are the only group out there fighting to maintain your civil liberties. If it weren't for the ACLU, we would be living in an even more restrictive police state than we do now.

I'm not a member of NAMBLA, or a Democrat, so the ACLU doesn't do squat for me.

 

[Abbey Normal]

For those of you hating on the ACLU, you might want to take into account that they are the only group out there fighting to maintain your civil liberties. If it weren't for the ACLU, we would be living in an even more restrictive police state than we do now.

That's funny, because I believe it is the groups fighting against the ACLU, that are fighting for my civil liberties. The ACLU truly is the Anti-Christian Liberties Union. It is doing a very good job of bringing about the godless, immoral America that it's Communist founder and leaders dreamed of.

And if you think America is a police state, you must not know much about other countries or read much world history. I'm sure all the people risking their very lives to flee truly restrictive regimes to come here would find that statement ridiculous. Will the hyperbole and emotional extremism from the left ever end?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

;whenever I talk with newly arrived LEGAL immigrants, they are almost always opposed to what the ACLU does and against liberalists ideas and values.

When I visit China, Philippines, Taiwan, Japan or Korea, the people ask how we Americans can allow such restrictions on our religous actions and become so liberal in our family structures and values. Placing homosexual rights above fathers rights for their children and the such.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

For those of you hating on the ACLU, you might want to take into account that they are the only group out there fighting to maintain your civil liberties. If it weren't for the ACLU, we would be living in an even more restrictive police state than we do now.

That was twenty years ago. They are now a dinosaur. Evoluton has passed them by. They are no longer needed They are now a destructive force. They need to learn from the abolitionists, true Christians, true conservatives, once your goal is achieved, disband. Otherwise you become useless and counterproductive.

Name one civil liberty they have enforced for me in the last 10 years.

I will name one real life time they restricted my liberties. I wanted to place an ad for rent for a room in my house. Actually, there were two rooms. attatched to each other. One was only accesable to the other, so two strangers couldnt rent each other out. But i thought it was an ideal situation for a single mother, the second room for her kids.

Now, realistically, mothers get custody of the kids 98% of the time

But when I wanted to say "ideal for single mothers" in my ad, I wasnt allowed to. yea, lots of freedom, common sense and protection of civil liberties, eh?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Ok, this brings up an interesting point. I'll set aside the needling for a second and let you in on something.

IF a group of people came forward and said something along the lines of wanting a gesture of fairness, it wouldn't be such a bad thing. If people came forward and wanted a law passed or even a Constitutional amendment that religious symbols were not to be displayed on public property, just as a sign of everyone being treated equally, it would be a good point. It's also something I don't necessarily disagree with. I think it would be a good gesture, particularly in areas with a wide variety of people and religions.

That's not what happens. Instead, you and people like you want to manipulate the Constitution to get your way. You want to add words, give broad definitions, or outright change what the Constitution says. THAT is what I have a problem with. I'm tired of people jumping up and claiming everything that doesn't go their way, everything they disagree with, everything that goes against their mind set is somehow a violation of their Constitutional rights, when it is nothing of the kind.

To use a variation of your own example: Saying that a nativity scene is establishing a religion is like saying that if you kick me out of your house for calling your wife a bitch, it's a violation of my freedom of speech. A nativity scene on public property might be seen as unfair to some, but it's not a violation of the Constitution. It might not seem fair for you to kick me out of your house, because maybe your wife is a bitch, but it's not a violation of the Constitution either.

Careful there Jimmy. I wouldnt use a wife and bitch term as examples!
Try sticking to criticizing his artistic endevours in remodeling his house. Like, "your color schemes suck!"

You are absolutely correct on the Constitutional issue.

Its so funny, cuz for years now the left has had control of the courts and their AGENDA has been getting pushed through via a DISTORTION and reading into the Constitution that which isnt there. They even admit it, by calling it a "living, breathing" document, which it isnt.

But now that the conservatives are taking back control, and trying to revert to the original intent of the Constitution, they are screaming "Justices shouldnt have an agenda!"

ha, how is it possible for someone to not have an agenda? Dont those who uphold Roe V Wade have an agenda? I love it how if one supports conservative values, its agenda driven, but if one supports liberal values, they consider it white as the driven snow, and not agenda driven.

What good is a document if it is "living and breathing' open to interpetation at any time? The need for, and ability to, change the Constitution was written into it. But liberals couldnt go along with that. Their thirst for power knows no bounds, and they have been willing to usurp the actual intent of the Constitution in order to gain that power, in the name of "compassion".

Now it is coming back to bite them, and they are like little children screaming "thats not fair".

 

[no1tovote4]

DO you disagree with what the justice said?

I do. I disagree with what the justice said. Amazingly we can do that, and sometimes we are right, regardless of their base of knowledge it is still a legal opinion, not a legal fact. The reality is that by attempting to force all religion from the public sector we end up enforcing Secular Humanism, which per the SCOTUS is a religion. Specifically the Courts begin enforcing a specific religion onto us against the Constitution, both by the fact that they attempt to legislate against freedoms of religion, and they establish the specific religion.

Isn't that not a religion, by definition?


So long as the first amendment stands, then the government won't be representing religion.

I haven't asked them to. I ask that the government be allowed to represent the people. Since we have Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc. Each religion should be able to represent their views on public land. An inclusive rather than exclusive interpretation of the First Amendment. This allows even the Secular Humanist to have representation at the same time as the religious. The assumption that the only way to be equal is by denying is simply fallacious at is inception.

This doesn't in any way prohibit the government from representing religious PEOPLE.

No, it prohibits them from allowing those they represent freedom of expression on specific items on public land. It is a restrictive interpretation rather than an inclusive. Once again, it is unnecessary to equality to delete expression rather than include expression from the public sector.