O'Reilly's War on Xmas = Owned

[no1tovote4]

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.

Once again, the Amendment only bans legislation. Putting up displays is not legislation nor does it establish a realigion.

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.

I think it can. So long as each of the religions requested to be reasonably and equitably represented were I see no reason why we would need to ban everything at all times, other than to be exclusive. I would rather the interpretation be inclusive rather than exclusive. So that Secular Humanism is not the only religion represented by our government.

 

[Max Power]

Once again, the Amendment only bans legislation. Putting up displays is not legislation nor does it establish a realigion.

You sure?

When viewed in its overall context, the creche display violates the Establishment Clause. The creche angel's words endorse a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message. Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus. Pp. 598-602.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=492&invol=573

I think it can. So long as each of the religions requested to be reasonably and equitably represented were I see no reason why we would need to ban everything at all times, other than to be exclusive. I would rather the interpretation be inclusive rather than exclusive. So that Secular Humanism is not the only religion represented by our government.

Why should the government be reprenting religion?
Do you want to be MORE like Iran?

Let the churches represent religion, and let the government make laws.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

So you believe a nativity scene displayed in the public square for a few days is the establishment of religion?

How so?

It's just a bunch of farm animals and some people in an old shed looking at a newborn and a star shining above. Lots of times there are no words. Looks like just a rural scene to me. How is that so much more terrible than just a tree hung with some lights? Maybe we should ban all lights on trees even if they are on trees in summertime.

Exactly how does the establishment of religion happen with such displays? Are you forced to recognize or adopt a religion?

 

[no1tovote4]

You sure?

When viewed in its overall context, the creche display violates the Establishment Clause. The creche angel's words endorse a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message. Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus. Pp. 598-602.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=492&invol=573

I know what rulings there were before, however I am entitled to a differing opinion and realize that rulings can and have changed over time.

Why should the government be reprenting religion?
Do you want to be MORE like Iran?

We already are, it is called Secular Humanism which currently has been established as the official religion of the land. Any and all mention of a specific God/gods have been washed from all public land or communication.

Let the churches represent religion, and let the government make laws.

Let the people represent the religions in and on public lands as well as in private. Let the churches teach them. Let the government represent the people, all of them including the religious.

 

[Max Power]

So you believe a nativity scene displayed in the public square for a few days is the establishment of religion?

How so?

It's just a bunch of farm animals and some people in an old shed looking at a newborn and a star shining above. Lots of times there are no words. Looks like just a rural scene to me.

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

How is that so much more terrible than just a tree hung with some lights? Maybe we should ban all lights on trees even if they are on trees in summertime.

Exactly how does the establishment of religion happen with such displays? Are you forced to recognize or adopt a religion?

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.

 

[Max Power]

I know what rulings there were before, however I am entitled to a differing opinion and realize that rulings can and have changed over time.

DO you disagree with what the justice said?

We already are, it is called Secular Humanism which currently has been established as the official religion of the land. Any and all mention of a specific God/gods have been washed from all public land or communication.

Isn't that not a religion, by definition?

Let the people represent the religions in and on public lands as well as in private. Let the churches teach them. Let the government represent the people, all of them including the religious.

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

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

 

[Gunny]

DO you disagree with what the justice said?


Isn't that not a religion, by definition?


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

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

Trying to play innocent? Religious people are guided in their thinking by their religion. The very second a person representing them runs for an office, you kooks come out of the woodwork to paint that person as some closed-minded religious zealot who would stop at nothing short of theocracy.

 

[Max Power]

Trying to play innocent? Religious people are guided in their thinking by their religion. The very second a person representing them runs for an office, you kooks come out of the woodwork to paint that person as some closed-minded religious zealot who would stop at nothing short of theocracy.

I don't care if a person is religious, so long as he/she respects the establishment clause.

 

[Gunny]

I don't care if a person is religious, so long as he/she respects the establishment clause.

You mean YOUR version of the establishment clause, or what the US Constitution actually states?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I don't care if a person is religious, so long as he/she respects the establishment clause.

And exactly how would you prove that?

 

[007]

All I was wondering was if you had some specific example that related to this, or if it was just the sum of your life's experience.

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.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

I was just using your logic. Why do you run away from the question?

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.

So then as far as you are concerned, religion has not been established. You can manage to even go inside a mosque and emerge unscathed! Yet somehow nativity scenes are really dangerous!

Why then do expressions of religion in the public square bother you? As far as you are concerned, religion has not been established there either. Why all the fuss? Do you really think the government has become a religious body like a mosque? Displays (that don't bother you) equal establishment?

 

[archangel]

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.

did ya not hear the song "The Devil went down to Georgia" he lost the contest..
Then again send him down to Mr.P he will talk him to death!

 

[Gunny]

I was just using your logic. Why do you run away from the question?




So then as far as you are concerned, religion has not been established. You can manage to even go inside a mosque and emerge unscathed! Yet somehow nativity scenes are really dangerous!
Why then do expressions of religion in the public square bother you? As far as you are concerned, religion has not been established there either. Why all the fuss? Do you really think the government has become a religious body like a mosque? Displays (that don't bother you) equal establishment?

This wouldn't be problem if you'd clean up after the "ox and lamb."

 

[Max Power]

You mean YOUR version of the establishment clause, or what the US Constitution actually states?

There's not much to interpret.
The government (federal or local) can't do anything even RESPECTING the establishment of religion.

And exactly how would you prove that?

Can't. Politicians lie, it's a fact of life. Occasionally an honest one comes along.

I was just using your logic. Why do you run away from the question?

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.

So then as far as you are concerned, religion has not been established.

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.

You can manage to even go inside a mosque and emerge unscathed! Yet somehow nativity scenes are really dangerous!

I never said they're dangerous.

Why then do expressions of religion in the public square bother you?

Actually, they really don't.

As far as you are concerned, religion has not been established there either.

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

Why all the fuss? Do you really think the government has become a religious body like a mosque? Displays (that don't bother you) equal establishment?

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

 

[LuvRPgrl]

ACLU wins one, loses one. They tried to sue Pittsburgh to remove 2 displays: one a creche, the other a menorah. They originally won and both displays had to be removed but the supreme court reversed the decision about the menorah because it was displayed alongside other religious and secular items whereas the creche was by itself. You can disagree with the supreme court but the ACLU did try to have both displays removed.

Link
Link

Oh yea, that beacon of truth and light and liberty, the ACLU is gonna save us from all those scary menorah's and creches.

Yea, I shudder in fear when I see a religous symbol on public property.

The ACLU has outlived its usefulness and is desperate for reasons to exist. They work hard to find ways to justify their own existence.

anyone who cant see that is either a blithering idiot, or so blinded by their own agenda they cant see the truth if it bit them

 

[Gunny]

There's not much to interpret.
The government (federal or local) can't do anything even RESPECTING the establishment of religion.

Bull. The Establishment Clause was intended to prohibit the federal government from declaring and financially supporting a national religion. Your interpretation is contrived from words that are not present in the First Amendment.

Can't. Politicians lie, it's a fact of life. Occasionally an honest one comes along.


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.


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.


I never said they're dangerous.


Actually, they really don't.

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


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

zzz

 

[LuvRPgrl]

So what if he's wearing religious symbols while recieving goods and services on public property?
That does not constitute an establishment of religion.
That's like saying a kid wearing a Coors light t-shirt on school property is the same as the school selling beer.

A public institution putting a nativity scene on display is an establishment of religion.

It's that simple.

Just let the church's put up the nativity scenes, and leave it at that, okay? The ACLU will not bother them. I promise.

the ACLU will start harrasing them for not hiring pedophiles, as they defend NAMBLA's "right" to publish how to commit pedophilia, and if caught, how to fight it in court and get off.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

you just don't want to see the descrimination against christianity...that's cool...i am sure you will be as neutral as sweden in WWII when basic fundemental building blocks of the US are further erroded

odd that you should say the beer thing my soon was sent home for wearing a micro brew hawaiian shirt yet the sikh kid got to wear his knife and the teacher that wore a cross was fired.....

btw.........puting in god we trust on our money is endorsement of religion.....having a federal holiday of christmas is endorsement of religion.....having your oath in court say so help me god is endorsement of religion....having an easter egg hunt on the east lawn is endorsement of religion....shall i go on?

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

 

[LuvRPgrl]

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



So predictable.

If it wasn't so ludicrous, I'd find this post insulting - the idea that following the first amendment is somehow equivalent to killing millions of people.

(And btw, you're the only person who's suggesting getting rid of churches, prayers, etc.)

You are right. Enforcing allowing people to practice their religion is equivalent to killing people. Oppss, oh, you meant seperation of church and state, hmmm, Im still looking for that one, still dont see the words in there.