petition in favor of banning nativity

[TLSnell1981]

Wow 8 pages for an Obama jab to surface. I thought it would be much sooner. I"m not going to comment any further on that since it has absolutly no relevance to this thread. But hey, thanks for throwing your jab in there somehow.

The bait was laid and I took it.

 

[genius118899]

Recognition does not equal an endorsement.

 

[John Smith1]

Be prepared for this sort of thing to happen more often....after 01.20.2009.

what the heck does that have to do with anything???? You'd think the holocaust was coming listening to some people!

 

[Slapstick]

Recognition does not equal an endorsement.

Not if you recognize each Religion.

 

[Soarin08]

Be prepared for this sort of thing to happen more often....after 01.20.2009.

 

[bumbershoot]

If one truly wants to bring about "separation" then start circulating a petition to eliminate the paid day off from work for government workers. Now that's one I'd like to see started.

There are plenty of people who would work on xmas and take a different holiday off. Sometimes it's allowed, sometimes it's not, sometimes it would be allowed but there's no work to be done b/c so many people are off.

When I was working, and hubby still does it, I/we always offered to work on that day, b/c it's not important to us. And trust me, there are ALWAYS people calling amazon to ask or complain or yell about something, even while kids are unwrapping presents in the background. So there's always a need. Not that amazon is gov't, LOL, but there's work to do at amazon, but when my mom was alive and she and my stepdad were working in Langley VA, there was NOT work to be done, generally, on that day, unless you had a super-important job to do.

if you really want to do god's work, wooden animals in the town square is probably not the best way to spend your money. shelter the homeless, feed the hungry, give to children.

Such a good point!

I would feel like I was betraying God in doing so.

All you're doing is saying that the city's money shouldn't pay for it.

Well I was in town the other day and a store had Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and Happy Kwanzaa window clings up. We're a nation of diverse cultures, but yet public displays of such is what, intolerable? I don't get it.

Well aside from it being private property, they are being INclusive. They've got almost everyone covered, but if they have some pretty lights then IMO they include someone like me, too. I like the pretty lights.

I think they should say that it's not a Nativity but a group of Israelis, Palestinians, Iraqis, and other assorted Middle Easterners who came to visit a baby. That's politically correct and no one would mind. The ACLU would love it.

Love it! If only more people saw it in that way. When my mom and stepdad were teaching bible study at their church in Miami (that they fairly soon after this day gave up and moved on) they realized that NO ONE in their group believed, or WOULD believe, that Jesus was Jewish. They said "no, he's Christian", not understanding that Christians followed what he said, but he was just his own guy, and he was born Jewish. They absolutely couldn't figure that out, and after awhile my mom and stepdad gave up, realized that place wasn't for them, and found another church to go to.

I've never known anyone non-Christian (and by that I mean someone who adheres to another faith, other than Christianity - not someone who has no faith at all) celebrate Christmas.

What does "celebrate Christmas" mean? I was raised without religion, but hubby was raised Korean Buddhist, but his mom always included Christmas. Didn't have to, as her born Catholic hubby had converted to Buddhism, but she did it. Decorated the tree, made lots of needlepoint stuff, sewed an Advent Calendar, the whole thing.

There are alot of people that don't belive in Santa and don't want to tell their children "lies". Therefore, putting up a cutout Santa and reindeer would be offensive to them and would show that the town supports lying to people.

Seems no matter what you do, it's going to offend someone.

Well it IS lying, but anyway, Santa doesn't offend me, it's just silly. A silly thing to do when you know kids are going to find out and be sad anyway (unless you're my stepmom who refuses to give presents to those who don't "believe", so she's forced her kids to keep saying they believe in Santa to get things).

But Santa doesn't offend me, just seems like a waste of time.


That said, my kid, who has NEVER been told that Santa exists, told me the other day that Santa DOES exist. Kids!

That is your interpretation.

OK. Go live in a country that has a state sponsored religion that isn't yours and enjoy having your Christian stuff excluded. Then come back after some years and talk to me about how having one faith's stuff everywhere didn't EXclude you.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Not if you recognize each Religion.

If the OP's town only is recognizing Christianity in their displays, and somebody went around with a petition to add other religious displays, it still wouldn't make everyone happy. Some are offended by the intrusion of religious symbols in the public square and/or use of tax dollars to exhibit them.

 

[ilisao]

I'm Catholic, but have absolutely no problem with symbols of other religions; I don't understand why people have issues with mine.

See, this is the problem with this issue every year. People are arguing against religious symbols on public property. And yet, there is always a group who only see half the issue and hone in the "arguing against religious symbols."

NO ONE here has an issue with your symbols. NO ONE has an issue with Nativity scenes in general. Decorate your entire front, side and backyards with them if that's what you so choose. The issue is a taxpayer funded Nativitiy on government property. THAT is the problem. Not you as a Catholic having one.

 

[MomNeedsVacay]

Whats so offensive about Baby Jesus? THe HORROR.... Even if you think its a fairytale-- whats wrong with it?

What do non-religious people tell their children about the origins of Christmas????????????

 

[Uncle Remus]

See, this is the problem with this issue every year. People are arguing against religious symbols on public property. And yet, there is always a group who only see half the issue and hone in the "arguing against religious symbols."

NO ONE here has an issue with your symbols. NO ONE has an issue with Nativity scenes in general. Decorate your entire front, side and backyards with them if that's what you so choose. The issue is a taxpayer funded Nativitiy on government property. THAT is the problem. Not you as a Catholic having one.

You got that right.

 

[SwedishMeatball]

OK. Go live in Malaysia and enjoy having your Christian stuff excluded. Then come back after some years and talk to me about how having one faith's stuff everywhere didn't EXclude you.

But I don't live in Malaysia. I live in the United States of America, where we are free to express ourselves and worship as we please.

 

[Uncle Remus]

Whats so offensive about Baby Jesus? THe HORROR.... Even if you think its a fairytale-- whats wrong with it?

What do non-religious people tell their children about the origins of Christmas????????????

Meet Santa Claus, a great man:

 

[SwedishMeatball]

Whats so offensive about Baby Jesus? THe HORROR.... Even if you think its a fairytale-- whats wrong with it?

What do non-religious people tell their children about the origins of Christmas????????????

It was invented for people who need something to cling to.

 

[Heidict]

But someone has to work to put up the decorations. Unless someone is completely donating their time to do it, they are getting paid with tax payer money to do it.

Even if the decorations were donated and the people/person who put it up did it on their own time at their own expense, people would still disagree with it.

Generally speaking, a person who puts a Menorah in their window is usually Jewish and endorses Judaism. A person who puts a Nativity in their yard are generally Christian and endorses Christianity.

I have known alot of people that aren't Jewish that put up a Menorah.

I think it's mainly become a problem with Christian symbols because there are so many Christians that are constantly in people's faces and telling everyone they should be Christian.

Heck, I sat at the dinner table on Thanksgiving and heard my own cousin's husband talk about their many children as voices to promote the Lord.

Oh. And my cousin and her husband are some of those that are offended by Santa. Not because of "lies". But becuase he's not Jesus.

Yup, I have run into plenty of people like that. Not all Christian's are though.

Recognition does not equal an endorsement.

Perfect way to put it!!

Not if you recognize each Religion.

That would be one interesting display.

what the heck does that have to do with anything???? You'd think the holocaust was coming listening to some people!

My favorite is the one about how Obama is going to usher in the anti-christ and the one world government and that anyone who voted for him voted against God.

 

[ilisao]

Whats so offensive about Baby Jesus? THe HORROR.... Even if you think its a fairytale-- whats wrong with it?

What do non-religious people tell their children about the origins of Christmas????????????

Nothing is offensive about Baby Jesus. Nothing at all - unless the Nativity depicting his birth is placed on government property using public funds.

Why is that so hard for people to understand? Seriously. Why don't people get that? It's not about the symbol in general. It's about the symbol on government property.

 

[Mr Man]

The bait was laid and I took it.

In fairness, I did reference "Hope and Change" earlier in the thread.



Just because he is the President-elect, doesn't mean he gets to be one of the Three Wise Men in our Nativity scene.......even if it gets banned somewhere so they can put up a Buddha statue to celebrate a single solitary day in December that has no significance other than it is a day in December.

(just trying to pull the various themes of this thread together).


.....and honestly, Myrrh? Who brings Myrrh to a Baby Shower! (just sayin')

 

[Heidict]

Nothing is offensive about Baby Jesus. Nothing at all - unless the Nativity depicting his birth is placed on government property using public funds.

Why is that so hard for people to understand? Seriously. Why don't people get that? It's not about the symbol in general. It's about the symbol on government property.

Then I guess it would be best if the town did absolutly nothing and did not recognize any holiday because someone is going to take offense regardless of how they do it.

 

[NMAmy]

What do non-religious people tell their children about the origins of Christmas????????????

That that is when Christians celebrate the birth of Christ--even though there is some disagreement as to whether he was actually born at that time of year. That's what I told dd, anyway.

I also told her that it's the time when we, as a family, celebrated our love for each other by giving gifts and spending time together.

Like many others, I don't find Nativity scenes bothersome if they're on church property or on someone's private property but I don't like them on public property.

Although I must admit that my mom's neighbor's Nativity scene freaked me out in a snowstorm the other day--the figures were a size that made me think there were a couple of toddlers huddled in a snowbank. It startled me.

 

[Goofyluver]

First off, I do not believe that the SCOTUS is infalible, they also reversed 150 years of precident in 1948 with that decision as well. So for over twice as long as before they didn't interpret the way it is currently interpreted.

The SCOTUS did not reverse 150 years of precedent. Treaties are the supreme law of the land and the Treaty of Tripoli was adopted during Geo. Washington's term and shows the true intent of our founding fathers http://nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm


Unlike most governments of the past, the American Founding Fathers set up a government divorced from any religion. Their establishment of a secular government did not require a reflection to themselves of its origin; they knew this as a ubiquitous unspoken given. However, as the United States delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the intentions of the U.S. For this reason, an insight from at a little known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals the secular nature of the U.S. goverenment to a foreign nation. Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article 11, it states:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [bold text, mine]

The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate of secular government. Joel Barlow wrote the original English version of the treaty, including Amendment 11. Barlow forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.

So here we have a clear admission by the United States in 1797 that our government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all U.S. Treaties do (see the Constitution, Article VI, Sect.2: "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.") [Bold text, mine]

Although the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status, it clearly represented the feelings of our Founding Fathers at the beginning of the American government.

 

[Goofyluver]

Jen

Have to run to a meeting, but since you like SCOTUS rulings check out

Church of the Holy Trinity vs United States from 1892, see what they had to say about the subject and I'll discuss it with you later.

Have a great day.

The holding you refer to is what lawyers call dicta and simply not binding on the courts. This explanation may help

http://candst.tripod.com/trinity.htm


To understand whether this last part of the Court's rationale establishes anything at all, it is necessary to first understand that an opinion written by the Supreme Court contains several different parts. The holding of the case establishes the rule of law as decided on by the court and as it relates specifically to the facts of the case. The rationale of the case contains the different reasons why the Court decided a case the way that it did. Contained within these reasons can be comments by the Court which do not have any bearing on the specific rule of law and are not binding on future cases with similar facts. These non-essential comments are called dictum, and unlike the holding of the case, dictum carries no precedential value. The essential comments, or the holding, becomes precedent which can then be applied to subsequent cases with similar facts.
In the case of Holy Trinity the essential comments made by the Court concern the scope of an immigration law. The rule was that the Act did not prohibit foreign "toilers" of the brain from accepting employment in this country. The foreign-born professional worker, doctor, lawyer, businessman, or clergyman, would be able to use the rule in Holy Trinity and the rationale regarding the purpose of the Act to support his claim for employment in America. Consider the "absurd" result if a doctor from Russia at the turn of the century were to state that he could be hired by an American hospital because Holy Trinity stood for the proposition that "this is a Christian nation." It would not make sense for such a person to cite the dictum concerning America's religiosity as a reason for allowing him access to the American job market.

Whether or not America was a Christian Nation was not even at issue in Holy Trinity. The actual dispute or controversy the Court had to decide had nothing at all to do with religion. The parties in Holy Trinity did not question whether the Immigration Act's purpose was "for or against religion" generally or specifically. So when Brewer begins his religious history lesson with, "no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people," he refers to no particular statute, no particular actor. He has moved outside the actual facts of this case and the statute at issue to address the vague application of general principles to law in general. His statements, therefore, create no rule of law, and provide no useful precedent for future legal disputes. As any basic Legal Research textbook will confirm, the legal researcher will not find precedent in such language, but must look for "the [legal] rules stated by courts [which] are tied to specific fact situations" (The Fundamentals of Legal Research, 1994, Jacobstein et al, page 6).

Brewer's comments about religion are not tied to any of the facts as presented in Holy Trinity. The Holy Trinity Church did not allege in the facts of its case that the purpose of the Act was to discriminate against a particular religion nor that it was designed to prevent the members of their church from the free exercise of their religion. Since none of the facts suggested that the clergyman was being kept out of the country for the purpose of discriminating against religion or prohibiting religious exercise, the dictum by Brewer addresses no controversy and crafts no rule of law to be applied to other cases as precedent.