Thread: Pathetic...

Originally Posted by friscofrankie

IN fact the government does not have to be "endorsing" one religion over another but as endorsing all religions. All cultures are steeped in their religions some cultures combine religions. By this definition, the government is "endorsing " a religion as long as Christmas is a public holiday.

Originally Posted by surasak

he government is supposed to be neutral towards everyone and it can't be neutral if it allows divisive symbols to be displayed on property used by all.

These symbols are divisive only due to intolerance of others. By not displaying them they are playing up to the intolerant. I say display the symbols and celebrate the differences. Those that are offended? Tough shit.

It's not about tolerance or intolerance: it's about giving the government power it should not have. If the government appears to endorse something then comes the power to suppress something else. This has been the long standing thinking of Constitutional scholars since the time of the founding of the United States and it's why the meaning of the First Amendment draws even more scrutiny than the Second.

As we all know every right guaranteed in the Constitution has limitations. One cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, one cannot libel or slander another without consequences, one may not practice religious ceremonies or exhibit such if it infringes upon another's rights to enjoy or not enjoy their religious freedoms, one may not own a firearm if one has a criminal or other record, one may not prohibit police searches of his body or property if implied consent has been given, etc......

And as far as Christmas is concerned it was recognized as a Federal holiday in the late 1800s not to elevate Christianity above all other religions but due to the fact that the government could not force people to work on that day (because it would infringe upon their religious beliefs).

The most recent case dealing with all this was Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 in which the Supreme Court set the following conditions to determine whether or not a particular display violates the Constitution: Christmas displays must deal with the secular nature of the holiday versus the religious aspects: trees, snow men, and Santa would be allowed on public property (even if the display is privately funded it won't matter) but a manger would not under most circumstances; the context, composition, and location are all important considerations in determining illegality: a small display in someone's office would be less likely to invite scrutiny than a big display at the public entrance of an airport, for example. With regards to location, one has to consider the function of the public property (United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171 (1983).). Is it a place designed for public discussion like a sidewalk, park, or open area? Is it a place for public use that generally is secure and therefore not a place for public forums (such as a government building, military base, or court)? Is it a public place operated by the government but used for private functions (such as a place designated for public rallies or speeches)? An airport is considered a public area, but, a secure area where one generally would not be allowed to enter without a specific purpose (i.e. flying). The fact that airports are secure facilities controls the applicability of whether one's rights might be infringed or not. One cannot yell "bomb" in an airport; one cannot carry guns; one cannot go where one pleases in an airport; one cannot hold rallies; one cannot hold protests; etc. Therefore, one cannot expect the same religious freedoms inside an airport as one would have in other places.

Another consideration is the special tax status of port authorities. According to Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, 330 U.S. 1947 the government may not levy taxes for the purpose of promoting or sponsoring religious "activities" or "institutions." This has been taken to mean that a government cannot use tax money to sponsor and kind of religious display.

Thus, following recent and long standing SCOTUS rulings: the Port Authority of Seattle acted correctly in replacing the trees but keeping the menorah (and other religious symbols) out.

Now do the Satanists get to put up their secular symbold? The Wiccans, Zoroastrians, Sihks, Jains, Hindus? how can a symbol be both sacred and profane simultaneously? A Christmas tree is obviously celebrating....CHRIST for Christ's sake! Oh, it's not as obvious as a 25 feet-tall crucifix with a dying Jew bleeding onto the concourse....

Do Satanists have any secular symbols?
Isn't it the birth of Christ, rather than the crucifixion, which is celebrated at Christmas?

Anyway, what is it you're wanting to say regarding the topic, medallion?

Christmas is a pagan holiday which has been celebrated long before someone made the barbarians to christians.

A bunch of posts removed. Keep it on track people, please.

Well, I'm going to ask the wife if we can put this flag up outside the house.I wonder if anybody will complain?

^Khmer Rouge flag is a political symbol, not a religious one.

^Yep I know.Just threw it in for fun.