The ACLU - pros and cons

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Because celebration and decorating are a part of life, IMHO. If enough people disagree in a community, I suppose they could vote it down.

did you read my post? (it was pretty short ) ... the church can put a manger the size of a barn on their front lawn if they want ... the point is what we spend public money on ... decorating is fine, but i would classify it as a "luxury", not an essential part of life like parks, flowers, roads, schools, etc.

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

Why put up flags on July 4th? What about offending those people who don't like our government? Should we not celebrate July 4th and not put up flags on public property because we might possibly offend someone who wants to change our government?

because the flag represents all of america, unlike a manger ... we are all americans, whether we like our government or not ... we are not christian if we don't like christianity

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

the community's actions should reflect the community's wishes

But the government can legitimately contend the “community’s wishes� if its to use public funds to promote a religion on a public site.

The government is BY the people, FOR the people. If 90% of the people think a manger scene is appropriate on public property, then put one up! And if 2% want a Hannukah display, then put one up, too. And if 1% want a Kwanzaa display, then put one up, too.

Well then lets not forget the Satanic displays, the temple to Athena, the worship towers to Boul and sacrifice pits to Azathoth not to mention the Church of the Arien Nation among other crack pot cults and hate groups that consider themselves a religion. Where do you draw the line exactly? That court house lawn sure is gonna get crowded with silly displays according to your logic aint it.

Go spend your time campaigning for people that are REALLY hurting.

The same could be said of course about the amount of time and money spent on buying and putting up and maintaining and taking down and storing displays.

Having to look at a Christmas decoration in a country where over 90% of the people celebrate Christmas is NOT a real hurt, and it's NOT an establishment of religion.

Theres a difference between “Christmas decoraction� and religious display in my opinion. Evergreen trees and holly and lights aren’t strictly religious. That’s what I think of when I hear “Christmas decoration�. But a statue of (baby) Jesus? One can say well that’s because we celebrate his birthday but whats the difference between putting up a statue of jesus on tax paid public property and a huge cross? Would that be ok? Again it comes down to being fair and drawing a line. Why don’t all 90% of these people put creshes up on their own property rather then insisting that all the non-christians in the country should help fund their religious displays on public property?

[Rían]

eh, I'm not in the mood to address these posts now - just got back from a lovely tea. I'd sum it up by repeating that by no means are the minority being FORCED to become Christians by government establishment, and that IMO the minorities that are objecting to manger scenes on public property are being selfish bullies who need to get a real life and learn what REAL hurt is about, and they're taking unfair, selfish advantage of the majority's kindness and tolerance by imposing THEIR will on the majority in a forceful, aggressive manner.

[Rían]

one quick question - why does the nice mission on LA County's state seal not have a cross

[brownjenkins]

because we are not a christian country :shrug:

[Rían]

then why call the building on the seal a mission?

[brownjenkins]

sounds more like politics than anything else to me

see here

i don't think it really matters one way or the other... most people probably had no idea what the seal looked like 'till the issue was brought up

that said, it sounds as if the issue was voted on per county law, so i guess it never really became a church vs. state issue... and the ACLU suit was never realized... they may have very well lost in court, they may have won... but they are certainly allowed to try if they think it's important

if it was up to me, i'd axe state seals entirely... another waste of time and money

[inked]

The disavowal of history, BJ, fits very nicely with your sig. It is also Orwellian, as in 1984, and called newspeak.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The disavowal of history, BJ, fits very nicely with your sig. It is also Orwellian, as in 1984, and called newspeak.

there is nothing wrong, and much to gain, by removing the religious and nationalistic from our government, while still allowing it to flourish at the private level... government should represent the ideas we share... not be obsessed with the icons of history that often represent ideals that never even existed

1984 was not about destroying either religion or nationalism... it was about destroying individuality... and for individuality to preserve, we must be able to express ourselves however we want privately (as long as no one else is harmed by it), and be able to act together in a way that puts those differences aside respectfully

in 1984 one all-powerful "religion" or "nationalistic feeling" to drowned out all others... such a world would be just as oppressive whether it was the face of big brother or the face of jesus looking down on us

[Rían]

It's the stupidity of the thing that bothers me - you can't have a cross, but you can have a mission, as long as the picture of the mission doesn't show the cross that is there? What do they think the missions were primarily about, playing bingo? History denial.

Inked - whatcha bet we'll see this rewriting of history in our lifetimes - "The name 'Los Angeles' was really a misspelling - the founders intended to make it 'Los Angles', the 'los' a Spanish word and the 'angles' an English word, because of the angles of the mountains in the area, but they couldn't spell right so it got written down as 'Los Angeles'. Nasty rumors that the name translates to "The Angels" are totally untrue, and those who insist that that is the correct history of the name are now free to spread their lies in the jails that they are currently incarcerated in."

[brownjenkins]

all i can say is let it go... it is so far down the list of important issues for either side as to be laughable

[Rían]

I guess you can only see your side, then To me (and it looks like to inked, too) the suppression of truth is an indicator of a serious disease. A California historic mission without a cross? Suppression of a plain and simple fact through fear.

[Spock]

Rian: well said and IMO also.

[Rían]

Here are two links - apparently some people agree with me and with Spock.

There's a movement starting to restore the historic city seal:
http://www.savetheseal.net/

And here's some good commentary on the situation:
(warning - apparently the guy is a pastor, because it says "Rev." in front of his name. Should his opinion be suppressed? Is his voice any less important?)
http://www.markdroberts.com/htmfiles...ontroversy.htm

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I guess you can only see your side, then To me (and it looks like to inked, too) the suppression of truth is an indicator of a serious disease. A California historic mission without a cross? Suppression of a plain and simple fact through fear.

not at all, i realize that christianity and it's symbols... and other religious and nationalistic symbols are important to some people... i just think that they often get too worked up about them... the symbols begin to take on more importance than the ideas behind them... so much so that the actual ideas get forgotten

just because a state chooses to remove a religious symbol from a public building, people jump to the conclusion that we'll be throwing christians to the lions next week

all the alcu is asking is to keep our government secular, while allowing our private citizens to be as muted or as extreme in their personal beliefs as they wish to be

asking the county to remove the cross is not an attack on christianity unless an individual decides to define it as one

[Spock]

Not complaining, but have you noticed that many places display Menorahs and no one complains. Then too, we haven't banned head scarfs in school either!

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Spock

Not complaining, but have you noticed that many places display Menorahs and no one complains. Then too, we haven't banned head scarfs in school either!

ACLU v. Schundler

ACLU v. Schundler (1999) is a United States federal case establishing standards for a government-sponsored holiday display to contain religious symbols. It was decided by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on February 16, 1999.

In its decision, which relied heavily on the earlier case County of Allegheny v. ACLU, the court held that a holiday display consisting entirely of religiously-themed materials (in this case, a nativity scene, menorah and Christmas tree) violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as an official endorsement of religion. The decision also held that religious symbols were permissible if balanced in a non-religious context.

compromise! the best solution

[inked]

I think we should ban pictures of any object that represents anything since that is a clear presentation of the materialist viewpoint.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

I think we should ban pictures of any object that represents anything since that is a clear presentation of the materialist viewpoint.

cute... nothing is being "banned", just respected

[inked]

Perhaps we should abolish the shibboleth of evolution as the marker of the materialist mindset?

"Doctors and scientists said that breaking the four-minute mile was impossible, that one would die in the attempt. Thus, when I got up from the track after collapsing at the finish line, I figured I was dead. Roger Bannister