What ever happen to live and let live?

The only slippery slope I see here is one person trying to stick it up the ass of another.

There is room on this earth for everyone.

And if someone has nothing better to do in his life then to knock things down and jam points down others throats then they better take a look at themselves.

This world would soon lose the color of life itself if you made everything black and white.

Who said gray is not a great color. That church and state bullshit is lame. What ever happen to FAIR and EQUAL?

After all we have come a long way on women's rights, gay rights and such. Why back peddle because some jerks want to jam their views down America's throat?

First of all, DC, allow me to be the first to welcome you back. I read your post above about five minutes after you made it, but I was unable to respond immediately, as I was about to go out to pick up some bagels and lox.

Anyway, "live and let live" as well as "fair and equal" are certainly two very admirable sentiments to which I subscribe fully.

I believe in gays rights, abortion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. In fact, I believe that people should be allowed to do almost anything they wish to with or on their private property as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others.

As far as what people do in public, of course, I'm not as liberal with my viewpoint, but I still believe that if their actions to not interfere with or trample on the rights of others, almost anything goes.

I agree with you as well when you say that not everything is black and white.

While I support a woman's right to choose abortion, for example, or the rights of gay couples to marry (to name but two), I understand fully that these issues are far from black and white for most people, including myself.

There are very compelling arguments that can be and are made for both sides of the coin for either of these issues, and while I have my own opinion, I certainly respect and understand the position of those who do not agree with mine.

The free interchange of differing points of view is one of the things that has made America great, and, accordingly, I would never accuse anyone, regardless of the issue or their position on it, of "trying to stick it up the ass of another" or trying to "knock things down and jam points down others throats" or being "some jerks (who) want to jam their views down America's throat".

In fact, with only one or two exceptions -- those who choose to reduce the discussion to a personal level and resort to name-calling and personal criticism rather than the presentation of a logical argument and who shall remain nameless -- I greatly admire the passion that some of the members here bring to the discussions, regardless of their particular stance on the issue under consideration.

Strangely enough, when watching "Sunday Best" on Fox tonight, I found that Bill O'Reilly and myself share quite equivocal feelings.

Paul,
please don't feel that I was talking about you or any other person on this board when I used the terms in my prior posts.

I used these terms to describe the people who are the ones that would force people or groups to change things that have been done year after year without hurting anyone.
Why, Because it betters their own lives?

Because it makes them feel that much better over another? Maybe...or is it that they just want to be a prick.

Maybe it is a control issue, like so many things are these days. Maybe it is just that these people are so unhappy in their lives that they must pass it along to all others....

So if I sounded like I was name calling, maybe I am. But, rest assure that it was not to any one on this board, but that unseen face that forces the issues that rips the heart out of the country and the people I love.

Freedom shouldn't end just because it is a public place. I feel it is more important to be Fair and Equal rather then no, no no....

Now this is getting interesting plaw. I'll bring the whiskey and potatoes...Irish soul food.

O'Reilly seemed to actually make sense!

I also am posting so Plaw's avatar gets updated to his latest one -- one more appropriate for this holi-day season!

* Federated Department Stores, which includes Macy's, has suggested that managers avoid displaying "Merry Christmas" banners and have ordered employees not to talk about it.

A rather silly decision on the part of Federated, I think. Assuming that most of their clientele is Christian, they run a much greater risk of costing themselves business once this news gets out than they would by celebrating Christmas in their stores.

Everyone seems to think that this argument is about offending non-Christians.

I don't think that's it at all. It's about the mixing of religion and government.

* In Denver, a church was banned from the "Festival of Lights" parade because it wanted a religious theme to its float.

More stupidity.

Even if it's a government organization sponsoring the parade, the float itself is sponsored by a church, not the governemnt.

As long as any religious group is given the same opportunity to have a religious float, then it's no problem.

And if it's a private organization sponsoring the parade, then they can do whatever they wish, although a decision like this could backfire on them, just as Federated Department Store's might.

* The Maplewood, New Jersey school board has banned all religious music from "holiday" concerts. (Would somebody please tell me exactly what holiday this is?)

This is the issue that started this thread.

It depends on the music itself. Some has a non-religious theme, which is OK I believe.

But music with clearly religious theme is not appropriate in a public school.

* And New York City Mayor Bloomberg insists that the lighted tree outside City Hall is not a Christmas tree, it's a "holiday tree." (What holiday, Mr. Mayor?)

A Christmas tree by any other name is still a Christmas tree.

But please. No nativity scenes at City Hall.

Surveys show that more than 90% of Americans celebrate the Federal holiday of Christmas, signed into law by President Grant in 1870. Despite that overwhelming number, the tradition of Christmas in America continues to get hammered.

Depends what you mean by "celebrate".

To me, celebrating a religious holiday should at least include a visit to your place of worship or some recognition of the holiday's religious significance.

By that definition, the 90% figure seems kind of high.

If "celebrating" simply means that it's an excuse for a day off from school or work, then every public school child in New York City "celebrates" the Jewish New Year and the holiday of Yom Kippur

The anti-Christmas forces say it's all about diversity, protecting the sensitivities of those Americans who get offended by the mere mention of the birth of Jesus. Somehow, I haven't been able to locate any of these people--folks who find a baby in a manger so off-putting, it ruins their day.

I can only speak for myself here. The sight of a baby in a manger certainly does not ruin my day or offend me. I respect people's religions, and their right to religiously themed displays on their private property.

As Don Cardi, or SC, or Turnbull can tell you, there's a section in brooklyn that is noted for the way people decorate their homes.

Totally, and I mean totally, decorated with lights, nativity scenes, etc., and electric bills that supposedly run into the thousands of dollars for the month.

They are quite a tourist attraction, with traffic jams and cops to control the crowds and everything.

And I go there at least once every year to marvel at these displays.

But I don't think they belong in government buildings.

So the diversity excuse is a bunch of bull. What's really going on here is a well-organized movement to wipe out any display of organized religion from the public arena.

And I support that, while making the distinction between "public arenas" and government venues.

Macy's, I think, is a Public arena, and, as i said, I believe it's foolish of them to eliminate Christmas from their stores. I mean, why the hell do they think that their business is probably up 50% or more in December?

But I just don't think that religious displays and the like belong in schools or government buildings.

The secular-progressive movement understands very well that it is organized religion, most specifically Christianity and Judaism, that stands in the way of gay marriage, partial birth abortion, legalized narcotics, euthanasia, and many other secular causes. If religion can be de-emphasized in the USA, a brave new progressive society can be achieved.

That's the idea. And to counter the reactionary religious right

It has happened in Canada. Once a traditional religious country, Canada has become like Holland in its embrace of the secular movement. Some facts: In 1980, 79% of Canadians said that religion was important to the country. That number has now fallen to 61%, according to an Environics Focus Canada poll.

In 1971, less than one percent of the Canadian population reported having no religion whatsoever; now that number has risen to 16%.

If people can be so easily influenced to "lose" their religion, maybe religion is something that has begun to outlive its usefullness a bit, at least for many people.

Clearly, the trend throughout recent history has been to de-emphasize religion.

What's happening in America, though, is that both sides are moving further away from the center.

The fall of religion in Canada has corresponded to a change in public policy. Unlike Americans, Canadians have legalized gay marriage and any kind of abortion. Also, the age of consent for sex up north is just 14 years old. Can you imagine American adults being allowed to fool around with children that age? I can't.

Change in public policy that for the most part is positive, I think.

But with the notable exception of lowering the age of consent to fourteen.

Fourteen? Sheesh......

Even drug legalization is close to being a reality, as the city of Vancouver is developing a heroin give-away policy, and pot has been largely decriminalized across the country.

Something must be done for heroin addicts besides treating them as criminals. We should start by figuring out what it is in our society that makes people turn to drugs, and correct the problem.

And marijuana should be basically de-criminalized, I think, at least for the end-user.

The Canadian model is what progressive Americans are shooting for, and so religion must be dealt with. Since Christmas is the most demonstrative display of organized religion, the strategy of minimizing the birth of Jesus makes perfect sense.

Again.....I don't seek to minimize the birth of Jesus. Believe what you want. That's completely up to you, and I respect a person's right to believe what they wish.

But I also believe that a person's religious beliefs should be a basically private affair, to be shared with their families, loved ones, and co-religionists.

Nativity scenes and religious Christmas music doesn't belong in government buildings or public schools.

I know this sounds kind of conspiratorial, but it really isn't. Most of those marginalizing Christmas have no idea about the big picture I've just presented. They simply think they're looking out for the minority of Americans who don't celebrate the birth of Christ.

Keeping religion out of schools and government buildings is in no way "marginalizing" the holiday.

It's a religious holiday, first and foremost, and, as such, the religious display of the holiday doesn't belong in schools or government buildings.

But committed secularists in the media, in the courts, and in the education system know exactly what's going on.

Secularism: The view that the consideration of the present well-being of mankind should predominate over over religious considerations in civil affairs or public education.

Don't see anything wrong with that.

Is that the street where the guy has the HUGE toy soldiers up?

Mr. Plaw,

Please get your blood pressure checked. This has become the Gangster BB filibuster. You're doing great, but I worry about you.

Thanks for your concern, MC.

But someone has to carry the torch, and it looks like it'll be me on this one.

It seems as though I'm getting it from all sides here. Why, even Camillus Don came out of retirement to join the fray

Besides, a day without a good argument is like a day without sunshine.

I think I'll move to Seattle.

It's not? We're not talking about some random holiday, we're talking about censoring and "genericizing" a traditional Christian holiday into something bland and non-offensive to the minority of non-believers.

Ah yes, but without the religion, there would clearly be no reason to have holiday, now would there? So there is no logical reason to ban all religious-themed music.

Why not? If we can have bloody Kwanzaa signs/advertisments/whatnot at a public university, funded by taxpayer dollars, we certainly should be able to have a nativity scene, if the majority wants it.

In the context used by O'Reilly (and what I suppose most people would conform to) would be the observance of December 25th and it's surrounding days as traditional holy days for the Catholic faith. Regardless of their faith, they do not work (if at all possible), and take it as a day of rest, regardless as to whether they exercise traditional customs.


So let's bring the issue down a notch - if a gradeschool kid makes a Star of David, or a Crucifix, alongide a Christmas wreath, out of construction paper (hypothetically), they should be banned from taping them to the windows, or hanging them on a school tree, etc.?


I'd consider it more of a private firm.

Why not? Why should the majority of the public, who does not object, have to conform to a generic, non-offensive practice, simply because they are on government property? It's not as if the Constitution doesn't say our unalienable rights are endowed by a divine creator. Our money says "In God We Trust." And the Pledge still says "One nation, under God."

By reactionary right, I'm assuming you mean the majority of Americans who don't object to Christmas carols at school and such. You know. MOST people.

Says who? The idealistic left? Perhaps we should examine this "loss" of religion, and the escalation in teen pregnancies, violent crimes, and domestic abuse since 1950?

Really? By whom? The liberal media...yes.


Reform is fine to an extent, but I still think a crimnal should be punished to the fullest extent of the law, and there are people who can't be reformed. Though I agree, laws like the Rockefeller Drug Laws are not effective, there has to be some kind of mediation on these narcotics and other illegal substances.

How can you say that, when you want to eliminate any acknowledgement of Christ from schools, public buildings, and other public forums?

I don't see how you can logically say that. 50 years ago, it was Christmas Recess. Now it's "holiday break." I remember my junior year, after 9/11, I was censored for putting "God Bless America" on an electronic sign board for our Broadcast Club.

You keep saying that, but there is still no logical reason, if the majority disagrees and it is not offensive to that same majority. This is America.


Except that the left clearly doesn't want what is best for mankind, and it's agenda continues to degrade at the very fabric of our morals in society today.

Well, Double J, I think we've gone about as far as I care to go on this particular issue.

I could, as I am quite sure you know, respond intelligently and logically to every one of your responses, and then you could respond intelligently and logically to my responses to your responses, and we could go on and on, as nauseam, ad infinitum.

You believe that religion belongs in public schools and government venues, and I don't.

Like almost all issues, this is not a case of black or white. I understand your points, and I'm sure you understand mine.

I don't expect to change your mind, and I'm sure you don't expect to change mine.

We don't really know what the majority of Americans want in this case, and I suspect that we never will. And even if we did, deomcracy is not always about what the majority wants.

I think you would find that a fairly sizeable majority of Americans who live in the deep South, for example, would be very happy to return to the days of segregation and Jim Crow laws, but that doesn't mean that the majority should get what they want.

And I think you would agree that what the majority wants is not always the direction in which we should move. Not necessarily on this question, but in general.

So, for my money, I'm satisfied to say that we should simply agree to disagree here.

Besides, MarCas is starting to worry about my blood pressure.....

I agree with your analysis, the only point that I'm going to respond to would be the following:

The argument was more about whether it is appropriate to remove religion and personal beliefs from government/public schools, which I disagree with. Religion, spirituality, whatever you want to call it, is a core part of many people's lives, and because a minority object to something, that doesn't mean it is right, or for the common good of the people.

Personal beliefs are, and should be, just that: Personal. There are enough opportunities for people to express their personal beliefs in the privacy of their homes or in their respective places of worship where, I believe, they belong and are more appropriately expressed.

There are many "core parts" of people's lives which do not warrant a public celebration in a government building or school.

Homosexuality, for one. I'm sure you would agree with me that a huge banner celebrating Gay Pride Week would not be appropriate in a government building or a school.

And it's not about what the majority of people want or believe. As I've said on a number of occasions, democracy is not necessarily about "Majority Rules" at all times.

And even if it is, I'm not convinced that prayer in schools or nativity displays in government buildings is what the majority really wants.

Sure, I'll agree that the majority of Americans are religionists, but it does not necessarily follow that they agree with your position.

Anyway, I have to go take my blood pressure medication now......

Incredible but true, the same Christmas "politically correct" obsession is happening here in Italy. Honestly, I'm speechless. Some teachers in some public schools decided not to let the nativity (in Italian, PRESEPE) being displayed in order to be respectful of not christian children. This is outrageous, IMO. Thanks God, this is a Christian country. Children have been having their Christams trees and nativities and carols at schools for AGES and nobody got offended. Democracy is not giving up your own traditions not to offend someone else's. Democracy is letting anyone celebrate their own traditions. Majority is not a dictature, why should minority be?

I find it very interesting that the people who work in these public building are no longer able to display things that for them, make the work place a little better.

That personal expressions MUST be kept out of the public view if you work in such a place.

That the workers personal happiness can be walked all over, but the people who may have force this to happen can then come there, demand from these same workers, that they help them with their personal problems. ( serve the people)

You want something, you turn to the government. You can't afford something, ask the government to pay for it.

They get old, they ask for a reduction in their taxes. You can't feed yourself? Then ask for food stamps, hand outs, discounts, supplements and free programs. Your special interest group need start up funds, you go to the government. You have special needs you go to the government.

Your kids lose their father and they get SSI checks each month. Sounds like a personal problem to me, maybe they should have gotten some life insurance to protect their family.

Maybe the people who force these things to happen should close their eyes and walk pass the displays. Just like posting here on the boards.
I get sick of hearing that it is the princple of things. Live and let live. There is room for all.
Gives others a break, you just may need one yourself one day.....

Again....Fair and Equal.

Boy, Cam, you're becoming like a little child that everyone can't wait until the day they talk, now we can't shut you up. :p

J/K. Welcome back.

So I take it, then, that during Gay Pride Week you would have no problem with the homosexuals who worked in a government building hanging a huge banner in the lobby celebrating homosexuality?

Or members of The American Nazi Party who worked in the same building hanging a banner to celebrate Hitler's birthday?

I would have a problem with either, BTW. The argument, for me anyway, is not only about religion.

I wouldn't automatically assume that those who seek relief from the government are the same people who don't want religious displays in government buildings.

I'm sure there are many people who share your viewpoint who need government help, just as I am sure that there are people who don't who share mine.

Yet, at my University, we have gender week, with big gay pride banners, sidewalk chalk, etc...but I can't put Jesus is the Reason for the Season because it might be offensive. :rolleyes:

It is about the majority, because traditionally the majority wants what is the common good; minority values tend to cater to a specific good that is not good for the entire populus.

Well, I'm pleased to say that we finally agree, JJ.

UB is a publicly funded state university, and, as such, none of that stuff belongs in a public display.

Let the university fund a club for Christians, and you guys can do whatever you want to in your clubhouse.

Same for the gays.

But keep it private. A person's religion and sexual preference should be personal matters.

No way sista!!! Honey if you've got it flaunt it. Gay is the new black.

Seems to me, that if you keep making people keep things in private then it sends the message that there is something wrong with it.
What does a person or group have to fear if there is something displayed that they don't agree with?

Paul, you bring up the point of the GAY PRIDE WEEK. You make it sound like there is something wrong with that group. No one should have a problem with any Temporary banner being put up announcing it. Along side Black History month, Presidents' Day or any other recognized event. Should I fear any of these just because I don't agree with some of them? Hell NO!

Should I demand that the counter girl be removed because she has a tattoo or a piercing? Or the guy working behind the counter has blue colored hair, is Catholic, a Jew or is openly gay?

Why do some people have to demand that others rights be taken away or not be seen just because they fear or dislike something's?

Why do we allow government sponsored help without an open door for other things?

Why do people FEAR others religions that much?

If our elected leaders had told people that placement of these displays is to inform the public. Nothing more. The government is not forcing people to follow any of them.

I still find it funny that the left still continues to stress "Seperation of Church and State," as if those words are in the constitution, yet the only words that even have anything to do with that are (from Thomas Jefferson):

This is designed to protect religion, not censor, blockade, etc.

And James Madison, 4th President, federalist, and chief framer of the Constitution:

The first time the separation came to light was in the 1947 Supreme Court case of Everson v. Board of Education, where Justice Black decreed, but this is an interpretation, and not the actual writing of the Constitution:

In The People of the United States v. Ballard in 1944, Justice Douglas stated:

Hence, the left would like you to think that those words, "separation of church and state" are in the constitution, but, they are not.

I think it came up a little before 1947. Like I said in an earlier post, Thomas Jefferson himself wrote an explanation of constitutional intent:

"I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

I guess Jefferson was a true liberal and would have no place in present day America.

There was also a part of Jefferson's original constitutional draft that essentially gave blacks equal rights. But, much like the "separation of church and state," it never made it into the final document signed by the Constitutional Convention.

And since neither are in the document, it makes the idea that Jefferson said that (?) or wanted to free blacks (despite owning slaves himself) rather moot.