More people that need a hobby

2007-12-26 12:41:56

#1

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6881|The Land of Scott Walker

http://www.weau.com/home/headlines/12825717.html

Even after the nativity scene at Green Bay City Hall comes down, the furor it created is likely to linger. A lawsuit will be filed Wednesday, from the Freedom of Religion Foundation, which urges the separation of church and state. Twelve local residents are also joining the suit. The lawsuit claims the city hall display depicting the birth of Jesus is an unconstitutional endorsement of religion. It claims the city council president and the mayor allowed the display to provoke and marginalize those who would object.

2007-12-26 12:46:47

#2

Catbox: forgiveness; +505|7152

what a sad bunch... I wonder if they strangle kittens when there isn't anything else going on...?
ill say a prayer that these people find some happiness and peace of mind... I hope that doesn't offend them...lol

Love is the answer

2007-12-26 12:46:48

#3

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6926|Northern California

zzzzzzz.... I'm religious and very against combining church and state, but dang... get a hobby indeed. If the mayor said "nope, the city officially does not endorse any religion" in response to why they put up the nativity scene, that should end it. Why is a judge needed to clarify they city's official position? Hopefully the defense will provide a city employee of a non-christian religion (or lack of religion) to witness against the prosecutor saying they are officially not christian and were not told by any city officials that they should change religion at the time the nativity scene was set up.

2007-12-26 12:47:04

#4

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

a christian who lives in a christian society will never understand. I can totally see why that kind of thing would piss a person off.

2007-12-26 12:48:07

#5

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

somebody paid for it, was it tax dollars?

2007-12-26 12:48:32

#6

Flaming_Maniac: prince of insufficient light; +2,490|7142|67.222.138.85

Yeah, the people taking the time to set up a nativity scene at a public building need to find something better to do.

2007-12-26 12:49:07

#7

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Yeah, the people taking the time to set up a nativity scene at a public building need to find something better to do.

im sure they werent doing it off the clock either.

2007-12-26 12:50:37

#8

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6926|Northern California

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
somebody paid for it, was it tax dollars?

Separate issue. The limited article said the prosecution of the city was for separation of church and state and more specifically the "endorsing" of Christianity.

But yes, if it was tax dollars, then tax payers should prosecute...and they'd lose even though they'd be right.

2007-12-26 12:52:23

#9

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

IRONCHEF wrote:
Separate issue. The limited article said the prosecution of the city was for separation of church and state and more specifically the "endorsing" of Christianity.

as I understand it, anytime the govt spends money on something, it may very well be considered a type of endorsement. and, anytime the government spends money, it isnt theirs.

I just see how this issue could piss off a person or two.

2007-12-26 12:54:27

#10

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6881|The Land of Scott Walker

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
IRONCHEF wrote:
Separate issue. The limited article said the prosecution of the city was for separation of church and state and more specifically the "endorsing" of Christianity.
as I understand it, anytime the govt spends money on something, it may very well be considered a type of endorsement. and, anytime the government spends money, it isnt theirs.

I just see how this issue could piss off a person or two.

... apparently 12 out of the whole city's population.

Edit: Green Bay's population is over 100,000.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-26 12:55:22)

2007-12-26 12:55:14

#11

KEN-JENNINGS: I am all that is MOD!; +2,991|7067|949

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
IRONCHEF wrote:
Separate issue. The limited article said the prosecution of the city was for separation of church and state and more specifically the "endorsing" of Christianity.
as I understand it, anytime the govt spends money on something, it may very well be considered a type of endorsement. and, anytime the government spends money, it isnt theirs.

I just see how this issue could piss off a person or two.

Also, the idea that the scene was on City Hall property *could* lead to an argument of endorsement. It has been argued successfully in courts before.

2007-12-26 12:56:56

#12

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

stingray, thats the kind of shit that pisses me off. will I pursue legal action to change it, no. why bother. your snide attitude is just proof as to why people like me wont even bother making a statement. Ive got better shit to do with my life.

edit: thanks for reaffirming my opinion about all born agains thinking they are better then the rest of us heretics.

Last edited by GunSlinger OIF II (2007-12-26 12:57:54)

2007-12-26 12:59:52

#13

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6881|The Land of Scott Walker

I think no such thing. I simply feel that a small group of howling atheists shouldn't infringe on a nativity scene that's up for all of a week. There is no freedom from religion that regulates religious expression in the Constitution, nor does a nativity scene establish a religion.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-26 13:01:36)

2007-12-26 13:03:07

#14

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6926|Northern California

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
IRONCHEF wrote:
Separate issue. The limited article said the prosecution of the city was for separation of church and state and more specifically the "endorsing" of Christianity.
as I understand it, anytime the govt spends money on something, it may very well be considered a type of endorsement. and, anytime the government spends money, it isnt theirs.

I just see how this issue could piss off a person or two.

True. While a dumb idea to put in on the property (let alone the top of the steps or something very central), they should check for precedents in being considered as "endorsing" of the religion they're depicting because there's always someone to be offended. But in principle, there should be a clear, well established notion throughout humanity that individuals can perform such decorative, memorialized, or other such public display items without impunity...and represent themselves individually as having done it..not for the city which they work for. But that's utopian free speech thinking and unrealistic! lol

Mike Moore needs to put out a movie about people being overly anal and paranoid. It should focus on the frivolity of political correctness, corporate reality vs. constitutional reality, and about "taking offense."

Oh yeah...a SIGN on an easel or a notice on the nativity saying something like, "As a personal indulgance to some christian workers herein, we have expressed our personal rendering of the birth of Jesus. This in NO WAY reflects an official position, endorsement, or approved influence of the city" would probably have covered their butts or even appeased the offended.

Last edited by IRONCHEF (2007-12-26 13:06:37)

2007-12-26 13:03:10

#15

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

Stingray24 wrote:
I think no such thing. I simply feel that a small group of howling atheists shouldn't infringe on a nativity scene that's up for all of a week. There is no freedom from religion in the Constitution, nor does a nativity scene establish a religion.

but it is the allocation of government resources to endorse one religious faith over the other that Im sure people have the issue with. im sure you wouldnt want to be reminded of how your tax dollars are paying for a mohammad mural in front of your house.

2007-12-26 13:05:56

#16

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

IRONCHEF wrote:
GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
IRONCHEF wrote:
Separate issue. The limited article said the prosecution of the city was for separation of church and state and more specifically the "endorsing" of Christianity.
as I understand it, anytime the govt spends money on something, it may very well be considered a type of endorsement. and, anytime the government spends money, it isnt theirs.

I just see how this issue could piss off a person or two.
True. While a dumb idea to put in on the property (let alone the top of the steps or something very central), they should check for precedents in being considered as "endorsing" of the religion they're depicting because there's always someone to be offended. But in principle, there should be a clear, well established notion throughout humanity that individuals can perform such decorative, memorialized, or other such public display items without impunity...and represent themselves individually as having done it..not for the city which they work for. But that's utopian free speech thinking and unrealistic! lol

Mike Moore needs to put out a movie about people being overly anal and paranoid. It should focus on the frivolity of political correctness, corporate reality vs. constitutional reality, and about "taking offense."

im under "have it all, or dont have any of it" philosophy.

2007-12-26 13:10:22

#17

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6881|The Land of Scott Walker

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Stingray24 wrote:
I think no such thing. I simply feel that a small group of howling atheists shouldn't infringe on a nativity scene that's up for all of a week. There is no freedom from religion in the Constitution, nor does a nativity scene establish a religion.
but it is the allocation of government resources to endorse one religious faith over the other that Im sure people have the issue with. im sure you wouldnt want to be reminded of how your tax dollars are paying for a mohammad mural in front of your house.

If it's a Muslim holiday, put up the mural at city hall, doesn't bother me one bit. It's a cultural expression and doesn't impose anything on me at all. The only way it could effect me negatively is if I concentrate on it and get all riled up and pissed off and file a lawsuit. We have freedom OF religion in this country and that expression should not be restricted. The reality is that more taxpayer money will be wasted in the "establishment" of atheism in the process of this lawsuit than the time it took to put up the Christmas display.

2007-12-26 13:15:14

#18

GunSlinger OIF II: Banned.; +1,860|7079

like I said, I can see how this would piss somebody off and I completely disagree with your constitutional interpretation. I disagree with most people on this forum and their views of the constitution and for the most part i try to stay away from debate regarding what our founding fathers intentions were.

2007-12-26 13:20:51

#19

mikkel: Member; +383|7037

You can't realistically use tax dollars to pay for the recognition of every single religious holiday around, so in the spirit of secularism, just refrain from spending them on any religious holidays at all. If Christianity was the state religion in the United States, by all means, decorate for Christmas. Secularism comes with certain obligations, though, and I fully understand anyone who objects to these things.

It's funny how religious types always claim that people don't understand their ideals and focus on only the palpable in their critique of religion, while they'll just as gladly turn around and do exactly the same in failing to recognise the religious or secularist ideals of others.

2007-12-26 13:22:46

#20

Agent_Dung_Bomb: Member; +302|7172|Salt Lake City

If the display is only for a short period, such as a week or so around Christmas, or whatever holiday is being recognized, I don't really care so long as no tax dollars are used in the purchase, setup/tare down, or maintenance of the display. The city must also be prepared to recognize other religious displays under those same conditions.

2007-12-26 13:29:51

#21

IRONCHEF: Member; +385|6926|Northern California

Speaking of founding fathers...

Can you imagine the depth and detail of their governing documents had they had a little more culture, ethnic and religious balance..or, dare I say, "diversity?"

For example, in penning the 1st amendment protecting freedom of religious expression from being infringed upon, had they thought of the various religions that may one day occupy their country, perhaps they would have broadened their writings to include individual or collective observances being independent of government employment...but then they'd have to have a gazillion amendments defining church and state do's and don'ts.

My guess is they just prayed and hoped that the future leaders would have an ounce of wisdom when handling new things like this...like prayer in school, emblems of religion embeded everywhere. I'm waiting for some atheist douche bags (or non judeo-christian practitioners) to sue the state hospitals for their religious emblems and "apparent endorsement of the once used practice of Moses to repel serpents in the desert used internationally in the form of the serpent on the rod"...

https://www.raytownfire.com/images/SOLlogo.gif

2007-12-26 20:55:41

#22

Spearhead: Gulf coast redneck hippy; +731|7125|Tampa Bay Florida

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
a christian who lives in a christian society will never understand. I can totally see why that kind of thing would piss a person off.

Quoted for mother fucking truth,

My respect for stingrays judgement = Down 10 points

2007-12-26 21:00:05

#23

Stingray24: Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy; +1,060|6881|The Land of Scott Walker

Spearhead thinks I care about points. If you oppose religious expression that's your prerogative, man. I've got the Constitution, you have your opinion. Next.

Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-26 21:04:47)

2007-12-26 21:04:01

#24

Superslim: BF2s Frat Brother; +211|7127|Calgary

you are right, these lamers need a hobby. Even if you are not a Christian, the teachings of Jesus are unconditional love, understanding and respect. What is wrong with that? Are people actually offended by that?

PS Christmas is the celebration of Christs birthday.

Last edited by Superslim (2007-12-26 21:05:55)

2007-12-26 21:04:07

#25

nukchebi0: Пушкин, наше всё; +387|6759|New Haven, CT

I have a question though:

Isn't the government, by bowing to wishes of the atheists, effectively endorsing atheism instead?

BF2S Forums More people that need a hobby

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

IRONCHEF wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

Board footer