America saved from another nativity scene!

Post Reply New Topic

Yay!! ! At last, pro-choice America can sleep soundly knowing that, while the blood of 50,000,000 babies is on their hands, at least they won't have to endure seeing this nativity scene. (See link below.)
It's another victory for freedom of religion, and for free speech! Silence the baby Jesus! Go Democrats!
Of course, the free speech of our mother-murdered infants doesn't matter because they're all dead, ha ha!!

Aren't you dems fricken' proud of yourselves? (Where's the barf emoticon?)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308816,00.html

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 Nov 2007, 9:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

...

Stupid politically correct bullcrap. People should be allowed to express their religion in public.

Liberals probably are proud of themselves.

i dont know why your getting so upset dude. jesus wasnt even born in december, you do know that right

heres a hint. if he wasnt born in december how can you be so shure he was even born in a barn or wherever he was suposidly born at?

i wanna get upset about santa clause not being real. because santa clause is my god! im taking this to the supreme court because santa clause is real motherf-er. and i know he lives in the northpole! argh!! !! !

I like what Rush Limbaugh says about liberals and conservatives. He explains it better and more succintly than I have:

This is from his website today:

People are welcome to put up whatever religious symbols they want. In their homes, on their house or yard, and on their own church properties. You are whining because you can't get the government to support this particular form of religious celebration.

And abortion really has nothing to do with this (you are starting to sound like you had a few screws come loose, Ragsy)- it is a question of how the non-establishment clause of the US Constitution is interpreted. It is something that is not just a liberal issue, but is important to Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, pagans, atheists and any other citizens that are not Christian. And if that clause wasn't enforced, even Christians would soon be pissed - in Baptist areas, anti-Catholic expressions would soon pop-up and vice versa. The best idea is to keep government out of religion!

Your whine reminds me of a lazy teenager: "Mommy and Daddy won't buy me a new car. Man, they are oppressing me! Waaah!! " except its "The government won't sponsor our religious celebration!! Waahh!! We are being oppressed!" Can you celebrate in your own churches with your own dime? Yes? Then the government is not oppressing you - it is simply refusing to subsidize you. Don't call yourself a conservative - you want religious socialism.

The creche wasn't removed. It was moved to a nearby churchyard, a much more appropriate location.

Get over it, Ragtime.

quote (from your own article):
...the city and a local clergy association cut a deal with the American Civil Liberties Union to move a crèche, which had been displayed on public property for about 25 years, away from government grounds and onto a patch of grass outside a church...."After much discussion and review, we decided the best place to put it was with the clergy," said Berkley City Manager Jane Bais-DiSessa. "This way, it would be placed in an area where it was more visible to the public and get more exposure."

Oh, the horror!

As someone who ISN'T christian, I am quite glad that OUR government isn't implying that I am a second class citizen by displaying the icons of a different religion on government property.

Wrong. It's not about support, it's about tolerance. America's government stands for freedom of religion and free speech.
Therefore, the last places to be deemed speech restricting and religion suppressing should be American government institutions!

And I brought up abortion to show the hypocrisy of what is and isn't allowed by law.
"Killing 50 million innocent unborn children? Fine, fine. Just don't put up a nativity scene."

Last edited by Ragtime on 07 Nov 2007, 2:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ya, the American government should suppress religious expression.

time to quote bible contradictions! yay!

Do you really mean tolerance?



Are you for a fair, objective and permissive policy that will grant equal access of these public spaces to Hindus, Pagans, Scientologists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Bahais, Animists, Shintos, Urantians, Rastafarians, Jains, Sikkhs, Voodooers and Santarians, Manicheans, Taoists and Zoroastrians?

My idea of tolerance is to let people practice their own religions in their own spaces. This is freedom, but does not require government resources to actively support anyone or elevate their celebrations or symbols.

Last edited by monty on 07 Nov 2007, 4:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes. That's why I used the word.


I wouldn't vote for the removal of a nativity scene on government property. Allowing it to remain is a way the government can show that it's still tolerant of Christianity. There's nothing offensive about a historical depiction of Jesus being born in a manger.

At least not compared with baby body chop shops where their parts are variously sold for research and carcases thrown in garbage cans. That's what "offends" me. Abortion is the ultimate child abuse. If you're for it, you have no grounds to complain about being "offended" by anything else.
You should be offended at yourself!

Ok, you wouldn't vote for removing a nativity scene from government property - clear on that. But what about turning the town square into a year-round Religions of the World Festival as each and every religion is permitted to use government property for their own displays?

If there were such a policy that is tolerant of all religions, that wouldn't bother me terribly. I don't find it offensive. But to allow one religion to use public resources to further their message without allowing all other religions to do the same is offensive and unconstitutional. It is bias, not tolerance. Agreed?

And as a matter of practicality, government is better off not having to pick and choose as to which religions are bona fide, which religions get how much resources, which religions win if there is a conflict, etc. Let the people be free to practice their own religion, and let government be free of having to meddle in it. What happens when the Orthodox Christians want to participate, and they have different symbols, and celebrate on a different day? What happens when one Christian denomination denounces a display as blasphemous idolatry? Ultimately, by involving government, government will be drawn into making decisions that they have no business making.

1. Do you think such a thing would work, without breaking out into riots periodically? I mean, there are some pretty offensive religions around the world -- some of which directly and vociferously clash.


When did "without allowing other religions" enter into this? My position is for the government take no position. Neither promoting nor censoring. This is America, and that's why America was founded.



Well, it's interesting that a vote was actually taken. That's better than a knee-jerk ban of all symbols/words/deeds/names Christian.

It's a tricky issue. Conflicting views -- religious or otherwise -- are by their very nature not harmonious. What happens with religion, as with other strongly-held beliefs, is that passions run deep, and therefore, so do offenses.

I think government should basically stand out of the way, for as long as the individuals can keep the physical peace among each other.

The American government is our servant, not our master.

ha. one of the most intolerant people here complaining about intolerance. go be a victim someone else...it's not even funny anymore.