Holiday displays on public property

[Dave]

Does anyone have an opinion on holiday displays being on public property such as city hall for instance? Myself I don't really care, i'm not overly into the Christmas thing nor am I religious and just can't say that I think its a big deal on what they do. About the only objection I would have is if a decoration or decorations were put up that basically made fun of another religion or took a shot at someone else's holiday. If anything, maybe a city opt not to purchase decoration's themselves and instead do thing's the old fashioned way so to speak and ask for donations.

As far as atheist and holiday displays go, I think they need to get over it and not worry about it. To a rather large contingent of people in this country, Christmas and the other holidays celebrated at this time of year will always be here, they are never going to get rid of it. In some cases the minority is right, in this case, the majority is right. Anyway, i've always wondered if atheist celebrate Christmas... as in do they exchange gifts or cards or is it just another day to them? I'd be interested to know the answer.

While i'm at it, how about the Ten Commandments being displayed in court houses and other public places? I have no problem with this either. In reality, while they are connected with religion because of where they come from, they are really just common sense rules that we should all live by. No killing and no stealing should be pretty obvious to most people.

[AQUAMAN]

I like the reference to Gladiators, kinda like Vikings. I prefer Aqua Velva myself,........ sniffing himself like an aqua man-fish. HEE HAW!

[XLFD]

Tonight you'll probably dip into the Aqua Vodqua, if you haven't already ;-)
When it comes to the topic of Favre, I notice you're a Packer of a lot of information into a small space. You need to cool your Jets. Happy New Year!

[AQUAMAN]

The JETS might make a wild card too. HNY

[Guidothesemipsuedocaptitalistpig]

The problem is?? how can you have an honest debate with those who only except one half of the wording of a constitution? It's kind of like when Christians try to debate Jews.. the Jew only recognizes one half of the scriptures As they do not consider Christ to be the savior as the Christians do. Not only is the argument circular?? but one half of the circle is missing..

[AQUAMAN]

How true your words Guido, and the key word in your paragraph is HONEST! Happy New Years to ya.

[AQUAMAN]

Hey Numbedoutforsure, I did make my last comment over there last nite. I always give the skirts the last at bat, for what it's worth. Actually, I went on to say that it's a moot issue now anyhow, the decisions of the Supreme Cuckoo Courts made that clear some years back. I believe Guido made the circular phraseology, and I don't remember him calling them jerks, but, if you insist, maybe they are? The only thing "baffled" is the way the ACLU sacrificed most religious displays to an end that is, well, hollow and shallow at best, for the sake of sqeaky wheels, self-absorbed egotists, east coast intellectuals butting into mid-west value systems, with no agenda, nor well intentions of their own to replace traditions here for over 200 years. By the by, you never answered Max's question as to your definition of what "as set forth" means last 12/28. Are you sure you're not the one baffled?

[XLFD]

Guido, usually the problem is not that 'secular progressives' and their ilk accept only half of the wording of the Constitution, but that they may try to adapt those words to their own biases. The phrase 'separation of church and state' is not found in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, or in any bit of legislation other than as an afterthought. It is a phrase glommed onto by those who would wish to get the Christian faith pushed further out of the public arena, for whatever reason.

Whereas, few people on either side would like a strong incursion of politics into their church or religion into their government, a person's right to religious freedoms necessitates every other person's duties to allow them to-- as long as the first person's right does not crimp somebody else's rights or violates the law. This is why the other side has a valid argument; it is a matter of interpretation of rights and duties of people, and I see no truly definitive winning argument for either side. By all means, choose one, however.

[Dave]

Actually, I don't particularly care what they do as far as the decorations go... never been a big deal for me, I was just curious what other people thought :-)

[Max]

"don't sweet the small stuff dave."

How does someone "sweet" the small stuff? Pour sugar on it?