[Nico]

Originally posted by karajorma


If they thought they could get away with it they probably would try it.

would be funny

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Ace
freedom of religion does include freedom from religion

Uh, no.

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Far too many people forget the second part.

Originally posted by karajorma
4. Instead of repressing all the kids religious beliefs how about letting them express them and learn tolerance for other peoples beliefs? This kind of stupidity only reinforces the belief that religion needs to be protected for the faithful.

Exactly.

[Nuclear1]

Originally posted by karajorma


Now that's just ridiculous! I'm an aetheist and I find all this stuff nonsense.

1. Christmas is actually a pagan holiday taken over by the early christians anyway. As Mikhael say most of the traditions involved are actually pagan ones.

Yes. The old Roman celebration of Saturnalia.

2. The Christmas treee is not a christian symbol. Jesus was not visited by 3 wise trees bearing gifts
Right-o.

3. Santa is not a christian figure anymore. Saint Nick may be but as soon as you let Coca Cola reinvent him and threw away his cape he pretty much lost any religious connections. If he was a religious figure do you think they would have got away with that? Imagine someone trying to reinvent Baby Jesus in the Pepsi colours!

Precisely. No one really considers most Christmas traditions truly "Christian" anymore.[/b]

4. Instead of repressing all the kids religious beliefs how about letting them express them and learn tolerance for other peoples beliefs? This kind of stupidity only reinforces the belief that religion needs to be protected for the faithful.

Sadly, idiots/asses won't let that happen. There are just some people in this country that won't let each other believe one thing or another.[/b]

5. Only deal with religious teaching when it steps over the line. I have no problem with christianity being taught in schools. Just give it equal time as every other major religion and don't teach it in a "This is the correct one, we'll teach you the other ones later" way. Even as an aetheist you can't be ignorant of what other people believe. If the teachers can't teach their own religion objectively then they don't teach at all.

Right again. Religion can be taught in schools, as long as one isn't favored over another.[/b][/B]

[TrashMan]

People get too darn easily ofended these days.
What the hell is wrong with this world? One should kick the crap out of everone that complains over such stuff!!!

Strangely, If I walked down the US street with a T-shirt with Hitler on it, all hell would be loose. If I had a T-shirt with Mao-Ce-Tung or Stalin, nothing would happen, alltough they killed far more people that Hitler.??? Must be couse Hitler is far more notorious....
Or if I had a white cross (like the natzi one) on a black background, most people would think I'm a natzy, alltough that symbol represents healing and peace in Asia, and the Natzi actuall changed it a bit and took it for their own.

Uuups..off topic..where was I?
This sort of thing happen cause people are too darn ignorant and stupid!

Ah yes - freedom of religion - naturally.
Freedom to spoil everyone elses day - no way!

[phreak]

or the fools want to use their 15 minutes of fame (infamy?) to appear on TV doing something stupid.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Ace
Nativity scenes? Then I do object, since freedom of religion does include freedom from religion

Would you mind justtifying that statement? Specifically, the freedom from relgion part?

[Ace]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Uh, no.Far too many people forget the second part.Exactly.

Originally posted by Drew
Would you mind justtifying that statement? Specifically, the freedom from relgion part?

I was not stating that as justification for a state to prohibit religion, but as in the fact that people have the right to choose a religion means that they also have the right to not participate if they so desire.

Stating otherwise shows that you wish to force religion on a person regardless of their personal beliefs.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ace
Nativity scenes? Then I do object, since freedom of religion does include freedom from religion

WRONG!!!! You can't tell me to stop decorating my house or stop showing my religion publicly just coause it affends you!

Darn..this reminds me of that case wher a woman tried to sue American Airlines for emotional stress/damage becouse they experienced turbulence during a flight!!!!
Talk about the hight of stupidity!:hopping:

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by Ace
I was stating that not as in state prohibition of religion, but as in the fact that people have the right to choose a religion means that they also have the right to not participate if they so desire.

But not to prevent others from participating.

EDIT, since you edited yours...

Originally posted by Ace
Stating otherwise shows that you wish to force religion on a person regardless of their personal beliefs.

There's a difference between government forcing everyone to follow a religion (or no religion) and individuals spreading their religion.  I think we can all agree that government-sponsored religion is stifling the populace.  On the other hand, all religions encourage their members to spread their message.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ace




I was stating that not as in state prohibition of religion, but as in the fact that people have the right to choose a religion means that they also have the right to not participate if they so desire.

Stating otherwise shows that you wish to force religion on a person regardless of their personal beliefs.

So, by erecting a nativity Betlehem scene on the town square, I'm *forcing* you to participate??

[Ace]

Originally posted by TrashMan


WRONG!!!! You can't tell me to stop decorating my house or stop showing my religion publicly just coause it affends you!

Darn..this reminds me of that case wher a woman tried to sue American Airlines for emotional stress/damage becouse they experienced turbulence during a flight!!!!
Talk about the hight of stupidity!:hopping:

That comment was still relating to religious symbols on government-owned property.

I don't give a rats ass what you do in your own house, as long as you're not disrupting the neighbors

Your rights end where the rights of another person begins. This ties in with Goober's statement, as someone has the right to not follow a religion, they don't have the right to prevent people from joining one.

Originally posted by TrashMan
So, by erecting a nativity Betlehem scene on the town square, I'm *forcing* you to participate??

If your nativity scene is on public property, then you're showing preference for one religious belief. If you turn your own house (private property) into one, no one should be able to sue, etc. as long as it's not a huge distraction. (Jesus blimps and loudspeakers booming out the Bible 24/7 is a distraction)

Needless to say, I support the current laws in the US on religion in public property. I do not however believe in lawsuits against private citizens on their own property about religion. It is bull**** to sue someone over having blue lights shaped light a cross during Christmas on their house because someone felt it's offensive.

Having those lights on city hall? That violates the current law and I do have a problem with that.

[Knight Templar]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
"Christ Cola - Baby Jebus drinks it - so should you!"

 I would.

[kasperl]

Originally posted by Goober5000
There's a difference between government forcing everyone to follow a religion (or no religion) and individuals spreading their religion.  I think we can all agree that government-sponsored religion is stifling the populace.  On the other hand, all religions encourage their members to spread their message.

err, not entirely correct, IIRC, there are a few religions that actually prevent non-believers from joining, so only children of believers can join.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Ace


If your nativity scene is on public property, then you're showing preference for one religious belief. If you turn your own house (private property) into one, no one should be able to sue, etc. as long as it's not a huge distraction. (Jesus blimps and loudspeakers booming out the Bible 24/7 is a distraction)

Having those lights on city hall? That violates the current law and I do have a problem with that.

Utter stupidity! I don't give a rat's ass where the light and symbols are, so long no one tries to forces me to do anything.
If a nativity scene is on public property, that DOESN'T HAVE TO MEAN you're showing preference for one religious belief

I don't care if any symbol of any religion is on public property (the guys working in those offices allso are rligious...I hope).
It doesn't bother me, so it shouldn't bother you.

You people are just too damn sensitive.

[Shrike]

Out of curiosity, why do you prefer those working in public office/services to be religious?

[Solatar]

*waits for WWIII to end the madness*

[karajorma]

Unfortunately those mad enough to start WWIII are also those who'll survive it. Basically the insanity level of the species would go up after WWIII not down.