How dare he decide NOT to piss people off ! Sacrificing your own pleasure just to avoid pissing people off isn’t a very christian thing to do, is it?
You do realize that by “banning” the Easter Bunny et. al they aren’t banning you from celebrating these religious holidays anyway you see fit, right?
Screw the chocolate eggs, nothing says celebrating the Savior of Mankind like eating a chocolate cross. Mmmm!
Hell, I’ve stopped observing all religious holidays except Christmas. They can refer to that damn bunny however they want but I find much of the whole PC situation silly.
Allow me to amend that: I can’t stop anyone from referring to that damn bunny however they want.
Here’s another idea: Whoever owns the store is a practicing Jew, or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever, who doesn’t feel comfortable putting up decorations for a holiday they don’t celebrate, but still wants to bring in some of the holiday business. So, bunnies, colored eggs, and chocolate with no overt Christian references.
There’s also the practicality of replacing decorations that become obsolete within a few weeks (Easter bunnies) with ones that can be left up till May or so (Spring bunnies). It may be totally unrelated, but I remember Mom not bothering to put up much in the way of Easter decorations in her classroom because by the time St. Paddy’s was over, it was only a couple of weeks till Easter. She usually just had generalized spring decorations with a few eggs and such here and there.
Thanks for the link. It says, in part:
So it’s quite a different story than that depicted in the Fox News link. Leave it to Fox to only present one side of the story.:rolleyes:
Look, you’re still not getting it.
It’s not a ban if a government entity opts out of favoring one religion over another.
It’s not a ban if a private business owner decides not to display religious symbols.
A city changing the characters portrayed in a Christmas pageant is not a ban.
Here would be an example of a ban: A city declares that no citizen is allowed to go to church on Easter Sunday. And that would of course be unconstitutional.
Boy, people just love to throw that word “ban” around, don’t they?:rolleyes:
—Hell, I’ve stopped observing all religious holidays except Christmas.—
Not even Ramadan? Or Purim? Looks like the PC police got to you too!
—Leave it to Fox to only present one side of the story.—
Hey! They picked the Fair and Balanced Side: what more do you want?
How does this not apply?
Apos, I’ve been pretty much agnostic since high school, remember?
BTW: blowero, while those NYC public schools prohibit nativity scenes. They do allow Christmas trees.
—How does this not apply?—
Because when the government prevents itself from doing something, that’s generally not a limiting of people’s freedoms, it’s an expansion of them. I don’t want the government to have a voice in religious matters, or even to put itself in charge of civic life. That’s OURS to decide, not theirs.
—Apos, I’ve been pretty much agnostic since high school, remember?—
That’s the cover story the PC police have given you, sure. They really have you brainwashed good. You even think they can operate in complete silence.
Thing is, in Lexington they’re preventing the public from doing something and I doubt NYC schools would permit a student or parent to bring in any sort of nativity scene. Christmas trees, menorahs, stars of David, etc. would probably fine but noting having to do with the birth of Jesus.
—Thing is, in Lexington they’re preventing the public from doing something—
What? The question under dispute is whether or not its public or private land.
—and I doubt NYC schools would permit a student or parent to bring in any sort of nativity scene.—
Dude, they can come to school dressed as Moses as long as it doesn’t cause disorder or violate any non-specifically-targeted dress codes. What they can’t do is get the school to sponsor or feature the display or hold an official assembly where Moses explains God’s plan for all mankind.
Okay, then. But I still think there’s something wrong with a public school system allowing some secular decorations and not a nativity scene; that’s not exactly a seperation of church & state. That is GD fodder though and I tend not to venture around there.
Why is that so hard to understand? A pine tree has no overt religious content, but a nativity scene does. You do realize that not all NYC school children believe that Jesus is God, right? There are Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Atheists, etc., who probably wouldn’t be too thrilled to have the baby Jesus shoved in their face every time they walk down the hall.
Exactly. Thank you.
Go back and read your 2nd link again. What you say is not true. They decided that NOBODY can put religious content in that spot. Due to a large number of requests by different religious groups to use the space, they thought it would get out of hand, so they decided not to have ANY such displays. How you manage to leap to the wild conclusion that it favors Jews is both puzzling and scary.
Huh? I think allowing secular decorations and not religious ones in government institutions is practically the definition of separation of church & state.
I can see why.