I’m dumbstruck here! I’m having trouble figuring out how a thinking human being in America today could NOT see the undebatable fact that both documents are based on Christian principles. While it’s true that the Bill of Rights tends to wander a bit, for the sake of addressing individual issues, I can’t see a clear schism between Christian principles and the foundations of our state.
Incidentally, weren’t YOU the one who brought up the Bill of Rights?
Well, then tell us, oh wise one. Which principals? “Slaves = 3/5 of a person?” “Two Senators per State?” “Congress may establish post roads?”
C’mon, help us out here!
Unfortunately, this is the type of situation where, if you believe, you simply do not understand why those who do not believe would be offended/bothered/troubled/amused. This is not meant as an insult. I just believe people’s feelings and experiences are so powerful regarding some matters, that they simply have huge blindspots preventing them from seeing both sides. This is true on both sides of this issue. Myself, I don’t get exercised over nativity scenes. They’re pretty. And I have nothing against representations of Santa! Might as well believe in another mythical being.
But why should you care about nonbelievers so long as you are in the majority?
Those of us in the minority don’t understand why believers aren’t satisfied with private expression. Why isn’t private/personal prayer, worship, expression of belief sufficient if there is no intent to convert, intimidate, or influence?
<Sidebar> I was amused to see, in the show Ed yesterday, that they had the courtroom decorated for Christmas. Did you (or most Christians) even notice? I suppose believers would feel it was natural.</Sidebar>
Well, shucks, TBone2, humor us, then. :rolleyes:
Sorry to hear it, but the simple fact is that they aren’t. They’re based on Greek principles of popular governance. To use your own phraseology, a cursory knowledge of the history of government will demonstrate that. (I invite you to read http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html). While the principles espoused in the DoI and Constitution may not substantially conflict with the basic principles of the Christian religion, they cannot in any meaningful way be said to be based upon them. You may sit and claim that it is undebatable until you are blue in the face, but the fact is that you are wrong. The Founders were guided more by the foundations laid by the Greeks than by anything to be found in Christianity.
You also might want to recall that governments founded upon the Christian religion and its principles tended to authoritarian monarchies. Like, say, England. You know–the government from which the writers of those two documents deliberately sought to distance themselves?
As an atheist and a person who celebrates Christmas (at least to the extent of exchanging gifts/cards and wishing people “Merry Christmas”), it’s never bothered me.
As for religious displays on public land, it’s not something that particulary matters to me. If it was my call, I’d leave out the overtly religious symbols (birth of Jesus and what not) and stick to Santa Claus and the elves.
Mumble, grumble. About the Founding “Parents” (
– see non-sexist Founders thread) and the Framers: Many were Christians, of varying denomination. Some were Deists. And some were Freethinkers. The one thing they were united on was that there be no Federal endorsement of any given religion. SOCAS is a later development, founded on Jefferson’s thinking and a few other things, but fits into their “original intent” quite well. You – all 225,000,000 of you, individually or collectively – cannot legally force me to believe or not believe anything, nor can I you. That’s freedom.
TBone, I propose a vote of the people on this thread to determine if the Administrators should terminate your account on the grounds of utter stupidity. Sound fair? No? Your rights are not subject to majority rule – not that any of us have a “right” to post here, but the board authorities who extend us the privilege carry their decisions out even-handedly, so the parallel holds.
We are under a rule of law, founded on a Constitution that guarantees rights. Under that Constitution, the law is enforced through the judiciary, who interpret it in case of question. If you do not like how it is being interpreted, you have precisely three choices: (a) learn enough constitutional law to successfully argue for a change before SCOTUS, or hire someone who can; (b) get the “activist members of the judiciary” removed from office for “high crimes and misdemeanors”; or (c) successfully advocate for a constitutional amendment that changes the law they are sworn to uphold and interpret. Anything else is both unpatriotic and, in my opinion, unChristian – not to mention probably illegal. Or do you somehow see forcing people of other faiths or of no faith to pay for your Christmas celebration as “loving your neighbor as yourself”?
I see that several people have responded since I started this, among them Polycarp and Phil. Which means that everything I have to say has already been said more coherently and thoroughly. I’m posting it anyway.
“Undebatable?” Hardly. Please show me what principles these are, willya?
Just how often religion is mentioned in either document?
The DoI mentions “Nature’s God” and a “Creator.”
The Constitution mentions religion only insamuch as asserting that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
Funny, not a word about Christ or the Christian God. Go figure.
No, no one’s saying there’s a schism. But there isn’t a schism between the foundations of our State and the tenets of Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism, atheism, or worship of the IPU (May Her hooves never be shod). But to say that the DoI and the CotUS are “based on Christian principles” is disingenuous at best.
Tbone2, today is the first day I’ve seen one of your posts, and twice now (once in another thread), you’ve seen fit to insult me. You are the only person who has felt the need to insult me on this board. Obviously, you are much more observant and aware of my stupidity and odious nature than anyone else here. Knock it off.
First of all, this “country” has indeed made such a determination. The judiciary system is part of this country, and one of the most important functions of the judiciary is protect minority rights from the tyranny of the majority. Fear of the tyranny of the majority is the very reason the Bill of Rights exists. Therefore, certain rights are NOT subject to the “‘primitive’ device of a public general vote.”
As for this Christian foundation crap, let me make this very clear – the Founding Fathers had every opportunity to put into the Constitution any manner of rules, references, Biblical quotations, what have you, to assert, state or indicate that Christian principles were to be the basis of our system of government. They chose not to. Respect their choice.
Sua
Because there’s 200 years of tradition in celebrating Christmas and Hannukah in a communal way, that most all of us participate in, regardless of the level of our religious fervor.
(I for example, consider myself Christian, but I haven’t been to church in a few years. This stuff still pisses me off.)
Those of us in the majority see no problem with toning down anything that moves into more religious specificity than angels or a nativity scene, but question the need for whiting-out more than two centuries of holiday tradition.
I’ve yet to be convinced that the Constitution somehow percludes what I am talking about. What is the “tyranny,” the “intimidation” here?
I have absolutely no trouble understanding that some people don’t believe in Judeo-Christian religion. I have a great deal of trouble, however, understanding what would make them so offended that they want to steal the joy from more than three-quarters of their neighbors.
“I don’t believe in it, and my tax dollars are going to support it” just doesn’t cut it. I don’t believe in my tax dollars supporting farmers who are paid not to grow crops, either.
How is expression of spirit for a holiday in which the vast majority participate injurious or perjurious to non-believers or those of other beliefs? We’re a better world when all religious and even secular manifestations of Christmas and Hannukah are confined to churches and homes? How so?
“We’ve always done it that way” is not a reason to continue to do something. There are scores of traditions that have fallen by the wayside due to changing tastes or increased sensitivity. (Note, I was tempted to invoke slavery, but that would be neither fair nor accurate. Damn my respectfullness!! ;))
There is no need to white-out more than two centuries of holiday tradition. Just don’t do it on public grounds and with public funds (BTW, when in my earlier post is said “public”, I meant “government”. Same here.) Make the biggest, most religious Christmas scene you want. Just pay for it yourself and rent a space to do it on.
“Establishment” includes advocating and endorsing. By holding a particular religious celebration on government property with government funds, the government is putting its stamp of approval on that religion. The Constitution precludes that.
Again, no one is stopping you from doing whatever you want. However, if you want to spread joy to three-quarters of your neighbors, do it yourself. That’s all. Spend your own money. Anything wrong with that?
Let’s take religion out of it for a second. Say you wanted to throw a big, non-religious party for your town. Fine, go ahead. But why should the government pay for it?
Your protest against farm subsidies isn’t protected by the Constitution. Non-Christians’ protest against a government-supported religious tableaux is.
It ain’t confined to churches and homes. There are plenty of privately owned open spaces in the country. Rent one of those. Make sure it’s on a major road so that everyone can see it and enjoy it. Advertise it in every form of media in the area, so that everyone knows it’s happening. Just do it yourself, and pay for it yourself.
Sua
Sua to TBone:
He should knock off being observant and aware of your stupidity and odious nature!?! :eek:
(It is so rare to catch you in a solecism, Sua, even when you’re eludicating complex legal matters or, as here, waxing ironic, that I just had to point it out!) 
Milo, as I noted before, the question is one of rights, and rights are not subject to majoritarian decisions. I respect the fact that you are opposed to crop supports. But you have no legal right of which the government support of farmers deprives you, presuming that the law providing such support was validly passed by a legislature to whom were elected represenatives for or against whom you had opportunity to vote. If you were to cite another example in which Federal activity did deprive you of a constitutionally guaranteed right, at least by inference, then you would indeed have due grounds to object, and Sua, Phil, and I would, I am sure, back your claim.
I personally like public Christmas decorations, including a creche, since the rest of it is simply holiday trimmings, little different from red-white-and-blue bunting on the Fourth of July. But I see the law as binding me to honor others’ rights as I would want my own honored, and respect the distinction between making public space available for privately funded manger scenes and public purchase and erection of them that violates the First Amendment rights of non-Christians. (Kiryas Joel, NY, is a Jewish community; do they therefore have the right to tax you as a hypothetical Christian resident thereof to put up booths at public expense for Sukkos? What’s sauce for the Passover lamb is sauce for the Christmas goose too.)
There’s 200 years of tradition in celebrating Hanukkah in a communal way that most all of us participate in regardless of the level of our religious fervor, Milo? :eek:
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Milossarian *
**
Maybe I was out sick that day in history class, but I don’t remember the US celebrating Hannukah in a communial way for the past 200 years. BTW, Jacob Neusner disagrees with you on the use of the term “Judeo-Christian”, and I agree with him.
You misunderstand, Poly. I’ve been active on this board for several months and, until now, I had been able to hide my stupidity and odious nature. But TBone was blowing my cover. He has to knock that off. 
Sua
TBone2 wrote:
… to which manhattan replied:
Isn’t it obvious? “Kingdom of Heaven” was a mistranslation. The original Greek New Testament actually says “Bicameral Legislature of Heaven.”
You’ve already been adequately spanked on the Hannukah issue, so I’d simply like to point out that for a period of time, Christmas was illegal in several of the Puritan colonies. You see, the authorities considered it to be little more than pagan carousing.
If you’re going to claim that you don’t see the “tyranny” or “intimidation,” and be stubbornly unwilling to acknowledge the judicial interpretation of “establishment,” then it is entirely disingenuous to imply that prohibiting a Nativity in front of the town hall will ruin Christmas for you or anyone else. Is your celebratory nature so fragile that your and your neighbors’ own decorations and trees are insufficient?
Please point out to me the Constitutional amendments regarding an establishment of farming.
Apologies if this horse is already dead:
Christmas is partly a religious Christian occasion and partly a secular seasonal one, right? Nativity scenes are unquestionably part of the religious aspect, and are a real First Amendment issue. But the issue Milossarian brings up is TREES, which have no role in the Biblical story, or even in the secular one outside of Germany until Prince Albert had one set up in Windsor Castle. Santa Claus, Frosty the Snowman, and mistletoe are other examples, and they’re no problem either.
I suppose one could argue that Christmas trees, or Hanukkah bushes, promote the pagan spirit-worship that inspired them originally, but one wouldn’t convince many people of that. Likewise one wouldn’t get far with saying that a public holiday on December 25 promotes worship of the Roman gods, since it originated with the festival of Saturnalia.
Milo, better get clear on what’s state promotion of (a) religion and what is not, or else be thought a troll.
Elvis - A troll? You’re a little late to the SDMB party to be accusing me of such a thing, son.
But thanks for helping me make my point. Some may have arguments about nativity scenes and angels, but when cities start banning lighted trees in public places, we’ve paid a little bit too much deference to athiests and the ACLU, thank you.
Everybody else: When I see ‘Happy Hannukah’ signs and pictures of menorrahs, I am misinterpreting them? There is no tradition to putting up such decorations along with Christmas items? Huh. How 'bout that.
So, everyone’s explanation for why this is OK is some johnny-come-lately definition of “establishment of religion” from the First Amendment to mean “even the most minuscule comingling of anything remotely religious with anything remotely public.”
And if this is not some recent development, why do I recall the nativity scenes vanishing circa the late 1980s? Why was it not only accepted but popular for decades before that?
So I guess this is where the debate lies, or at least goes round and round and round. Public displays of Christmas- or Hannukah-related materials are wrong because they involves religion, and according to the Constitution, religion and government can’t ever mix, in even a general way. Except it doesn’t say that. But that’s what courts and lawyers have interpreted it to mean.
Why can’t a few people be offended (as though the message of Christmas could be found offensive by anyone) for the happiness of most everyone else? As is the situation that occurs with anything else governments do?
Because it involves ‘the r-word.’ See above.
OK. Got it. Thanks.
Milo says:
I say:
Milo responds:
Um… HUH??? The fact that there are Happy Hanukkah (the correct spelling, btw) signs and pictures of menorahs (the correct spelling, btw) today means that “there’s 200 years of tradition in celebrating Hanukkah in a communal way that most all of us participate in regardless of the level of our religious fervor?” (words yours, emphasis mine) Are you willfully misunderstanding me, Milo, or just displaying an appalling grasp of American history?