the Nativity and Denver
re: this article
The separation of church and state is as old as this country and yet every time we turn around more and more christians are trying to push their religious icons on other's views. Why is that? Cannot the christian-Americans understand that this country is a "melting pot" of people and cultures and to respect all and represent all, the governments of this country cannot favor one over the other? If Denver is going to have Baby Hey'Zeus, then shouldn't there be a light-up Star of David or a Kwanza-man, or something? And maybe a nice blank spot for the atheists? Or, is the City and County of Denver stating that during the (let's be honest) retail season, only christians and christian idols are relevant?
From my facebook page where the above comment was originally posted:
Very well-written article as well.
51 minutes ago · Delete
Separation of church and state is not as old as this country. This country was founded on christian judeo beliefs. Don't be fooled. Its not in the constitution the way it is used.
45 minutes ago · Delete
WAAAHHH!!!! Cry me a river! If you don't like it don't look at it! Did a Christian FORCE you to look at this? Is there and ordinance or law keeping those other idols from being represented? Build your own icon put it up, who's stopping you? Or are you a fan of the "Holiday Tree"? If this is TRULY a concern about separation of Church and State, ...See More
41 minutes ago · Delete
A popular misconception, Ernest. This country was not founded on christian judeo beliefs. That's what modern evangicals tell you so you'll feel all gooey warm on the inside. But maybe you know more than the founding fathers: http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html
38 minutes ago · Delete
Sorry, I have to agree with Jason in the sense that Christians want their idols seen, their doctrine preached, their beliefs believed and then when someone who DOESN'T believe as they do comes along and says, "Hey, this isn't fair/right/whatever" the Christians claim the others are bashing them, that their rights are being trampled on, etc. Sorry...See More
35 minutes ago · Delete
Al, the separation of Church and State is definitely as old as our country as we are the first nation to have it written into our founding Constitution. The first use of that term was Thomas Jefferson (you've heard of him, right?) in a letter to the Danbury Baptists: http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm
http://etext.virginia.edu/
34 minutes ago · Delete
Actually, Stacey is more on the mark than any of us: if we're to be true to the original festival that fell near the winter-solstice, then decorations should lean more towards the pagan style since Christmas is a pagan holiday usurped by the chistians in a mid-millenium attempt to convert non-christians. Simply put: early christians told the ...See More
24 minutes ago · Delete
What religion dosn't want their idols seen? I agree this country is a melting pot, so does that mean everything disappears? Listen, I don't want my kids being taught religion in school. I"LL teach them, my Pastor will teach them, my wife will teach them.
Jason's post about city hall not including other relious icons isn't about being PC? Again, if ...See More
Jason's post about city hall not including other relious icons isn't about being PC? Again, if ...See More
23 minutes ago · Delete
I don't think I should have to move. I wear camoflauge every day to work. I signed paperwork that could, at any time, send me overseas to die. If anyone has a right to voice an opinion it is I.
Al is correct. Opinions cannot be "linked". But facts can. And Al, you're also correct in that all religions would like their icons to be seen. But how many of them make such a big stink about it as the Christians? No, everything shouldn't disappear. Everything should be shared. Equally if possible. Everything should be accepted.
I don't want to see Christianity removed, per se. I want to see equality and a little less hypocrisy.
Al is correct. Opinions cannot be "linked". But facts can. And Al, you're also correct in that all religions would like their icons to be seen. But how many of them make such a big stink about it as the Christians? No, everything shouldn't disappear. Everything should be shared. Equally if possible. Everything should be accepted.
I don't want to see Christianity removed, per se. I want to see equality and a little less hypocrisy.
14 minutes ago · Delete
...and I'm giving legal and historical precedent which can be supported by facts (through links).
But it's easy for christians to claim "if you don't like it, don't look" because honestly there are more of them. However, what if I said the same thing about a luciferian idol on your city's hall? Or a giant turd (to borrow from South Park) instead of a baby and manger? What if an eviscerated cow hanging upside down from a noose were a religion's holiday symbol (when instead it might be a more accurate symbol for Sunday barbecues)? Would you still say "just don't look?" Would you be okay with "not looking" if an image of Osama bin Laden were revered on September 11s? Because some people think he's prophet-like; the veritable Sampson taking on Goliath (the USA).
If the United States is going to pretend to be a world leader in tolerance (which we're not) and a haven for the oppressed (which we're not) and a bastion of light in a world of darkness, then we need to accept everyone as an equal. As the article (op-ed column) posted above states, the Jewish writer wrote the article after hearing foreign national wonderment that a government building was dressed up so much like a church.
If these people were visitors or immigrants, then what do they think when they see the government promoting one religion over another? Our founding fathers added the establishment clause into the first (FIRST) amendment; not the second and not the 9th. The first. Guarantee of rights was the primary focus of people who dealt regularly with religious persecution. If the government now endorses one religion over others (which it does) then we have turned our backs on the very principals that founded this nation. And by understanding that, I am more of a patriot that someone who states: "if you don't like it, move."
And that's just my opinion.
Besides, I do vote. Every time. And I always vote for civil rights, freedom and the right to the pursuit of happiness. I vote for logic and reason, science and proven methods of procedure to determine goals. I do not vote for tired old methodologies; antiquated routines and proven falsehoods. I do not vote for ignorance and prejudice or the subjugation of one set of people underneath another. I do not vote for the past, when I look to the future. I learn from the past to protect the future.
Remember, there was a time when christianity ruled nations -- we call it the Dark Ages.
But it's easy for christians to claim "if you don't like it, don't look" because honestly there are more of them. However, what if I said the same thing about a luciferian idol on your city's hall? Or a giant turd (to borrow from South Park) instead of a baby and manger? What if an eviscerated cow hanging upside down from a noose were a religion's holiday symbol (when instead it might be a more accurate symbol for Sunday barbecues)? Would you still say "just don't look?" Would you be okay with "not looking" if an image of Osama bin Laden were revered on September 11s? Because some people think he's prophet-like; the veritable Sampson taking on Goliath (the USA).
If the United States is going to pretend to be a world leader in tolerance (which we're not) and a haven for the oppressed (which we're not) and a bastion of light in a world of darkness, then we need to accept everyone as an equal. As the article (op-ed column) posted above states, the Jewish writer wrote the article after hearing foreign national wonderment that a government building was dressed up so much like a church.
If these people were visitors or immigrants, then what do they think when they see the government promoting one religion over another? Our founding fathers added the establishment clause into the first (FIRST) amendment; not the second and not the 9th. The first. Guarantee of rights was the primary focus of people who dealt regularly with religious persecution. If the government now endorses one religion over others (which it does) then we have turned our backs on the very principals that founded this nation. And by understanding that, I am more of a patriot that someone who states: "if you don't like it, move."
And that's just my opinion.
Besides, I do vote. Every time. And I always vote for civil rights, freedom and the right to the pursuit of happiness. I vote for logic and reason, science and proven methods of procedure to determine goals. I do not vote for tired old methodologies; antiquated routines and proven falsehoods. I do not vote for ignorance and prejudice or the subjugation of one set of people underneath another. I do not vote for the past, when I look to the future. I learn from the past to protect the future.
Remember, there was a time when christianity ruled nations -- we call it the Dark Ages.
Comments