Home > Religion > Back up

Back up

December 22, 2005 Leave a comment Go to comments

A brand new wireless router and I can get on the Internet again. Hooray for me.

First order of business, go read this. And check this out.

And with that, I think I’m done with this War on Christmas crap. It’s been obvious throughout this entire ordeal that these people don’t care about the truth, they care about demonizing non-Christians and getting their religion promoted by the government.

Categories: Religion
  1. ben
    December 23, 2005 at 1:33 pm

    Those whiners suck, but really, it’s not within a perfect system, and so they do tend to get jewed. In other words, the government can promote your free speech, but not if it’s religious, so they get screwed out of their “calling” or whatnot. If what you really want to say is in violation of the implied seperation of church and state, then you can sit sit down and shut up. Sucky, but they need to get some facts straight, the mooks.

    BEHOLD:

    “Madison’s original proposal for a bill of rights provision concerning religion read: ”The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” (1) The language was altered in the House to read: ”Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.” (2) In the Senate, the section adopted read: ”Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith, or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion, . . .” (3) It was in the conference committee of the two bodies, chaired by Madison, that the present language was written with its some what more indefinite ”respecting” phraseology. (4) Debate in Congress lends little assistance in interpreting the religion clauses; Madison’s position, as well as that of Jefferson who influenced him, is fairly clear, 5 but the intent, insofar as there was one, of the others in Congress who voted for the language and those in the States who voted to ratify is subject to speculation.”

  2. December 23, 2005 at 1:54 pm

    You’ll have to give me an example. When has separation of church and state infringed on an individual’s free speech rights? People aren’t allowed to use government to promote religion, but that applies as much to me plastering a quote from The Age of Reason on a courthouse wall as it does to a Ten Commandments monument and really can’t be considered a violation of free speech.

  3. ben
    December 24, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    You can be kept from writing up a Merry Christmas announcement in school. Sure, there’s the seperation, but at least for myself, I mean “Merry Christmas” in the same way as “have a great time”, or “don’t get too drunk”. I’m not trying to convert anyone, and I am not demonizing anybody. If the constitution can be enforced based on the intent of what people think the Framers meant, then why can’t Merry Christmas be taken by intent? The whole debate is crap.

    Merry Christmas.

  4. December 24, 2005 at 4:42 pm

    “You can be kept from writing up a Merry Christmas announcement in school.”

    As far as I know, that’s not correct. Students can distribute religious literature to other students and Christmas has been ruled a secular (or, secular enough to be a federal holiday) holiday by the courts anyway, so “Merry Christmas” is definitely permitted in schools.

  5. ben
    December 25, 2005 at 8:08 pm

    Not so. Most anything pertaining to Christmas in school, including instrumental versions of classic Christmas carols, can be banned by the school. They can be played/sang though if the lyrics are changed secular. Crazy huh? I saw some little kids on the news singing something akin to “we wish you a non-denominational holiday”. It can be challenged in the courts, and wouldn’t be a problem in Troy, but sheesh, the whole things nutty!

    If Christmas has been ruled a secular holiday, then how come so many people take “Merry Christmas” as some sort of conversion attempt? Why does it matter then if the white house has a “Christmas” tree?

    Like I said, the whole thing sucks, there are mooks everywhere, and the whole thing is late: I should think that this would have happened as soon as Santa came into the picture.

  6. December 26, 2005 at 1:30 am

    “Not so. Most anything pertaining to Christmas in school, including instrumental versions of classic Christmas carols, can be banned by the school. They can be played/sang though if the lyrics are changed secular. Crazy huh? I saw some little kids on the news singing something akin to “we wish you a non-denominational holiday”. It can be challenged in the courts, and wouldn’t be a problem in Troy, but sheesh, the whole things nutty!”

    You’re confusing what a couple of schools have done with separation of church and state. Nothing about current accepted interpretations of CSS mandates any of those things. So, your concerns are with schools, not anything about the separation of church and state.

    “If Christmas has been ruled a secular holiday, then how come so many people take “Merry Christmas” as some sort of conversion attempt? Why does it matter then if the white house has a “Christmas” tree?”

    How many people have you met that take “Merry Christmas” that way? It also doesn’t matter at all what the White House Christmas tree is called. In that case, you have a few people with a bizarre idea of political correctness. Again, nothing to do with CSS.

  7. ben
    December 26, 2005 at 2:40 pm

    “You’re confusing what a couple of schools have done with separation of church and state.”
    Argh, my bad for not clarifying. The schools made their changes based on the perception of seperation, thus my point. It’s not mandated, but then again, not that much aside from out and out promotion of religion is actually banned. Banning is accepted, at least to some extent, or it wouldn’t be allowed in the few(ish) schools that do.

    Please don’t get me wrong, I think that your arguments have incredible validity, but maybe I’m not being clear enough in my responses, and we don’t seem to always be referring to the same things. This is probably why there are debates, ya know?

  8. December 26, 2005 at 7:06 pm

    Ok, I did suspect you were making that point. I should have tried to clarify earlier.

    I think out and out promotion of religion is generally what should be banned and anything less we have to be very careful about. Also, I’m not saying that what some schools are doing is illegal. Schools aren’t required to do anything for Christmas. I’m simply saying they’re going farther than necessary in ensuring religious neutrality.

    As for why some schools do these things, I don’t think it’s only an incorrect perception of what separation entails. It is arguable that going further than the courts in ensuring religious neutrality in schools is a good thing. I think some are going farther than necessary out of misguided political correctness. As for the perception of separation, I think the religious Right’s demagoguery on this issue is partly to blame. Schools fear the ACLU based on the quite incredible demonization of them by the Right and go to far in trying to avoid lawsuits. Quite ironic.

  9. ben
    December 27, 2005 at 8:03 pm

    Agreed, chum.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: