and then she will vote for crap like making masturbation illegal, probably side with the westboro baptist church on issues regarding homophobia, quote scriptures in session, wipe the hate for obama off for just a minute, aren't there other candidates that will oppose obama that one could vote for? Not that it really matters, she is getting crushed anyway, and hell, she is actually hurting the GOP in that race.
The constitution does not forbid the government from endorsing, promoting, or encouraging religion. It prevents Congress from passing a law regarding the establishment of religion. Congress can't pass a law forcing municipalities or individuals to celebrate Christmas, put up a creche or mannorrah, pray before football games. Neither can the federal government "prohibit the free exercise thereof". The federal government has no constitutional authority to tell Podunk, Alabama they can't have a nativity scene at its courthouse any more than Congress can pass a law forcing San Francisco to hang the 10 Commandments in every school.
right but by building this nativity scene they are forcing taxpayers to fund someone else's religion.
As a taxpayer I'm forced to fund someone else's rent, food, child rearing, schooling, etc. But, God forbid we spend a few bucks on a nativity scene that might offend a few "different" folks.
nativity scenes are not a huge problem, but it certainly is annoying that people cant see how important it is for the government to be as separate as possible from religion. i dunno why it would bother you if the government didnt have any nativity scenes.
1. No one is bothered by the absence of a nativity scene. What is bothersome is the intolerance of certain groups and the misapplication of the constitution that prohibits the exhibition of a nativity scene on municipal property. 2. In the vast majority of cases, we are talking about local municipalities using local taxes none of which involve the federal government. Often the material and labor used to build a creche for example may be donated by a local merchant or organization, especial in "small town" America. We are talking about community standards. In Berkley, CA I would suppose there would be little enthusiasm for a nativity or any other kind of religious expression. Fine, and no one should force them to display it. Congress certainly can't pass a law mandating it. On the other hand, in Summerville, SC locals may enjoy a nativity scene that in their view expresses the meaning of Christmas and adds to the atmosphere and festivity of the season. This is a local matter for local citizens to decide. You can't impose the power of the constitution to "prohibit the free exercise" of religion. 3. What do you care how some other town decides to celebrate Christmas? What some other school board allows at football games? Whether or not, some other entity decides to display the decalogue? These matters are not the business of the federal government and it is a clear violation of the First Amendment and the spirit of "separation of church and state" for the federal government to intervene in the affairs of local governments and churches.
of course they are. in some communities, atheists have lobbied for secular signs to be placed on public property, and the outcry is massive. stop trying to bully everyone with your superstitions. keep it in your homes and dont poison the minds of your communities. yunno children can see that nativity stuff on public property. have you ever considered that?
Really? Massive? What national religious groups are swooping down and to sue and use the federal judiciary to prevent these signs. An "outcry" is far removed from seeking federal enforcement of a anti-religious bias that runs contrary to the constitution. Every time I step outside all I see are secular signs on public property. Nativity scenes are exhibits that are intended as positive celebrations of the season. It is a widely excepted and traditional symbol of Christmas. Only those who wish to be offended are offended. The signs posted by atheists are not intended to be positive but rather to ridicule and inflame attitudes against the belief of others. These are not signs that celebrate atheism but are signs that denigrate religion. So who is bullying? Oooo....can't have the children seeing that now can we. The little lamb laying in the straw might scar them for life. That you want to force your standards on communities that are widely accepting of such displays as creches and mannorahs is the real issue. I can't recall any, ANY, religious group suing in federal court to force non-religious majority communities to display any religious imagery at Christmas. However, secularists have no compunction against forcing their values on majority religious communities. I'm guessing you don't have the same visceral reaction to federally funded art that denigrates Christianity. Shock and Awful Art - Brent Bozell - Townhall Conservative
i think of all the thousands and thousands of people you have ever met in your lifetime, not one knows as much about or opposes federal funding for art more than i do. in college it was a topic i chose for special emphasis and wrote about extensively, calling for an end to federal funding for art, specifically because of guys like mapplethorpe and andres serrano. so you guessed wrong.
