Originally posted by forestlady
The City Council members who voted whether to retain the wreath or not were Christians and it was their views as Christians that they didn't want
the wreath there. Before that, the Mayor and City Council had voted to invite other religious groups, after they realized that it was a violation of
church and state on govt. property, by only having a Nativity scene. Not wanting to be sued, they invited other groups, but reluctantly.
My point is that on govt property, no one religion should be endorsed; not Paganism, not Christianity, not Judaism, etc. Either there should be no
displays or all religions should be welcome to place their symbols on govt property.
I think it's a stretch to call it an "endorsement" of religion but rather a display to observe the Christmas Holiday. It's interesting to read
some of these posts forest lady where we are told the ornate symbols Christians use for the Christmas holiday are the same symbols that we are to
disown as pagan in origin thus by there own testimony, invalidates Christmas for a myriad of reasons. Then if I were to use those very same arguments
to justify why they are not symbolic of Christianity but could expect an argument from the very same antagonists of its legitimacy demanding that they
are in fact Christian symbolism when it suits them.
It has been said in several posts that Christianity doesn't "own" Christmas and that many other people celebrate it Santa and all which would
suggest that it is merely a secular holiday of Christian invention which again has been invalidated as pagan invention. I see how those having
posted these issues are using them when it suits there cause to invalidate but will use them to substantiate there Christian meaning if for instance
the city council were to say it was observing a holiday and not a religion.
So which is it? We don't own Christmas, ok then if that is so then the pagans don't own any holiday, day, tree, either. If we oblige all those who
have said in these posts that Christians have usurped the winter solstice, others saying Christmas about shopping etc. Then it stands to reason that
those traditional Christmas symbols are just that,, Christmas Holiday symbols representing the very Holiday we agreed that we DON'T OWN. I think
it's disingenuous of someone to insist it is a religious holiday the "Christians own when it servers there law suit pagans vs the City Council.
Then insist it is NOTHING less then a pagan holiday insisting that Christians DON'T own it when WE would like to celebrate it as a Religious
remembrance of Christs Birth.
If it is to be a Christian religious Holiday then I think it is disrespectful of some other religion to add there own theist symbols and THAT may be
the reason for some antagonism mixing pagan and Christmas displays.
It is simply in bad taste and it isn't necessary. They probably saw being analogous to someone seeing Halloween decorations at the Municipal court
(another pagan day?) and decided to add Easter eggs to the Halloween theme using Halloweens Pagan religions origin and Easters Christian religious
significance of the third day after Christs death.
That isn't the best illustration but you get the point.
I don't see this as an argument about fairness or separation of church and state, I see this as one religion wanting to spoil the others special day
because they just cant stand Christianity's Christmas and just have to put there own displays up behind the guise of fairness using separation of
church and state ONLY when it suits them but NOT because they necessarily agree with it. Another words it separation of church and state is great
when pagans don't get there way, and they hav e to use that so that others won't get ther way either. THAT'S when they say Christmas is all
christian and all religious. Otherwise they say its a sham a shopping day blah blah etc etc.
Then with the threat of law suit predicated on church and state, they get what they want and do JUST the opposite when the honest thing to do would
have been to go on with the law suit removing ALL the festive displays period. It's not an important statute when it comes to putting Pagan wreaths
along side Christian nativity scenes but if they can't,, THEN IT MAKES AN EXCELLENT TOOL TO REMOVE SOMEONE ELSE'S.
That's just why this looks more to me like sour grapes.
Having said that, I would concur that if it came to a debate on resolving this then by all means, Christians would not mind at all making Christmas in
sept or oct acknowledging the solstice history allowing them to have Dec 23 - 25.
I think if it means that much to pagans then we should let them have it. Then we could expect that OUR Christmas not be the subject of controversy,
an excuse to ridicule Christians for everything wrong in the world etc.
I bet if that came to fruition, Christians would STILL not assume to Own it or dictate who is eligible to celebrate it but they would be accused of
such intentions I'm afraid because of a deep seeded and denied hatred of those Darn Insufferable Christians by a small minority of people with a
chip on there shoulder for suffering the excruciating painful humiliation of having a Christian Nativity scene "Rubbed" in there face.
What better way to get back at them then by Polluting there "scene" with a pagan one of there own. Had all the doublespeak not been used in such
arbitrary ways I wouldn't see this having such vendetta but that is how I see it.
If it happens again forestlady,, I'd sue em and get them all removed. Then we can ask who the partypoopers are that just HAD to RAIN on the
Christians special day. Forestlady,, how many pagans are there in this country? I ask because if there are that many and if this is that
important,, I think we should make some changes and let the pagans have ther days.
[edit on 27-12-2007 by Conspiriology]