It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Public Religious Displays

page: 4
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   
I will say - - growing up in the 50s. Being in elementary school in the 50's - - - only Christianity was celebrated.

I had no idea there were Jewish kids in my class. I had no idea that anything existed besides Christ and Santa Claus.

How Pathetic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In that time and place - - if you weren't Christian - - you knew to keep your mouth shut. NO ONE complained.

The other point is - - there were few divorces then. Even if parents didn't get along - - kids still had Mom & Dad. But I didn't.

There were no concessions made for making little craft projects for Father's Day. It did not matter that I had no father. That was the class project and I was forced to make a Father's Day gift.

One teacher actually said: "Well just give it to your mother instead". Like at 6 I understood.
------------------------------------------------

So for those who say "this is just trivial and we should accept it" - - - - SCREW THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If a city/government allows any Religious symbol/presentation on public land - - - it is Wrong!!! Period!!!

Government and Religion are NOT compatible - - - EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!! For any reason!!!!!!!!!!!




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Who is saying they can't?


At this point, no one, which if you had read my previous posts, you would understand.

It DOES and HAS happened, though.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 06:53 PM
link   
I appreciate all of the comments from everyone who has assumed that I'm just an extremely sensitive atheist who hates Christians and "free speech," rather than constructively contributing to the conversation. I think that shows a lot.


Originally posted by Jenna
It's in a public park, you haven't checked to see if it's even government owned property, you haven't even checked to see if other displays can be placed there,


Yes, I already said that you made a good point in bringing this up. As far as I knew at the time and still know, the park is government property, and I have no reason to believe otherwise at this time. However, I am still looking into the matter, and have not formally brought up the issue.


Originally posted by Jenna
you went immediately into "this is offensive and must be removed because the government is forcing me into Christianity with a holiday display" mode.


Thanks for assuming that I was actually offended. I've already stated the primary reason that I've considered the issue.


Originally posted by Jenna
You can call it whatever you like, but you sound like you were just looking for something offensive during the holiday season that you could complain about.


It's actually something that I just happened to notice when I came home for Thanksgiving break, but you can still think that I'm a scrooge if you want to.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:33 PM
link   
My question would be- Hows it ur deal and in what way does it hinder u and ur daily activities? I can understand if u wanted the city to represent other religions but u sound like u just want to stir the pot. Why would u waste ur valuable time and energy on something that hurts u in no way?? I'd love to have that kind of free time. Why would u want to try to take away something that others get enjoyment from? How hurtful and a poor way for one to spend their energy. If ur truely wanting to make sure ur town shows more diversity get a petition started. Just so there's no confusion, I'm not Christian, I don't particularly like organized religion. The Earth is my religion so there's no bias here.

Kim



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:37 PM
link   
Somewhat left of the topic, but.......


Religion and religious displays is, simply put, part of humanity to an overwhelmingly large percentage. To not allow such things as public displays is in part not allowing for humanity to display publicly. Now, I know there are laws, and so be it. But I would rather the law/teaching be one of tolerance than one of hinderance.

Just my two copper Lincolns.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:44 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


Well no it's not if you think about it, you forgot to add Judaism and Islam only Christens believe Jesus is the Christ but Muslims believe he was a prophet and that he will return at the end of days and Jews believe he was a prophet but not the Christ.

So his birth scene (nativity scene) should not be a problem for any of the three religions of Abraham listed above and should not be looked at as "a symbol of Christianity"

However i agree with you on "holding our government to a standard. "
edit on 26-11-2010 by GunzCoty because: cant slepl aynhtnig



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomeBrew
Somewhat left of the topic, but.......


Religion and religious displays is, simply put, part of humanity to an overwhelmingly large percentage. To not allow such things as public displays is in part not allowing for humanity to display publicly. Now, I know there are laws, and so be it. But I would rather the law/teaching be one of tolerance than one of hinderance.

Just my two copper Lincolns.


Well ain't that wonderful.

The day Religion keeps its "paws" out of politics - - - I might agree with you.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by HomeBrew
Somewhat left of the topic, but.......


Religion and religious displays is, simply put, part of humanity to an overwhelmingly large percentage. To not allow such things as public displays is in part not allowing for humanity to display publicly. Now, I know there are laws, and so be it. But I would rather the law/teaching be one of tolerance than one of hinderance.

Just my two copper Lincolns.


Well ain't that wonderful.

The day Religion keeps its "paws" out of politics - - - I might agree with you.


Unfortunately politics is a reflection of humanity it governs, and so religion will find a way to manifest, perhaps rightfully so. However, I do agree that religion as in ancient and outdated ritual and preaching should be left undone in politics. However, if the basis of all religion like Love of Humanity filters in, then I'm all for it. Let it be known there is a rather large difference between a person of faith/religion, and one who uses the religion card for votes.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:17 PM
link   
I'm not offended by any religious displays that I've seen. They reflect the beliefs of the people who put them up. I would object to a display that directly and blatantly espoused hate against another group (a Nazi 'Christmas', for example, or a KKK 'nativity'.)

I am offended by the depravity (IMO) and commercialization of people who scurry about in a frenzy, buying things in the name of a somewhat nebulous tribute to the observed birth date of a diety. If one chooses to celebrate that holiday then along with many other nations, that's their business. We can't wait to take off the time from work, can we? Oh, it's Christmas, the holiday of glittery purchases and pithy Hallmark greetings. Many of us were socialized into this behavior, and many pass it on to their offspring in turn.

I don't think Federal and State buildings should express any bias by the hanging or display of any symbology except State and/or National flags. Public parks? A equally-sized space can be alloted for anyone who wishes to pay for a display from their own pocket. No public-paid utilities should be used. Any individual business or family should feel free to display what they choose, commemorating whatever date or holiday they choose.

I think we sometimes tend toward unneccessarily complicating things. I think sometimes we fight for things to be homogenous, rather than merely fair. If I can't have fun, you can't either. I like color, I like texture, I don't want things all the same. I like diversity. ........... and yes, I'll be hanging lights on my coconut palm as I have done for nearly every year for the last 15 years. If I am worried that I may offend someone and my business might suffer as a result, then I simply have to choose between my personal concept of integrity, self-expression and dollars. I also paint a dozen or so coconuts with festive colors. It's tradition, dammit.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by HomeBrew
Let it be known there is a rather large difference between a person of faith/religion, and one who uses the religion card for votes.


There are those who truly walk in His footsteps. They do not even need to believe in Him.

They are very rare and far between.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 


How is allowing people to celebrate their religion in public forcing a particular religion on others? If Muslims, Jews, or Hindus wanted to celebrate their religion in public I'm pretty sure it would be allowed.

Also, a park is a public space owned by everybody, not a government space.
edit on 26-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Brood
 


How is allowing people to celebrate their religion in public forcing a particular religion on others? If Muslims, Jews, or Hindus wanted to celebrate their religion in public I'm pretty sure it would be allowed.

Also, a park is a public space owned by everybody, not a government space.
edit on 26-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)


Well, a courthouse is a government building that ABSOLUTELY represents the government.

And why should the other religious groups' taxes have to pay for public Christian decorations?

It has nothing to do with people celebrating their religion. If someone wants to celebrate their religion, they have their own property to do it on. Like you said, the park is public property; it belongs to everyone. Some people's religions demand that there not be images or sculptures of Jesus, yet... there he is... in a manger... in front of a courthouse... or in a park. This is a deadly sin in their eyes and why should they have to look at it? So you can be like "OOO, purdy." Sounds kind of self-focused. I forgot that's what Jesus wanted Christians to do
. Disrespect other people and their beliefs so that we can look at pretty things in public areas. That sure sounds like the Christ I read about in several versions of the Bible
.
edit on 28-11-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I will support the placement of a Nativity Scene on public land the day the Christians support the placement of a Gay Pride Display in the same spot on the anniversary of the Stonewall Riots...

Don't worry, I won't hold my breath waiting...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


I hear ya Jax. But.......... what about public lands that allow an equal space for everyone's display, as long as it was paid for out of their own pocket? I don't have a problem with that, as long as the display doesn't espouse hate against any group of people.

My experience with gay/lesbian-oriented celebrations is that no hate is projected toward anyone by the celebrants. I have regrettfully view hate projected toward such celebrants. I think that's extremely unfortunate. We should ALL be able to celebrate our uniqueness.

Slightly off-topic, but germaine to what you posted.......... There was a time long, long, ago when I was offended by elderly gay men wearing buttless leather chaps. It took me a while to realize that they were just kicking up their heels in a manner that made them happy, and after that, my offense evaporated. It was naive and judgemental of me to be offended. If such is displayed in a 'family setting', the it is inappropriate, regardless of the gender or age of the person. If such is displayed at, say, a gay/lesbian pride celebration, then one sorta relgates their right to be offended if they choose to attend. We always chose to attend. Fun was had by all.

So, yes, I endorse the same sort of display, with this caveat: You didn't suggest this, however I don't think a gay/lesbian pride display belongs next to cultural/religious/holiday displays. Just my opinion.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by argentus
 


Don't feel bad, I'm also offended by elderly gay men wearing buttless leather chaps! It seems that just like speedos, older guys like to wear stuff that only younger guys should! Regretfully, the younger ones never do!

I agree that EVERYONE should be allowed to express their beliefs on public grounds, but while they have no problem with displays that reflect their beliefs and likes, they always oppose those who differ from them. Thus it turns into the nothing end of the 'all or nothing' paradigm...



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Man, I agree with ya. If you're going to pay for and install a religious-based holiday display, you automatically relegate the right to complain about anyone else's. I did a post long ago here where I researched all the countries that had a December celebration. There were much more than I'd thought before that research.

While I personally think it would look silly for a row of December-related holiday displays to be lined up in any venue, I completely support that silliness to be a reality. Everyone should display the symbology and icons of the holidays that they subscribe to. Everyone else that doesn't subscribe to those holidays should humbly tolerate and/or ignore the displays that don't resonate with their belief system. OR........ [diety forbid], they might consider reveling in the celebrated days of others for whom they don't share a culture. Wouldn't THAT be amazing? Dancing in the streets. I could live with that.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 09:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Brood
 

Public property means the government shall not prohibit observing religion there. Is that really so hard to understand? Or does the constitution only apply to private property?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Since property belongs to everyone, everyone is free to celebrate whatever religious observance they want.

What if they said that in public property you're not allowed to have free-speech? Would you agree or disagree?
edit on 28-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
reply to post by Brood
 

Public property means the government shall not prohibit observing religion there. Is that really so hard to understand? Or does the constitution only apply to private property?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



The First Ammendment does not protect government buildings, it protects the American people and their personal religious establishments. Your argument is fruitless. Why are you trying to protect the right of this building to have chosen to be a Christian building? You should put this argument in front of more members of the GOP, you'll rally more support for the pro-building-choice when you somehow convince them that the First Amendment is working on their side for once.


Since property belongs to everyone, everyone is free to celebrate whatever religious observance they want.


I agree, and that's why the government has no place assigning a religion to a public area. If people want to celebrate their religion, they are free to do so. "What is so hard to understand?" I don't care what the citizens do on their own property or on public property. Hell, I don't care when the Jehovas witnesses even do it ony MY property. This is a courthouse, it has nothing to do with freedom of speech, because a courthouse does not represent the American population, it represents the American government. Maintaining a neutral religious stance is crucial to Western societal civility.
edit on 28-11-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)

edit on 28-11-2010 by Brood because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 

Don't be a cultural cleansing crank. You and those intolerants like you will make life steril and horrible. Learn to enjoy seeing happy people.



posted on Nov, 28 2010 @ 11:58 PM
link   
There is no need, nor right to have a religious display on public property.

If people want nativity scenes in their community, they are free to put as many of them as they want on their own private property.

When it comes to public property, keep it religion free.
edit on 29-11-2010 by BigTimeCheater because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join