Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I kinda see it from another angle .... seems like you Godless liberals will spare no effort to invade Any-Town, USA with an army of ACLU Lawyers to force Mayor Smith to remove a Christmas Tree in Town Square, but it's no problem at all for Obama to have one in every room of the White House, one on the Lawn that is the size of the Great Pyramid of Egypt, and one sticking out his rear end?
How do you people keep from busting out in laughter at your own folly?
I sure busted out laughing at that ridiculous post!!!
I kinda see it from another angle .... seems like you Godless liberals will spare no effort to invade Any-Town, USA with an army of ACLU Lawyers to force Mayor Smith to remove a Christmas Tree in Town Square, but it's no problem at all for Obama to have one in every room of the White House, one on the Lawn that is the size of the Great Pyramid of Egypt, and one sticking out his rear end?
How do you people keep from busting out in laughter at your own folly?
First, not all those who are "godless" are liberals.
Second, I have absolutely no problem with Christmas decorations being on public land, providing that all other recognized religions have an equal opportunity to display whatever message they choose, including atheists.
If the White House makes it available to display other religious, or non-religious, symbols or messages, then I have no problem whatsoever with Christmas trees in the White House. However, if ONLY Christian symbols or messages are allowed, then no religious, or non-religious, symbols or messages should be allowed. The US must either embrace all beliefs and non-belief, or none.
I kinda see it from another angle .... seems like you Godless liberals will spare no effort to invade Any-Town, USA with an army of ACLU Lawyers to force Mayor Smith to remove a Christmas Tree in Town Square, but it's no problem at all for Obama to have one in every room of the White House, one on the Lawn that is the size of the Great Pyramid of Egypt, and one sticking out his rear end?
How do you people keep from busting out in laughter at your own folly?
Ah, you are making a lot of assumptions based on your own biases... You know, some people actually have the ability to discern reality from fiction. They can see past the rim of their own plate, step into another person's shoes, or see things solely based on the law without having their own personal needs override the law. They are able (and perhaps this is news to you) to detach themselves emotionally from an issue and point out the ridiculousness of an assertion.
Thus, I commented on the apparent ridiculousness of spending years arguing that Obama is a Muslim only to end up complaining that he (not the White House) has too many Christmas trees. That is truly asinine - and because it is so blatantly asinine, I am sure that there must be some bizarre conspiracy behind it... Alas, you describe yourself as a "Senior Conspiracy Theorist" and thus, I am hardly surprised.
Then there are those who see anything and everything as an assault on them or the values they deem important. To them, any criticism automatically results into a categorization of polar opposites: You're either with us, or you're against us. You are good, or you are evil. You are liberal, or you are conservative.
For guys like that (and you?), there are no gradations. There is no rationale. Everything is an emotional issue that elicits the deepest and darkest fears and that makes them dehumanize those who disagree with them. It's really quite sad - not to mention that it is thoughtless, simplistic, and unintelligent.
I'll let you in on a secret: I have NEVER voted for a Democrat in my entire life (and I am not young). I did not vote for Obama - not now, not four years ago.
Here's my Christmas tree:
I must really be fighting a good battle regarding the evil invasion of Christmas...
You see, I am much more easy-going than the image you are trying to paint. In fact, I am very much into live-and-let-live and am hardly bothered by anyone's life choices and certainly not by their religious beliefs.
Then again, that Christmas tree is on my own, private property...
First, not all those who are "godless" are liberals.
First, I think you should have said "not all who are liberals are Godless", no? In any case, I really don't understand why you feel the need to make such qualifying statements to begin with. The fact is, there are many fewer absolutes than people generally perceive .... yet that does not dismiss the value of generalization as reflective of a substantial truth, wherein the vast majority of those whining about religious expression are indeed self identified liberals. You may be able to find one, because nuts are everywhere these days, but you are unlikely to find too many so-called "conservatives" btching about Christmas trees and manger scenes and demanding the removal of them .. okay?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
Second, I have absolutely no problem with Christmas decorations being on public land, providing that all other recognized religions have an equal opportunity to display whatever message they choose, including atheists.
Why? Where did you find this "it's got to be equal and fair" rule? The idea itself is childishly naive and unworkable, which is why I'm not surprised that you, the liberal, would think like that. After-all, that is a reasonably accurate definition (in substantial measure ) of liberalism ... naive and unworkable. One need only think for 5 seconds to realize how silly that really is. Look, given the multitude of different religious beliefs that exist, it would fall somewhere between totally impractical and virtually impossible to facilitate this idea of fairness that you suggest must be observed, and that's just the obvious flaw which should be immediately evident to anyone that actually chooses to think. But there are much deeper and more disastrous elements to this line of reasoning that are not so obvious to casual, surface observation, but nonetheless very problematic .... namely, the underlying elements of "attack-counter attack" disguised as "fairness".
Now you may have very good intentions at heart, when promoting this idea of "fair", simply because it's obviously not a good idea to promote unfairness. But actions have consequences, and often unintended ... as the old adage says, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Now, I don't expect you to agree or concede my following points, but perhaps you'll at least start thinking a little more about the nature of your brand of reason, as I spell this out in plain terms. And I apologize up front for my verbosity here, but there really is no way to boil this down to a couple of sentences.
Here's the essence of my argument .... people in general regard Christmas as a joyous time of year, and such Christmas displays like manger scenes and Christmas trees and beautiful lights bring them a bit of simple pleasure, often practiced by those who are really not even demonstratively practicing Christians throughout the year. Much of it is intended for the benefit of children ... Santa Claus and Reindeer and elves and all that stuff is one of the big clues But adults also find pleasure it these celebrations too, and if you are really an observant type, you'll notice a nice change in people's attitudes and behavior during the Christmas season ... charitable donations increase ... people are more polite and thoughtful toward one another ... and most just seem a bit happier. Frankly, it is my feeling that we'd be a much better society if we adopted more of this attitude throughout the entire year, instead of just a couple of weeks at the end of each December, OKAY ?
But here's the point ... these displays and demonstrations of Christmas are NOT intended to give a symbolic middle finger to Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, etc. It's not an attack on other people's beliefs or non-beliefs, it's just a simple celebration of Christian traditions (and many who aren't even Christians, celebrate and enjoy Christmas nonetheless). The major conflict is generated not from the darned Christmas tree, but from those who respond in this "counter-attack" mode, who want to make an issue out of it unnecessarily.
Look, the damned Christmas tree isn't harming anyone ... and it's not insulting anyone else's belief or non-belief .... it's not an attack on you ... it's pretty, it brings people some joy and pleasure .. leave them and their trees ALONE ... they aren't hurting you, nor is there any intention to do so ... but there certainly is an OVERT and OBVIOUS intention to harm by demanding that you be allowed to place a Pentagram next to it ... or perform some black magic human sacrifice along side it in this counter attack disguised as "fairness".
You can twist and spin, shuck and jive all you want .. but that is the base nature of the situation ... intolerant people demanding tolerance from everyone but themselves. It's got to be a competition .. a counter attack from those who perceive anything they don't agree with as an attack on them when it's no such thing. And quite predictably, it leads nowhere except to conflict and hard feelings.
Leave it to liberals to foul up a wet dream or a rock fight ... or the simple joy of Christmas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glitch
If the White House makes it available to display other religious, or non-religious, symbols or messages, then I have no problem whatsoever with Christmas trees in the White House. However, if ONLY Christian symbols or messages are allowed, then no religious, or non-religious, symbols or messages should be allowed. The US must either embrace all beliefs and non-belief, or none.
Look ... Obama's mother-in-law was practicing Voodoo in the freaking White House until Barry put the kibosh on that .. or so the story goes so what the hell will satisfy you people anyways? Seances and Luciferian rituals summoning Satan so he can have a freaking cup of eggnog too?
But in all seriousness, as I've already outlined the underlying conflict imposed by your liberal non-reasoned brand of fairness, which is in reality just a very negative attack response ... we come full circle back to the practical problems in your "all or nothing" proposition. Where does it end? Since there are 54 Christmas trees, must there be 54 Menorahs ... 54 Voodoo Dolls ... 54 Pentagrams ... 54 of everything .. or would one of everything be enough? Aside from the fact that there just wouldn't be enough space for one of everything, let alone 54 of everything ... I promise you, not everyone of your ilk would agree that it would be "fair" to have 54 Christmas trees and only one Witch Caldron with baby limbs protruding from the bubbling fog. So the next predictable action would be to demand that only one Christmas tree be allowed to make room for one of everything else. And finally, we come full circle right back to the inanity of such circular reasoning as so clearly shouting from the rooftop in such an asinine concept of "The US must either embrace all beliefs and non-belief, or none".
How do you suppose it could be possible to simultaneously embrace all beliefs and non-belief? This type of reasoning should give you a headache within the first 5 seconds, even before it leaves the neural pathways, making it into the outside world in words. How does one demonstrate a belief in nothing? That is the nature of atheism .. a belief in nothing ... no God .. no Devil ... no spirits ... no afterlife ... no nothing. To the pure atheist we are an accident of nature .. a "monkey's uncle" .. we live aimlessly and die, and that's the end of it. So how does one best demonstrate-celebrate that? Well, if following the consistent liberal pattern of self destructive anti-reason, the moment you get all of those "one of everything" properly put side by side as you insist, the Atheist will immediately and just as self righteously insist that all of it be removed, because all of it offends their sensibilities, and they object to any display of hocus pocus, superstition, and unscientific spirit worship.
And there you have it ... the clear definition of circular reasoning which comes right back around to it's starting point, and concludes in the exact opposite result of it's original intent. The goal was fairness, demanding a display of one of everything, and ended in a display of NOTHING.
Congratulations ... you are indeed a card carrying, full member of the liberal lunatic club. You should resign ... but the first step in recovery is admitting there is a problem.
First, I think you should have said "not all who are liberals are Godless", no?
No, that is not what I meant to say. I am hardly liberal by any stretch of the imagination, and I am also "godless." I am an Independent conservative atheist that considers the Republican Party of today to be the Democratic Party of the 1960s, and the Democratic Party of today to be al Qaeda's greatest ally and working on their behalf to destroy the US.
From 1972 through 1992 I voted exclusively Republican. However, since 1996 I have not been able to vote for a single Republican candidate because I do not vote for liberal freaks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
In any case, I really don't understand why you feel the need to make such qualifying statements to begin with. The fact is, there are many fewer absolutes than people generally perceive .... yet that does not dismiss the value of generalization as reflective of a substantial truth, wherein the vast majority of those whining about religious expression are indeed self identified liberals. You may be able to find one, because nuts are everywhere these days, but you are unlikely to find too many so-called "conservatives" btching about Christmas trees and manger scenes and demanding the removal of them .. okay?
I have no problem with generalizations, until they become stereotypes. There are two kinds of atheists:
Those who do not believe, and are also anti-theist (these are your "complainers"); and
Those who do not believe, but have no animosity toward those who do.
I fall into the latter group. I have no problem with voluntary prayer in schools, including religious messages in speeches, or other public displays of religious dogma. The reason I have no problem with any of these things is because they are not law. Only when religious belief is enacted into law does it fall under the category of an "establishment of religion." When that happens, then I have a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Why? Where did you find this "it's got to be equal and fair" rule? The idea itself is childishly naive and unworkable, which is why I'm not surprised that you, the liberal, would think like that. After-all, that is a reasonably accurate definition (in substantial measure ) of liberalism ... naive and unworkable. One need only think for 5 seconds to realize how silly that really is. Look, given the multitude of different religious beliefs that exist, it would fall somewhere between totally impractical and virtually impossible to facilitate this idea of fairness that you suggest must be observed, and that's just the obvious flaw which should be immediately evident to anyone that actually chooses to think. But there are much deeper and more disastrous elements to this line of reasoning that are not so obvious to casual, surface observation, but nonetheless very problematic .... namely, the underlying elements of "attack-counter attack" disguised as "fairness".
Now you may have very good intentions at heart, when promoting this idea of "fair", simply because it's obviously not a good idea to promote unfairness. But actions have consequences, and often unintended ... as the old adage says, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". Now, I don't expect you to agree or concede my following points, but perhaps you'll at least start thinking a little more about the nature of your brand of reason, as I spell this out in plain terms. And I apologize up front for my verbosity here, but there really is no way to boil this down to a couple of sentences.
Actually, the decision was not mine but rather the court's numerous decisions. I also said nothing about being "fair." I specifically said "equal." One is highly subjective, the other is not.
The court has held that religious displays on public property were constitutional, providing every religious belief, or non-belief, were given an opportunity to be equally represented. If it cannot be done equally, then it should not be done at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Here's the essence of my argument .... people in general regard Christmas as a joyous time of year, and such Christmas displays like manger scenes and Christmas trees and beautiful lights bring them a bit of simple pleasure, often practiced by those who are really not even demonstratively practicing Christians throughout the year. Much of it is intended for the benefit of children ... Santa Claus and Reindeer and elves and all that stuff is one of the big clues But adults also find pleasure it these celebrations too, and if you are really an observant type, you'll notice a nice change in people's attitudes and behavior during the Christmas season ... charitable donations increase ... people are more polite and thoughtful toward one another ... and most just seem a bit happier. Frankly, it is my feeling that we'd be a much better society if we adopted more of this attitude throughout the entire year, instead of just a couple of weeks at the end of each December, OKAY ?
But here's the point ... these displays and demonstrations of Christmas are NOT intended to give a symbolic middle finger to Jews, Muslims, Atheists, Wiccans, etc. It's not an attack on other people's beliefs or non-beliefs, it's just a simple celebration of Christian traditions (and many who aren't even Christians, celebrate and enjoy Christmas nonetheless). The major conflict is generated not from the darned Christmas tree, but from those who respond in this "counter-attack" mode, who want to make an issue out of it unnecessarily.
Look, the damned Christmas tree isn't harming anyone ... and it's not insulting anyone else's belief or non-belief .... it's not an attack on you ... it's pretty, it brings people some joy and pleasure .. leave them and their trees ALONE ... they aren't hurting you, nor is there any intention to do so ... but there certainly is an OVERT and OBVIOUS intention to harm by demanding that you be allowed to place a Pentagram next to it ... or perform some black magic human sacrifice along side it in this counter attack disguised as "fairness".
You can twist and spin, shuck and jive all you want .. but that is the base nature of the situation ... intolerant people demanding tolerance from everyone but themselves. It's got to be a competition .. a counter attack from those who perceive anything they don't agree with as an attack on them when it's no such thing. And quite predictably, it leads nowhere except to conflict and hard feelings.
Leave it to liberals to foul up a wet dream or a rock fight ... or the simple joy of Christmas.
Whether it is intended or not, if government does not represent everyone equally in all things they are giving "a symbolic middle finger" to everyone they are not treating equally. This is why we have the Fourteenth Amendment. Everyone is to be given equal protection under the law.
With regard to religious displays, every recognized religious belief, or non-belief, should be given equal opportunity to display whatever message they want on public lands, like the White House. None of these religious displays are violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because Congress has not enacted a law requiring religious displays in the White House. It is a tradition, not law.
Personally, I think the religious displays in the White House should probably reflect the religious beliefs, or non-belief, of its chief occupant the President. Not that it matters.
If they want to put up 54 Christmas trees in the White House, I am fine with that providing the White House gave every other recognized religious beliefs, or non-belief, the equal opportunity to have their own displays. If other recognized religious beliefs, or non-belief, were denied the equal opportunity to make such a display, then it is wrong and there should be no religious or non-religious displays.
The case in Santa Monica is a perfect example. Along the Pacific Coast Highway is a park strip where they have 21 different public displays set up. Every year after Thanksgiving for around 60 years Santa Monica would allow religious and non-religious displays.
I used to live in Santa Monica during the 1960s. I remember seeing those displays, and while the vast majority were Christian, there were usually one or two that were Jewish or some other non-Christian belief. I do not recall seeing any atheist displays at that time.
The point being that the Santa Monica government had worked out a system that gave every recognized religious beliefs, or non-belief, an equal opportunity to display their message that worked for 60 years. It was only because these displays were vandalized last year that the Santa Monica government chose not to have any religious or non-religious displays this year. It was a proper decision, supported by the courts, that Santa Monica made. If it cannot be done equally, it should not be done at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
Look ... Obama's mother-in-law was practicing Voodoo in the freaking White House until Barry put the kibosh on that .. or so the story goes so what the hell will satisfy you people anyways? Seances and Luciferian rituals summoning Satan so he can have a freaking cup of eggnog too?
But in all seriousness, as I've already outlined the underlying conflict imposed by your liberal non-reasoned brand of fairness, which is in reality just a very negative attack response ... we come full circle back to the practical problems in your "all or nothing" proposition. Where does it end? Since there are 54 Christmas trees, must there be 54 Menorahs ... 54 Voodoo Dolls ... 54 Pentagrams ... 54 of everything .. or would one of everything be enough? Aside from the fact that there just wouldn't be enough space for one of everything, let alone 54 of everything ... I promise you, not everyone of your ilk would agree that it would be "fair" to have 54 Christmas trees and only one Witch Caldron with baby limbs protruding from the bubbling fog. So the next predictable action would be to demand that only one Christmas tree be allowed to make room for one of everything else. And finally, we come full circle right back to the inanity of such circular reasoning as so clearly shouting from the rooftop in such an asinine concept of "The US must either embrace all beliefs and non-belief, or none".
You will have to take that up with the courts, not me. It was the court that that held in ACLU of NJ v. Schundler, 104 F.3d 1435, 1444-50 (1997):
Quote:
It remains clear that government celebration of one particular religion, or even more than one religion, can constitute government endorsement of religion that violates the Establishment Clause by "sending a clear message to nonadherents that they are outsiders or less than full members of the political community." Allegheny County, 492 U.S. at 627 (O'Connor, J., concurring). We do not suggest that all government celebrations of diverse cultures need be free of all religious content. Indeed, such celebrations would likely be impossible given religion's inherent role in many different cultures. We merely recognize that government celebration of more than one religion cannot magically transform a government endorsement of religion into a secular "celebration of diversity and pluralism."
That court ruling was particularly interesting because while the display was unconstitutional in its original form, it became constitutional when more symbols, this time of a non-secular nature, were added to the display.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas
How do you suppose it could be possible to simultaneously embrace all beliefs and non-belief? This type of reasoning should give you a headache within the first 5 seconds, even before it leaves the neural pathways, making it into the outside world in words. How does one demonstrate a belief in nothing? That is the nature of atheism .. a belief in nothing ... no God .. no Devil ... no spirits ... no afterlife ... no nothing. To the pure atheist we are an accident of nature .. a "monkey's uncle" .. we live aimlessly and die, and that's the end of it. So how does one best demonstrate-celebrate that? Well, if following the consistent liberal pattern of self destructive anti-reason, the moment you get all of those "one of everything" properly put side by side as you insist, the Atheist will immediately and just as self righteously insist that all of it be removed, because all of it offends their sensibilities, and they object to any display of hocus pocus, superstition, and unscientific spirit worship.
And there you have it ... the clear definition of circular reasoning which comes right back around to it's starting point, and concludes in the exact opposite result of it's original intent. The goal was fairness, demanding a display of one of everything, and ended in a display of NOTHING.
Congratulations ... you are indeed a card carrying, full member of the liberal lunatic club. You should resign ... but the first step in recovery is admitting there is a problem.
It is only necessary to give every recognized religious belief, or non-belief, an equal opportunity to have their message displayed on public lands. If they choose not to have a display, that is their choice. If they choose to have a display, then it should be respected, or at the very least tolerated and not vandalized.
Look ... Obama's mother-in-law was practicing Voodoo in the freaking White House until Barry put the kibosh on that .. or so the story goes so what the hell will satisfy you people anyways? Seances and Luciferian rituals summoning Satan so he can have a freaking cup of eggnog too?
And Nancy Reagan consulted astrologers. What's your point?
Do you also harvest corn stalks and drag them into your house to watch them die?
No, those go out onto the front porch.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But adults also find pleasure it these celebrations too, and if you are really an observant type, you'll notice a nice change in people's attitudes and behavior during the Christmas season ... charitable donations increase ... people are more polite and thoughtful toward one another ... and most just seem a bit happier. Frankly, it is my feeling that we'd be a much better society if we adopted more of this attitude throughout the entire year, instead of just a couple of weeks at the end of each December, OKAY ? 
This type of reasoning should give you a headache within the first 5 seconds, even before it leaves the neural pathways, making it into the outside world in words. How does one demonstrate a belief in nothing? That is the nature of atheism .. a belief in nothing ... no God .. no Devil ... no spirits ... no afterlife ... no nothing. To the pure atheist we are an accident of nature .. a "monkey's uncle" .. we live aimlessly and die, and that's the end of it. So how does one best demonstrate-celebrate that? Well, if following the consistent liberal pattern of self destructive anti-reason, the moment you get all of those "one of everything" properly put side by side as you insist, the Atheist will immediately and just as self righteously insist that all of it be removed, because all of it offends their sensibilities, and they object to any display of hocus pocus, superstition, and unscientific spirit worship.
