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.
Umm no, you conservitards are the ones letting the illegals across. Texas is a conservitard state and has done NOTHING to stop the flow so chew on that!
Some "ignorantards" don't realize that securing our national borders is the domain of the FEDERAL government.
The problem is that you have too many in positions of power that use their interpretation of what is "politically correct" and many of them go overboard in their quest to not offend anyone which turns into offending everyone.
This law just prevents "PC gone amuck" from happening.
The problem is that you have too many in positions of power that use their interpretation of what is "politically correct" and many of them go overboard in their quest to not offend anyone which turns into offending everyone.
This law just prevents "PC gone amuck" from happening.
Yes, in Texas, it was apparently one case. One case.
Actually, the problem here is that you have a gullible populace that is so ignorant, it can be fooled into believing there is a widespread problem when it is demonstrably not.
LOL..we need a law so we can legally say "Merry Christmas" without getting someone all riled up.
I'm 100% behind it. Texas is anti-PC
When I read the lead post I thought, "follow the shinny object," because that's what this is. Nobody prevents anyone from saying "Merry Christmas." One is free to wish those words on anyone.
The Supreme Court has ruled on this issue and while public facilities cannot engage in activities which favor a particular religion, they can display holiday messages and scenes.
1. Under Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S., at 612 , a "practice which touches upon religion, if it is to be permissible under the Establishment Clause," must not, inter alia, "advance [or] inhibit religion in its principal or primary effect." Although, in refining the definition of governmental action that unconstitutionally "advances" religion, the Court's subsequent decisions have variously spoken in terms of "endorsement," "favoritism," "preference," or "promotion," the essential principle remains the same: The Clause, at the very least, prohibits government from appearing to take a position on questions of religious belief or from "making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community." Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S., at 687 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring). Pp. 589-594.
2. When viewed in its overall context, the creche display violates the Establishment Clause. The creche angel's words endorse a patently Chrietracts from that message. Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus. Pp. 598-602.
...
JUSTICE BLACKMUN, joined by JUSTICE STEVENS, concluded in Part III-B that the concurring and dissenting opinions in Lynch v. Donnelly set forth the proper analytical framework for determining whether the government's display of objects having religious significance improperly advances religion. 465 U.S., at 687 -694 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring); id., at 694-726 (BRENNAN, J., dissenting). Pp. 594-597.
JUSTICE BLACKMUN concluded in Part VI that the menorah display does not have the prohibited effect of endorsing religion, given its "particular physical setting." Its combined display with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty does not impermissibly endorse both the Christian and Jewish faiths, but simply recognizes that both Christmas and Chanukah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society.
...
Again, this is a 'shinny object's bill designed to distract from the real issues in society.
Holiday and Holy day are two different things. What ever the derivative of holiday, the meaning has changed.
Just as has "Merry Christmas". Why? because it's no longer holds a respected place in society. Why? because many[like you] want the word said... more than the sentiment kept "holy".
Placing a picture of Jesus on a school's bulletin board along side Ghandi and MLK[with all due respect to these Gentlemen] relagates Christ to a figure in "History" and not a place of reverance...just as does a generic school prayer covering everyone's sensiblities.
You, by insiting on saying Merry Christmas in every circumstance socially, have helped... most definitely, to become just a "tag line" with no more meaning of reverence than..."How are you doing".
Ignorance is non discriminatory.
You misunderstand. I have NO issue with people saying "Happy Holidays." I think the so-called "war on Christmas" is a joke.
No one is threatening my ability to celebrate Christmas or any other religious holiday.
I do not believe that my faith is so weak that I need to have it reinforced by strangers nor am I so special that I need strangers to recognize my PERSONAL beliefs.
As far as I am concerned saying "Happy Holidays" does recognize the perceived holiness of the occasion and that is fully sufficient for me.
Yes, in Texas, it was apparently one case. One case.
Actually, the problem here is that you have a gullible populace that is so ignorant, it can be fooled into believing there is a widespread problem when it is demonstrably not.
It's more than one case. And it's happening all over the US.
Why is "Christmas" such a bad word now ?
What happened to people that mere words now "offend" them and drive people to literally remove the word from existence ?
Yes, holiday does mean "holy day" which is exactly why the whole issue is nothing but manufactured nonsense.
But hey, people seem to revel in their ignorance.
It's not exactly nonsense when people are being told specifically NOT to use religious imagery or the phrase "Christmas" and can actually lose their jobs or risk some group suing their business if they do. These lawsuits are filed on a regular basis.
You misunderstand. I have NO issue with people saying "Happy Holidays." I think the so-called "war on Christmas" is a joke.
No one is threatening my ability to celebrate Christmas or any other religious holiday.
I do not believe that my faith is so weak that I need to have it reinforced by strangers nor am I so special that I need strangers to recognize my PERSONAL beliefs.
As far as I am concerned saying "Happy Holidays" does recognize the perceived holiness of the occasion and that is fully sufficient for me.
It's not a law to protect individuals.
It's for school districts that want to have Christmas trees and Christmas parties.
It prevents personal interpretation at the individual school level.
The Bill is not even 2 pages long. It does specify the separation of Church and State though and may not include religious messages.
So obnoxious to presume the religion of other strangers by wishing them Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Ramadan, Happy Scientology Spirt Molting, or whatever. If you know the person's religion, then it's fine to wish them a happy celebration thereof. If you don't, you're a presumtuous a$$.
Next time someone wishes me a Merry Christmas, I'm gonna say "Salaam Aleikum" just to f-- with 'em. (I'm not Muslim either, but saying that will probably make their jaw hit the floor.)
I think you should also volunteer to work on Christmas and forfeit your holiday pay if you really want to live your beliefs.
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.
