Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
IF the majority of a particular
town or community are of a certain religion, that they be allowed to
celebrate their religious traditions IN PUBLIC, without having to deal
with a few minorities who can't seem to exercise the same principle of
tolerance, that they want applied to them.

We absolutely agree on this item. When a religious group wants to preach
or
proselytize, they should be allowed to have a reasonable number of props
on
display during the time they are actively preaching or proselytizing. Take
Xmas
Decs, for example. This is always a contentious issue. I believe that
Christian
groups who want to preach about a Virgin birth, etc etc, are absolutely
entitled to do so- and in public. While preaching, handing out tracts,
conducting a public prayer session, or what not in a public place such as
a
city park, it could be appropriate to have plywood cutouts of angels,
camels,
shepherds, etc on hand to "set the stage".
It is not appropriate to store these religious artifacts in public space
or at
public expense between prayer sessions or speeches. It is not appropriate
for
the city to condone a passive display of these items outside the active
exercise of free speech. It is not appropriate for the common purse of the
entire community to pay for religious icons for one particular sect or
faith,
regardless of the number of adherents that faith might claim in the
community.


I'm not a bible scholar. Trying to "interpret" what Christ was
"actually" saying is akin to trying to figure out which side of an
issue John Kerry was on at any given time. I'll leave that circular
and endless debate to those who have nothing else to accomplish.


Does your minister know that you consider Jesus as much a flip-flopper as
John
Kerry? :-)

That was the wind-up, and here's the pitch:

If the teachings of Jesus are open to interpretation rather than absolute,
how
can *any* nation, even one you fantasize to be a "Christian" nation, hope
to
use those teachings as a foundation for secular law? Shouldn't the law
exist
independently from any specific religious teaching, (Christian, Jewish,
Muslim,
Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, etc) and leave the spiritual aspects of life up to
individual conscience and interpretation?

How can we create laws and social structures based on Christian teachings,
even
in a "Christian nation", when Christians have been killing one another
almost
unceasingly for the last 2000 years over disagreements about what the
teachings
of Jesus actually meant?

Even if 70, 80, 90, or even 99% of the people agree on a specific
religious
interpratation, there's no reason to write that interpretation into the
law.
Society will observe that premise, (whether it is that each student should
begin the school day by reciting the Lord's Prayer, or that no woman
should
seek abortion for any reason, or that same sex persons should not couple),
in
*exactly* the same proportion as percentage of people who hold that view.
Mission accomplished.

Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?

You mean like the big red & green lights that many cities have hung up
over street intersections? They look very festive.

DSK

That was what I was talking about, there are many non religious Christmas
decorations used by cities and stores across the nation.


"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?

You mean like the big red & green lights that many cities have hung up
over street intersections? They look very festive.

DSK

DSK wrote:
Dr. Dr. Smithers wrote:
Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?

You mean like the big red & green lights that many cities have hung up
over street intersections? They look very festive.

DSK

In Chesapeake Beach, they use nautical decorations for the holidays.

--
A passing thought:

The definition of an upgrade: Take old bugs out, put new ones in.

Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?

There are many seasonal decorations, such as electric lights, that do not carry
a specific religious connotation. No problem.
I always get a kick out of the folks who claim the Yule Tree is a symbol of
Christianity. It's more accurately a symbol of another religious tradition....

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 09:18:21 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:


My only point is that (right or wrong), whatever religious practices
or traditions (Christmas) are commonly observed by the majority of the
people, they should not be denied by the statistical minority.


Dave


Why not?


Because logic dictates that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs
of the few.

Dave

On 15 Nov 2004 22:37:16 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

IF the majority of a particular
town or community are of a certain religion, that they be allowed to
celebrate their religious traditions IN PUBLIC, without having to deal
with a few minorities who can't seem to exercise the same principle of
tolerance, that they want applied to them.

We absolutely agree on this item. When a religious group wants to preach or
proselytize, they should be allowed to have a reasonable number of props on
display during the time they are actively preaching or proselytizing. Take Xmas
Decs, for example. This is always a contentious issue. I believe that Christian
groups who want to preach about a Virgin birth, etc etc, are absolutely
entitled to do so- and in public. While preaching, handing out tracts,
conducting a public prayer session, or what not in a public place such as a
city park, it could be appropriate to have plywood cutouts of angels, camels,
shepherds, etc on hand to "set the stage".
It is not appropriate to store these religious artifacts in public space or at
public expense between prayer sessions or speeches.

Why not? It's part of the traditional decorations of the season.

It is not appropriate for
the city to condone a passive display of these items outside the active
exercise of free speech. It is not appropriate for the common purse of the
entire community to pay for religious icons for one particular sect or faith,
regardless of the number of adherents that faith might claim in the community.


Once again, if that's what the majority of the people want, they
should be allowed to do it.


I'm not a bible scholar. Trying to "interpret" what Christ was
"actually" saying is akin to trying to figure out which side of an
issue John Kerry was on at any given time. I'll leave that circular
and endless debate to those who have nothing else to accomplish.


Does your minister know that you consider Jesus as much a flip-flopper as John
Kerry? :-)

I don't have a "minister".


That was the wind-up, and here's the pitch:

If the teachings of Jesus are open to interpretation rather than absolute, how
can *any* nation, even one you fantasize to be a "Christian" nation, hope to
use those teachings as a foundation for secular law? Shouldn't the law exist
independently from any specific religious teaching, (Christian, Jewish, Muslim,
Hindu, Pagan, Wiccan, etc) and leave the spiritual aspects of life up to
individual conscience and interpretation?

Our laws are loosely based on the laws of God as stated in the 10
commandments. Laws in general are based on a consensus of the majority
of a given society as to what is considered "moral" and "just".


How can we create laws and social structures based on Christian teachings, even
in a "Christian nation", when Christians have been killing one another almost
unceasingly for the last 2000 years over disagreements about what the teachings
of Jesus actually meant?

I know of no recent systemic cases of this


Even if 70, 80, 90, or even 99% of the people agree on a specific religious
interpratation, there's no reason to write that interpretation into the law.

I'd say that an overwhelming vote of agreement would be a mandate to
do exactly that.


Society will observe that premise, (whether it is that each student should
begin the school day by reciting the Lord's Prayer, or that no woman should
seek abortion for any reason, or that same sex persons should not couple), in
*exactly* the same proportion as percentage of people who hold that view.
Mission accomplished.

That's the beauty and simplicity of majority rule. It's logical to
satisfy the needs of the majority, over that of the minority. A
compassionate society will try to accommodate the minority as much as
it can within the limits of not universally overturning the desires of
the majority. But it makes no logical sense that the minority should
be able to override the wishes of the majority.

Dave

On 16 Nov 2004 07:02:28 GMT, (Gould 0738) wrote:

Gould,

Do you have a problem with a community who purchases and display non
religious Xmas lights and/or Xmas trees on public property?

There are many seasonal decorations, such as electric lights, that do not carry
a specific religious connotation. No problem.
I always get a kick out of the folks who claim the Yule Tree is a symbol of
Christianity. It's more accurately a symbol of another religious tradition....


Yet these same people lump all those trimming under the same
"Christian" umbrella when they attempt to block its observance.

Dave

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 10:10:15 -0500, thunder
wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 08:55:18 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


I don't buy it. You lump all Christians together like they are
homogenous, but that is not the case. While 52% of this country is
Protestant, they are not all the same religion. Roman Catholics are
another 24%, but according to this site, they are clearly not Christian.

Any religion which uses Christ as its centerpiece, IMHO is a "Christian"
faith. They may differ in subtle forms of biblical interpretation, but
they share the common element of Christ.

The divide and conquer strategy won't fly in this case.

LOL, people were persecuted for those "subtle forms of biblical
interpretation". I am not trying to divide and conquer. Christians are
*not* an homogeneous group, never have been.

This is 2004, not 1200.

Dave

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 09:39:38 -0500, Dave Hall wrote:


LOL, people were persecuted for those "subtle forms of biblical
interpretation". I am not trying to divide and conquer. Christians are
*not* an homogeneous group, never have been.

This is 2004, not 1200.

And still not homogeneous.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in576978.shtml