Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

It's that time again!Follow

#52 Dec 04 2012 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,864 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Buddha doesn't change into "Big jolly guy" because I'm not Buddhist. It's still Buddha and it's still a Christmas tree.


I'm not too up to date on the whole Buddhism thing, but it sounds like you're on the right path to transcendence.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#53 Dec 04 2012 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
******
21,717 posts
Zymunn wrote:
BrownDuck wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
I usually flew first class but that was paid for by my company...Work in a warehouse, alone on my shift


Smiley: laugh
Smiley: oyvey


Now quote where I said the warehouse I work at now is the same company I worked when I flew.


Demoted, eh?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#54 Dec 04 2012 at 12:13 PM Rating: Good
******
43,931 posts
They took his red Swingline stapler.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#55 Dec 04 2012 at 2:35 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
They took his red Swingline stapler.


They took my forklift privileges away. Moving pallets with a dolly now.
#56 Dec 04 2012 at 2:43 PM Rating: Good
Zymunn wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
They took his red Swingline stapler.


They took my forklift privileges away. Moving pallets with a dolly now.
Barbie or Bratz?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#57 Dec 04 2012 at 2:46 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
**
297 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Zymunn wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
They took his red Swingline stapler.


They took my forklift privileges away. Moving pallets with a dolly now.
Barbie or Bratz?


They tried to give me Barbie, I cried argued for Bratz.
#58 Dec 04 2012 at 3:28 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Almalieque wrote:
My opinion on the whole thing is that both sides grossly overreact. Christians believe that the slightest alteration to a Christian tradition is an overall attack on religion while atheists believe that the slightest representation of Christianity is an attack on their beliefs..


I think the bigger issue for Christians isn't about the "slightest alteration", but what appears to them to be a concerted effort to remove any religious aspects from the holiday itself under the guise of preventing religious infringement. No one is forced to celebrate Christmas, but it is ultimately a religious holiday, no different from any other. There are many religious holidays that have been adopted as official holidays by nations around the world, but it seems like Christmas is the only one in which anyone attempts to argue that it's somehow offensive to them to hear anyone even mention the holiday by name, or reference its religious significance (or, heaven forbid, actually practice their religion).

I agree that the offense on both sides can be a bit exaggerated, but I've kinda got to give the prick award to the atheists on this one.

Shaowstrike the Shady wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
I don't celebrate any holidays. Stop trying to infringe your belief system on me!


Enforce not infringe.


At the risk of being a vocabulary snob, the word you're both looking for is "impose".

Edited, Dec 4th 2012 1:45pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#59 Dec 04 2012 at 3:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,119 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I, for one, will be erecting a Festivus Pole.

Watching Listening to ****?
____________________________
This sig better be appropriate...
#60 Dec 04 2012 at 5:01 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I agree that the offense on both sides can be a bit exaggerated, but I've kinda got to give the prick award to the atheists on this one.


Well of course I had to choose a side.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#61 Dec 04 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think the bigger issue for Christians isn't about the "slightest alteration", but what appears to them to be a concerted effort to remove any religious aspects from the holiday itself under the guise of preventing religious infringement.

Well, for the ones who over-react, are overly concerned with extra-Biblical tradition and greatly exaggerate stuff, anyway. Not all Christians are like that.
Quote:
it seems like Christmas is the only one in which anyone attempts to argue that it's somehow offensive to them to hear anyone even mention the holiday by name, or reference its religious significance

Probably due to a lack of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et al. trying to use December as a reason to put religious iconography in public parks, in public schools and on government building steps.

Edited, Dec 4th 2012 5:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#62 Dec 04 2012 at 6:26 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think the bigger issue for Christians isn't about the "slightest alteration", but what appears to them to be a concerted effort to remove any religious aspects from the holiday itself under the guise of preventing religious infringement.

Well, for the ones who over-react, are overly concerned with extra-Biblical tradition and greatly exaggerate stuff, anyway. Not all Christians are like that.


Correct. But it sure seems like most Atheists *are* like that. Certainly as a percentage, they are. The percentage of Christians who take offense at stuff like Santa and Rudolf and whatnot being added to the holiday by others is pretty darn low. It's not like Christians as a group are demanding that anything unrelated to their religious holiday be removed. But the reverse is most certainly true. You can have Santa and Reindeer as part of a Christmas display on public ground, but not a nativity scene? Why? Is one any more or less mythical than the other? Is one any more or less likely to not be believed as factual truth by some percentage of the population?

If Atheists were really about not wanting things they don't believe to be true thrust upon them, they should oppose all of those sorts of things. But they *only* target the Christian ones. So it's kinda hard to believe that this is anything other than an attack on someone else's faith. They're perfectly fine with the state perpetuating the idea that a man in a red suit lives at the North Pole and delivers toys to children in a flying sleigh pulled by magic reindeer, but not a nativity scene? Think about it for a minute. And if this was just some fringe group of people who no one listens to, we could all just ignore it (like the occasional nutty Christian who believes that Santa is heresy or something). But they're not. They have influenced hundreds of cities and schools and forced them to remove just the religious symbols from the holiday.


Quote:
Quote:
it seems like Christmas is the only one in which anyone attempts to argue that it's somehow offensive to them to hear anyone even mention the holiday by name, or reference its religious significance

Probably due to a lack of Jews, Muslims, Hindus, et al. trying to use December as a reason to put religious iconography in public parks, in public schools and on government building steps.


If the cities wish to celebrate Christmas and the businesses in the area chip in to put displays up in order to increase foot traffic and business as part of that process, it seems somewhat absurd to ban just the types of displays which made the holiday such a big deal in the first place, doesn't it? I suppose it's possible that if Christians had never decided to celebrate the birth of Jesus in December (or at all) with gift giving and charity maybe the western world would have created the same kind of commercialized holiday in celebration of the Winter Solstice or whatever, but that's not the way it happened. IMO, there should be a happy medium between forcing religion on people who don't want it, and banning religion in all public spaces.

I just don't see how a nativity scene in the midst of a dozen other displays is going to harm anyone. I guess I just don't understand why Atheists seem so afraid of this. Do they honestly think that merely seeing a nativity scene and learning its significance would force people into religious belief? Is their own belief in rationalism so weak that they think it can be overcome by such minor things? I have no problem with healthy debate on the merits or harm of religion and faith, but it seems like the current movement is instead focused on simply preventing anyone from ever being exposed to religion at all out of a fear that if they are, they might make what Atheists consider to be the wrong choice.

Freedom means being able to make those choices for yourself. And that includes the right to be exposed to a whole set of ideas and philosophies and religions so that you can make your own choices about them. The 1st amendment was never intended to provide an exception to the right of free speech targeted just at religious speech, but that's how it has come to be interpreted and enforced. The citizens of a city are free to express any idea or thought they want on public land but *not* if it's religious? Sorry, I don't agree with that at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Dec 04 2012 at 6:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,584 posts
No Nativity Scene in Santa Monica...

Unless it is a living display
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#64 Dec 04 2012 at 7:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You can have Santa and Reindeer as part of a Christmas display on public ground, but not a nativity scene? Why? Is one any more or less mythical than the other?

One is certainly more religious. What a stupid question.
Quote:
It's not like Christians as a group are demanding that anything unrelated to their religious holiday be removed.

"It's the REASON for the SEASON!" Smiley: laugh

Then again, it's not as though atheists "as a group" are demanding anything either but you're content to lump them all together.
Quote:
If the cities wish to celebrate Christmas and the businesses in the area chip in to put displays up in order to increase foot traffic and business as part of that process, it seems somewhat absurd to ban just the types of displays which made the holiday such a big deal in the first place, doesn't it?

On public land? Yeah, it's potentially an issue. Is someone saying stores can't put a Christmas display in their window? I was just at the mall and passed a large kiosk of religious figurines and nativities. Oddly enough, not a single person was protesting it or running in circles screaming.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Dec 04 2012 at 9:09 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
If Christmas weren't a federal government holiday, then some of these atheist attacks would make more sense. To be fair, I can definitely see how singing Christmas Carols about the birth of Jesus in school can be imposing/infringing. The common ground isn't out of reach, people just want to make drama on both sides.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#66 Dec 04 2012 at 9:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
If Christmas weren't a federal government holiday, then some of these atheist attacks would make more sense.

There's a stronger argument to be made for not having Christmas be a federal holiday on separation of Church & State grounds than there is for allowing government assisted displays religious iconography because "Christmas is a federal holiday".

On that note, my install of Far Cry 3 just finished so ***** all y'all...

Edited, Dec 4th 2012 9:17pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Dec 04 2012 at 9:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think the bigger issue for Christians isn't about the "slightest alteration", but what appears to them to be a concerted effort to remove any religious aspects from the holiday itself under the guise of preventing religious infringement.


Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You can have Santa and Reindeer as part of a Christmas display on public ground, but not a nativity scene? Why? Is one any more or less mythical than the other?

One is certainly more religious. What a stupid question.


It's not stupid in the context it was presented. We're talking about whether Christians are justified to believe that it's their religion that is being targeted. So the fact that the criteria which determines whether something is banned is based on how religious it is would seem to directly support exactly that belief.

Quote:
Quote:
It's not like Christians as a group are demanding that anything unrelated to their religious holiday be removed.

"It's the REASON for the SEASON!" Smiley: laugh


And? Exactly how many judges have ruled that Santa can't be included in a public Christmas display because only Jesus is the reason for the season? And how many have ruled that Jesus can't be included in such displays? See how one has more impact on people than the other?

Quote:
Then again, it's not as though atheists "as a group" are demanding anything either but you're content to lump them all together.


Lawsuits don't just file themselves. What percentage of Christians do you think would support legal action to ban anything not Jesus related from any Christmas display? What percentage of Atheists do you think would support (or do support) legal action banning anything related to Jesus from said displays? I don't think it's a stretch to guess that the percentage of the latter is dramatically higher than the former.

Quote:
Quote:
If the cities wish to celebrate Christmas and the businesses in the area chip in to put displays up in order to increase foot traffic and business as part of that process, it seems somewhat absurd to ban just the types of displays which made the holiday such a big deal in the first place, doesn't it?

On public land? Yeah, it's potentially an issue.


Why? Public land, paid for by the taxpayers in the area. Maybe we should ask them what they want instead of letting a tiny percentage of people with sticks up their rears decide instead? Christmas displays are often funded by the local business community as well. In any case though, I don't see any reason why Santa is ok, but Jesus is not. Unless you believe that by allowing a nativity scene on public land the government is somehow forcing people to be Christian? Cause that's a bit silly. No. It's not a bit silly, it's a whole **** of a lot silly.

Quote:
Is someone saying stores can't put a Christmas display in their window? I was just at the mall and passed a large kiosk of religious figurines and nativities. Oddly enough, not a single person was protesting it or running in circles screaming.


So why not allow them on public land? More to the point, why single out only religious speech and ban it on public land?


And while hypothetical, doesn't that create questions as to what constitutes "public land"? What if the city owns the land and leases it to the businesses in the mall? Can they have a nativity scene then? How is that different from a public park where a nativity society pays money (essentially renting the space) to put up a nativity scene? What if the mall is owned by the government and leases just the stalls to businesses? Can they have nativity scenes in their windows, but not in the open spaces within the mall itself? What if a business receives a bailout from the government? Can it be barred from putting up a nativity scene because public money is effectively being used for the display (money being fungible and all that, right)? What if the government socializes an industry (yeah, I'm going there)? So a hospital which receives direct payment from the government to cover the costs of the care it provides can still put up a nativity scene. Or not? What about an auto company in which the government owns most of the stock?


At some point, the idea of making a distinction based on whether or not any government dollars are involved in funding something becomes so tenuous that it's hard to see where the boundaries are. Public money maintains that park. But it also maintains the street your home is on. It pays for the police and fire protection (well you do, but it passes through government hands along the way). How is that different than the money paid to maintain parks? Why do we make a distinction at all? If it's a matter of it being publicly visible, then can't we ban displays on people's lawns? After all, I'm walking on a public street and are forced to see that display, so I'm being infringed upon!



Obviously, this can be taken to silly extremes. But the point I'm making here is that IMO we've already taken it well into silly. Maybe not extreme, but definitely silly. The justifications for banning such things in public parks aren't that far off from some of the ridiculous stuff I listed. Slippery slope? Sure. But that's how our legal system works. What we should do is let cities put up whatever displays the people living in the city want to have. You don't like it? Complain to the city. If more people complain than want the display, you win! I just think that our current method of running this though an increasingly out of touch court system is a bad idea all the way around.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#68 Dec 04 2012 at 9:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Almalieque wrote:
If Christmas weren't a federal government holiday, then some of these atheist attacks would make more sense. To be fair, I can definitely see how singing Christmas Carols about the birth of Jesus in school can be imposing/infringing. The common ground isn't out of reach, people just want to make drama on both sides.


Exactly my point about how there should be a happy medium here. Kids don't have a lot of choice about being in school (or what school they attend) so I get the idea of limiting directly religious stuff in that environment. But nobody is forced to go down to the park and look at Christmas displays. Even if just from an historical perspective, banning displays showing the religious origins of the holiday within our culture seems counter productive and downright stupid. No one's requiring you to worship.

It just smacks of a nasty kind of revisionism. We'll just pretend that there was never anything religious about Christmas at all and maybe no one will notice! I guess I just don't get what the objective is. It's just mean spirited. It's the kid who doesn't like the color red taking all the red crayons out of the box and throwing them away so none of the other kids can draw anything in the color he doesn't like. It's mean. It's spiteful. No one gains anything by it. Hence why I keep saying that the Atheists absolutely are the pricks with regard to this issue.


Most people enjoy being exposed to different cultural ideas and images. Excluding some because they are religious in nature doesn't make any sense and is frankly harmful to any society which attempts it. Like it or not, religious ideas and history have had a huge impact on every civilization on Earth. To deny that is to deny ourselves.

Edited, Dec 4th 2012 7:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#69 Dec 04 2012 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
It's not stupid in the context it was presented.

Yes, it is.
Quote:
And? Exactly how many judges have ruled that Santa can't be included in a public Christmas display because only Jesus is the reason for the season?

You mean judges understand the separation of church and state? Excellent Smiley: smile
Quote:
Lawsuits don't just file themselves.

Nor do they require some majority of a given philosophy.
Quote:
Why? Public land, paid for by the taxpayers in the area. Maybe we should ask them what they want instead of letting a tiny percentage of people with sticks up their rears decide instead?

Because public lands are governed by public laws which generally fall against religious displays of whatever nature on government property. But the taxpayers are welcome to put whatever they'd like in their front lawn and no number of people with "sticks up their rears" can stop them.
Quote:
So why not allow them on public land?

Heh.
Quote:
And while hypothetical, doesn't that create questions as to what constitutes "public land"? What if the city owns the land and leases it to the businesses in the mall? Can they have a nativity scene then?

I'll let the judge worry about that.
Quote:
Obviously, this can be taken to silly extremes.

True. Eventually you get to the point of saying Santa is no different from Jesus in terms of religious implications, lawsuits must represent everyone of a particular philosophy because they "don't file themselves" and that if you allow a religious display on private property, you have to allow it on public property. Silly indeed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Dec 04 2012 at 11:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Most people enjoy being exposed to different cultural ideas and images.

This explains the warm welcome for mosques throughout the country.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#71 Dec 05 2012 at 6:12 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,128 posts
Aripyanfar wrote:
Let's smile at each other, wish each other well, and have a good time.


But where's the fun in that?
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#72 Dec 05 2012 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Sage
Avatar
**
644 posts
[quote=Spoonless]Merry Kwanzaa, ****************

May as well celebrate Festivus Smiley: yippee
____________________________
Pikko wrote:
I can't freaking believe I didn't click this thread earlier. YOU LITTLE TWERPS!!


Wint wrote:
You know, I can click the rate down button more than once Smiley: motz


>>>--Justice-->
#73 Dec 05 2012 at 5:39 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If Christmas weren't a federal government holiday, then some of these atheist attacks would make more sense.

There's a stronger argument to be made for not having Christmas be a federal holiday on separation of Church & State grounds than there is for allowing government assisted displays religious iconography because "Christmas is a federal holiday".

On that note, my install of Far Cry 3 just finished so ***** all y'all...

Edited, Dec 4th 2012 9:17pm by Jophiel


You're absolutely right. So, the first logical step would be to remove the holiday as a federal holiday. Else, you're just complaining that society is celebrating a holiday that is federally recognized.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#74 Dec 05 2012 at 6:00 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,954 posts
Why is it so hard to accept that many people like celebrating the secular aspects of federal holidays? I haven't looked it up, but I'd be willing to say that a very large portion of Christmas holiday celebrations have very little to do with any organized religion.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#75 Dec 05 2012 at 6:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I wasn't actually arguing to make Christmas not a holiday. I was saying that NOT making it a holiday probably has a stronger legal argument than allowing its religious aspects in a government setting with the excuse being "Well, it's a federal holiday".
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Dec 05 2012 at 8:34 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
And? Exactly how many judges have ruled that Santa can't be included in a public Christmas display because only Jesus is the reason for the season?

You mean judges understand the separation of church and state? Excellent Smiley: smile


Missing the point. Judges interpret the principle of separation of church and state in a way which ensures that no amount of Christians complaining that "Jesus is the reason for the season" will result in legal action forcing people to comply with their view. On the other hand, that same interpretation does allow for even a small number of Atheists complaining about some religious thing on public land to result in legal action forcing people to comply with their view.

Which is why we can't compare them equally. It's not a balanced situation with each side having the same ability to influence outcomes.

Quote:
Quote:
Why? Public land, paid for by the taxpayers in the area. Maybe we should ask them what they want instead of letting a tiny percentage of people with sticks up their rears decide instead?

Because public lands are governed by public laws which generally fall against religious displays of whatever nature on government property.


Um... No, they don't generally do so. There are likely very very few actual public laws banning religious displays on government property. That's why the lawsuits are necessary. For most of the history of this nation we had absolutely no problem with such things. But somewhere along the line the 1st amendment got re-interpreted to assume that nothing which is funded by any amount of government dollars may have religious stuff involved. We can debate that interpretation if you want, but you have to at least agree that we didn't always interpret it that way.

Pretending that the law has always been applied that way is absurd. It quite obviously has not. So it's circular to defend that change by simply saying that's what the law says. The words in the 1st amendment haven't changed Joph. The interpretation of them have. It's a total cop out to just say "well, that's the law!" and leave it at that.

Quote:
Quote:
So why not allow them on public land?

Heh.


That's not an answer.

Quote:
Quote:
And while hypothetical, doesn't that create questions as to what constitutes "public land"? What if the city owns the land and leases it to the businesses in the mall? Can they have a nativity scene then?

I'll let the judge worry about that.


And what will you do when he decides that they can't? So for you there's no principle or opinion of your own? Just whatever a judge decides is ok? That seems more than a little apathetic. What happens when judges start ruling in ways you absolutely think are wrong? Do you just sit silently and go along with it?

Quote:
True. Eventually you get to the point of saying Santa is no different from Jesus in terms of religious implications...


I didn't say that. I said that religion was the only difference (within the context of displays on public land), thus supporting the argument that treating them differently had nothing to do with protecting the public from public displays of things that can't be show to exist, but that it's solely about preventing those things only when they are part of someone's religious belief. That you can't see why this is relevant really does surprise me.

The relevant portion of the first amendment prevents religious institutions from having special treatment by the government within the boundary of law. It means that religion has to be treated the same as everything else. So if you allowed displays related to the religious aspects of Christmas, but did not allow any that were non-religious in nature (like Santa, Rudolf, Frosty, etc), then you would be in violation of the 1st amendment. The flip side is true as well though. If you allow other displays, you can't bar the presence of religious displays.

The assumption behind this is that not everyone believes in a given religion, so promoting something they don't believe in is unfair to them, and spending public money to do so is unfair to them as well. That is why we don't allow it. It's not about protecting them from exposure, but ensuring that they have a choice to avoid exposure and are not being required to pay for said exposure. But if you are promoting other things that people don't believe are true (like Santa, or Rudolf, or Frosty), you must follow the same rules. Allowing one, while disallowing the other is inconsistent. Doing so because of the religious nature (or lack thereof) is unconstitutional.


Unfortunately, somewhere along the line, our courts started ruling that the establishment clause simply banned any religious thing from being present on/in anything funded by public money. It's a somewhat ridiculous interpretation, but once it got started the precedent kept being followed and expanded, step by step, until today we justify something which is in complete violation of the 1st amendment while claiming to be upholding it. Judges look at past rulings and rarely ever really stop and look at the source law. I understand why they do this, but in this case it creates a completely backwards result. We've gotten so far from the original meaning of the law that the rulings don't make any sense except that they are in accordance with past rulings.

We're already well down that slippery slope. It's just a shame that so many people (like you) blindly accept the rulings of judges rather than bother to think about what the law actually says and how it ought to be applied. There is absolutely no reason why a nativity scene should be barred from a public park where other non-religious displays are allowed. None at all.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#77 Dec 05 2012 at 8:40 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,578 posts

Someone doesn't know what common law is.

____________________________
Na Zdrowie
#78 Dec 05 2012 at 8:58 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I wasn't actually arguing to make Christmas not a holiday. I was saying that NOT making it a holiday probably has a stronger legal argument than allowing its religious aspects in a government setting with the excuse being "Well, it's a federal holiday".


I know what you mean, but if we had "Klan's Day" as a federal holiday, until the Federal government removes it as a federal holiday, "it's a federal holiday" will always be a valid argument
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#79 Dec 05 2012 at 10:35 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,584 posts
gbaji wrote:
But somewhere along the line the 1st amendment got re-interpreted to assume that nothing which is funded by any amount of government dollars may have religious stuff involved. We can debate that interpretation if you want, but you have to at least agree that we didn't always interpret it that way.

Pretending that the law has always been applied that way is absurd. It quite obviously has not. So it's circular to defend that change by simply saying that's what the law says. The words in the 1st amendment haven't changed Joph. The interpretation of them have. It's a total cop out to just say "well, that's the law!" and leave it at that.


The definition of Freedom of Religion was changed because it came to include more than one religion, more than just the majority religion, which is why it is interpreted differently. We could go back to the Puritan view, if you want. We could also go back to slavery.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#80 Dec 06 2012 at 9:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,864 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Why is it so hard to accept that many people like celebrating the secular aspects of federal holidays? I haven't looked it up, but I'd be willing to say that a very large portion of Christmas holiday celebrations have very little to do with any organized religion.


DEVIL WORSHIPERS! Smiley: mad
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#81 Dec 06 2012 at 10:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There is a zero percent chance that I'm going to read that wall of text.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Dec 06 2012 at 10:15 AM Rating: Good
******
43,931 posts
Oh, he says that the judges aren't qualified to do the jobs they're appointed to do, but he is.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#83 Dec 06 2012 at 10:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
What we need is a nice big Ramadan display in a public park with lots of Islamic iconography. I bet it would go over like gangbusters given how much we value cultural displays and new ideas.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Dec 09 2012 at 9:59 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,584 posts
I just saw this, thought it was pretty interesting.

The link wrote:
In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#85 Dec 10 2012 at 2:06 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I rate the Arkansas law that bans atheists from testifying as outdated and outrageous as most Sharia law.

Ditto barring non-Christians/atheists from public office
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#86 Dec 11 2012 at 9:11 AM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,128 posts
Gotta love the Dark Ages. The only difference between us and the south-eastern parts of the world is that we eventually stopped giving a **** - we just forgot to delete all the stupid crap from official documents before the acute lack of giving a **** occurred.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#87 Dec 11 2012 at 4:51 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,748 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But somewhere along the line the 1st amendment got re-interpreted to assume that nothing which is funded by any amount of government dollars may have religious stuff involved. We can debate that interpretation if you want, but you have to at least agree that we didn't always interpret it that way.

Pretending that the law has always been applied that way is absurd. It quite obviously has not. So it's circular to defend that change by simply saying that's what the law says. The words in the 1st amendment haven't changed Joph. The interpretation of them have. It's a total cop out to just say "well, that's the law!" and leave it at that.


The definition of Freedom of Religion was changed because it came to include more than one religion, more than just the majority religion, which is why it is interpreted differently.


I don't believe that's correct (cause religious protections have existed for more than one religion since the beginning of this nation), but even if we assumed it was, that comment doesn't at all address the point I was making. No amount of shifting from a belief that the only religion that should be protected is Christianity to a belief that all religions should be protected requires that one bar any religious symbols on public property. You're assuming a binary "for/against" position with regard to Religion and suggesting that if we accept some limits on religion on the public square that we must therefore accept complete barring of religion in the public square. There is a point in between.

Quote:
We could go back to the Puritan view, if you want. We could also go back to slavery.


And we could go back to human sacrifice! OMG!!! So we should reject any and all rules or ideas that are "old" because some old rules and ideas were bad. ****. Let's chuck that whole "thou shalt not kill" thing while we're at it.

Jophiel wrote:
What we need is a nice big Ramadan display in a public park with lots of Islamic iconography. I bet it would go over like gangbusters given how much we value cultural displays and new ideas.


If it were allowed while Nativity scenes in the same park were banned during Christmas, there should be an uproar. Because it's not about my religion versus someone else's, but that our government would be doing exactly what the 1st amendment says not to do: Playing favorites based on religion.

Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I just saw this, thought it was pretty interesting.

The link wrote:
In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.


That law that's been on the books since 1874 and hasn't even been attempted to be enforced in 80 years? Get back to me when they remove the law that requires you to have someone walk behind your car with a red lantern when you drive at night. Then we can talk. This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Dec 11 2012 at 5:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
11,864 posts
gbaji wrote:

Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
I just saw this, thought it was pretty interesting.

The link wrote:
In at least seven U.S. states, constitutional provisions are in place that bar atheists from public office and one state, Arkansas, has a law that bars an atheist from testifying as a witness at a trial, the report said.


That law that's been on the books since 1874 and hasn't even been attempted to be enforced in 80 years? Get back to me when they remove the law that requires you to have someone walk behind your car with a red lantern when you drive at night. Then we can talk. This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.


Yeah, kinda this.

Just to throw it out there, sometimes these kinds of things just get left alone because they're a pain in the **** to change. For example any changes to our state constitution requires approval by voters, and they mean any change.

On last November's ballot there was a referendum to "update the language in the constitution" which, among other things replaced many 'he' or 'his' references in the constitution with gender neutral terms. Given the extra time and effort needed to get the change approved by voters this is one of those things that just languished for years even in a 'blue' state.

Edited, Dec 11th 2012 3:14pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#89 Dec 11 2012 at 5:21 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
9,016 posts
Quote:

Yeah, kinda this.

Just to throw it out there, sometimes these kinds of things just get left alone because they're a pain in the **** to change. For example any changes to our state constitution requires approval by voters, and they mean any change.

On last November's ballot there was a referendum to "update the language in the constitution" which, among other things replaced many 'he' or 'his' references in the constitution with gender neutral terms. Given the extra time and effort needed to get the change approved by voters this is one of those things that just languished for years even in a 'blue' state.


When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#90 Dec 11 2012 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.

Assuming "rum & cokes" still legally count as payment, I don't see the distinction.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Dec 11 2012 at 7:41 PM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,137 posts
I don't need to see no womerns pushing ******* babies out their stinkholes without a trace of the father around. If I wanted to see that ****, I'd go to Planned Parenthood. Keep that flarn out of my parks and courthouse lawns.
#92 Dec 11 2012 at 11:37 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.


That's actually an urban legend.

ETA: However, I heard the same thing when I went to college, and I believed it at the time, too. It DOES sound suspiciously like something Tennessee would do.

Edited, Dec 11th 2012 11:38pm by Belkira
#93 Dec 12 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
******
43,931 posts
gbaji wrote:
This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.
About as much of a movement towards the discrimination against Christians.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Dec 12 2012 at 9:09 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,584 posts
gbaji wrote:
This hardly represents some kind of movement towards discrimination against Atheists.


I didn't claim that it did. If you re-read my post, I said that I found it interesting.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#95 Dec 12 2012 at 11:33 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.


That's actually an urban legend.

ETA: However, I heard the same thing when I went to college, and I believed it at the time, too. It DOES sound suspiciously like something Tennessee would do.

Edited, Dec 11th 2012 11:38pm by Belkira


Sorority's can have their charters revoked for any number of reasons, from not having enough pledges (not making enough money) or various disciplinary reasons, so if there really was an absence of sororities while you were in school, it's possible that they all had just lost their national recognition, which kills local chapters.
#96 Dec 12 2012 at 12:38 PM Rating: Good
Cervixhouse-Five
******
30,643 posts
Guenny wrote:

Sorority's can have their charters revoked for any number of reasons, from not having enough pledges (not making enough money) or various disciplinary reasons, so if there really was an absence of sororities while you were in school, it's possible that they all had just lost their national recognition, which kills local chapters.


Oh, we had plenty of Sororities at school. The urban legend is about the physical houses where sorority members can live.

Sororities thrive in Tennessee.
#97 Dec 12 2012 at 12:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Belkira wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
When I went to college, there were no sorority houses because in the TN law at the time, houses with x-many women were considered brothels.
That's actually an urban legend.

I like this because it would mean convents are considered brothels and are illegal [in the mythical state where this law exists].

War against Catholics!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#98 Dec 12 2012 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,128 posts
Ew, my aunt is in a convent.
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#99 Dec 12 2012 at 1:24 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Mazra wrote:
Ew, my aunt is in a convent.
I thought all Danish people were either athiests or vikings.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#100 Dec 12 2012 at 1:33 PM Rating: Good
Ghost in the Machine
Avatar
******
36,128 posts
Technically, she's Swedish, because the convent is located in Sweden.

But, no, we're neither atheists nor asatruar. Some priest guy from the south wandered up here and decided to make us "civilized" by splashing water in our faces and ordering us to not pillage and plunder. Smiley: frown

Edited, Dec 12th 2012 8:34pm by Mazra
____________________________
Please "talk up" if your comprehension white-shifts. I will use simple-happy language-words to help you understand.
#101 Dec 12 2012 at 1:35 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Aww, what a buzzkill Smiley: frown
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 82 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (82)