'Holiday' Tree?

[visionary]

Did they start it, or did they just come to the aid/support of the person (and all those who were upset over than change in Nova Scotia and in Boston and elsewhere) who was personally insulted by people who changed the name and misused his gift?

[WallyVon]

Did they start it, or did they just come to the aid/support of the person (and all those who were upset over than change in Nova Scotia and in Boston and elsewhere) who was personally insulted by people who changed the name and misused his gift?

Pretty much, Fox News decided this was a good thing to get the religious right riled up about.

So yes, they started it.

[dreamingwolf]

A few officials did, yes, not sure what officials. But they wanted to do it to appease some people who might possibly be offended, and so as they would not have to hear complaints about it's name...probably.

Pretty sure it was the Mayor of boston.

[Destino]

A few officials did, yes, not sure what officials. But they wanted to do it to appease some people who might possibly be offended, and so as they would not have to hear complaints about it's name...probably.

This happened the same way it always happens, some whacked out freak complained that a Christmas tree was imposing religion on him and the government of Boston, open to such nonsense, caved in and changed the name. Then they wet themselves when the response turned out to be far more vocal then they anticipated and changed it back.

[Destino]

Pretty much, Fox News decided this was a good thing to get the religious right riled up about.

So yes, they started it.

The debate started when they changed the name, don't blame a news network for doing their job and reporting on things that interest people. The debate will continue until the rampaging secularists wake up and realize they aren't in France.

[WallyVon]

The debate started when they changed the name, don't blame a news network for doing their job and reporting on things that interest people. The debate will continue until the rampaging secularists wake up and realize they aren't in France.

Yes, Fox News is definitely reporting on what interests people.

Unfortunately, people care more about the name of a tree than they do about their own civil rights.

[rictus58]

Yes, Fox News is definitely reporting on what interests people.

Unfortunately, people care more about the name of a tree than they do about their own civil rights.

Its funny how when a liberal on this board feels they are losing an argument, they start to bring up Fox news.

[Thiebear]

Fox news has replaced.

Clinton did it too!

[rictus58]

I never thought I would say this, but wally has made me miss chomerics

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I disagree with Chomerics a lot, but atleast he is very intelligent and does his research. He also refrains from personal attacks.

unless that person is GW

[TODD]

Pretty much, Fox News decided this was a good thing to get the religious right riled up about.

So yes, they started it.

Boston made the friggin' news, not Fox.

[autographcollector]

:applause: :applause: :applause:

I disagree with Chomerics a lot, but atleast he is very intelligent and does his research. He also refrains from personal attacks.

unless that person is GW

:applause:

[BlueTalon]

I'm not saying the government should become a christian organization. But I am saying that religious expression in public spaces should be tolerated.

It is, so long as it isn't the government itself expressing a particular religious belief.

That actually sounds very resonable. However, judging from your previous posts, it seems that you consider that if a local government has a "Christmas tree", it is therefore "expressing a particular religious belief." Also, judging from your previous posts, if a local government simply allows a private citizen to set up a creche or something, you'd consider that to be the local government to be "expressing a particular religious belief" as well. And if I remember correctly, there you are one of a few people on this thread that want all forms of religious expression out of public view altogether (not to mention that you want Christians to be slapped!).

So when you agree with the statement "religious expression in public spaces should be tolerated", what exactly do you mean?

[Spaceman Spiff]

Well BlueTalon, seeing as WallyVon got the boot (thank goodness) I don't think you're gonna get your answer

[Henry]

dreamingwolf, excellent post. You need to post more than three words more often.

[BlueTalon]

Wally got the boot? No more Wally's World? Dang... it's kind of like having a fungus that felt really good to itch finally clear up.

(He got under my skin early on, and I reacted poorly to that, but since then it was fun to see what reactions I could get by presenting reasoned arguments. Ah well...)

[MontanaRed]

Do you really think a nation as rich in religious institutions as this one is every going to agree with forced secularism? Religion is at the core of american culture.

It is only BECAUSE of our secularism that America is rich in religious instituions. The founders of our country and constitution made sure to erect the wall between church and state to ensure the freedom of belief or non-belief.

Our neighborhoods can be rich with churches, shrines, synagogues, and mosques because of the foresight the framers of the constitution held. Only a secular goverment can allow such diversity.

At the core of American culture is freedom - and for the purposes of this discussion, specifically freedom of religion. The founding fathers were Deists and Freemasons. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine and others made sure that religion would not be permitted to attain control over our nation. This trend towards a modern re-write of our founding fathers thinking and writings that this nation was somehow founded on some vision of Christianity is fundementaly incorrect.

I'm grateful to live in a nation that allows, and encourages religious diversity.

[Destino]

It is only BECAUSE of our secularism that America is rich in religious instituions.

What history books are you reading? The founding fathers in there day never took a single step towards secularism. This notion that any christian symbol equates to promotion of religion is relatively new. It's because people accepted the beliefs of others and didn't try to outlaw them that this nation grew as it did, not because intolerant secularists ran about the country demanding every piece of religious art by tossed of government land.

The founders of our country and constitution made sure to erect the wall between church and state to ensure the freedom of belief or non-belief.

Our neighborhoods can be rich with churches, shrines, synagogues, and mosques because of the foresight the framers of the constitution held. Only a secular goverment can allow such diversity.

At the core of American culture is freedom - and for the purposes of this discussion, specifically freedom of religion. The founding fathers were Deists and Freemasons. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine and others made sure that religion would not be permitted to attain control over our nation. This trend towards a modern re-write of our founding fathers thinking and writings that this nation was somehow founded on some vision of Christianity is fundementaly incorrect.

I'm grateful to live in a nation that allows, and encourages religious diversity.

Do you expect me to buy that nonsense? I've gotten the "I'm greatful" garbage fed to me by every militant secularist I've ever run into. It usually comes out after the debate has gone on for a while and they suddenly need to find higher ground. The wall was intended to stop the US from going down the same path England did and creating a state church. It was never intended to remove all religious mention from public land as evidenced by the fact that this never was even considered until fairly recently.

But don't let me stop you from preaching love of diversity while chasing a single faith off public property. I'm sure someone will believe you're sincere. I won't.

[Winslowalrob]

What history books are you reading? The founding fathers in there day never took a single step towards secularism. This notion that any christian symbol equates to promotion of religion is relatively new. It's because people accepted the beliefs of others and didn't try to outlaw them that this nation grew as it did, not because intolerant secularists ran about the country demanding every piece of religious art by tossed of government land.

Do you expect me to buy that nonsense? I've gotten the "I'm greatful" garbage fed to me by every militant secularist I've ever run into. It usually comes out after the debate has gone on for a while and they suddenly need to find higher ground. The wall was intended to stop the US from going down the same path England did and creating a state church. It was never intended to remove all religious mention from public land as evidenced by the fact that this never was even considered until fairly recently.

But don't let me stop you from preaching love of diversity while chasing a single faith off public property. I'm sure someone will believe you're sincere. I won't.

Hey man, what nonsense do you not buy? Could you please explain how the founding fathers were not Deists and Freemasons? Every high school history textbook onward points to those facts. Now, if "The founding fathers in there day never took a single step towards secularism," as you claim, could you please explain what exactly is secularism, and how the founding fathers never took a single step towards it? Give evidence please. "It's because people accepted the beliefs of others and didn't try to outlaw them that this nation grew as it did, not because intolerant secularists ran about the country demanding every piece of religious art by tossed of government land." I agree with the first half of your statement here, but what makes a secularist local government intolerant? The city of Boston does not demand every piece of religious art be tossed, unless I missed something. And if the "religious art" becomes their property, what is so intolerant about renaming it? Last time I checked, property rights are sort of a big deal here...

Reasoned arguments please . See if you can answer every question .

[dreamingwolf]

is there a difference between a christian and a religious person to you?

[MontanaRed]

What history books are you reading? The founding fathers in there day never took a single step towards secularism. This notion that any christian symbol equates to promotion of religion is relatively new. It's because people accepted the beliefs of others and didn't try to outlaw them that this nation grew as it did, not because intolerant secularists ran about the country demanding every piece of religious art by tossed of government land.

Do you expect me to buy that nonsense? I've gotten the "I'm greatful" garbage fed to me by every militant secularist I've ever run into. It usually comes out after the debate has gone on for a while and they suddenly need to find higher ground. The wall was intended to stop the US from going down the same path England did and creating a state church. It was never intended to remove all religious mention from public land as evidenced by the fact that this never was even considered until fairly recently.

But don't let me stop you from preaching love of diversity while chasing a single faith off public property. I'm sure someone will believe you're sincere. I won't.

Dude, why the hostility? It's not nonsense, I'm not militant or intolerant; I don't demand nor do I preach. I AM grateful and sincere - whether you believe me or not is none of my business.

Yes, the founding fathers took EVERY step towards secularism. That's why religion isn't mentioned in the constitution, except for the two times that it is mentioned in an exclusionary manner.

Some quotes from the history books - it hasn't changed that much has it?!

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; ... The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams

“...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” John Adams

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all. My own mind is my own church.Thomas Paine, Age of Reason

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions.George Washington

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington

“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.” James Madison

“...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” John Adams

[BlueTalon]

It is only BECAUSE of our secularism that America is rich in religious instituions. The founders of our country and constitution made sure to erect the wall between church and state to ensure the freedom of belief or non-belief.

Our neighborhoods can be rich with churches, shrines, synagogues, and mosques because of the foresight the framers of the constitution held. Only a secular goverment can allow such diversity.

At the core of American culture is freedom - and for the purposes of this discussion, specifically freedom of religion. The founding fathers were Deists and Freemasons. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, Thomas Paine and others made sure that religion would not be permitted to attain control over our nation. This trend towards a modern re-write of our founding fathers thinking and writings that this nation was somehow founded on some vision of Christianity is fundementaly incorrect.

I'm grateful to live in a nation that allows, and encourages religious diversity.

The problem is that "secular" is often confused with "atheist". Perhaps you don't make that mistake, but many do. And it is highly ironic that Christians (mostly) are prohibited from putting up religious displays on public land, in the name of the First Amendment (which is supposed to guarantee the free exercise of religion). Your "wall between church and state" may exist, but it's not constitutional.

[dreamingwolf]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; ... The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams

Mr. Montana Red, would you care to explain to me why this was said? Do you know it was done in an obsiquous manner? Or does the fact that its anti-christian fullfill your need enough.

We can delve back ages to find hatred or we can let diplomacy go, but if you want to dredge it up lets really look at it.

[MontanaRed]

The problem is that "secular" is often confused with "atheist". Perhaps you don't make that mistake, but many do. And it is highly ironic that Christians (mostly) are prohibited from putting up religious displays on public land, in the name of the First Amendment (which is supposed to guarantee the free exercise of religion). Your "wall between church and state" may exist, but it's not constitutional.

Oh, I agree that the word (or the intelligence/education of the one reading it) is part of the problem. It's part of the same mindset that thinks bias= prejudice. I'm glad you pointed that out. We should all be reaching for our dictionaries now.

But I don't understand the last sentence. The "wall between church and state" IS constitutional. Um, it's the first amendment in the US Constitution. And I can't really say it's "my" wall - Thomas Jefferson came up with that dandy description when interpreting that amendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

[BlueTalon]

Oh, I agree that the word (or the intelligence/education of the one reading it) is part of the problem. It's part of the same mindset that thinks bias= prejudice. I'm glad you pointed that out. We should all be reaching for our dictionaries now.

But I don't understand the last sentence. The "wall between church and state" IS constitutional. Um, it's the first amendment in the US Constitution. And I can't really say it's "my" wall - Thomas Jefferson came up with that dandy description when interpreting that amendment:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

I'll trump an interpretation of the First Amendment with the text of the actual amendment:

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

There's no wall mentioned or implied anywhere in the text. What it explicitly states is that Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion. So, constitutionally, there are no grounds to prohibit people from putting up a creche in the town square. Yet that is exactly the sort of thing people say should be prohibited due to the existance of that ethereal "wall of seperation".

[MontanaRed]

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; ... The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams

Mr. Montana Red, would you care to explain to me why this was said? Do you know it was done in an obsiquous manner? Or does the fact that its anti-christian fullfill your need enough.

We can delve back ages to find hatred or we can let diplomacy go, but if you want to dredge it up lets really look at it.

Well, first, it's Ms. Montana Red; secondly, are we really supposed to address each other specifically in our posts, or is that against post rules; and thirdly, if you really want a lesson in American history I can reprint the Treaty of Tripoli here so you can find out how obsequious (I think this is what you meant) it was.

Come on, people. This is not ancient history; it's well documented and easily researched. It's not hatred - just stating the facts about the founders of our secular government.

And lastly, for those who may have snoozed through this lesson in high school, is the Treaty of Tripoli in it's entirety.

Authored by American diplomat Joel Barlow in 1796, the following treaty was sent to the floor of the Senate, June 7, 1797, where it was read aloud in its entirety and unanimously approved. John Adams, haven seen the treaty, signed it and proudly proclaimed it to the Nation. Annals of Congress, 5th Congress

Article 1. There is a firm and perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guarantied by the most potent Dey and Regency of Algiers.

Art. 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war, shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party, they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them.

Art. 3. If any citizens , subjects, or effects, belonging to either party, shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners.

Art. 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty, shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers, belonging to such vessels, shall be sufficient for their protection.

Art. 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel, condemned by the other party, or by any other nation, the certificates of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport.

Art. 6. Vessels of either party, putting into the ports of the other, and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in, from a disaster at sea, and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and re-embark her cargo without paying any duties. But in case shall she be compelled to the land her cargo.

Art. 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners; and the crew protectedand succored till they can be sent to their country.

Art. 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy, within gun-shot of the forts of the other , she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized on or attacked, when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea, no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port, within twenty-four hours after her departure.

Art. 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli; the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels, and seamen; the reciprocal right of the establishing Consuls in each country; and the privileges, immunities, and jurisdiction, to be on the same footing with those of the most favored nations respectively.

Art. 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli, as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part, and on the part of his subjects, for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship, are acknowledged to have been received by him previous to his signing the same, according to a receipt which is hereto annexed, except such as part as is promised, on the part of the United States, to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoli; of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no pretense of any periodical tribute of further payments is ever to be made by either party.

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

Art. 12. In case of any dispute, arising from a violation of any of the articles of this treaty, no appeal shall be made to arms; nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the Consul, residing at the place where the dispute shall happen, shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable referrence shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Dey of Algiers; the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he, by virtue of his signature to this treaty, engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case, according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same.

Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Junad in the year of the Hegira 1211— corresponding with the 4th day of November, 1796, by

• JUSSOF BASHAW MAHOMET, Bey.
  MAMET, Treasurer.
  AMET, Minister of Marine.
  SOLIMAN KAYA.
  GALIL, General of the Troops.
  MAHOMET, Commander of the City.
  AMET, Chamberlain.
  ALLY, Chief of the Divan.
  MAMET, Secretary.
  
  

Signed and sealed at Algiers, the 4th day of Argill, 1211—corresponding with the 3d day of

January, 1797, by

• HASSAN BASHAW, Dey,
  

And by the agent Plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

JOEL BARLOW.