Church-state 'wall' coming back down?

[Popeman38]

It not called a "Custom from Germany Tree" it's called a Christmas tree...

And there aren't many non christians putting them up around christmas time.

Reguardless of how it started, today It repersents Christmas as much as a menorah repersents chanukah.

Really? I know plenty of non-religious people that put up a christmas tree and place presents under the tree for their kids. And they do not mention anything about religion. As a matter of fact, my stepmom is an atheist and she uses the christmas tree. If you try hard enough, you can trace just about everything in the American culture to religion, because this country was basically started by religious people escaping persecution in England.

[TMK9973]

I do not think that the strange gods command crosses any line. I am not asking to have them displayed in the statehouse, but the courthouse. I do believe that the founders used the 10 Commandments as a basis for our law. Therefor they have historical signifigance, and not just religious signifigance.QUOTE]

Ok - this is just a question - But help me understand. I hear this arguement all the time "The 10 commandments are a basis for our law". Where does that come from?

Here are the 10 commandments

ONE: 'You shall have no other gods before Me.'

TWO: 'You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.'

THREE: 'You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.'

FOUR: 'Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.'

FIVE: 'Honor your father and your mother.'

SIX: 'You shall not murder.'

SEVEN: 'You shall not commit adultery.'

EIGHT: 'You shall not steal.'

NINE: 'You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.'

TEN: 'You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.'

Lets review - No laws the founding fathers in the bill of rights or the consititution include any of these, or anything like them. Perhaps #9 you could argue lead to Amendment 6 "Right to face your witness" but that would be about it.

The other argument is that is historcal importance is that it was written laws followed by many. And I can see that argument clearly. But they weren't the first set of laws written so why would they have greater influence then others.

[TMK9973]

Really? I know plenty of non-religious people that put up a christmas tree and place presents under the tree for their kids. And they do not mention anything about religion. As a matter of fact, my stepmom is an atheist and she uses the christmas tree. If you try hard enough, you can trace just about everything in the American culture to religion, because this country was basically started by religious people escaping persecution in England.

Your mom, I would guess, grew up christian. I didn't say they had to be religious. But no one who is not christian (Or at least didn't grow up christian) is putting up christmas trees. How it started is not important. The fact that Dec 25th is not even close to Jesus B-day is not important. The fact is Dec 25th, and the christmas tree are now symbols of a religious holiday.

If you think there are lots of Jews or Mulisums out there putting up christmas trees, you are mistaken. By putting a Christmas tree up in a public building, and NOT allowing any other symbols up, you are violating the establishment clause.

Now, you can argue that if you allow other symbols as well, then it's simply freedom of experssion, but by ONLY allowing a christmas tree - You would not have a leg to stand on.

[Sisyphus]

If you try hard enough, you can trace just about everything in the American culture to religion, because this country was basically started by religious people escaping persecution in England.

Not strictly true. The early colonists (and most following them) were largely driven by economic issues. Even the 'Puritans' ... who were having a hard time in England and so they established a church in the Netherlands. A number of the early settlers who came to Plymouth were from this church and they were motivated to come here by increased economic opportunity and the ability to practice their religion in a community where English would be the mother-tongue. Jamestown and elsewhere were economic settlements.

[BKSkinsFan]

Until it's among everyone's belief to not force their beliefs on other people, religion will always be a topic of heated debate. There is no compromise with religion, people who believe a certain thing will and always will disagree with someone with conflicting beliefs. I personally find it amazing that people can be so stubborn when it comes to their beliefs that they are willing to turn to violence when people disagree with them. I thought the point of religion, any religion, is to teach love, understanding, and morals. Looking through history, religion is the basis of so much conflict, which turns most people against it due to the obvious hypocrisy of fighting and killing over which one is right when to me this shows that both sides are wrong.

The reasoning for separation of church and state is to have a government who can take differing opinions and beliefs, and work on a compromise to get things accomplished. The U.S. is a very diverse country filled with many people from many different backgrounds and beliefs. To say that things should be the way they were when this country was founded, is turning an oblivious blind eye to this diversity.

[Popeman38]

Ok - this is just a question - But help me understand. I hear this arguement all the time "The 10 commandments are a basis for our law". Where does that come from?

I will not argue that they were THE basis for our law, but as this country was founded, it was founded on religion (way back, in the Mass Bay Colony). Over time we developed as a more inclusive society, but the founding fathers were religious men and used their understanding of religion to help shape the laws. Were they written into the Constitution? No, but they were written into the law.

[Destino]

I refuse to enter a debate framed in this manner. Why are Christians questions for wanting to express their religion? What religion does not wish to express it's belief? When you are happy in faith you wish to share it.

What I find disturbing is the group of people that don't have a belief of their own they wish to share.... instead the have an dislike for the beliefs of others. They make it their mission to go out and try to stamp out any mention of a religion on any public property. That is a sinister behavior. Wanting to publically celebrate your faith is not.

I'd rather teach tolerance then accept the notion that simply seeing a religion mentioned in public equates to having that religion imposed on you. That is complete nonsense.

[Kilmer17]

My Deity can beat up your deity.

[Popeman38]

Your mom, I would guess, grew up christian. I didn't say they had to be religious. But no one who is not christian (Or at least didn't grow up christian) is putting up christmas trees. How it started is not important. The fact that Dec 25th is not even close to Jesus B-day is not important. The fact is Dec 25th, and the christmas tree are now symbols of a religious holiday.

You would guess wrong. Stepmoms side of the family does not believe in a god. My dad is a lax catholic, so there is no problems in their relationship.

If you think there are lots of Jews or Mulisums out there putting up christmas trees, you are mistaken. By putting a Christmas tree up in a public building, and NOT allowing any other symbols up, you are violating the establishment clause.

I have a friend who is a devout Jew, and he has both the christmas tree and the menorah up. We put an electric menorah in our window at Christmas out of respect for him. And if setting up the christmas tree was a violation of the establishment clause, why do we have a National Christmas Tree?

Now, you can argue that if you allow other symbols as well, then it's simply freedom of experssion, but by ONLY allowing a christmas tree - You would not have a leg to stand on.

We disagree on the tre being a symbol of a religion, which makes this point an endless merry-go-round.

[SkinsHokieFan]

What I find disturbing is the group of people that don't have a belief of their own they wish to share.... instead the have an dislike for the beliefs of others. They make it their mission to go out and try to stamp out any mention of a religion on any public property. That is a sinister behavior. Wanting to publically celebrate your faith is not.

I'd rather teach tolerance then accept the notion that simply seeing a religion mentioned in public equates to having that religion imposed on you. That is complete nonsense.

Spot on post

I see no reason why anyone actually would oppose this

Likewise, I think its far too much energy to "sue" the courthouse to let you ahve a nativity scene there

[NoCalMike]

The Christmas Tree represents the religion of commercialism more then Christianity.

[TMK9973]

FYI - While there is a national Christmas tree, there is also a national Menoroh.

It's a expression and all religions are allowed to use.

[techboy]

My Deity can beat up your deity.

1 Kings 18:16-45

[Major Harris]

I refuse to enter a debate framed in this manner. Why are Christians questions for wanting to express their religion? What religion does not wish to express it's belief? When you are happy in faith you wish to share it.

What I find disturbing is the group of people that don't have a belief of their own they wish to share.... instead the have an dislike for the beliefs of others. They make it their mission to go out and try to stamp out any mention of a religion on any public property. That is a sinister behavior. Wanting to publically celebrate your faith is not.

I'd rather teach tolerance then accept the notion that simply seeing a religion mentioned in public equates to having that religion imposed on you. That is complete nonsense.

quoted for truth.

that in bold is exemplified on this forum to a T.

[Zguy28]

I will gladly throw out the letter from George Washington that states that the Bible is the only good authority for governing nations if someone gets rid of Jefferson's letter.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about this anyway. While the extra-constitutional words of our founders give insight into their beliefs and opinions on things, they are only just that-opinions. On either side.:2cents:

[chomerics]

Ironic the letter itself. Look at the closing

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson

Jan. 1. 1802.

Sarge, you do realize that Jefferson did not believe int the common Judeo-Christian OT version of god right?

[Sarge]

Sarge, you do realize that Jefferson did not believe int the common Judeo-Christian OT version of god right?

The arguement could be made that he was a deist. You know what that is, correct?

[Kilmer17]

I will gladly throw out the letter from George Washington that states that the Bible is the only good authority for governing nations if someone gets rid of Jefferson's letter.

I think there is a fundamental misunderstanding about this anyway. While the extra-constitutional words of our founders give insight into their beliefs and opinions on things, they are only just that-opinions. On either side.:2cents:

NO NO NO. When it comes to this issue, Jefferson, and JEFFERSON ALONE, is the ONLY Founding Father whose opinion matters.

Dont you know that by now?

[Henry]

I refuse to enter a debate framed in this manner. Why are Christians questions for wanting to express their religion? What religion does not wish to express it's belief? When you are happy in faith you wish to share it.

What I find disturbing is the group of people that don't have a belief of their own they wish to share.... instead the have an dislike for the beliefs of others. They make it their mission to go out and try to stamp out any mention of a religion on any public property. That is a sinister behavior. Wanting to publically celebrate your faith is not.

I'd rather teach tolerance then accept the notion that simply seeing a religion mentioned in public equates to having that religion imposed on you. That is complete nonsense.

I would agree that lack of respect for another's beliefs is a problem, for both sides of this debate.

I have no problem with mention of religion on public property. Christmas trees, 10 commandment sculptures ... whatever. That's fine with me.

What concerns me is endorsement of religion. Public officials leading prayers and such.

I think oftentimes people have trouble distinguishing the former from the latter ... and then everyone starts overreacting.

And then Sarge smiles.

[chomerics]

What I find disturbing is the group of people that don't have a belief of their own they wish to share.... instead the have an dislike for the beliefs of others. They make it their mission to go out and try to stamp out any mention of a religion on any public property. That is a sinister behavior. Wanting to publically celebrate your faith is not.

Destino, nobody is saying you can't be religious, we are just saying if a town/state is favoring one religion then it needs to be removed.

For those who don't think the tree is a Christian thing, how many Jews have a Christmas tree in their house? How many Muslims? How many Hindu's celebrate Christmas? Maybe there are a few, but it is by far a vastly Christina holiday and tradition. Just because there are exceptions does not make the premise invalid.

The issue is in promoting ONE religion over another. If you want to have the 10 commandments on a court ground, then you better damn well be ready to place a Torah and a Kuran there as well. Otherwise it DOES violate the establishment clause. That is the argument everyone is making. They are not saying you can't have religion, but you can't have only ONE religion, and the reason for removing the 10 commandments is so the FSM crowd does not have their pastafarian on display at the court house as well.

I'd rather teach tolerance then accept the notion that simply seeing a religion mentioned in public equates to having that religion imposed on you. That is complete nonsense.

The only reason you think it is nonsense is because it is YOUR religion. Would you like it if instead of a manger scene, it depicted a scene of Mohammad? Could you see the problems that would bring up?

[Zguy28]

Sarge, you do realize that Jefferson did not believe int the common Judeo-Christian OT version of god right?

Yes yes.

[SnyderShrugged]

I refuse to enter a debate framed in this manner. Why are Christians questions for wanting to express their religion? What religion does not wish to express it's belief? When you are happy in faith you wish to share it.

What I find disturbing is the group of people that don't have a belief of their own they wish to share.... instead the have an dislike for the beliefs of others. They make it their mission to go out and try to stamp out any mention of a religion on any public property. That is a sinister behavior. Wanting to publically celebrate your faith is not.

I'd rather teach tolerance then accept the notion that simply seeing a religion mentioned in public equates to having that religion imposed on you. That is complete nonsense.

One of the best posts I've read here in a long time. :applause:

[Kilmer17]

I think it's important to always remember that the clause says that CONGRESS can MAKE NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion.

So, a tree is not a law and a town is not Congress.

But other than that, the left is correct.

[chomerics]

The arguement could be made that he was a deist. You know what that is, correct?

I agree, which is why pointing out that he used the saying. . .

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man

Is kind of funny considering he did not believe in the Judeo-Christian god. . .Man, you are way off today Sarge, you need to eat your Wheaties in the morning, or take some Ginkgo because this is like shooting Fish in a barrel today

[Popeman38]

Destino, nobody is saying you can't be religious, we are just saying if a town/state is favoring one religion then it needs to be removed.

For those who don't think the tree is a Christian thing, how many Jews have a Christmas tree in their house? How many Muslims? How many Hindu's celebrate Christmas? Maybe there are a few, but it is by far a vastly Christina holiday and tradition. Just because there are exceptions does not make the premise invalid.

Chom, regardless of what you claim, the tree is not a Christian symbol. If claiming it is a Christian symbol makes it so, all anyone would have to do is claim they are offended by *insert symbol here* because they feel it is a religious symbol. If you can show me where the tree is a symbol of christianity, and not something either borrowed from paganism or the Germans, I may reconsider my stance. Seeing as how I was raised in the Baptist Church and was never taught anything about the tree other than it being a symbol used to eradicate the Christ from christmas, you may have a hard time.

The issue is in promoting ONE religion over another. If you want to have the 10 commandments on a court ground, then you better damn well be ready to place a Torah and a Kuran there as well. Otherwise it DOES violate the establishment clause. That is the argument everyone is making. They are not saying you can't have religion, but you can't have only ONE religion, and the reason for removing the 10 commandments is so the FSM crowd does not have their pastafarian on display at the court house as well.

And this is where everything gets skewed. Promoting a religion is not simply allowing one to be seen in public. If the gov came out and issued rules on worship, like the Chinese, that would be promotion. Allowing a manger to be displayed in public is not sponsorship.

The only reason you think it is nonsense is because it is YOUR religion. Would you like it if instead of a manger scene, it depicted a scene of Mohammad? Could you see the problems that would bring up?

The reason some think it is nonsense is that if the way things are going continues, we might as well have the lanscape of North Korea, gray and gloomy for fear of offending (yes, I exagerrate for effect).