Posted by swamphawk22 on 12/19/2012 4:34:00 PM (view original):
If a community was 85% Muslim we could talk.

Why is leatting the government acknowledge the taditions of a large majority of its citizens.

They are not forcing everyone to take religion classes. This is a simple use of space. Like allowing the citizens to use a room for a Christmas party.

No, we couldn't, because that 15% still matters.

In our pussified nation, everyone must be included or no one can be included. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 12/19/2012 4:59:00 PM (view original):
In our pussified nation, everyone must be included or no one can be included. 

**** that.

Merry Christmas everyone.

And I'm not even a goddamned Christian.  It's ******* Christmas season.  If you don't like it, DON'T ******* BUY ME A GIFT.

Merry Christmas to you too, zipperhead.

Every Who down in Who-ville liked Christmas a lot.

But the Grinch, who lived just north of Who-ville, did NOT!

I am sure no one here is implying that there should be a difference in government policy based on the status of a small group of Americans?

That's exactly what atheists suggest all the time - that they be given special treatment by the government. The extreme atheists look for any excuse they can find to cause problems for anyone who doesn't believe as they do. They've figured out that they may be able to convince someone they have a leigitmate claim to removal of religious symbols and the like from government property based on the constitution, so they're attacking like a pack of wild dogs. If they could somehow justify a way through the constitution or other laws to prevent private religious displays or even stop people of other religions from meeting, I'm sure they would attack that just as voraciously.

Never mind that the issue is not really about constitutionality, which is what they will try to claim, but about them getting their way and ruining not only other people's religious displays whenever they can, but also ruining traditions and historical displays in the name of getting what they want.

While other religions and organizations have many individuals who take the time to get together as a group and help make the world a better place and do good in their communities, the only thing we ever hear about from atheist groups are these kinds of actions designed to forward their agendas and help no one but themselves.

Can anyone deny that the ACLU keeps small towns in line with their Christmas agenda thrugh threat of lawsuits even if they are not valid?

As someone else said, the ACLU is a bully organization in the first place, with its own agenda (which is usually ridiculous in my opinion).

They also tout the agenda of atheists.

Because anything that offends anyone is deemed offensive.    Allowing something to offend another is a form of bullying. 

What they should do is allow these issues to be voted on by the public in a particular area in a "yes" or "no" vote with majority winning the day, like many other issues.

The ACLU and atheists sure wouldn't want that to happen though, because they would lose in almost every case. They'd rather rig the situation in their favor by throwing it into court, which as I said, shouldn't be allowed. Vote on it, and if you don't get your way, stop your crying.

I'm not asking for people to vote on religion. That's what you apparently didn't understand.

I'm asking for people in a given area to vote on whether or not they will permit an action, which IS something that we often vote on in this country.

To wit: I'm asking people to vote on whether or not they would permit the display of religious symbols (or whatever you want to call each situation where there is apparent disagreement), with majority ruling the same as it does in most other votes.

It's not a vote on religion but on whether an action should be permitted or not.

Comrade Lenin is now advocating a democracy.

That's funny.

What's really funny is that you don't understand a socialist society can also be a democratic society.

Posted by bistiza on 12/20/2012 2:40:00 PM (view original):
I'm not asking for people to vote on religion. That's what you apparently didn't understand.

I'm asking for people in a given area to vote on whether or not they will permit an action, which IS something that we often vote on in this country.

To wit: I'm asking people to vote on whether or not they would permit the display of religious symbols (or whatever you want to call each situation where there is apparent disagreement), with majority ruling the same as it does in most other votes.

It's not a vote on religion but on whether an action should be permitted or not.

That's a vote on whether or not the government should endorse a specific religion by allowing a display on public property. That's not allowed. And you know it.

Why does a religious display need to be on public property?

Posted by bistiza on 12/20/2012 3:29:00 PM (view original):
What's really funny is that you don't understand a socialist society can also be a democratic society.

We're a constitutional republic. Not a majority rules democracy.

That's a vote on whether or not the government should endorse a specific religion by allowing a display on public property. That's not allowed. And you know it.

That's not what it is at all.

It would be a vote on whether or not the citizens of a specific area wish to approve such a display. It is NOT a vote asking the government to official endorse any religion - it is simply citizens voting to authorize a specific action.

The vote would not be asking the government or anyone to endorse any religion. It would simply be something like "Should government property located at XXX address be allowed to hold open displays featuring (whatever it is)". If the majority of voters approve, then those things can be displayed. If not, they can't. In fact, it has nothing to do with religion, as the vote could be about ANY item wishing to be displayed.

The problem is that we don't do it the way I suggest. Instead of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people", what we have is a government that allows small groups to effectively make demands of everyone else based on the constitution, which was NEVER intended to be interpreted that way when the founding fathers wrote it.

The founding fathers would not only roll over in their graves but drill right through the ground from spinning at such a high rate if they could see how far our government has allowed groups such as radical atheists to take us from what was intended.

Why does a religious display need to be on public property?

Why does anything need to be displayed on public property? Why not remove all displays of every kind? Because there are usually good reasons for having those displays, that's why. Maybe they look attractive or add to the property value or whatever.

In fact, I'm all in favor of religious displays on public property -  provided they are approved by voters as I've said above. Other issues are voted upon for decisions, but when it comes to this type of thing, no vote is ever conducted. The reason is simply - the atheists would have no ground to stand on, because in most cases and in most places, I'm quite sure the OVERWHELMING majority of people would allow the displays to continue as they always have. Then the radical atheists who do nothing but cause trouble and go whine and cry about something else.

You obviously don't see the problem with that. It's a good thing you aren't a judge.