Happy Holidays, Abdul.

Wouldn’t it be refreshing, if all religious favoritism were removed from government, and our lawmakers spent time on things that actually mattered?

Our Founding Fathers and Mothers would be so pleased…and they’d delight in the fact that their flight from religious/tax persecution centered on one main fact:

Freedom OF religion. Not government-sanctioned license plates, or religious displays in public buildings. Freedom to worship whomever or whatever caused no one else any harm. And, granted, that a majority would likely favor Christ’s teahcings, but not ALL of us, and not so predominantly that we forced our religion on everyone else. It’s so sad.

It’d all be so much simpler.

(Standing back for the expected religious “In God We Trust” barrage…)

TA,

I’ve never had a problem with references to “God” in the public square, it’s only when people start getting specific I have issues.

The Illinois situation shows what happen when people are so hellbent on putting their religion on display, the message gets lost in the clutter.

Abdul

I wonder which of the celebrations Blagojevich supports. Any of the above or maybe Chrismukkah perhaps.

If the opposite of a free for all religious expression is a total ban, then let freedom reign.

From work, I found the people of rural Illinois to be wonderful. Chicago on the other hand, seemed to be the last province of darkness to traverse before the final meeting with Satan. To be fair, perhaps it’s this way with any big city or kaleidoscope of demographics. But, I can easily imagine different groups feeling a compulsion for representation, out of some sociological culmination of growing up where someone’s omnipresently trying to get over on you. But, I’ll bet it’s entertaining as heck to see an array of “Christmas” displays.

Where’s the kinara?

Abdul, I’ve got no problems with some references, either. But when one particular religion (mine) dominates that tiscussion, and even goes as far as providing a slogan on our license plates, the pendulum has tilted too far. And the founders would be horrified.

Patriot, I read your sentence several times…maybe it’s the egg nog (with rum, of course), but I’m not sure I understand it. Please explain.

Thanks.

*discussion

The egg nog is affecting my typing it seems

Freedom OF religion is what you’ve got….Freedom FROM religion is what you WANT.
-
I don’t really care what displays are on public property because I can gaurantee you that SOMEONE of that religion is a member of the PUBLIC. When they say one can put up a display and another cannot is where the issue happens.
-
Religion was forced upon me as a child and I now have NO religious affiliation or belief. I do, however, have issues with religions (or lack thereof) telling each other that they are wrong in their belief and taking legal action to stiffel another.
-
Just let whomever wants to do it worship whatever omnipotent ghost they want. What does it affect me if they believe in ghosts? Answer: it doesn’t until they bring it to my doorstep.

Happy Festivus all.

Statler, in the true holiday spirit, I won’t blast you, although you deserve it for that comment.

How do you know what I want? I’m a stern student of the Constitution’s authors. What they wanted, and what I also seek, is no government-sponsored religion of any kind.

Now, keep in mind that they were (mostly) all Christians, and thye fled from a state-sponsored church, the mother Church of England. You might want to read with particular focus, the post-French-travel writing of Franklin, who prophetically penned multiple articles which theorized America could become a land of “ten or twenty different faiths.” And, to be historically accurate, he was roundly criticized at the time for straying so far from the “accepted” teachings.

I don’t have a huge problem with public displays on religious holidays. So long as no religion is denied access to public property for that purpose, on their special holiday.

But, I do have a problem with the government sanctioning religion. Which that dimwit Woody Burton did with license plates…and no one had the courage to vote against it, lest the zealots label that legislator a heretic.

Ah, ’tis a far bit we’ve wandered from original intent, Mr. Franklin.

I dislike lima beans and it offends me to go into a store and see rows of lima bean cans on the shelves. But I have yet to sue anybody over that public display.

Get the Rope out:

Thanksgiving Proclamation
City of New York
October 3, 1789
by: George Washington
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor, and Whereas both Houses of Congress have by their Joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanks-giving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God

David: the same proclamation was issued by Thomas Jefferson to recognize Jewish holidays.

Your point is?

This nation was founded on a judeo-christian ethic. Everyone should come to grips with that fact. Worship as you wish, but quit trying to make this a Godless, faithless country. That is contrary to our founders’ intent, and all of you know it.
The very tenets of religions such as Islam(no offense, Abdul) are counter to the principles on which the creation of this republic were based–freedom, liberty, etc. In our founders’ eyes, all religions are not equal, and should not be treated as such when it comes to how this nation is governed.

No, Rico, you’re just wrong. Period.

You need to read some of the founders’ writings: THEY were mostly (but not 100%) Christians. But they were extremely reluctant to impose any religion on the entire antion, and vigorously debated the concept.

Their solution: they imposed their religious beliefs on our ceremonies, money and customs. They purposely left a state-sponsored religion out of every document.

You relaly need to think before you type. The imposition of any religion on us, even the religion favored by 95% of our Founders, was solidly debated and rejected.

Somuch so that multiple SCOTUS decisions, in conservative and liberal courts, have continued to uphold that solid concept.

Lest anyone doubt it, here are a few selected quotes of Founders on religion v. government, et al:

Franklin:
“…When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)”

Jefferson:
“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.” – James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)”

These were brilliant men.

When you attempt to correct me, TA, you really should check for typos first.
Where did I write anything about imposition of any religion on Americans? Maybe you should read the post before you respond to it. Your knee-jerk reaction is typical of your postings.
I simply wrote that this nation was founded on a judeo-christian ethic. Go ahead and try to debate that!

This nation wasn’t founded on a Judeo-Christna ethic. It was founded on freedom OF religion. Any religion. Most of the founders were Christians…of varying variety (some were deists, whatever that was…)

The combo of fat thumbs/small BBerry keyboards makes for lousy typos sometimes. Get over it.

Your own words: “…In our founders’ eyes, all religions are not equal…” In fact, our Founders, in their wisdom, saw equal in all religions. Exactly equal. And equal with “no” religion.

I think it was no “state” religion.

Actaully Abdul, I believe that the Illinois government is finally getting it right. Instead of descriminating against everyone, they’re including everyone. The government belongs to the people – let them express their faith if they choose to do so.

My biggest gripe is the distortion of the separation rule that’s been used in recent times to dis-allow government employees from expressing their faith. Is there really anything offensive taking place if a government office decides to mount a Chistmas decoration or a menorah? Are we so thin skinned that we feel threatened when someone in government displays a particular faith? Do we not trust that a Jew will follow office procedures as effectively as a Christian if there’s a menorah on the front lawn?
.
Here’s another favorite of mine: “The state of (insert state name here) does not discriminate based upon sex, creed,….” Now see what the courts do if an athiest complains that a government building displays the ten commandments. Rather than ruling that all creeds should have an opportunity to mount a display of their own (if they express an interest), the courts will rule that NOBODY gets to display their faith. Instead of opening it’s arms to zero descrimination, the state descriminates equally against EVERYONE. Instead of justice for all, it’s equal injustice for everyone. And all the sheep nod their head and say it is good.
.
I’d rather see a row of differing religious expressions in a government building rather than none. A cross for Christianity, a menorah for Judaism, a Koran for Islam, a place for athiesm, etc. If the government is for the people, and the people want to express themselves in government places, let them do it. Stop the hypocrisy of descriminating against nobody by excluding everyone.
.
Also, I love to hear the wisdom of the founding fathers, but one thing is certain – they never expected a society of weak-kneed Americans who cringed and complained whenever someone with a different belief system displayed their faith in a government building. Their efforts left us with a system that placed ultimate value on the individual, with the expectation that the individual would remain at liberty to live as he or she chooses, so long as they aren’t hurting or damaging the liberty of somebody else. There is no clause about excluding government employees from these shared liberties.
.
In fact, the very words and writings of our founders are peppered with references to God and spirituality – in official documents and in speeches of record that are directly related to the implementation of legislation. The intent wasn’t to remove God from government. The intent is to prevent government from influencing religion.

Shore, you’re reaaaaaal close. Certainly a lot closer than Rico.

The “intent” was to make sure the government, whose Founders were awash in various brands of Christianity, honored that heritsage, but never, EVER endorsed a religion. And allowed others to have no religion or whatever religion they chose. Without fear the govt. would intervene or, worse yet, endorse a religion of any kind.

Most of the framers were Episcopalians. At that time, that church and most others did not recognize women as full members. Many believed you had to be celibate to be a true minister of God. Most disallowed divorce. DO you see a trend here? And most organized churches were up to their necks in vsarious govts. of Europe, mostly with little success.

Varan is the ONLY one who has it right so far. It was freedom from STATE MANDATED religion.

The gift that keeps on giving: Thoughtful debate headed for another new year. Thank you!

Right, Computer geek. Which is exactly what I said in Post 22.

Taxpayer–it’s never out of style to toughtfully debate. Except, sadly, on Fox TV, and mot nerwspapers these days, as well as MSNBC too often.

Regardless of original intent and current practice, enjoy religious “freedom” while we have it. Whether it’s nutcases toppling skyscrapers for Allah in New York or slaying heathens for God in the Crusades, when the fringe element again goes tilt – we become less tolerant or start crying, “Baaaah-Baaaaaah.” With respect to recent geopolitical history, I don’t think it’s the Seventh Day Adventists, Buddhists, or Flying Spaghetti Monster worshipers I’m worried about.