Gays Are Ruining Christmas

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

You are misquoting me. I said I don't want my kids to see gays kissing in public...I, me, myself. I never said it should be against the law, nor am I doing anything to stop it. I just don't like it. If I see it, I would turn my daughter around and go the other way. The shoe is not on the other foot.

No one is saying that private entity or organization cannot, on its private property display a nativity for the public to view.

We are talking about public/civic property.

The point still stands. You are saying that one (xmas) is OK because "it is tasteful" but the other (Priapus) is "not tasteful". Hence shoe, other foot.

"Just like you don't want your kids having to see..."

The point, as was the point when you made that original state lo those many threads ago, is that in a public/civic place, you don't get to decide if it is OK for others to do that. Regardless of whether you find the action "tasteful" or "acceptable for your children's viewing".

If the govt is going to allow the display of a nativity scene on public property. Hey, great, fine and dandy. But, all those "pro-christmas" folks better keep their collective yaps shut when the Priapus statue is put on display on public property. How much you wanna bet, the churches will be the first ones "up in arms" and Fox News will be talking about "the war on christianity" and how this is what happens when heathen pinko liberals aren't lined up against the wall and shot by the god-fearing NRA at birth.

Well NYC, your argument is flawed. You're fine using public taxpayer funded resources for religious displays as long as they meet some vague and subjective criteria based on a combination of tradition, popular acceptance and kid friendliness.

Who exactly are "the Atheists"? Some kind of organized anti religion group? I've run into a lot of evangelicals from other popular religions, but Atheists are pretty damn quiet aside from pissing off the lunatic right wing fringe.

Originally Posted by NFRs2000nyc

Here is my take on it...

1) Government funds in ANY WAY (including labor to put up the decorations are not allowed to be used) with the EXCEPTION of christmas trees/christmas decorations. Christmas is a federal holiday and an institution in this country. Hell, the white house has 13 trees. The nativity scenes are to be put up by a local church or school, or whatever, with privately raised funds.

2) Decorations are not to be discriminated against based on religion, but a matter or taste. A lamb dangling bleeding from the neck, a pentagram on fire with devil eyes, or Priapus are inappropriate in terms of taste, not religion.

3) Any group can use the public space for their displays. This is my problem. The atheists are acting like fascists. They don't want to put their own stuff up, they are just saying "we don't like this so you cant have it." Are they trying to put up a festivus pole and are denied? If they wanted to put up a giant lit up "A" for a fake holiday they created, they should have the right, since they are also tax paying citizens and the government is here to serve them just as much as it is to serve the christians and the jews. However, this is not the case. I would agree that if a large enough group (I guess a nationally recognized would be a start) wants to put up peaceful and tasteful decorations for their holiday, they should be allowed to.

Again, I'm a jew and have a 10' tall tree in my house. Why? Because I like the way it looks and smells, nothing to do with Jesus.

Next thing you know, in terms of tastelessness, someone's going to want some scene of an illegitimate, naked baby born to some poverty stricken, homeless, unwed teenage mother (obviously one of those shiftless 47%ers) languishing in some animal pen. Or worse, the half-naked, defiled corpse of some itinerant preacher nailed to some wood planks. I mean, really, how tasteless can we get here? Do I have to expose my kid to this? What government committee reviewed and approved this? Standards definitely need tightening.

In other words, careful about evoking the "public taste" or similar arguments might leave you on a thin plank in this discussion. Christianity has plenty of "tasteless" aspects to it too.

Originally Posted by tock172

Religious beliefs of any type are outdated.

Religion itself is becoming outdated....good to know I'm not the only one who sees that.

Originally Posted by vorceb325i

Religion itself is becoming outdated....good to know I'm not the only one who sees that.

maybe in the US, but the percentage of the world that practices Islam is pretty significant.

Originally Posted by mdyaman

maybe in the US, but the percentage of the world that practices Islam is pretty significant.

IIRC most Americans subscribe to one religion or another (not my personally, though).

Originally Posted by 2000_328CI

Here is the issue. We have religious TRADITIONS in this country that are getting swept under the rug by secularists.

I think it largely has to do with the educational system in this country and the fact that MOST textbooks twist the presentation of history to reflect this notion of a "separation of church and state" as a clearly defined founding principle... that simply ISN'T the case. Our nation was founded by Christian men who integrated religious practices into much of the tenants of law and legal practices... don't forget we had federally recognized state religions, prayers were said prior to congressional sessions, etc... In god we trust isn't just a line that somehow found itself on our currency.. Sure it wasn't there from the beginning of common law in this land.. but it's a result of the religious freedoms that were instituted by our founding fathers.

Now that we have established that religion WAS accepted by our founding fathers and early politicians

PBS just released an interesting show on this topic called First Freedom.

I was home sick and stumbled upon watching it. Very interesting and enlightening, giving a lot of background into the concept, evolution and thus, meaning and intent of religious freedom as enshrined in the First Amendment.

Some takeaways:

• Most or even all the founding fathers were, individually, religious in some way or another, and deeply valued to role of religion in society in general.
• They were, however, a very diverse group of believers and those religious differences threatened to derail the proceedings leading to the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later, the Constitutional Convention.
• They were deeply suspicious of linking or enmeshing religion with government or other power of state in any way and it was clear that most, if not all, wanted to keep these institutions seperate and independant.
• The Constitution is remarkable in the context of its times and very conspicuous in its very secular nature, never even mentioning the word God, much less Jesus or Christianity, and mentions religion mainly in a proscriptive rather than prescriptive sense.
• This "wall of separation" has been a remarkable success to both the flourishing of religion in the U.S. and the stability of our governing institutions.

Anyways, well worth a watch, IMHO.

Originally Posted by Rhumb

PBS just released an interesting show on this topic called First Freedom.

I was home sick and stumbled upon watching it. Very interesting and enlightening, giving a lot of background into the concept, evolution and thus, meaning and intent of religious freedom as enshrined in the First Amendment.

Some takeaways:

• Most or even all the founding fathers were, individually, religious in some way or another, and deeply valued to role of religion in society in general.
• They were, however, a very diverse group of believers and those religious differences threatened to derail the proceedings leading to the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and later, the Constitutional Convention.
• They were deeply suspicious of linking or enmeshing religion with government or other power of state in any way and it was clear that most, if not all, wanted to keep these institutions seperate and independant.
• The Constitution is remarkable in the context of its times and very conspicuous in its very secular nature, never even mentioning the word God, much less Jesus or Christianity, and mentions religion mainly in a proscriptive rather than prescriptive sense.
• This "wall of separation" has been a remarkable success to both the flourishing of religion in the U.S. and the stability of our governing institutions.

Anyways, well worth a watch, IMHO.

I saw that too, and thought it was pretty good. It was a little sound-bite-ish, I'm sure a lot of those historians had a LOT more to share that didnt fit into their 15 second cuts. But overall, I thought it was a good presentation.

Of course, in a show of x length, their thoughts do have to be edited down of necessity, but I think some concepts came through clearly, including that:

• Religion played a complex role in the formation of our country, and of its government.
• That the FFs did NOT want to create some sort of official, or even implied, "Christian Nation".
• That the Constitution was most notable and distinctive by PROSCRIBING the role and powers of religion and religious institutions in our government, certainly not PRESCRIBING any sort of state religiousity. America was essentially distinguished by being the first explicitly non-religious government.
• There was a very intentional "wall of separation" between government institutions and religious institutions and that the two should function separately and freely from one another.

It would be interesting to read more in depth the various contributor's/historian's thoughts and ideas.

Look at the most intelligent people and places in the world, and then look at the least intelligent people and places in the world.

You'll find that quantum physicists are atheists, and poorer people are religious.

Gee, I wonder why

People hate explanations that are complicated. Quantum physics is arguably the most difficult form of mathematical explanations of the universe out there. And it works. It's a hell of a lot harder to understand than "God did it," and that's why people are uncomfortable with straying away from their fairy tale.

War on Christmas. Haha. Christians.

In today's society full of information and fact, one must literally try to be ignorant. "BEING GAY IS A CHOICE!" Really? When did you choose to be straight?

Originally Posted by Zell

"BEING GAY IS A CHOICE!" Really? When did you choose to be straight?

Nice post, Zell.

As to your question, I chose straight shortly after rubbing the breast of some 17 year old...maybe she was 16...and yes, it was back when I was the same age.

Anyway, I couldn't imagine anything better. Little did I suspect at the time that it did get better!

Also, when I rubbed the breasts of my male HS friends, they, for some reason, reacted very differently! lol

What about you, Zell? When did you chose?

Originally Posted by Zell

Look at the most intelligent people and places in the world, and then look at the least intelligent people and places in the world.

You'll find that quantum physicists are atheists, and poorer people are religious.

My father is a biomedical physicist and he believes in God.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

My father is a biomedical physicist and he believes in God.

That's not to say that not everyone intelligent is atheist, it's certainly a valid thing to consider. After all, we can neither prove nor disprove a god. We can only validate within the realm of scientific understanding.

My own personal thinking is, we have no evidence for something using the best system that we have for proving things; therefore, I do not need to believe it. If we obtain true evidence for a god, then I'd believe in it. The default position of anything is "No," while the alternative is "Yes." This is the basic rule of logic. One should never assume something to be true unless given evidence otherwise. We wouldn't get anywhere if that was the case, and things in general would be extremely wrong in society. The justice system is one example of this. Not that it's exactly efficient, but it does operate under the principal of "Innocent until proven guilty." Or, "No until proven Yes."

Science, math, stats, etc. all go by this same principle that is naturally followed. It all goes under the basic notion of we know nothing until we give evidence otherwise.

Originally Posted by Zell

One should never assume something to be true unless given evidence otherwise.

Such as life existing on other planets? I wonder what DeGrasse would say about that.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Such as life existing on other planets? I wonder what DeGrasse would say about that.

He'd probably say that he has no positive evidence. But he'd go on to say that he does have positive evidence of the sheer number of other stars in the universe, such that from a probability POV, finding other life is likely.

Either way, his statements will be based on some form of evidence.

Originally Posted by casino is no lie

Such as life existing on other planets? I wonder what DeGrasse would say about that.

In our current realm of knowledge, we cannot prove that life exists on other planets.

But from the evidence we've found, it is highly likely that life exists on other planets. That's the difference: we have strong evidence.

what if we're the aliens, man?

Originally Posted by Xcelratr

He'd probably say that he has no positive evidence. But he'd go on to say that he does have positive evidence of the sheer number of other stars in the universe, such that from a probability POV, finding other life is likely.

Either way, his statements will be based on some form of evidence.

Originally Posted by Zell

In our current realm of knowledge, we cannot prove that life exists on other planets.

But from the evidence we've found, it is highly likely that life exists on other planets. That's the difference: we have strong evidence.

Uh huh

FWIW:

17 Billion Earth-Size Alien Planets Inhabit Milky Way
http://www.space.com/19157-billions-...ts-aas221.html

So, even if life is but a one-in-a-million long shot on even just these earth-sized planets, that means there are 17,000 planets with life in just our one galaxy alone (itself just one out of hundreds of billions). As said, that's not positive proof that there is extraterrestrial life, but it does hint strongly for it.