Sign Stolen?

[Mojo Chick'n]

Quote:
I edited the quote above to put up only what I am answering....

Seeing as the topic is the sign and the displays on courthouse lawns.... I would like to submit that not everyone is Christian, and the "religions" that I mentioned was to try to cover anyone and everyone who is religious. The sign did not exclusively target Christians, but all religions.

That being said, and this may just be my personal interpretation, but your post sounded as if you felt the "happy holiday" was an attack on your particular observance of the season.

It may have been, or it may not have been, I, personally do not feel that it was. I think that it does no harm for folks to offer a "happy holiday" or a "Merry Christmas" or whatever positive happy holiday message they wish to impart upon the general populace.

It is not being "politically correct", necesarily, it is simply offering their version of a holiday message. The poster is not Christian (I am assuming), and therefore does not subscribe to the Christian view of the season. Does that make them Wrong? perhaps, in the Christian worldview it does. Does that make them evil or less worthy of courtesy when you meet them?

I don't think Jesus would have reacted in such a manner to someone who wished him a "good day".

meri

 

[Mojo Chick'n]

I have WHAT in my yard? :

Last time I checked these are the principles our nation was founded upon:


"I may grow rich by an art I am compelled to follow; I may recover health by medicines I am compelled to take against my own judgment; but I cannot be saved by a worship I disbelieve and abhor. "(Thomas Jefferson, notes for a speech, c. 1776. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 498.)


Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom for religion, but also freedom from religion. (Edwin S. Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)

Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth. (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)

SEE??? I knew this wasn't just a new argument

j/k

If our Forefathers who drafted the Constitution and Bill of Rights could not even agree, yet were agreeable enough to make the "rules" offer freedom for EVERYONE - who are we to buck Tradition?

I am sure that there were many Christian forefathers who were instrumental in helping to draft the laws of our newly formed government. I am also just as sure that there were those who abhorred organized religion in any form, and relied upon common sense and courtesy to get them through the day.

My mama tried to teach me manners - I try to remember them and utilize them when I am dealing with folks whose words (without inflection or facial expression) are all I have to go by.

If more of the world would just start using their Manners, then there would be a lot less arguing and chest thumping.

(not commenting on your post with the Manners - commenting on the general atmosphere of the topic)

Peace -
Meri​

 

[dave27889]

Quote:
I agree with chiknmama. IT should have been in a more positive manner. I believe that they should be able to say their piece, but in a more positive manner. It is a time of peace and harmony whatever you believe in.

 

[dave27889]

Quote:
You sound like the kind of person we should all try to be. I don't know you at all, have never read your post and absolutely know nothing about you but, I wish I did know you. We should all try to get along and respect and love one another. We are in a time of where we all need to pull together and help one another whatever we believe in or whatever nationality we are. I am by far not perfect in anyway. I just think we should respect each other. I think the sign could have been worded differently and not hurt feelings so much. Just my opinion. Dave in NC

 

[PortageGirl]

I will NOT be ruled by fear in any way shape or form. When people start talking about putting the “fear of god” into someone else, it is usually a sign for me to smile sadly at them and move away, far, far, away, either literally or figuratively, (both if possible).

No, it is true that those exact words have not been said here, but there is a feeling of it in the air. That is exactly the attitude that causes doors to be slammed on understanding and discussion. Think about where and when any of you have heard this statement, or similar ones which leave the feeling behind that there is no other alternative, and consider what the meaning of Christmas is supposed to be, and how well anyone represents that meaning the rest of the year.

The wording of the stolen sign gave the same feeling of intolerance I agree, it could have been worded better, but again, let’s not confuse freedom of expression with freedom of religion, and what any of us choose to believe of our own free will. Wherever we got the gift of free will, it doesn’t really matter, it IS OURS, and making a statement of belief or UN-belief, does not negate that.

The founding fathers specified the separation of religion because of what they saw in history, not only of individuals being pushed into religions, but of religions, being pushed aside and forced out of countries. As “WHAT in my Yard” said in her post, it’s not only freedom from religion, but freedom FOR religion.

State supported religion means the ‘SPECIAL’ ones get preferential treatment, and while certain religions are sure it will be THEIR religion that will be on top, because THEIR GOD will make sure of it, look around the world and tell me this is true? Sorry to offend some with this comment, it is only my opinion, but the only sane countries are the secular ones, where courtesy and freedom is expected and given to all.

The founding fathers sought to provide protection for the government too, to keep it a secular government, not a religious based one. IMO those who would try to undermine it are seeking to undermine our countries foundation.

When I joined the military over 20 years ago, I swore an oath to protect the constitution with my life. I still believe that, but that means the constitution, not your religion, so I will still defend your right to practice your religion, but not anyone’s right to shove it in my face. (sorry if that is a little blunt)

Again, let’s not confuse freedom of expression (speech). Either take down BOTH (or all) expressions of belief, or don’t steal the other person’s. Baby Jesus statues get stolen out of crèches every year, and I don’t condone that either.

(sorry this got so long! LOL, my fingers got away from me!!!)

 

[Acre of Blessings]

Everyone wants freedom of expression in this, but yet certain peoples opinions are being quoted.

 

[luvmychicknkids]

Quote:
Everyone HAS freedom of expression (within the rules and regulations of this privately owned board).....what exactly does being quoted have to do with ANYTHING?

 

[Mojo Chick'n]

Quote:
I apologize if you feel that you are being picked on - you are being quoted because the post that you made is the one that is being answered in the post being ... err..posted.

You are, in fact, free to express yourself, within the rules of the forum, and I believe that "courtesy for all" pretty much covers any wordier rules. (is "wordier" a word?)

I admit, however, that the spirit in which you posted your opinion might not be the spirit in which it was received - if that is the case, then I was mistaken, and I apologize.

Perhaps if you elaborated on the original topic of the thread, and gave your opinions on the sign, displays in general, etc... it would help us to understand your position on the subject better.

Personal conviction is a fantastic thing. However, we should rightly stick to the topic at hand, instead of trying to say who is right or wrong in their beliefs. Who is "right or wrong" is a circular argument and will gain us nothing.

I suppose discussing the displays will gain us nothing, either, since we really have nothing ulitimately to say about what the courthouse will do or not do. But at least we would be on topic

and that would make the mods very happy indeed

meri

 

[mom'sfolly]

I don't particularly like the sign, and it shouldn't have been stolen, but here is my take on the situation.

A Nativity scene is a blatantly religious display. If it is allowed on government property, then any other religious display should have equal access, which opens up a nasty can of worms for anyone who is paying attention...is animal sacrifice allowed in public? Does the Aryan Brotherhood get to put it's bigoted message on the courthouse lawn? How about a Shinto Shrine to the Kamikazi dead of WWII? Does a picture of Charles Mason rate the same as one of the Buddha?

Religion is as vast and varied as humanity. The seperation of Church and State benefits all of us, allowing us to practice our religions or not according to our beliefs. Allowing certain groups the advantage of public display, while not allowing others is not in our best interests. JMHO

I also feel we need not bend over backwards to accomendate everyone, and a Merry Christmas hurts no one......

 

[Mojo Chick'n]

Ok, - not picking on the Nativity here, using this as an example....

What if, perhaps, everyone agreed that a Nativity was THE thing to put there (in a fantasy world, not in real world terms, here).

Let's say in this fantasy world everyone agreed that the Nativity was the only symbol that had any meaning this time of year. They all got together and voted on it, and it passed with a Unanimous vote.

How many Nativities do you think it would take to cover everyone's view of a Nativity?
What color should Mary and Joseph be - caucasian, black, some shade in between (and was that Mocha, caramel or hazelnut?)? Did the Wisemen ride camels or elephants or horses, or some mix of both, and how many of each, and did their servants come along to see the Christ, or not? Was the stable a wooden structure or a cave/cavern that was used as a stable? Were the donkeys black or dun colored? If they rode elephants were those Indian Elephants, or African Elephants?

Well, you get the picture. You cannot please everyone. In trying to please everyone you end up pleasing no one.

I am wondering what part of "Freedom of Religion" or "Freedom of Expression" states that one has The Right put up a personal philosophical symbol anywhere on Government property? Or where it states that it is The Duty of the Govt. to post these displays anywhere besides where they belong - On the personal property of the person who wishes to display them?

Maybe I'm just missing something?

meri