Public Christmass displays... are they constitutional, ethical?

Then I could be wrong and Christmass tree could be admisable.

Id rather ban them do. Just to be sure. People can have the trees in their house and everyone is happy.

Also... this thread has me worried about the meaning of Christmass!!! Consumerism at its worse.

I hate Chritmass

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:28:59 PM by Baff

Strangely enough most of the complaints about Christmas trees that I've seen have come from the religious.

No, not really. I don't really give a damn if people are upset. I'm sure the people who work in the buildings would be angry if they weren't allowed to put them up. You don't seem to realize that those places are boring as hell without decoration.

Seriously, people who get offended over Christmas trees can go suck it up. Nobody cares.

They can decorate their persoanl space at their offices.

But I dont think a lot of people work in the rotundas or the lawns of courthouses.

Besides... arent they on vacations, most of them???

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:30:39 PM by Baff

Free rollerblades? That's insane troll logic if I ever saw it, Baff.

You are, basically, having an overreaction to harmless decorations. Looking for things to be offended by.

Yes, Christmas displays are constitutional. Yes, they are ethical. In fact, it's not even an ethics questions; it's a temporary display that doesn't last past early January and is soon replaced with something else. And other religions can put up their displays in public spaces too. No one is preventing them from doing that. Atheists, also.

Also, vacation does not cover the entire fucking month of December for anyone, particularly state employees.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:31:31 PM by AceofSpades

Well, there had to be mass lawsuits for stuff like that, but whatever.

Technically their workspaces are public property, so under your own argument, no they couldn't.

The only two arguments you have going for you are "it's offensive" (nobody gives a shit) and "the Constitution!" (which is highly dubious).

Thats becuase you dont understand the concept of free speach or negative rights.

This pieces of decoration are religious propaganda. To you they are decorations because I assume you are Christian, but to some non christians they mean that the United States is a Chrisitan Nation when in fact its a secular nation.

First because your personal work space is not highly vicible. If I am a Nacar driver and I put a sticker of Dominos pizza in the inside of my helmet where no camara can see it then I cant be said to be sponsoring dominos pizza. But yea, In the broader office space, as in hallways or meeting rooms there should be no religious displays.

Also what bothers me is not that they are offensive. I am not offended by Christmass trees. I have one in my house right now.

I just see them as symbols of domination over us non beleivers (my father is very Christian so I dont mind him decorating my apartment. There is a crucifix and an image of the virigin Mary in my room) That is the whole concept of Separation of Church and State. If even one person in the public objects, then all this "decorations" should be removed, and I know that at least I do.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:37:30 PM by Baff

I'm agnostic, I understand the concept perfectly, and that's ludicrously stupid and absurd. Supreme Court decisions have already ruled that separation of church and state doesn't mean we need to purge religion from the public sphere, and you're essentially trying to leverage it to do exactly that. "I'm offended" isn't worth a flying fuck. Come back with a real argument and we'll talk.

Do you agree with all the rulings of the Supreme Court?

But you could put your own decorations out if you like! The point shouldn't be "No religious decorations are welcome", surely it should be "Decorations of all religions are equally welcome".

Nope. But I agree with that one, and you're trying to argue constitutional law. Well, the final arbiters of said constitutional law don't agree with you. As far as the Government of the United States of America is concerned, that means you lose. Have a nice day, insert coin to try again, please come again, goodbye.

If you read the rest of the thread you will find said topic to have been broadly discussed. Then you can draw your own conclussion.

Thats why I am not suing anybody. But when discussing docrtine, I can argue against said ruling from the constitution. I also ask if it is ehtical becuase I say that this Chrisitan symbols are symbols of domination and erode one of the founding principles of this country.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:42:11 PM by Baff

Which is absurd, thank you. "I'm offended" is not an argument. Gay people offend others too, should we take away their civil rights to appease the homophobes? Of course not, that's idiotic. And yet, religious people offend you, so you say that we should take away their civil rights to freedom of expression to appease you.

Yeah, no, that's not going to fly.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:53:18 PM by USAF713

I repeat I am not offended.

Now what I am about to say is purely my opinion. But the fact that this draw such heavy reactions is because... silly as it might sound... Christmass and holiday displays actually are actively indocrtinating. People develop an emotional bond to this symbols. When this symbols come under attack they react with anger. This if anything, proves that religious symbols in public spaces are indeed sponsoring said beleives. This would be alright if it wasnt for separation of church and state which prohibit said promotion.

Then there is the argument that christmass is secualar. Perhaps to a couple of Hindi, agnostics, atheist, jews... whatever... but to a large part of the population both Christian and not, Christmass is clearly Christian, thus, this is enought to say that the state is promoting a religion.

Same thing happens with the One Nation Under God promoting Monoteism, and excluding Atheism, Polytheism, and [[Get It?Get It? possibly agnosticism]] (it was a joke that last part)

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:50:51 PM by Baff

Of course we get angry—and mind you, I'm not even religious. You're essentially trying to regulate our festivities for no reason other than you think it's unhealthy, which is absurd. I say we should be allowed to put up trees, lights, menorahs, crosses, crescent moons, Satanic pentagrams, and whatever the hell else we like, so long as it's open to everyone.

You say it's harmful. Prove it. Come back with twenty years of psychological studies and we'll talk. Until then, stop trying to take away people's civil rights, and stop trying to make what's supposed to be festive a dull and spoiled time because everybody is mad at everyone else. It's annoying and uncalled for.

I highly doubt that Christmas decorations are going to convert atheists and hindus and Jews somehow. If it did, then they clearly didn't hold those beliefs closely enough for them to matter.

Everything he said. In this matter, he is right on target.

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:51:56 PM by AceofSpades

When you look at this typo beside all of Baff's, it's actually pretty hilarious

@Loni,

When I'm irritated I type faster and I don't spellcheck, and then stupid shit like that happens.

I dont need to prove anything because I am talking about public space. Yes this sounds rather harsh but you are wrong when you say I am traying to regulate you festivities

You can hold your festivity however you like... only that not in a public building. I personally think is unethical but... as Nietzche said God is death so that is subjective. My argumentations draws from separation of Chruch and State and the promotion of festivites erodes the secular character of the nation.

What are the drawbacks of having Christmass decoration removed?? Almost none!!! They have put christmass everywhere... even in our soups. On the other hand keeping those symbols is a statement on itself. The systemn is not as fair as you would have us believe USAF and its clearly biased in favour of Christianity because of comercial pressures and simple demographics. Thus it becomse a symbol of domination, that is why you get people who get confused and think that the US is a Christian Nation, and refure to let evolution be thought in schools, and deny Global Warming. Now I am not saying that people who endorse public displays of religion are either are idiot or ignorant... but that is one of the obligations of goverment to promote secularism within itself.

Yet... Our system has refused to give us this very minor concession... what does that say about the system???

edited 22nd Dec '11 9:58:03 PM by Baff

Blah blah blah, religion is bad, blah blah blah.

Also, "the system isn't fair." So what? Unemployment benefits don't work 100% correctly, so obviously we should just not have unemployment benefits, right? The solution to the problem is to fix it, not destroy the system. You're being absurd.

I have to agree with USAF.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:00:50 PM by TheProffesor

There are drawbacks to removing public Christmas decorations. People like them and would be upset if they went - and I think the number of people who would be upset if you take them away is bigger than the number who are upset that they are there.

I am not saying religion is bad. I even support you if you want to sacrifice a goat to almighty TOR.

I just ask of you, not to do it in public property, and not even in the wide sense of the word of "public property" but on a restrictive one.

Thus, the beliefs of the mayority get to be sponsored by the state, and the minorities get to annoy everyone by asking the goverment to set up public displays of their religion with our tax payer money.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:03:14 PM by Baff

Clarify on "restrictive"?