• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

More of OT's buddies fighting the "holier than thous&qu

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The city of Santa Monica has allowed an elaborate nativity scene in its Palisades Park each Christmas for nearly 60 years, but officials are ending the tradition this year after an atheist set up his own non-religious display and caused an uproar.

Now, the churches behind the nativity are suing in federal court and claim the city violated their freedom of speech by stopping the holiday tradition.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/18/fight-over-nativity-scene-in-santa-monica-heads-to-court/
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The city of Santa Monica has allowed an elaborate nativity scene in its Palisades Park each Christmas for nearly 60 years, but officials are ending the tradition this year after an atheist set up his own non-religious display and caused an uproar.

Now, the churches behind the nativity are suing in federal court and claim the city violated their freedom of speech by stopping the holiday tradition.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/18/fight-over-nativity-scene-in-santa-monica-heads-to-court/

On public owned property either allow all displays- or allow none... Government should not be choosing which sect or belief should have preference....Altho I agree that 60 years precedence should probably have priority of first choice on location- I'm sure someone thru spiteful competition could cause problems-- so banning all is probably the only way left to go.......
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The city of Santa Monica has allowed an elaborate nativity scene in its Palisades Park each Christmas for nearly 60 years, but officials are ending the tradition this year after an atheist set up his own non-religious display and caused an uproar.

Now, the churches behind the nativity are suing in federal court and claim the city violated their freedom of speech by stopping the holiday tradition.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/18/fight-over-nativity-scene-in-santa-monica-heads-to-court/

On public owned property either allow all displays- or allow none... Government should not be choosing which sect or belief should have preference....Altho I agree that 60 years precedence should probably have priority of first choice on location- I'm sure someone thru spiteful competition could cause problems-- so banning all is probably the only way left to go.......


so you'd be okay with removing all crosses from a military cemetry and all Christian symbols off governmnet buildings?


Remove all historical remnants that might offend...is that what you are saying?
 

Steve

Well-known member
In 2011, Vix recruited 10 others to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays such as an homage to the "Pastafarian religion," which would include an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

The city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames, the City of the Christmas Story.

The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christians' right to free speech.

equal representation is not the question here.. it is allowing one man and ten friends to dominate and disparage religion over the will of the rest of the citizens..

What is really sad..

avowed atheist Damon Vix in his home in Burbank, Calif.

the jerk doesn't even live in Santa Monica..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/11/18/fight-over-nativity-scene-in-santa-monica-heads-to-court/

On public owned property either allow all displays- or allow none... Government should not be choosing which sect or belief should have preference....Altho I agree that 60 years precedence should probably have priority of first choice on location- I'm sure someone thru spiteful competition could cause problems-- so banning all is probably the only way left to go.......


so you'd be okay with removing all crosses from a military cemetry and all Christian symbols off governmnet buildings?


Remove all historical remnants that might offend...is that what you are saying?

Nope- but just like the military cemeteries like Arlington which allow Stars of David, Star and Crescents, Wheel of Dharma, Angel Moroni, Hindu Om , Wiccan Pentacle, etc., etc. as well as Christian Cross's on military gravestones (over 50 authorized symbols) then in public/government areas where you are going to place religious symbols you are going to have to be ready to accomodate all ...
 

Steve

Well-known member
then in public/government areas where you are going to place religious symbols you are going to have to be ready to accommodate all ...

under the Santa Monica atheist rule, for every two Christian memorials and one Jewish memorial there has to be 18 mocking them.. :?

that is not accommodation..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Nope- but just like the military cemeteries like Arlington which allow Stars of David, Star and Crescents, Wheel of Dharma, Angel Moroni, Hindu Om , Wiccan Pentacle, etc., etc. as well as Christian Cross's on military gravestones (over 50 authorized symbols) then in public/government areas where you are going to place religious symbols you are going to have to be ready to accomodate all ...


OT, we know you are an ACLU supporter and what they fight, you support.




The ACLU has already filed suit to remove crosses at veterans' memorials, like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego and the Sunrise Rock cross in the Mojave Desert, which is now covered by a box.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Nope- but just like the military cemeteries like Arlington which allow Stars of David, Star and Crescents, Wheel of Dharma, Angel Moroni, Hindu Om , Wiccan Pentacle, etc., etc. as well as Christian Cross's on military gravestones (over 50 authorized symbols) then in public/government areas where you are going to place religious symbols you are going to have to be ready to accomodate all ...


OT, we know you are an ACLU supporter and what they fight, you support.




The ACLU has already filed suit to remove crosses at veterans' memorials, like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego and the Sunrise Rock cross in the Mojave Desert, which is now covered by a box.

While I'm not a believer in removing anything already there- I do think bans of future building/placements on public/government property is the only way that will meet SCOTUS approval...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
Nope- but just like the military cemeteries like Arlington which allow Stars of David, Star and Crescents, Wheel of Dharma, Angel Moroni, Hindu Om , Wiccan Pentacle, etc., etc. as well as Christian Cross's on military gravestones (over 50 authorized symbols) then in public/government areas where you are going to place religious symbols you are going to have to be ready to accomodate all ...


OT, we know you are an ACLU supporter and what they fight, you support.




The ACLU has already filed suit to remove crosses at veterans' memorials, like the Mt. Soledad cross in San Diego and the Sunrise Rock cross in the Mojave Desert, which is now covered by a box.

While I'm not a believer in removing anything already there- I do think bans of future building/placements on public/government property is the only way that will meet SCOTUS approval...


so you believe in the government restricting freedom of speech and the establishment of religion?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
OT, we know you are an ACLU supporter and what they fight, you support.

While I'm not a believer in removing anything already there- I do think bans of future building/placements on public/government property is the only way that will meet SCOTUS approval...


so you believe in the government restricting freedom of speech and the establishment of religion?

Government should not be giving any preference to any religion...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
While I'm not a believer in removing anything already there- I do think bans of future building/placements on public/government property is the only way that will meet SCOTUS approval...


so you believe in the government restricting freedom of speech and the establishment of religion?

Government should not be giving any preference to any religion...


where does it saying anything about "preference" in the Constitution?

If one religion is determined to destroy the US, should governmnet protect against that destruction, or treat all religions the same?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
so you believe in the government restricting freedom of speech and the establishment of religion?

Government should not be giving any preference to any religion...


where does it saying anything about "preference" in the Constitution?

If one religion is determined to destroy the US, should governmnet protect against that destruction, or treat all religions the same?

A lot of things were left unsaid in the writing of the Constitution... The founding fathers were kind of slackers and slouchers and didn't tell us how to oversee e-mails-- or handle video copyrights- regulate major medical insurance-- or regulate internet stalkers-- but much of this has had to evolve over the years thru the basic principles and tenets they set forward....

And one of those tenets that evolved is that there is to be no state/government religion- nor should any religion or any person be discriminated against or given special privileges...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
A lot of things were left unsaid in the writing of the Constitution... The founding fathers were kind of slackers and slouchers and didn't tell us how to oversee e-mails-- or handle video copyrights- regulate major medical insurance-- or regulate internet stalkers-- but much of this has had to evolve over the years thru the basic principles and tenets they set forward....

And one of those tenets that evolved is that there is to be no state/government religion- nor should any religion or any person be discriminated against or given special privileges...


If only they had described how to lie about a video being the motivation behind a terrorist attack, eh?


and the Constitution says nothing about not promoting one religion over another. it does say something about establishing a religion, as in the Church of England.

I trust you will be celebrating thanksgiving, correct?



George Washington proclaimed the first nation-wide thanksgiving celebration in America marking November 26, 1789, "as a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favours of Almighty God"

President Abraham Lincoln proclaimed a national day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens,"
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One of the questions on the subject of religious symbolism and government that I have been wondering about for sometime- is how would Romney- a Mormon- have accepted some of this symbolism if elected President...

Mormons don't recognize the cross as a symbol of their religion (they worship the living Christ) -- do not portray it in their churchs or temples-- and from what I understand some outright consider it offensive and oppose it...

Would have been interesting....
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
One of the questions on the subject of religious symbolism and government that I have been wondering about for sometime- is how would Romney- a Mormon- have accepted some of this symbolism if elected President...

Mormons don't recognize the cross as a symbol of their religion (they worship the living Christ) -- do not portray it in their churchs or temples-- and from what I understand some outright consider it offensive and oppose it...

Would have been interesting....


Romney kept his religion separate from his governing. That was a proven, with him being Gov.

How has obama kept his muslim religion separate from his governing?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
One of the questions on the subject of religious symbolism and government that I have been wondering about for sometime- is how would Romney- a Mormon- have accepted some of this symbolism if elected President...

Mormons don't recognize the cross as a symbol of their religion (they worship the living Christ) -- do not portray it in their churchs or temples-- and from what I understand some outright consider it offensive and oppose it...

Would have been interesting....


Romney kept his religion separate from his governing. That was a proven, with him being Gov.

How has obama kept his muslim religion separate from his governing?

Seems he kept it quite separate-- he attends an Evangelical Church... :roll: :wink: :lol:
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
One of the questions on the subject of religious symbolism and government that I have been wondering about for sometime- is how would Romney- a Mormon- have accepted some of this symbolism if elected President...

Mormons don't recognize the cross as a symbol of their religion (they worship the living Christ) -- do not portray it in their churchs or temples-- and from what I understand some outright consider it offensive and oppose it...

Would have been interesting....


Romney kept his religion separate from his governing. That was a proven, with him being Gov.

How has obama kept his muslim religion separate from his governing?

Seems he kept it quite separate-- he attends an Evangelical Church... :roll: :wink: :lol:

not very often. I have had the chance to attend Catholic services a few times...and that didn't make me a Catholic.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
One of the questions on the subject of religious symbolism and government that I have been wondering about for sometime- is how would Romney- a Mormon- have accepted some of this symbolism if elected President...

Mormons don't recognize the cross as a symbol of their religion (they worship the living Christ) -- do not portray it in their churchs or temples-- and from what I understand some outright consider it offensive and oppose it...

Would have been interesting....


Romney kept his religion separate from his governing. That was a proven, with him being Gov.

How has obama kept his muslim religion separate from his governing?

Seems he kept it quite separate-- he attends an Evangelical Church... :roll: :wink: :lol:


so he's either one of those "holier than thous" that you like to criticize, or he's lieing again.

but that does not answer the question of his muslim upbringing affecting his policy decisions.

You believe that a Republican's religious upbringing will affect his policy decisions, correct?

Probably more likely to have a "war on women" and try to affect other social issues, correct?

Then why not obama and his religious upbringing, as a muslim, or a Christian?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
Oldtimer said:
hypocritexposer said:
Romney kept his religion separate from his governing. That was a proven, with him being Gov.

How has obama kept his muslim religion separate from his governing?

Seems he kept it quite separate-- he attends an Evangelical Church... :roll: :wink: :lol:


so he's either one of those "holier than thous" that you like to criticize, or he's lieing again.

but that does not answer the question of his muslim upbringing affecting his policy decisions.

You believe that a Republican's religious upbringing will affect his policy decisions, correct?

Probably more likely to have a "war on women" and try to affect other social issues, correct?

Then why not obama and his religious upbringing, as a muslim, or a Christian?

I think Romneys religiious upbringing may have been great for the Republican Party- and introduced some more tolerance to not only differing religions - but also to other issues where folks think differently....Seems like for so long much of the rightwing ran and hid their head in the sand in fear of the issues/beliefs that are unknowns to them...And automatically declared they were bad... Hopefully they learned that even folks that don't worship the cross are no danger to them...

I think Obamas upbringing in multiple culture areas where faiths such as Muslim, both Protestant and Catholic Christianity, Buddhism, Hindu, Judaism, Mormon, and numerous other religions prevailed is also broadening the tolerance factor of many people in the US (altho I don't think most Obama supporters needed the broadening as much as the Repub crew does)....Many of them have been much more open and receptive to folks that think/look a little differently for quite some time...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
but those same supporters of obama don't like crosses placed around town, for nativity scenes, and that's how you like it, correct?

You sure are a tolerant bunch of liberals.

:lol:


Liberals are not tolerant. and it doesn't matter how much you try to lie or misrepresent.

I don't consider myself a Christian, but I have no problem with Christians doing what they do. and I'mn not going to go to court to stop them.

And I respect them for their beliefs, which you do not. You degrade them and belittle them. That's bigotry.

I practice tolerance, you practice bigotry. Except when it comes to radical islam, then you blame the victim, of bigotry.
 
Top