[Hindsite]

The Court decided in 1989 (in Allegheny County v. ACLU) that it is unconstitutional to erect a nativity scene on public property.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The Court decided in 1989 (in Allegheny County v. ACLU) that it is unconstitutional to erect a nativity scene on public property.

It decided that having a nativity scene on its own in a courthouse was unconstitutional. In the same time, it said a Christmas tree, a sign "saluting liberty" and a Hannukah symbol together were OK, because that wasn't favouring one religion over all others (or none). So, yeah, it said Christianity doesn't have a special privilege in the running of the USA. That's good, isn't it? Aren't religions about getting people to choose to be moral, not forcing one particular version on them even if they don't choose it?

I have to ask, what the fuck was a nativity scene doing inside a courthouse in the first place? That's somewhere that should be bending over backwards to be impartial. It's not there to make people warm and fuzzy with a cute model baby.

[One Degree]

It decided that having a nativity scene on its own in a courthouse was unconstitutional. In the same time, it said a Christmas tree, a sign "saluting liberty" and a Hannukah symbol together were OK, because that wasn't favouring one religion over all others (or none). So, yeah, it said Christianity doesn't have a special privilege in the running of the USA. That's good, isn't it? Aren't religions about getting people to choose to be moral, not forcing one particular version on them even if they don't choose it?

I have to ask, what the fuck was a nativity scene doing inside a courthouse in the first place? That's somewhere that should be bending over backwards to be impartial. It's not there to make people warm and fuzzy with a cute model baby.

Tell me where this is being demanded except in Western countries? Are you demanding it in Iran or even Latin America? The division of state and church was not intended to discourage Christian traditions. This is just another deliberate distortion forced upon us by a court representing a minority over the majority.

[Pants-of-dog]

I do not really think that is the case. I think you have a major disconnect between how a discussion is conducted.

If you said that "white nationalism is the face of white fragility," I would understand what was meant by it, and I would take the statement in a charitable sense... That is to say, I would not say that you were saying every single instance of white nationalism is white fragility related, because surely a rational person would recognize that there might be some people who aren't even white but are white nationalist (and thus would not have white fragility), or that some people might actually have very steady temperaments and have a very rationalized white nationalism, or that South African white nationalists might not be speaking from a point of view of white fragility, or that some white nationalism isn't simply inherited and from a longer pedigree...

It would be a statement meant to garner discussion.

Much like a statement that "Islamophobia is just a scare word meant to pathologize nationalism." Of course, I did not mean that literally it was invented with this explicit purpose, or that in every instance it behaves in that manner, but just like a statement like "Trump supporters are racist," it is a statement meant to provide some general overview of what Islamophobia is in the context relevant to what we are discussing.

For very similar reasons, a statement like "Women don't grow beards" is a true, acceptable statement but one that can have a variety of strange exceptions.

The problem with using overly strict and overly caveated language is that it becomes an inhibitor to the natural flow of discussion, right.

Right, I am sure that such things do exist. I am also sure that there are some people that have really unsophisticated, knee jerk reactions to Islam that are repugnant.

I am not that interested in that because I do not think it is relevant.

You take legitimate criticisms of the role that Islam is having in Europe & America and then call it Islamophobia, which is really just derailing all discussion.

So, of course, I am disinterseted in unrelated events. Feel free to make a thread about it, though.

This is my favorite moment of your post:

Even sophisticated and proper criticisms can suddenly be Islamophobia and we can assume that the only intention is to oppress people and take away their land and resources.

Because you make these kinds of statements about your opponent, you are an extremist.

Merriam Webster defines extremism as:

Wouldn't you agree that it is extreme to view people critical of Islam as seeking to oppress people and take away their land and resources?

Because that is what it feels like you are doing in a lot of these threads -- you are assuming a nefarious motive as opposed to a legitimate desire to critique something.

It's a unique building whose role would be something like the Mayor's House or the Governor's Mansion, right.

To some degree it is a public building, and to another degree it is not so much.

I think that a Nativity display at a court house or a post office would be a relevant measure.

This is a lot of writing with no argument.

Let us start from the beginning.

Are you claiming that Sweden cancelled a Christmas concert because of immigration and Muslims? Yes or no?

[Verv]

I have to ask, what the fuck was a nativity scene doing inside a courthouse in the first place? That's somewhere that should be bending over backwards to be impartial. It's not there to make people warm and fuzzy with a cute model baby.

I guess you could say that these are traditionally displayed because the bulk of Americans are Christians (for two centuries it would have been around 97% or better of Americans were born into Christian households), and they have valued their association with Christianity...

So, they tend to support Christian holidays and seek to celebrate them.

How is any of this confusing?

Your only move here is appealing to the intense secularism that the youth feel...

religion? What? Come ON! What's that gotta do with anything, y'know? Take it down, of course... But, come on, what does removing Nativity scenes have to do with, like, removing Christmas from our life, right? It's just a thing that we have to do...

[Verv]

This is a lot of writing with no argument.

Let us start from the beginning.

Are you claiming that Sweden cancelled a Christmas concert because of immigration and Muslims? Yes or no?

No, you should address the content of my post.

If I treated your post the same way that you treated mine, you would rightfully be outraged and would spend the rest of the thread saying stuff like this is the third time I am asking you to address this.

Play by your own rules, bud.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

I guess you could say that these are traditionally displayed because the bulk of Americans are Christians (for two centuries it would have been around 97% or better of Americans were born into Christian households), and they have valued their association with Christianity...

So, they tend to support Christian holidays and seek to celebrate them.

How is any of this confusing?

Because it's a court. It's not there to build communities, it's not there to make people feel good about the councillors they elected last time. It's there to apply the law, not make you go "ooh, that's cute". A self-respecting court (eg one in England, where Christianity is officially part of the state) wouldn't touch a nativity scene with a bargepole. How many children hang out at the courts? It's not a shopping mall.

Tell me where this is being demanded except in Western countries? Are you demanding it in Iran or even Latin America? The division of state and church was not intended to discourage Christian traditions. This is just another deliberate distortion forced upon us by a court representing a minority over the majority.

The division of church and state was indeed intended to discourage the state from pushing Christian traditions (with their thinking at the time being that not all Christians agree on the suitability of such traditions. Some Christians saw fuss over Christmas as idolatrous). Your American majority still wants the First Amendment, unchanged, so you have to live with your courts actually applying it.

[One Degree]

Because it's a court. It's not there to build communities, it's not there to make people feel good about the councillors they elected last time. It's there to apply the law, not make you go "ooh, that's cute". A self-respecting court (eg one in England, where Christianity is officially part of the state) wouldn't touch a nativity scene with a bargepole. How many children hang out at the courts? It's not a shopping mall.


The division of church and state was indeed intended to discourage the state from pushing Christian traditions (with their thinking at the time being that not all Christians agree on the suitability of such traditions. Some Christians saw fuss over Christmas as idolatrous). Your American majority still wants the First Amendment, unchanged, so you have to live with your courts actually applying it.

You are using a loose definition of ‘state’ to justify your reasoning. The purpose was the Federal government would not impose religion. The thought never crossed their minds some ‘self righteous fools’ would apply this to local schools and local government buildings. These things were not considered part of federal authority, and the arguments up until the conclusion of the civil war clearly demonstrate this.

[Pants-of-dog]

No, you should address the content of my post.

Most of it has already been addressed by me in this thread. You simply repeated a lot of what I said, but less concisely.

If I treated your post the same way that you treated mine, you would rightfully be outraged and would spend the rest of the thread saying stuff like this is the third time I am asking you to address this.

Play by your own rules, bud.

Okay.

Islamophobia is not just a scare word used to shut down criticism of Islam. Your OP source and the Gatestone Institute also use it further ideological ends. And Muslims have to deal with bigotry and discrimination often.

Again, I am simply repeating what I already said.

And it is not extremist to say that western countires use Islamophobia to rationalise their invasions of MENA countries and make these military interventions accpetable to the masses.

Again, this is also me repeating my points because I have already addressed all of this.

Now, do you or do you not think that the Swedes cancelled their Christmas concert because of immigrants?

[skinster]

[Prosthetic Conscience]

These things were not considered part of federal authority, and the arguments up until the conclusion of the civil war clearly demonstrate this.

So the tradition you look to and want to preserve is that which lost your civil war, ie the slaveowners. Great. In that fabled society built on slavery, people were also AOK with states favouring one form of religion over another. Can you see a connection here?

[One Degree]

So the tradition you look to and want to preserve is that which lost your civil war, ie the slaveowners. Great. In that fabled society built on slavery, people were also AOK with states favouring one form of religion over another. Can you see a connection here?

Yes, the connection is ‘local autonomy’ and our country was founded on it. The current view that equality requires uniformity is a misunderstanding of equality that leads to authoritarianism. Many of us see this as a dangerous path that must be corrected. We are accused of racism by those who refuse to recognize the danger of uniformity. This is why you brought slavery up. You want to make it about racism, when it isn’t. You can’t understand that we have gone beyond these temporary measures to deal with race and must now abandon these outdated concepts for different concepts that recognize our differences without making racial inferences from it. I don’t want my community to be exactly like every other community and race has nothing to do with it. I simply want my community to make it’s own decisions again now that racism is not a priority.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

The current view that equality requires uniformity is a misunderstanding of equality that leads to authoritarianism.

So, much better for the state to not favour any religion. That way, there's no requirement of uniformity. If your community favours one form of one religion, it runs the risk of being like another community. Leave religion up to individuals, rather than the state, and it won't be authoritarian.

I mentioned slavery because you brought the civil war up. You call slavery "temporary measures to deal with race"; that's extraordinary. Why can't you accept that slavery was wrong? Wh y did race "need dealing with" before the civil war?

[One Degree]

So, much better for the state to not favour any religion. That way, there's no requirement of uniformity. If your community favours one form of one religion, it runs the risk of being like another community. Leave religion up to individuals, rather than the state, and it won't be authoritarian.

Ideally this would be correct, but the world doesn’t operate on idealism. If a community is 95% Muslim then it is silly to pretend that is not part of the culture. Laws reflect culture, so the 5% will get the short end of the stick whether you formalize religion as part of the community or not. Again, this is why I prefer local autonomy so the 5% have some place else to go if they choose.

I mentioned slavery because you brought the civil war up. You call slavery "temporary measures to deal with race"; that's extraordinary. Why can't you accept that slavery was wrong? Wh y did race "need dealing with" before the civil war?

No, the civil rights movement was the temporary measures. The laws are now all passed and people have accepted it. It is time to move on and quit living in a past that no longer exists. It is dividing us again because it was pushed past it’s expiration point.

[Verv]

@One Degree , I have learned to think of the rote secularism as less of an ideal.

Due to the way society is now, it's almost like these 'secular' rules exist only to erode culture and fight against tradition.

Everyone knows that having a Nativity scene at a courthouse doesn't bother anybody. Indeed, it is such an unobtrusive act it is hard to imagine it "influencing" any one in any way other than making most people generally happy, including even many secular and non-Christian people that enjoy decorations. The only people actually upset are those who are actively working against Western tradition and culture, right.

How much easier would it be if there was no explicit separation of church & state, and we got our nativity scenes and our Holidays remained traditional. How much easier would the lives of many people be if they had proper Christian instruction as well.

It is kind of a no-no to deny the wishes of the Founding Fathers among Americans, but I have spent my entire adult life outside of the US and I feel less inclined to the hard secularism that is being pushed, and view this as just the illegitimate heir of the toned down secularism of the Founders at Philadelphia. I really see no reason why this is the ideal model that we should pursue.

But hey, it doesn't really matter. My position can never exist in the US legally in our lifetimes. Just an observation.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

It is time to move on and quit living in a past that no longer exists.

What, like building dinky little models each year to recreate a myth told two thousand years ago? It's hilarious that someone advocating that courts waste their time telling a children's story to adults is accusing others of "living in a past that no longer exists".

[One Degree]

What, like building dinky little models each year to recreate a myth told two thousand years ago? It's hilarious that someone advocating that courts waste their time telling a children's story to adults is accusing others of "living in a past that no longer exists".

Everyone has something they cling to larger than themselves, except the permanently miserable who believe they are above it all. Religion makes life bearable for billions. Why would anyone want to deprive them of it?
There isn’t much difference between believing in a personal afterlife and living on through children. It is just something we frail humans need.

[Pants-of-dog]

I have learned to think of the rote secularism as less of an ideal.

Due to the way society is now, it's almost like these 'secular' rules exist only to erode culture and fight against tradition.

Everyone knows that having a Nativity scene at a courthouse doesn't bother anybody. Indeed, it is such an unobtrusive act it is hard to imagine it "influencing" any one in any way other than making most people generally happy, including even many secular and non-Christian people that enjoy decorations. The only people actually upset are those who are actively working against Western tradition and culture, right.

This is an unverifiable claim. What I mean by that is there is no way that you can know this is true, nor is there any way to check.

You are simply assuming a motive for anyone who disagrees with you.

It may even be true, but it would not support your claim that secularism exists only to erode culture or fight against tradition.

How much easier would it be if there was no explicit separation of church & state, and we got our nativity scenes and our Holidays remained traditional. How much easier would the lives of many people be if they had proper Christian instruction as well.

We tried government imposed Christianity here in Canada. It did not go well at all.

It is kind of a no-no to deny the wishes of the Founding Fathers among Americans, but I have spent my entire adult life outside of the US and I feel less inclined to the hard secularism that is being pushed, and view this as just the illegitimate heir of the toned down secularism of the Founders at Philadelphia. I really see no reason why this is the ideal model that we should pursue.

But hey, it doesn't really matter. My position can never exist in the US legally in our lifetimes. Just an observation.

Yes, it is almost certain that the first amendment will still be a thing for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, things should not be supported simply because they are traditional. In the USA, it has been traditional to kill indigenous people on sight, enslave blacks, not let women vote, ban Christmas, etc.

[skinster]

Christmas 2018: Iran and Syria show respect, Israel and Saudi Arabia don't

[Rancid]

I propose we rename Christmas to ChristCon. This should help attract tech savy millennial.