'Tis the season
It’s December so it must be time to start a fight over nativity scenes in public places.
This year’s disruption of Peace on Earth pits Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland against the Madison, Wis.-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, over the governor’s decision to allow manger scenes in state parks.
“Once the governor of Ohio enters into the religion business, conferring endorsement and preference for one religion over others, he strikes a blow at religious liberty by forcing taxpay-ers of all faiths and of no religion to support a particular expression of worship,” Annie Laurie Gaylor, foundation co-president, wrote last week in a letter to Ohio Inspector General Tom Charles.
That may be true – except that it is not what Strickland did.
The “religion business” Gaylor refers to was Strickland’s decision earlier last week to allow nativities in Shawnee State Park in Scioto County, and at Malabar Farm in Richland County. Both scenes have been displayed at the parks during the holiday seasons for years. This year they had been taken down on orders from the Ohio Department of Natural Resources because a vis-itor to Shawnee had filed a complaint, arguing that in the interest of not endorsing a particular religion, the park should have erected large figures representing Hinduism and Zorastrianism along with Jesus, Mary and Joseph.
I’d be all for that if any Hindus or Zorastrians made such a request, but they didn’t. Strickland said nativities were traditional holiday fare, just like Frosty and Santa Claus.
Well hardly, but that’s not really the point either.
This Wisconsin group not withstanding, the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.
Allowing a nativity scene in a public place is not an endorse-ment of religion. It is an ac-knowledgement that some peo-ple celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus. It only becomes a problem if the government forces people to follow that line of worship.
If the state is asked, it should allow Hindus, Zorastrians or anyone else to put up holiday displays in the parks as well. If the folks complaining from Madison really want freedom from religion, they should avert theire eyes.
posted by David Wells at 5:32 PM
28 Comments:
at 7:14 PM, December 17, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 7:58 AM, December 18, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:31 AM, December 18, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:38 AM, December 18, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:31 AM, December 18, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:58 AM, December 18, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 3:47 PM, December 18, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:34 AM, December 19, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:11 AM, December 19, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:01 PM, December 19, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:11 PM, December 19, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:50 PM, December 19, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:04 PM, December 19, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:54 PM, December 19, 2007 
David Wells said...
-
-
at 5:36 PM, December 19, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 5:50 AM, December 20, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 11:32 AM, December 20, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:21 PM, December 20, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:30 PM, December 20, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 2:40 PM, December 20, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6:19 AM, December 21, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:20 AM, December 21, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:44 AM, December 22, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 6:58 PM, December 23, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 8:59 AM, December 24, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 10:46 AM, December 26, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 1:55 PM, December 26, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
at 12:16 PM, December 29, 2007 
Anonymous said...
-
-
Post a Comment*you state:
Allowing a nativity scene in a public place is not an endorse-ment of religion. It is an ac-knowledgement that some peo-ple celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus. It only becomes a problem if the government forces people to follow that line of worship.
and that is exactly the issue. we have a president who diss'es science in favor of religion, and a republican slate for the presidential race next year that is spinning itself into the ground trying to prove one is more christian than the other. its time for the fundies to go crawl back under the rock from whence they came.
Who cares?
I disagree that there is a substantial difference between "Freedom of" religion and "Freedom from" religion.
What is the point at which my "freedom of" religion is violated by an overwhelming preponderance of the artifacts (Nativity scenes) of a single religion of which I am not a member? I would surely think that even the most conservative of us (on this issue) would recognize that the line was crossed when the governor of a state orders nativity scenes put up in public parks. It is even worse when he seems to disapprove of similar exhibits for minority religions.
I also think this is a very interesting issue in light of the current debate about the role of religion in the presidential race with Romney, Huckabee and others. Here we have a governor who is, for the most part, perceived as a "liberal," yet he can't free himself in his secular role from the dominance of his background as a minister.
If nothing else, we should all think about Strickland's example in terms of the current national political debate.
So, the Afgans should not have been freed "from" the Taliban (applying the US Constitution to Afghanistan) because the Taliban have freedom "of" religion.
You argument is silly. Also, linguistically, "of" and "from" just aren't that different in meaning in any context.
I couldn't find the details in the article, but I think the issue probably is whether or not someone asked to put up their display or if the park themselves put it up and paid for the scene. If the state paid for the scene, and the state employees put it up, then its a whole different issue. If the state is doing it, it needs to put up a whole holiday display, not just a ntivity scene.
Can you imagine what our parks would look like if we had representative scenes for every religion?? What a nightmare...
Let's face it people, the USA is a Christian nation. Celebrating Christmas is tradition and part of the American fabric. Those who are offended by Jesus are NOT open minded and should be treated as such. Telling someone "Merry Christmas" is a sign of good cheer and nothing else.
MERRY CHRISTMAS from The Pavelish Family
"freedom of" and "freedom from" are completely different.
Try on "freedom of speech" and claim that it is the equivalent of "freedom from speech" and see how dumb you sound .
Let's face it people, the USA is a Christian nation.
no. no. no. a thousand times no. it is ridiculous how often this lie is repeated. the usa has people who are christians living in it. just as it has people who are jewish or muslim or hindu or whatever or god forbid, atheist.
go back and read your history. our founding fathers were establish an economic system not a religous paradise.
The part of the First Amendment that all the Jesus haters want us to forget is this part:
"...NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..."
That means you do NOT have the right to STOP me from putting my privately-funded Nativity scene any place I want to, including public property. That's right!
When you refuse to allow me to freely exercise my right to worship when, where and to whom I please, you violate my First Amendment rights. PERIOD. If I want to pray on the courthouse steps, I will do so and you will NOT violate my rights by trying to stop me. I am free to worship God as I please as a private citizen ANYWHERE IN THIS COUNTRY, INCLUDING ALL PUBLIC AREAS!!!
It's high time we Christians put our collective foot down and put a stop to this abuse of our First Amendment rights. It's high time we Christians - Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, and every other religion who worships Jesus Christ as the Son of God - rose up as the largest body of American citizens and demand our right to worship where, when and how we please to be ENFORCED, not violated!
There is NO right to freedom FROM religion in our country. There is no Amendment that allows athiests and other people to deny us our right to worship JESUS CHRIST. If you don't like religion, that's your problem, and your personal right, but you have NO LEGAL RIGHT to stop me or any other Christian from worshipping as we please, or where we please. You may NOT PROHIBIT MY FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION. That IS my Constitutional right, and by God, I intend to keep it.
It's time we defended our faith in Jesus Christ and our right to worship Him with every bit as much vehemence and insistance that other religions defend their god. If other nations want to kill people for insulting their god, then we Christians MUST DEMAND the same respect for Jesus Christ. It is time for revival and to rise!
BZZZT, wrong 10:11 Dec. 19. This country was founded by Christian refugees who were thrown out of England because they refused to worship God as forced by law (in the Episcopal tradition). They were Puritans, or Quakers, and they were sent here; they didn't volunteer and they weren't adventurers...they did not come here to seek economic success, they came here to be free to worship God as they wanted. And when they got here, they made good and sure that this nation would never throw someone out or harrass them because they wanted to practice Catholicism, or Judiasm, or Islam, or any other religion which worships a Creator. And that's why we have the First Amendment.
One more thing...Christmas is not an English word...the literal translation of the word, which is Latin I think, is "Christ IS". So all you people out there celebrating Christmas are automatically acknowledging His existance. (That's why athiests want us to say Happy Holidays).
Just some education for you, as it's apparant you were not aware of the facts when you posted.
The fact that Christians feel the need to erect symbols of their beliefs absolutely everywhere already states "This is what [b]I[/b] believe and I would like to shove my ideas down your throat". There's no need to shout it.
Wow 12:01, I thought Hitler was in Agentina...
I'm going to try this, but, my guess is that it is too complex for your feeble intellect---the one that still worships a god out of fear of the unknown, like cave men who worshiped lightning for the same reason--
"...NOR PROHIBIT THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF..."
Your free exercise can reach the point (Nativity scenes on State Property) where it interfeers with MY free exercise thereof.
That's why the constitution is interpeted by federal judges. The interpretation of the portion of the first amendment that you quote has come to mean that display of religious symbols on Public Property is unconstitutional.
Judicial review has been around nearly as long as the Constitution.
Think of it this way, fellow MENSA Society member, the consitution and judicial review are like Rocky and Adrianne--they fill gaps.
I don't often comment on my own posts, but I'm always fascinated when people start interpreting history. While it is certainly true that several of the North American colonies were founded by peoples seeking freedom to practice their particular religion (Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania come to mind)there were some other, far more secular motivations to colonization.
Jamestown, for instance, was set up by the Virginia Company, a group of hardnose London investors who were looking to make money off the resources of the New World. The December issue of American Heritage has a good account of the early Jamestown colony, founded about 20 years before the Pilgrims ate their first Thanksgiving turkey up in Plymouth. The April edition reviews Benjamin Woolley’s book, Savage Kingdom: The True Story of Jamestown, 1607, and the Settlement of America.
What these accounts show is that commercial exploitation as well as religious fervor motivated America's "founders."
What IS it with people feeling the need to show their loyalties to their faith on every street corner? I thought religion was supposed to be a personal and private thing.
Or is it to show that yours is far superior than theirs??
reading 12:01's tirade its clear to see that sinclair lewis was correct when he stated:
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
Isn't it amazing how the ANTI Jesus people start to personally attack those who disagree with them. As I read some of the anti Christmas comments, I can see which side is bigoted, hate filled, and closed minded. Merry Christmas Cincinnati and God Bless America
Mr. Wells,
I'm the poster of the comment about the Quakers, and you are absolutely right in your post as well. This country was invaded by commercial exploiters as well as settled by religious refugees, yes. However, the point I was trying to make (and seem to have done badly) was that we are now teaching people that the ONLY reason this country was founded was for commercialism...the story of the Christian refugees, who created an act of gratitude and communal love that became a national holiday and who had a vital role in the formation of our country and government (as opposed to the exploiters, who had (and still have) no regard or respect for people anywhere), is being obliterated from schools everywhere, because if someone mentions "Jesus" or "God" in school, it's a supposed endorsement of religion. That's not only tragic, it's downright ridiculous. Tell the truth, folks! God had a role in the formation of this country's laws and rights, and they specifically mentioned God ('our Creator') in the documents that establish our rule of law in this land.
Students in public universities such as our own UC are offered studies in the Islamic Koran. How is this NOT an endorsement of religion? No Bible allowed? Then no Koran allowed, either. Can't have it both ways, sorry. (I do think UC offers studies in Christianity, but I don't know that, so I'll admit I'm not versed in the complete course offerings at UC.)
The majority of us vote for our government representatives from church fellowship halls. How is this separation of church and state? See how stupid this debate could become?
It's not religion that is the problem for athiests. It is specifically Christianity, and it is as illegal to restrict the free exercise thereof as it is for any other religion. I've no problem with seeing menorahs and buddhas...my faith in Jesus is not shaken by their sight, and I respect their right to exist, even if I do not follow their faith. That's what America is supposed to be about - the freedom to freely worship without restriction as one feels led.
"Allowing a nativity scene in a public place is not an endorse-ment of religion. It is an ac-knowledgement that some peo-ple celebrate Christmas as the birth of Jesus. It only becomes a problem if the government forces people to follow that line of worship." This is your quote, Mr. Wells, which I happen to agree with 150%. If a person is offended by any display of ANY faith, they should go elsewhere and not force those of faith to restrain themselves from their free expression of that faith as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We have plenty of parks and other public places where nothing is on display...the option to look at a display of faith is, as it should be, the free choice of the viewer. Refusing to allow those who choose to look the ability to do so is unconstitutional, in my opinion.
Hey 12:50 Dec 19...Hitler was an avowed athiest. He's one of your guys, not one of ours!
Also, the Supreme Court got it wrong, imho. That must be corrected, and I hope it is done soon. It's time to learn to read and interpret English plainly: Congress can't establish a religion and force people to worship, and they can't stop or establish restrictions limiting free worship as people please. Pretty clear to me. But then, I don't have the law degree and the ability to twist truth and double-speak, so that knocks me out of the Mensa Society, thankfully! :)
Oh no... now the anti-Christmas crusaders have brainwashed our President!
During his end-of-year press conference this morning, President Bush joined with “secular progressives” in the right wing’s contrived War on Christmas, wishing reporters a “Happy Holidays.”
Hitler was an avowed athiest.
I disagree. He was very much into the occult and much has been written about how the occult influenced the nazis. So, he did practice christianity, just the dark side of it.
FYI...just because one isn't a Christian doesn't automatically mean one doesn't believe in god or is an atheist. And just because one isn't enthralled with a nativity scene doesn't mean they are a Jesus-hater. Jesus was a great guy, gave many good life lessons. He's just not everyone's "savior". (Oh, and also, Hitler was raised Catholic and from some accounts proclaimed that he was "doing the Lord's work".)
"Hitler was an avowed athiest.
I disagree. He was very much into the occult and much has been written about how the occult influenced the nazis."
*****
OK...Christianity is the worship of God and the following of Jesus Christ.
The occult is the worship and following of Satan and the destruction of Jesus Christ.
They are direct opposites and enemies, not part of the same religion.
There is no dark side to Christianity. There is only a dark side when one rejects Christianity.
Hitler said many things. He lied.
NEXT...
"Jesus was a great guy, gave many good life lessons. He's just not everyone's "savior"."
*********
Actually, He IS everyone's Savior. Not everyone wants His gift, that's all; the beauty of Christianity is that it is a free choice for all to make, for or against. But Jesus indeed died and rose for everyone; that is a core tenet of the religion.
Wasn't this issue resolved in Cincy, with the Fountain Square Christmas display?
So if you don't believe that Jesus is your savior, then you are not the "chosen" people. To me, that's not the beauty of Christianity, that's the problem. If you believe that you are chosen because you've accepted "the gift", then you are special to god and I'm not. This makes you and your religion better than all others. This very idea is what causes (holy) wars...
I don't find it hard to believe that Hitler thought it was normal to wipe out an entire group of people when it's accounted for again and again in the bible. How many times did god "command" some prophet to "smite" the "unchosen" people?
8:59, 12/24, I'd like to explain something to you. You have made a mistake that is very common...you feel only certain people have been 'chosen' to be Christians. That's not so.
Let's use a car as an example. Someone tells you, "Here is a car for you. It is free; all you have to do is drive it; please keep it in running condition; it is yours. The choice to accept the gift or not is up to you."
Now you're not the only person being offered the car. Everyone is. Your spouse, your kids, your neighbors...everyone. There's cars for everyone, if you want them.
The choice to take the car or not is up to you; it's not a choice being made FOR you. You know it will require gas, oil, etc. and you make the decision for yourself if you want the car or not.
So...you refuse the gift of the car, then you want to complain you have nothing to ride in, and those who accepted the cars are awful people who were specially chosen to make your life miserable...well, this makes no logical sense, now does it? Of course not. People made their choices, the same as you have. Those who take the car know they must maintain it. And those who didn't take the car have chosen on their own to walk, or find another way.
OK...the car is Christ's salvation. It is a free gift for everyone, not just some who have been pre-selected (this ain't a credit card, after all). Those who accept the gift of salvation know it requires the maintenance of prayer, control of their behavior, adherence to the teachings of Christianity, etc. And those who have chosen against the gift cannot complain when they do not receive the same benefits as those who have chosen to accept the gift. Hey, you made your choice.
No one is forcing you to choose one way or the other in this day and age; lessons have been learned from history in this area. What we are requiring, however, is respect for those of us who have made the decision; it was a choice we had a right to make.
The gift is being offered to you. Jesus is offering His love and salvation to you. Personally, I couldn't live without Christ, but that's my free choice. I hope you'll think long and hard before you make your choice, and choose wisely.
Merry Christmas, everyone.
"And those who have chosen against the gift cannot complain when they do not receive the same benefits as those who have chosen to accept the gift."
The mistake is assuming that I'm a bad person because I don't have a list of rules in which to run my life, therefore I don't have a shot at "the benefits" (heaven, I'm assuming) like you do. There are many, many good people out there that don't need a list to be a good person (and some that DO have this list are not anyway). So the issue is not whether we are going to heaven because we choose to live a good life, it's whether we attend your church and believe what you do about Jesus.
I WAS a catholic for 30 years and I know what it's all about...I've made my choice.
I hate public debate/arguing over religion. It's vulgar.
I always think it's very sad when missionaries are killed or kidnapped, but I understand why it happens.
* Our online blogs currently are hosted and operated by a third party, namely, Blogger.com. You are now leaving the Cincinnati.Com website and will be linked to Blogger.com's registration page. The Blogger.com site and its associated services are not controlled by Cincinnati.Com and different terms of use and privacy policy will apply to your use of the Blogger.com site and services.
By proceeding and/or registering with Blogger.com you agree and understand that Cincinnati.Com is not responsible for the Blogger.com site you are about to access or for any service you may use while on the Blogger.com site. << Home