It seems governor Swartzenegger has decide to, gulp, cover your eyes---- bring back the Christmas tree! oh the horror! the PC name "holiday tree" bestowed by the ousted governor Gray Davis is no more. I know it is a day of infamy and outrage for a lot of you out there, but its a good day for me. this hysterical reaction to all things religious is getting out of hand. Remember people, its freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

NOT A CHRISTMAS TREE!!! ::hides under a rock::

Seriously, I have never had a problem with Christmas trees in parks and such. Christmas is enough of a secular holiday for it not to really matter. The only time I would have a problem with it is if a Jewish group wanted to put up a giant menorah in a park or something, and the government would not let them.

Everyone, including Jews, Muslims, and atheists, can enjoy Christmas and the beauty of Christmas lights, trees, and such.

Originally posted by Travh20
the PC name "holiday tree" bestowed by the ousted governor Gray Davis is no more.

Holiday tree? That is one nutty state you live in Trav. In any event, I'm always amazed by the number of people that don't so much care about the substance of what's happening, they only care what it's called.

Oh the humanity!!!

Will California ever be able to recover from this? :D

this christmas treee is a sanctioned attaction at the state capitol.

I also heard on the news that Gov Schwarzenegger will preside over the lighting of the official Menorah.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/03/12/images/Schwarzenegger_menorah.jpg


This is all very good news for lovers of religious liberty. :thumbs:

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
I also heard on the news that Gov Schwarzenegger will preside over the lighting of the official Menorah......This is all very good news for lovers of religious liberty. :thumbs:

Seems it would be better news for those who want to have their particular brand of 'religion' officially sanctioned by the government.

No government at ANY level has any business lauding a religion, [IOW, like a State governor holding the icon of a particular religion aloft and grinning like he's victorious] because they will always be doing it to the exclusion of some OTHER religion.

The promotion of bigotry and exclusionism by the State is something that ought to be studiously avoided, not applauded.

Originally posted by Freethinker

The promotion of bigotry and exclusionism by the State is something that ought to be studiously avoided, not applauded.

How is acknowledging religion promoting religion? Are you saying that the government should pretend that it doesn't exist?

I believe the Christmas tree is great.
Seems like most people, that celebrate Christmas for a time of sharing and giving, are enjoying a festive time of the year more than a religious holiday. A time of year when the hum-drum of everyday life gives way to a magical, light-hearted wish for better relationships between people. Have at it. Enjoy this time of year!

Originally posted by Freethinker
Seems it would be better news for those who want to have their particular brand of 'religion' officially sanctioned by the government.

No government at ANY level has any business lauding a religion, [IOW, like a State governor holding the icon of a particular religion aloft and grinning like he's victorious] because they will always be doing it to the exclusion of some OTHER religion.

The promotion of bigotry and exclusionism by the State is something that ought to be studiously avoided, not applauded.

http://www.rotzkotzen.com/webseite/funstuff/bilder/sonstiges/STFU.jpg

There's something strangely satisfying about that response...

:)

lol

Originally posted by box19
There's something strangely satisfying about that response...

:)

Especially when used appropriately, as it was in this case.

Even I thought that one was funny. Well played, Trav. :)

thanks borg, it is my crowning achievment in allforums. and just hink, it only took 6464 posts. hey look at that, I am still beating you!

Originally posted by Travh20
hey look at that, I am still beating you!
:hitout:

Originally posted by Travh20
thanks borg, it is my crowning achievment in allforums.

I agree completely.

Posting a pic saying --"Shut the Fuck UP" is about as deep or compelling an argument as you are able to make.

My congratulations.

A simplistic, puerile response such as that is an accurate representation of the mindset of Conservatives in America today;

""I cannot refute the criticism you bring to bear, I have no excuse for the destructive anti-human agenda my Neo-Con Party is pursuing , I have no defense for the Religious Right's attempts to shove its sanctimonious, Holier-Than-Thou worldview down everyone's throat, so......uhhh.....uhhhhh......errr..... "Shut the Fuck UP!"

Originally posted by LionelHutz
How is acknowledging religion promoting religion?

When the highest elected officials in the land stand up with religious icons held victoriously aloft, with the gleam of the True Believer in their eyes, what ELSE can it be perceived by the Public to be but the promotion of religious belief?!

I do not believe the State should take a position on belief in the supernatural in ANY form.....and I think Jefferson and Paine, as evidenced by their writings, felt the same way.

Originally posted by LionelHutz
Are you saying that the government should pretend that it doesn't exist?

Ideally, the State should avoid the appearance of officially recognizing or santioning any particular religion.

That way, one religion or group of religions is never seen as being the prefered religion of the State.....which is what the founding Father's primary concern was in the first place, I believe.

Originally posted by Freethinker
Posting a pic saying --"Shut the Fuck UP" is about as deep or compelling an argument as you are able to make.

And it's far more deep and compelling than any argument you've been able to make at allforums.

Better consult your mentor for more help on your "Free thinking":

http://www.spacejay.com/Evidence/Alien-Fotos/alien-37.jpg

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

Better consult your mentor...

Let's recap.

I do not have a "mentor", omnipotent or otherwise.

You OTOH do claim to be guided by and watched over by a supernatural entity.

Fair enough, Free. It was a joke. However you cite as a source someone who does claim to be represented by some kind of "beings", whether they be aliens or angels or something else, she does not say.

It's inconsistent of you to deny the existence of God, and then to turn around and cite Acarya S as a trusted source.

When the highest elected officials in the land stand up with religious icons held victoriously aloft, with the gleam of the True Believer in their eyes, what ELSE can it be perceived by the Public to be but the promotion of religious belief?!

Arnold isn't even Jewish, yet you think he is "endorsing" judaism by lighting a Menorah? Get real.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck

It's inconsistent of you to deny the existence of God, and then to turn around and cite Acarya S as a trusted source.

Negative.

You and i would likely agree that Acarya S's fixation with aliens is irrational, but that does not mean it is impossible for her to have a clear idea of and assessment of religious beliefs.

Originally posted by Freethinker
You and i would likely agree that Acarya S's fixation with aliens is irrational, but that does not mean it is impossible for her to have a clear idea of and assessment of religious beliefs.

But it does mean, as I said, that you are inconsistent in considering her a trusted source when you deny the supernatural.

Originally posted by UnCoolDuck
But it does mean, as I said, that you are inconsistent in considering her a trusted source when you deny the supernatural.

I cede the point, on AcharayaS.

I still maintain that the State should avoid the appearance ---as was the case with Arnold Shwarzenegger's posing with religious icons held aloft-- of officially recognizing or santioning any particular religion.

That way, one religion or group of religions is never seen as being the prefered religion of the State.....which is what the founding Father's primary concern was in the first place.