ACLU sues town of 2,000 over Christmas tree decoration.

[Milchshake]

uh, I have had the unfortunate experience of dealing with atheists that actually get offended. SO many on campus...

Hah I call both your guy's anecdotes with the story about a Jewish guy who sued to have all the crossless Christmas trees be removed from SeaTac.

We just need someone to google up some Festivus and Kwanza people complaining. Cuz "bothsidesarewrong" right?

[Fexus]

I really doubt that was what the founding fathers had in mind ... blocking some small town committee from throwing a tree decoration up...

I also find it hilarious how people opposing this tree decoration keep screaming about the Constitution in this case.. but as soon as we talk about gun control its "Thats not really what the 2nd amendment means" or "the Constitution can be changed."

Oh look, a gun control red herring. Fun!

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Not necessarily, but the way they were celebrating it it was. Still weird that they celebrate the holiday so many months before their own book says the events happened though.

I'm not really sure putting up a tree decoration is necessarily celebrating anything, and especially not enforcing anything. Like christmas tree, lights, garland etc.. crosses are often on christmas decorations. Not really a good case that the local government is enforcing any religions.

[jbazzi]

Then by that token, every other religious and cultural symbol should be illegal too, including the hijab/burka, cross pendants, the kippah, turbans or any other garment that a religious person would wear regardless of religion.

Also, is it so hard to replace a fucking cross with a star? The star is more representative of Christmas than the cross is.

That's a pretty ridiculous argument considering everything you listed is worn on a person and not placed on public property.

[wikinews]

Considering the OP clearly states that the accuser is seeking punitive damages, there's really no argument against it being a money grab.

That's the OP's opinion on it. Am I wrong?

[GennGreymane]

People aren't going to be happy until we've reached that South Park non denominational Holiday play that is meaningless and without anything being recognizable stage.

It's hysterical that this POS wants money for supposed suffering. Sorry kid, no can do.

Cool, I guess you need the government to celebrate for you?

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

With tax payer money? Yup! Good luck on your 7th grade civics exam!

What? You mean they had some local volunteers put up a christmas tree with decorations they've probably had for years? Tax payer money?

- - - Updated - - -

So you want the government to start endorsing religion? the founding fathers didnt want endorsement of religion. Its a good idea. Also, thanks to the Supreme court, the Second amendment did get an update... you can ignore the first half of it.

No, I just think this is ridiculous. Put up whatever decorations you want.

[Runenwächter]

Suing everyone for millions is a way more entrenched pratice in the USA then Christmas trees.

Good for the trees I suppose.

[Fexus]

What? You mean they had some local volunteers put up a christmas tree with decorations they've probably had for years? Tax payer money?

Someone was still paid to organize that. The amount of taxpayer money spent is also completely irrelevant.

[GennGreymane]

What? You mean they had some local volunteers put up a christmas tree with decorations they've probably had for years? Tax payer money?

- - - Updated - - -



No, I just think this is ridiculous. Put up whatever decorations you want.

as a private citizen yes, no one disputes this.... as a government entity no.

[Skulltaker]

No, that's your perception bias talking. There's nothing whatsoever about the word "god" that implies anything Christian.



I'll wait while you go track down any copy of the US Constitution and read through it to note how many references to "God" there are.

I'll give you a hint. That number is "zero".



Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists, if not outright atheists, and they deliberately crafted their new nation to function on principles of reason, not faith.

Never read it, no US citizen. But it is 'one nation, under god, isn't it?

And, sorry, I'm getting the feeling you want to argue for the sake of arguing, and it is a rather baseless point you're arguing.

There is no bias. A god refers to any, usually monotheistic, god. But God, on it's own, is usually the christian god. I think, and sorry if I'm wrong, that God is sometimes written with a capital G when the christian one is referenced? Making it a name? In german, Gott on it's own, means the Christian one. All other gods have names. Maybe my bias stems from being used to another language.

Also, sorry, I though the 'one nation under God' thing was the constitution. I googled it, and it is the pledge of allegiance. Sorry. But it uses a capital G for god, and, having researched that, too, is usually done for a monothesitic god. Which would leave the god of judaism, Allah, or, well, the christian one. Google'ing a little further, most people agree that, God is used as a name for the god of christianity or judaism, as long as the g is capital.

[Fexus]

No, I just think this is ridiculous. Put up whatever decorations you want.

I agree. Put up whatever decorations you want. Go crazy. The GOVERNMENT is still not allowed to endorse religion.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Oh look, a gun control red herring. Fun!

Not a red herring at all. Especially since that was a point clearly separate from my other one. Good try though.

[Wells]

What? You mean they had some local volunteers put up a christmas tree with decorations they've probably had for years? Tax payer money?

Tax payer property then. A distinction without difference. Government doesn't get to get involved in religious displays.

[TITAN308]

Would you feel that your town enforcing Muslim prayer practices in all public buildings and public spaces was an abusive measure?

Same difference, really.

Forcing someone to see a tree decoration is the same equivalency as forcing people to get down on their knees and pray?

I mean I know I am not going to change any opinions here, but holy shit (I used the word holy... hue hue) talk about streeeeettttccchhhhing a connection.

I guess if a government employee is on the clock and says "bless you" when someone sneezes we better empty the coffers to make people whole again.

Again, I have zero problems with having to remove the cross, but some of the shit you guys ramble on about is way out in right field.

[sarahtasher]

I really doubt that was what the founding fathers had in mind ... blocking some small town committee from throwing a tree decoration up...

I also find it hilarious how people opposing this tree decoration keep screaming about the Constitution in this case.. but as soon as we talk about gun control its "Thats not really what the 2nd amendment means" or "the Constitution can be changed."

A large segment of the founding fathers constituents would have screamed that this was ''popery'' to put decorations in the first place. Not to mention the royal (ZING) mess of interfering with the episcopal confession....

[Rennadrel]

That's a pretty ridiculous argument considering everything you listed is worn on a person and not placed on public property.

But it is still viewed in public, and on public property, even if it is on a person.

[Self Inflicted Wounds]

Someone was still paid to organize that. The amount of taxpayer money spent is also completely irrelevant.

How much time and money do you think it took this small town to plan out their christmas tree which they do on a routine basis?

[Wells]

How much time and money do you think it took this small town to plan out their christmas tree which they do on a routine basis?

The 1st Amendment doesn't have any "unless it wasn't a big deal" provisions.

[stomination]

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", thus building a wall of separation between Church & State

I don't think the town made a law saying a cross had to be there.