Are they illiterate, or just dense?

[KaosDad]

Loudoun not alone in debate over displays

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So, here's the deal in short - Loudoun, along with many jurisdictions, is trying to come up with a plan to address folks who want to put up Nativity scenes on the court house lawn. The folks who want to sponsor these scenes are arguing that the 1st Amendment protects this right (2 ways) AND that the court house grounds have always been a public forum for freedom of expression.

The Antis (athiests, especially) are, of course, citing the first 10 words of the 1st and ignoring the rest.

What galls me is that the Loudoun Government isn't simply saying; "Look,antis, here's the 1st Amendment, freedom of expression and not prohibiting the free excercise of religion. And here's Gitlow v. New York extending that to state and local governments. Nativity folks; here are the forms you need to fill out, we need to see proof of liability insurance, have those back to us before Thanksgiving."

Really, isn't it that simple?

[Tweaker]

God must be subordinate to the state, for these statists to succeed. This is exactly that.

Illiterate, no

Dense, no

Evil, corrupt, dishonest - Yes x 3

[chfaunce]

Really, isn't it that simple?

Pretty much, at least that I can tell. I mean, it's not like anyone is allowing one group to erect anything while prohibiting another from doing the same. They're not saying "Nativity scene ok, menorah not ok". Do I personally think that a courthouse lawn is the best or most appropriate venue? No, but that's just personal opinion. Do I find any of it offensive? No, and I'm not even religious. Further, if I understand correctly, it's not like the Court is endorsing anything - they're simply allowing something on the property, so I don't even see where there's a 'separation of Church and State' issue. Do I see this as being much ado about a whole lot of nothing? Yep. I mean, if your biggest concern is whether or not there's a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, you've probably got it pretty good. I can think of other more pressing issues.

[VBshooter]

Sadly that in these crappy days of PC that are strangling this country just about every little pissass group with a "problem" is given a lot more attention than they merit,, Groups like the ones complaining about the nativity scene should be told to shut up and then be ignored. Tell em to go find something important to bitch about and somebody might listen, but not to count on it.

[chfaunce]

Groups like the ones complaining about the nativity scene should be told to shut up and then be ignored. .

As much as I may disagree with the things that some say, it's still important to remember that free speech is still a protected right.

[zephyp]

Groups like the ones complaining about the nativity scene should be told to shut up and then be ignored. .

As much as I may disagree with the things that some say, it's still important to remember that free speech is still a protected right.

I agree however we cant restrict one right at the expense of the other...the Constitution is a take all proposition. Its not something that should be cherry picked to fit every little demented situation...

[gunderwood]

Groups like the ones complaining about the nativity scene should be told to shut up and then be ignored. .

As much as I may disagree with the things that some say, it's still important to remember that free speech is still a protected right.

I agree however we cant restrict one right at the expense of the other...the Constitution is a take all proposition. Its not something that should be cherry picked to fit every little demented situation...

+1 Zephyp

Is this a 180 chfaunce from that AK pistol thread?

[Taggure]

Groups like the ones complaining about the nativity scene should be told to shut up and then be ignored. .

As much as I may disagree with the things that some say, it's still important to remember that free speech is still a protected right.

I agree however we cant restrict one right at the expense of the other...the Constitution is a take all proposition. Its not something that should be cherry picked to fit every little demented situation...

+1 Zephyp

Is this a 180 chfaunce from that AK pistol thread?

HMMMMMMM Free speach but not Freedom of Gun Choice for OC (AK pistol) because it is not PC

[gunderwood]

HMMMMMMM Free speach but not Freedom of Gun Choice for OC (AK pistol) because it is not PC

Taggure, you are missing the point. Free speech only applies when you are insulting those gun toten, Bible clinging rednecks.

[Taggure]

HMMMMMMM Free speach but not Freedom of Gun Choice for OC (AK pistol) because it is not PC

Taggure, you are missing the point. Free speech only applies when you are insulting those gun toten, Bible clinging rednecks.

I resemble that remark

[chfaunce]

I agree however we cant restrict one right at the expense of the other...the Constitution is a take all proposition. Its not something that should be cherry picked to fit every little demented situation...

Oh, I completely agree. The general meaning of my statement (not specific to this situation) was that our disagreement with what someone is saying or expressing does not inherently grant us the right to infringe upon anyone else's Constitionally protected freedoms.

Now, specific to this situation, I've never seen what the big deal was over nativity scenes. I don't see how anyone could find them visually offensive. I'm saying this as a non-Christian, so it's not like someone can claim bias. I've seen a few tacky ones, but tacky isn't against the law. Barn, bunch of plastic animals and people, baby. I don't see the problem. My only temptation on occasion is to run up to one and put a few pink flamingos in the ground just for panache. Humor alert! That last part was a joke and I would never do such a thing to anyone's but my own, if I ever decided to "express" myself in such a manner on my property.

[chfaunce]

HMMMMMMM Free speach but not Freedom of Gun Choice for OC (AK pistol) because it is not PC

Nobody's better at confusing the &^$# of people than I am. Don't you ever forget that.

[VBshooter]

VBshooter wrote:
Groups like the ones complaining about the nativity scene should be told to shut up and then be ignored. .

Just want to clarify that "telling a group to shut up is not the same as "Making" them shut up". So no one is being denied their first amendment rights, As I said before , far too many of these complainers are catered to for PC or whatever reason, when common sense,, (Something this country hasn;t shown in a long time) should tell all to just ignore em.., don;t give them that audience or attention to continue the tirade over some trivial nonsense that most have no issue with .

[Tweaker]

VB Shooter said it perfectly. Being ignored is NOT LOSING YOUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS! You guys took that comment and totally knee jerked your way into a false argument. Go ahead and bitch all you want about my rights, but try to use courts or laws to stop me, you're getting both barrels, buddy. The other side did just that, not VB Shooter! Damn.

[chfaunce]

Oh boy.

"telling a group to shut up..." does not equal "ignoring".

[9MMDerringer]

There are many things which in my opinion the Constitution has wrongly been used to protect in our country, but this may not be one of them. I also see no reason why this practice should not continue to be allowed. First, as I understand it, the display of this Nativity scene has been somewhat of a tradition over the years in our country and in the areas where people are now currently upset about them. Why do we allow something to continue for years, allow it to be some form of tradition, and then allow a few people to come along years later, and claim to be offended by it, and cause us all to have to argue and defend it? Secondly, exactly what harm does it do? How does someone having to pass by and look at the Navitity scene become harmed? If the Constitution can be used to protect criminals, and to protect people's rights to wear a shirt in public that has profane langauge, or protect peoples rights to look at pornography, or to allow illegal immigrants to give birth to babies that automatically become US Citizens because of the language of the Constitution, then it should definitely protect this right to display the baby Jesus, Mary and Joseph at X-mas. BTW - I consider myself as a hybrid agnostic. I believe in some form of creator/god/supreme being, but I question most forms of formal religion. I think that the Catholic church helped guide me away from religion earlier in life, and I thank them for that, but I also believe in other people's right to practice their own beliefs.

The recent debate over the mosque at Ground Zero is a good example here. I think that placing a muslim mosque in that location goes beyond offensive and towards harmful or hurtful to those that lost family, friends and fellow Americans in that attack on 9/11. People are not just offended by the idea, they would be hurt. Additionally the Iman spearheading this plan is extremely questionable. He supports Sharia Law in the United States. He is anti-jewish. Oh yes, and using the Consititution to protect the right to freedom of religion and religious practices in this country to protect Islamic religion, which denies equality of rights under Islam and Sharia Law to other forms of religion is.... um well, contradicting? These people want our Contitution to protect their religion here, while their religion in other countries does not recognize any others or peoples rights to practice any other religion in their culture or lands? That is absurd and should not be tolerated by Americans!

[zephyp]

The issue with nativity scenes has nothing to do with being visually offensive. For the "offended" its a matter of principle and getting your way.