PDA

View Full Version : Americans Strongly Favor Religious Displays on Public Lands



megimoo
12-11-2009, 02:02 PM
Americans Strongly Favor Religious Displays on Public Lands, Celebrating
Religious Holidays in Schools

Americans remain overwhelmingly in favor of allowing religious symbols to be displayed on public land and feel even more strongly that public schools should celebrate at least some religious holidays.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 76% of adults believe religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim crescents should be allowed on public land. Just 13% disagree, and another 10% are undecided.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/december_2009/americans_strongly_favor_religious_displays_on_pub lic_lands_celebrating_religious_holidays_in_school s

FlaGator
12-11-2009, 02:46 PM
Americans Strongly Favor Religious Displays on Public Lands, Celebrating
Religious Holidays in Schools

Americans remain overwhelmingly in favor of allowing religious symbols to be displayed on public land and feel even more strongly that public schools should celebrate at least some religious holidays.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 76% of adults believe religious symbols like Christmas Nativity scenes, Hanukkah menorahs and Muslim crescents should be allowed on public land. Just 13% disagree, and another 10% are undecided.


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/december_2009/americans_strongly_favor_religious_displays_on_pub lic_lands_celebrating_religious_holidays_in_school s (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/holidays/december_2009/americans_strongly_favor_religious_displays_on_pub lic_lands_celebrating_religious_holidays_in_school s)

It's aways been a case of PCism where the majority must bow to the desires of the minority.

wilbur
12-11-2009, 05:11 PM
Its either all or nothing.

If you can't play nice and tolerate, say... a pagan display next to your nativity scene, then its game over, you ruined it for everyone.

FlaGator
12-11-2009, 05:19 PM
Its either all or nothing.

If you can't play nice and tolerate, say... a pagan display next to your nativity scene, then its game over, you ruined it for everyone.

I don't have a problem with that, and most Christians I know don't find it an issue either. Unfortunately the law suits tend to be pursued by atheists who have no exhibit to display along side a nativity scene or Star of David because it's hard to visually represent an accident in some universal symbol that everyone would understand. So see it is you who ruined it for everyone. Because you have nothing, we can have nothing.

Thanks a lot

wilbur
12-11-2009, 05:22 PM
I don't have a problem with that, and most Christians I know don't find it an issue either. Unfortunately the law suits tend to be pursued by atheists who have no exhibit to display along side a nativity scene or Star of David because it's hard to visually represent an accident in some universal symbol that everyone would understand. So see it is you who ruined it for everyone. Because you have nothing, we can have nothing.

Thanks a lot

Bah, we can think of a symbol for anything.

Gingersnap
12-11-2009, 05:26 PM
Its either all or nothing.

If you can't play nice and tolerate, say... a pagan display next to your nativity scene, then its game over, you ruined it for everyone.

No, PC culture ruined it for everybody. Early on, few municipalities, public schools, or government offices were intolerant of additional religious displays. If the Nativity was there, few had a problem with a menorah or even a Solstice display.

Then atheists started suing and public environments started banning all of it. If you can't have a crèche, you obviously can't have a menorah or a bonfire or lights for Diwali or whatever. Christians weren't suing to remove non-Christian expressions, atheists were suing to remove all religious expression. Equality through subtraction.

wilbur
12-11-2009, 06:44 PM
No, PC culture ruined it for everybody. Early on, few municipalities, public schools, or government offices were intolerant of additional religious displays. If the Nativity was there, few had a problem with a menorah or even a Solstice display.

Then atheists started suing and public environments started banning all of it. If you can't have a crèche, you obviously can't have a menorah or a bonfire or lights for Diwali or whatever. Christians weren't suing to remove non-Christian expressions, atheists were suing to remove all religious expression. Equality through subtraction.

There have been plenty of instances of Christians going after secular displays.... often they don't even have to sue. But guess what? Right wing Christian news outlets don't actually report those stories, so you have to look elsewhere.

stsinner
12-11-2009, 06:52 PM
Atheists suck, plain and simple.

JB
12-11-2009, 06:56 PM
Its either all or nothing.

If you can't play nice and tolerate, say... a pagan display next to your nativity scene, then its game over, you ruined it for everyone.waaaaahhhhhh.

Why is it liberals never feel that way about tax rates. Or gun laws?

Constitutionally Speaking
12-11-2009, 07:02 PM
There have been plenty of instances of Christians going after secular displays.... often they don't even have to sue. But guess what? Right wing Christian news outlets don't actually report those stories, so you have to look elsewhere.


Wibur, why do those of your belief system insist on ruining everyone's fun????


It cannot be based on the REAL meaning of the Constitution, because we KNOW that these acts were not just allowed by the founding fathers, they were often INITIATED and most definitely encouraged by them.

THEY obviously didn't think it was a violation of the intent of the 1st Amendment, so WHY is it now???

PoliCon
12-11-2009, 07:24 PM
amazingly it's almost always the atheists bawling about religious displays. :rolleyes: The self same IDIOTS who this a Christmas tree is a religious display.

FlaGator
12-11-2009, 07:25 PM
Bah, we can think of a symbol for anything.

How about this for you Christmas symbol, A large computer spitting out emails left and right and the AGW denier elves running round scooping them up. You could decorate it with Christmas lights and tinsel.

PoliCon
12-11-2009, 07:25 PM
Wibur, why do those of your belief system insist on ruining everyone's fun????


It cannot be based on the REAL meaning of the Constitution, because we KNOW that these acts were not just allowed by the founding fathers, they were often INITIATED and most definitely encouraged by them.

THEY obviously didn't think it was a violation of the intent of the 1st Amendment, so WHY is it now???

Wilbur and his ilk overlook that Christianity is in fact recognized in the constitution. It always makes me laugh.

FlaGator
12-11-2009, 07:30 PM
There have been plenty of instances of Christians going after secular displays.... often they don't even have to sue. But guess what? Right wing Christian news outlets don't actually report those stories, so you have to look elsewhere.

Oddly enough I did a quick google search for Christians suing to have other displays removed and I didn't come up with plenty. In fact I didn't come up with any.

wilbur
12-11-2009, 08:01 PM
Wilbur and his ilk overlook that Christianity is in fact recognized in the constitution. It always makes me laugh.

Methinks you have never read the Constitution.

Space Gravy
12-11-2009, 08:05 PM
amazingly it's almost always the atheists bawling about religious displays. :rolleyes: The self same IDIOTS who this a Christmas tree is a religious display.

You want to talk about bawling, how about some jackasses who gets their panties in a bunch because the Wal-Mart banner says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

MrsSmith
12-11-2009, 08:08 PM
Methinks you have never read the Constitution.



“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.”
The Constitution of the United States of America, Article 1, Section 7

Because all religions recognise the significance of Sunday...not just Christianity. :rolleyes: :D

Rockntractor
12-11-2009, 08:12 PM
Methinks.

When did you start doing that?:rolleyes:

PoliCon
12-11-2009, 10:02 PM
Methinks you have never read the Constitution.

BWAHAHAHAHA Methinks YOU have never read the constitution. Cause if you HAD you would know that ARTICLE I, Sec. VII includes in it a tacit recognition of Christianity.

PoliCon
12-11-2009, 10:03 PM
Because all religions recognise the significance of Sunday...not just Christianity. :rolleyes: :D

HEY! THAT WAS MY THUNDER!! :mad::mad:

PoliCon
12-11-2009, 10:04 PM
You want to talk about bawling, how about some jackasses who gets their panties in a bunch because the Wal-Mart banner says Happy Holidays instead of Merry Christmas.

Private citizens have the right to petition WalMart if they so choose - and WalMart as a private company have the right to decide whether or not to listen.

FlaGator
12-11-2009, 11:12 PM
Methinks you have never read the Constitution.

Methinks you don't have "plenty" of examples of Christians suing to have pagan displays removed.

MrsSmith
12-12-2009, 02:59 PM
HEY! THAT WAS MY THUNDER!! :mad::mad:

Sorry!! When wil stuffs both feet in his mouth for our amusement, I have a terrible habit of pointing it out. :o:o

samurai
12-12-2009, 03:46 PM
The appalling, disgraceful behavior of some atheists, consumed by their hatred of religion, is one reason why I strenuously point out that I'm an agnostic, NOT an atheist. I often find I share more values and beliefs with religious folks than atheists, and I for one like to see nativity scenes, menorahs, etc during the holiday season. Heck, we have a little ceramic nativity scene that my mom, brother, and I hand painted together when I was a child, despite not being religious ourselves. It is a very insecure person who feels threatened by religious displays like that.

PoliCon
12-12-2009, 04:18 PM
Sorry!! When wil stuffs both feet in his mouth for our amusement, I have a terrible habit of pointing it out. :o:o

seems he's avoiding this thread now . . . .

Bubba Dawg
12-12-2009, 04:42 PM
Is an atheist and agnostic who is angry?

wilbur
12-12-2009, 04:50 PM
seems he's avoiding this thread now . . . .

Nope, just busy.

I can't BELIEVE, with a straight face, you guys are seriously citing that article as "a recognition of Christianity", in any kind of meaningful sense. If the founders had wanted to acknowledge Christianity in the constitution, there is little doubt they would have done so unquestioningly and explicitly, and not in such an ambiguous, and easily misconstrued manner.

<facepalm>

wilbur
12-12-2009, 05:13 PM
THEY obviously didn't think it was a violation of the intent of the 1st Amendment, so WHY is it now???

Some didn't really think it was a true violation of the constitution or the bill of rights to permit slavery either. So why is it now?

samurai
12-12-2009, 06:11 PM
Some didn't really think it was a true violation of the constitution or the bill of rights to permit slavery either. So why is it now?

Simple... because the Constitution was amended. Specifically, the 14th Amendment.

samurai
12-12-2009, 06:15 PM
Is an atheist and agnostic who is angry?

No, they really are 2 different things. An atheist is a firm believer that there is no god, period. Many are actively antagonistic toward religion or worship. An agnostic believes that there may or may not be a god, and if he (or they) exists, he is unknowable to lowly humans, the same way ants can't truly comprehend the thoughts of humans. Agnostics are not usually antagonistic toward religious expression, as they do not write off the existence of god.

PoliCon
12-12-2009, 06:21 PM
Nope, just busy.

I can't BELIEVE, with a straight face, you guys are seriously citing that article as "a recognition of Christianity", in any kind of meaningful sense. If the founders had wanted to acknowledge Christianity in the constitution, there is little doubt they would have done so unquestioningly and explicitly, and not in such an ambiguous, and easily misconstrued manner.

<facepalm>
There is nothing to misconstrue. SUNDAYS are not counted in the time limits for a bill to become law. Not weekends. Not Saturdays - the Jewish holy day. Not Friday - the Muslim holy day. Sundays - a clear recognition of Christianity by giving precedence to the Christian day of Worship.

MrsSmith
12-12-2009, 07:16 PM
There is nothing to misconstrue. SUNDAYS are not counted in the time limits for a bill to become law. Not weekends. Not Saturdays - the Jewish holy day. Not Friday - the Muslim holy day. Sundays - a clear recognition of Christianity by giving precedence to the Christian day of Worship.

He knows that, he's just gone into typical "loser's mode." When nailed, attempt to deny the fact, or the meaning of the fact, or that the fact has any bearing or importance. You can't lose if you ignore any fact you dislike. :D

Sonnabend
12-12-2009, 07:27 PM
Methinks you have never read the Constitution.

I have.


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.

Bubba Dawg
12-12-2009, 07:55 PM
No, they really are 2 different things. An atheist is a firm believer that there is no god, period. Many are actively antagonistic toward religion or worship. An agnostic believes that there may or may not be a god, and if he (or they) exists, he is unknowable to lowly humans, the same way ants can't truly comprehend the thoughts of humans. Agnostics are not usually antagonistic toward religious expression, as they do not write off the existence of god.

Interesting. Thanks.

I was just doing a take on an old joke, namely, A Fundamentalist Christian is an Evangelical who is angry about something.

Like many of my jokes it fell flat, if you can believe that. :D

Rockntractor
12-12-2009, 08:06 PM
Interesting. Thanks.

I was just doing a take on an old joke, namely, A Fundamentalist Christian is an Evangelical who is angry about something.

Like many of my jokes it fell flat, if you can believe that. :D

Some day all dead and flat jokes will be resurrected and given a new life.

samurai
12-12-2009, 08:31 PM
Some day all dead and flat jokes will be resurrected and given a new life.

What about those who are Left Behind...? ;)

samurai
12-12-2009, 08:36 PM
Interesting. Thanks.

I was just doing a take on an old joke, namely, A Fundamentalist Christian is an Evangelical who is angry about something.

Like many of my jokes it fell flat, if you can believe that. :D

Naw, that's ok, I understand what you meant (though my thoughts went to "a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged"). It's just that all too often people like me (who's not sure if there is a god but is perfectly happy to let others believe what they wish and display their beliefs openly) get lumped in with the god-hating imbeciles that sue to have god stricken from the pledge or the dollar bill, or to remove nativity scenes from public squares. Believe me, I can't stand nut jobbers like that either, despite my lack of faith.

Rockntractor
12-12-2009, 08:41 PM
What about those who are Left Behind...? ;)
You mean butt jokes?

samurai
12-12-2009, 08:43 PM
You mean butt jokes?

Yep, I think butt jokes (and possibly dead baby jokes) will not be part of the joke Rapture.

Bubba Dawg
12-12-2009, 08:44 PM
What about those who are Left Behind...? ;)

That's what the sequel is for....Right Behind.....

Bubba Dawg
12-12-2009, 08:45 PM
Yep, I think butt jokes (and possibly dead baby jokes) will not be part of the joke Rapture.

Have you never heard of The Crack of Doom!!!!!!

wilbur
12-13-2009, 12:45 AM
He knows that, he's just gone into typical "loser's mode." When nailed, attempt to deny the fact, or the meaning of the fact, or that the fact has any bearing or importance. You can't lose if you ignore any fact you dislike. :D

Sorry MrsSmith... all you have presented is a passage in the constitution that clearly exempts Sunday in one instance of the presidential duties. It doesn't mention Christianity, Christ, God, or the church. It doesnt even refer to the day with any sort of Christian overtones, like a "day of rest", a "holy day", or anything remotely like that.

Of course, every Christian apologist looking for talking points to sell his religion, jumps on table scraps like this and is always eager to interpret such things in the most flattering light possible for Christianity. Its pretty obvious that those sources are the type you consult most often, and you appear to instantly believe whatever they say, without any kind of critical analysis at all.. because you want to believe what they say.

But any reasonable person looking at that passage will realize at least two things, if they attempt to truly contextualize it:

A) Many places in the country had laws against working on Sunday. Yes, this was to observe the Christian Sabbath. But rather than making the case that the section is some sort of religious homage to the Sabbath, it points to a very practical reason for it to be there - many in the government would simply not work on that day.

B) There are no definitive homages paid to Christianity in the section *at all*, despite the fact that the writers of the document could have clearly done so, if they chose.

Those two combined facts are why one will find no relevant experts (except salesmen for Christianity) who claim that this passage is some sort of constitutional recognition of Christianity. What we have here, is another example of you just proof texting a passage and interpreting in the quickest, most superficial manner possible in order to support your personal beliefs - because some Christian advocate somewhere told you to believe it.

PoliCon
12-13-2009, 12:54 AM
Sorry MrsSmith... all you have presented is a passage in the constitution that clearly exempts Sunday in one instance of the presidential duties. It doesn't mention Christianity, Christ, God, or the church. It doesnt even refer to the day with any sort of Christian overtones, like a "day of rest", a "holy day", or anything remotely like that.

Of course, every Christian apologist looking for talking points to sell his religion, jumps on table scraps like this and is always eager to interpret such things in the most flattering light possible for Christianity. Its pretty obvious that those sources are the type you consult most often, and you appear to instantly believe whatever they say, without any kind of critical analysis at all.. because you want to believe what they say.

But any reasonable person looking at that passage will realize at least two things, if they attempt to truly contextualize it:

A) Many places in the country had laws against working on Sunday. Yes, this was to observe the Christian Sabbath. But rather than making the case that the section is some sort of religious homage to the Sabbath, it points to a very practical reason for it to be there - many in the government would simply not work on that day.

B) There are no definitive homages paid to Christianity in the section *at all*, despite the fact that the writers of the document could have clearly done so, if they chose.

Those two combined facts are why one will find no relevant experts (except salesmen for Christianity) who claim that this passage is some sort of constitutional recognition of Christianity. What we have here, is another example of you just proof texting a passage and interpreting in the quickest, most superficial manner possible in order to support your personal beliefs - because some Christian advocate somewhere told you to believe it.

Please offer one reason to exempt Sunday that is not connected to Christianity. People did not work on sunday - WHY?

wilbur
12-13-2009, 01:02 AM
Please offer one reason to exempt Sunday that is not connected to Christianity. People did not work on sunday - WHY?

I believe I clearly explained above. I believe the task on you is to explain why its some sort of Christian homage, rather than just a matter of practicality.

PoliCon
12-13-2009, 02:33 AM
I believe I clearly explained above. I believe the task on you is to explain why its some sort of Christian homage, rather than just a matter of practicality.

it's a matter of practicality because it IS a recognition of Christianity.

Goldwater
12-13-2009, 04:36 AM
It never ends!

FlaGator
12-13-2009, 07:49 AM
Sorry MrsSmith... all you have presented is a passage in the constitution that clearly exempts Sunday in one instance of the presidential duties. It doesn't mention Christianity, Christ, God, or the church. It doesnt even refer to the day with any sort of Christian overtones, like a "day of rest", a "holy day", or anything remotely like that.

There was a show on the History International Channel last Friday on the 10 Commandments. It mentioned the law that exempts Sunday on the count of 10 days in which a President must sign a bill. It specifically stated that the writers of the Constitution thoughts on this it was that it was due to the prevailing Judeo Christian ethic at the time of resting on the Sabbath.

Also, just because it isn't specifically stated in the constitution that the exemption was based on prevailing beliefs about the sabbath in no way indicates that the behind the scenes thinking wasn't precisely that.

megimoo
12-13-2009, 11:37 AM
Its either all or nothing.

If you can't play nice and tolerate, say... a pagan display next to your nativity scene, then its game over, you ruined it for everyone.

Scatheist, The South Carolina Atheist:
http://scatheist.wordpress.com/

MrsSmith
12-13-2009, 01:13 PM
I believe I clearly explained above. I believe the task on you is to explain why its some sort of Christian homage, rather than just a matter of practicality.

Homage or not, it is most clearly a recognition of Christianity, and makes quite clear the fact that our government was originally formed by those that held the Sabbath tradition as opposed to any other religious tradition. Niether your opinion nor your denial can change that recognition. So sorry. :D:D:D