View Full Version : War on Christmas is back: Richmond, VA Christmas Parade renamed "Holiday Parade"
Little-Acorn
10-05-2010, 12:39 PM
Yep, the people who don't want things named after "Christmas" or "Christ", are at it again.
The Richmond Christmas Parade in Virginia has been known by that name for many years. But no longer.
If you go to the website they've had for that parade for all these years:
http://www.RichmondChristmasParade.org
you'll be automatically redirected to a new title:
http://www.richmondparade.com
where the newly-renamed parade is presented in all its, um, glory. It is now proudly (or is it sheepishly?) called the Dominion Holiday Parade! And the words "Christmas" and "Christ" have been carefully excised from every possible location in the website.
Looks like the anti-Christ advocates are getting started early this year.
Ironically, many of them refer to the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in forcing their abhorrence of all things Chirstmas on the rest of us... apparently unaware that that phrase does not appear in any laws passed by any government in the land, up to and including the Constitution.
Others who have finally gotten that memo, then start pointing to the 1st amendment of the Constitution, which contains a prohibition on making laws "respecting an establishment of religion". They are apparently equally unaware that the amendment goes on to forbid that same government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... and that by their own interpretation, they are VIOLATING the 1st by getting their state or local government to ban the word "Christmas" from parades like this one.
Just think how foolish they will feel when they go through all those faux pas, only to find that the 1st amendment as written, applies only to the Federal government (Congress shall make no law....), unlike most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. States and local governments, in fact, are NOT banned from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" by the 1st amendment, nor are they enjoined from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". When the 1st amendment was written and ratified, many states had official state religions, and the 1st amendment was carefully crafted to not interfere with that fact!
Those state religions are now a thig of the past, of course, and the courts have further stated that, with the passage of the 14th amendment, the Federal-govt-only nature of the 1st amendment must now apply to state and local governments, too.
State and local governments don't HAVE to ban "the free exercise" of religion, of course, but under the original 1st amendment, they could if they wanted.
Interestingly, some of them are starting to want to. Including, apparently, the government that runs the Richmond Christmas Parade. But for exactly the wrong reason! Since the entire 1st amendment must now also be obeyed by state and local governments too... including the part that says they cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religion!
When these leftists go out to screw something up, they really do a THOROUGH job, don't they.......!
Is it state funded or privately funded?
Little-Acorn
10-05-2010, 06:47 PM
Well, well.
Seems the parade sponsors have changed their minds again.
If you click on either of the links in the OP, you'll still wind up at the second link. But now its announcement of the "Dominion Holiday Parade" has been replaced by a brief notice, which contains:
In light of the outpouring of support for retaining “Christmas” in the name, our board has voted to change the name to the “Dominion Christmas Parade.”
Chalk one up for the good guys.
I hope the anti-Christs don't get too unhappy.
They can always chase crosses in the desert.
Pagan
10-05-2010, 07:15 PM
So why isn't it called the Winter Solstice Parade, that's what it actually is. A Pagan Religious Holiday that was adopted by Christians. Just like the Aztec Day of the Dead Holiday in Mexico, etc. etc. :lol:
darin
10-05-2010, 07:34 PM
unlike the other holidays mentioned....
Christmas is the LEGAL NAME, under the United States Code, for the Federal Holiday on 25 December.
It's not only appropriate to USE the proper name of the holiday; Evidence the reason NOT to use the SECULAR LEGAL NAME of the holiday is anti-christianity-motivated: No OTHER collection of Legal Holidays must resort to the "Happy Holidays" or "holiday celebration" moniker.
From that site - Looks like they have at least a modicum of backbone:
Site off-line
Statement of Richmond Parade, Inc. on Annual Christmas Parade
October 5, 2010
The Board of Richmond Parade Inc., the volunteer organization that has organized the annual Christmas parade in Richmond, Va., for 26 years, is issuing the following statement:
There has been a great deal of confusion and misinformation about the decision to rename our annual event a “holiday” parade instead of a Christmas parade. This was a decision made unanimously by our board earlier this year based on discussions over the last several years. It was our desire to show that everyone is welcome to celebrate in the spirit of good will. This decision was made prior to approaching Dominion about becoming the main sponsor of the event. It was not done at the insistence of Dominion, as has been misreported in some instances.
In light of the outpouring of support for retaining “Christmas” in the name, our board has voted to change the name to the “Dominion Christmas Parade.” Dominion has been informed of this decision.
It is our hope that the publicity this issue has generated will result in additional sponsors and volunteers stepping forward to continue this proud Richmond tradition.
Waitwhat, it's a federal legal term?
And how is that not establishment of on religion over another?
darin
10-05-2010, 07:46 PM
Yes. It's written into the United States Code. It's a holiday. In fact, the word "Holiday" has religious connotations. In fact, our Motto - In God We Trust is spread throughout our government and history.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means "Congress shall make no law to establish a national religion"
Christophobes interpret it falsely as 'any law acknowledging any religion - and by 'any' we mean 'Christianity'", etc.
Yes. It's written into the United States Code. It's a holiday. In fact, the word "Holiday" has religious connotations. In fact, our Motto - In God We Trust is spread throughout our government and history.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means "Congress shall make no law to establish a national religion"
Christophobes interpret it falsely as 'any law acknowledging any religion - and by 'any' we mean 'Christianity'", etc.
Righto, so you'd have no problem with the dollar reading "In Allah we trust" or "In Baal we trust" etc?
Pagan
10-05-2010, 07:57 PM
Yes. It's written into the United States Code. It's a holiday. In fact, the word "Holiday" has religious connotations. In fact, our Motto - In God We Trust is spread throughout our government and history.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion means "Congress shall make no law to establish a national religion"
Christophobes interpret it falsely as 'any law acknowledging any religion - and by 'any' we mean 'Christianity'", etc.
What part of -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
do you not understand?
Whats wrong with calling it a "holiday" and respecting all beliefs by removing "Christmas" do you have a hardon about? Why do you insist on establishing a State religion?
darin
10-05-2010, 07:57 PM
If our country was founded in 1776, in Turkey...or Saudia Arabia....sure.
THing is, that didn't happen :)
If our country was founded in 1776, in Turkey...or Saudia Arabia....sure.
THing is, that didn't happen :)
Yeah, but instead it was founded as a secular nation.
However, if you don't believe that 'In god we trust' breaks the first, then you shouldn't care what god the dollar proclaims as worth your trust, or, do you think it does matter which God favour is shown to?
Pagan
10-05-2010, 08:04 PM
If our country was founded in 1776, in Turkey...or Saudia Arabia....sure.
THing is, that didn't happen :)
Yep, we have Country founded on respect for all beliefs because our Founding Fathers knew what happens when one mix's religion and politics. Thus the reason why a secular government was established which forbids government "respecting a religion".
Yeah, but instead it was founded as a secular nation.
However, if you don't believe that 'In god we trust' breaks the first, then you shouldn't care what god the dollar proclaims as worth your trust, or, do you think it does matter which God favour is shown to?
"IN GOD WE TRUST" first appeared on paper money in 1957
Also the pledge of allegiance was modified during that same time to include "under God"
Original -
1892
"I pledge allegiance to my flag and the republic for which it stands: one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all."
modified
1954
"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Little-Acorn
10-05-2010, 08:07 PM
Others who have finally gotten that memo, then start pointing to the 1st amendment of the Constitution, which contains a prohibition on making laws "respecting an establishment of religion". They are apparently equally unaware that the amendment goes on to forbid that same government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... and that by their own interpretation, they are VIOLATING the 1st by getting their state or local government to ban the word "Christmas" from parades like this one.
Just think how foolish they will feel when they go through all those faux pas....
What part of
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
do you not understand?
See? :lol:
Pagan
10-05-2010, 08:13 PM
See? :lol:
So the Government funding aka making laws favoring Christianity over others isn't violating -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Get a clue :lame2:
See? :lol:
No, the point is the state shouldn't be promoting it as a Christian event, however, if a private citizen wants to that's their choice, the state can not stop that (as that would violate the 1st)
That is why my first post in this thread asked if this what a privately or publicly funded event.
Little-Acorn
10-05-2010, 08:24 PM
So the Government funding aka making laws favoring Christianity over others isn't violating -
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Functional illiteracy is a terrible thing, isn't it.........:lame2:
Pagan
10-05-2010, 08:30 PM
Functional illiteracy is a terrible thing, isn't it.........:lame2:
Yep, maybe you ought to go back to school and learn the basics on Government and how a bill becomes a law, you know bills dealing with budget and funding?
Like I said, get a clue
SassyLady
10-05-2010, 08:34 PM
Yep, maybe you ought to go back to school and learn the basics on Government and how a bill becomes a law, you know bills dealing with budget and funding?
Like I said, get a clue
What religion did they establish?
Pagan
10-05-2010, 08:38 PM
What religion did they establish?
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.
SassyLady
10-05-2010, 08:40 PM
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.
You are the one trying to draw a parallel that having a Christmas parade is establishment of religion by the government. Show me what religion was/is "established" by this parade.
Pagan
10-05-2010, 08:49 PM
You are the one trying to draw a parallel that having a Christmas parade is establishment of religion by the government. Show me what religion was/is "established" by this parade.
AAAh where? Read the 1st Amendment again "Establishment" not "Establishing", completely different things.
If it's funded with Public Funds it is, it's pretty damn clear.
Now if it's Privately Funded and Run then bitch to the private company's funding and running it. But if they are Private than it's a none issue and they can call it what ever they want, it's their money
You are the one trying to draw a parallel that having a Christmas parade is establishment of religion by the government. Show me what religion was/is "established" by this parade.
Which religion do you associate with Christmas?
Pagan
10-05-2010, 09:10 PM
Which religion do you associate with Christmas?
I think she's mixing what "Establishing" and "An Establishment" is
Missileman
10-05-2010, 10:01 PM
Christmas is as much a secular holiday as it is a religious one, maybe even more secular than religious. A "Christmas" parade doesn't violate the COTUS.
Pagan
10-05-2010, 10:15 PM
Christmas is as much a secular holiday as it is a religious one, maybe even more secular than religious. A "Christmas" parade doesn't violate the COTUS.
Then you shouldn't have a problem calling it "Winter Holiday" parade to respect all beliefs then eh?
SassyLady
10-05-2010, 10:56 PM
Which religion do you associate with Christmas?
I don't.
AAAh where? Read the 1st Amendment again "Establishment" not "Establishing", completely different things.
If it's funded with Public Funds it is, it's pretty damn clear.
Now if it's Privately Funded and Run then bitch to the private company's funding and running it. But if they are Private than it's a none issue and they can call it what ever they want, it's their money
Would you feel it is OK to spend public funds on a "Holiday Party" that is all inclusive of all religions...or are you saying that if there is any hint of religion no public funds are to be spent.
Why is it OK to spend public funds on any parade?
Then you shouldn't have a problem calling it "Winter Holiday" parade to respect all beliefs then eh?
No...because then we would have to have a Summer, Spring and Fall holiday parade for the people who don't like winter.
Little-Acorn
10-06-2010, 12:08 AM
Of course, pagan is bending over bacckward trying to pretend he didn't notice the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the amendment. You know, the one that says the Constitution is fine with the people of Virginia putting on a parade like this if it IS a religious parade. That would shoot down his whole argument, so all he can do is pretend he didn't see it.
Or, man up and acknowledge he was wrong. But he's a liberal, so that ain't gonna happen.
Pagan
10-06-2010, 12:21 AM
Of course, pagan is bending over bacckward trying to pretend he didn't notice the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the amendment. You know, the one that says the Constitution is fine with the people of Virginia putting on a parade like this if it IS a religious parade. That would shoot down his whole argument, so all he can do is pretend he didn't see it.
Or, man up and acknowledge he was wrong. But he's a liberal, so that ain't gonna happen.
Really?
So not favoring one religion above others is prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
Get a clue dipshit :slap:
Would you feel it is OK to spend public funds on a "Holiday Party" that is all inclusive of all religions...or are you saying that if there is any hint of religion no public funds are to be spent.
Why is it OK to spend public funds on any parade?
Could it be --
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.
I don't.
Okay, well i don't know what it's like in America but over here we are taught that Chirstmas (Christ's mass) is a time to celebrate the birth of Jesus.
But I assume you'd have no problem renaming it Muhammeds Day, right? Afterall that doesn't favour one religion over another...
Of course, pagan is bending over bacckward trying to pretend he didn't notice the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" part of the amendment. You know, the one that says the Constitution is fine with the people of Virginia putting on a parade like this if it IS a religious parade. That would shoot down his whole argument, so all he can do is pretend he didn't see it.
Such logic is pure nonsense, you believe that if the state does not favour a religion you are breaking the first by prohibiting the free exercise of that religion?...that'd be hilarious if I didn't think you were serious.
As long as there is nothing stopping the private individual from celebrating whatever religion they like then the first us upheld. However, favouring one religion over another with federal legal terms etc is breaking the first.
red states rule
10-06-2010, 04:24 AM
Yep, the people who don't want things named after "Christmas" or "Christ", are at it again.
The Richmond Christmas Parade in Virginia has been known by that name for many years. But no longer.
If you go to the website they've had for that parade for all these years:
http://www.RichmondChristmasParade.org
you'll be automatically redirected to a new title:
http://www.richmondparade.com
where the newly-renamed parade is presented in all its, um, glory. It is now proudly (or is it sheepishly?) called the Dominion Holiday Parade! And the words "Christmas" and "Christ" have been carefully excised from every possible location in the website.
Looks like the anti-Christ advocates are getting started early this year.
Ironically, many of them refer to the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in forcing their abhorrence of all things Chirstmas on the rest of us... apparently unaware that that phrase does not appear in any laws passed by any government in the land, up to and including the Constitution.
Others who have finally gotten that memo, then start pointing to the 1st amendment of the Constitution, which contains a prohibition on making laws "respecting an establishment of religion". They are apparently equally unaware that the amendment goes on to forbid that same government from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof"... and that by their own interpretation, they are VIOLATING the 1st by getting their state or local government to ban the word "Christmas" from parades like this one.
Just think how foolish they will feel when they go through all those faux pas, only to find that the 1st amendment as written, applies only to the Federal government (Congress shall make no law....), unlike most of the rest of the Bill of Rights. States and local governments, in fact, are NOT banned from making laws "respecting an establishment of religion" by the 1st amendment, nor are they enjoined from "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". When the 1st amendment was written and ratified, many states had official state religions, and the 1st amendment was carefully crafted to not interfere with that fact!
Those state religions are now a thig of the past, of course, and the courts have further stated that, with the passage of the 14th amendment, the Federal-govt-only nature of the 1st amendment must now apply to state and local governments, too.
State and local governments don't HAVE to ban "the free exercise" of religion, of course, but under the original 1st amendment, they could if they wanted.
Interestingly, some of them are starting to want to. Including, apparently, the government that runs the Richmond Christmas Parade. But for exactly the wrong reason! Since the entire 1st amendment must now also be obeyed by state and local governments too... including the part that says they cannot "prohibit the free exercise" of religion!
When these leftists go out to screw something up, they really do a THOROUGH job, don't they.......!
With all due respect, the war on Christmas NEVER ended. It happens every year like clockwork
As I posted on the Ground Zero Mosque thread, we will see the religious tolerance of liberals as the Christmas season starts - and as usual - I was right
The same people lecturing us about religious tolerance when it comes to Muslims - blow a gasket and show their intolerance over Christmas
Why would anyone be surprised by more liberal hypocrisy?
darin
10-06-2010, 05:08 AM
Really?
So not favoring one religion above others is prohibiting the free exercise of religion?
Get a clue dipshit :slap:
Could it be --
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.
I think I've mentioned this before - but your bolding - your use of that part, is a fallacy. You are claiming words mean different things.
Once more, maybe to help you understand,
That part means "Congress shall establish no official religion" (sigh). Tradition and FEDERAL LAW is on the side of using the word Christmas in every celebration of the FEDERAL, LEGAL Holiday.
:)
red states rule
10-06-2010, 05:17 AM
Have a very liberal Christmas
http://www.strangepolitics.com/images/content/112600.jpg
Pagan
10-06-2010, 07:18 AM
I think I've mentioned this before - but your bolding - your use of that part, is a fallacy. You are claiming words mean different things.
Once more, maybe to help you understand,
That part means "Congress shall establish no official religion" (sigh). Tradition and FEDERAL LAW is on the side of using the word Christmas in every celebration of the FEDERAL, LEGAL Holiday.
:)
Like I said, get a clue -
Establishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/establishment?show=0&t=1286344142) noun
3 a public organization with a particular purpose or function
Synonyms establishment, foundation, institute
http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97zip/ESTAB.HTM
An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted and/or services are provided. It is not necessarily identical with a company or enterprise, which may consist of one establishment or more
http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause
Clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that gives preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the free expression of religion.
darin
10-06-2010, 08:03 AM
Like I said, get a clue -
Establishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/establishment?show=0&t=1286344142) noun
3 a public organization with a particular purpose or function
Synonyms establishment, foundation, institute
http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97zip/ESTAB.HTM
An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted and/or services are provided. It is not necessarily identical with a company or enterprise, which may consist of one establishment or more
http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause
Clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that gives preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the free expression of religion.
You are being willfully stupid.
"Congress shall make no law regarding establishing a national or official religion - likewise, Congress won't make laws which prohibit the lawful, free exercise of a religion"
That's what the Constitution means, bro. It's REALLY easy if you pull your head from your ass for ten seconds and really think about what you are reading.
You are being willfully stupid.
"Congress shall make no law regarding establishing a national or official religion - likewise, Congress won't make laws which prohibit the lawful, free exercise of a religion"
That's what the Constitution means, bro. It's REALLY easy if you pull your head from your ass for ten seconds and really think about what you are reading.
I have to agree with pagan on this one, because of a simple two letter word, "an"
"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."
"an" clearly details the context needed for the word "establishment" if instead of "an" it had of read "the" then I would agree with your interpretation, but it doesn't so I don't.
Nukeman
10-06-2010, 12:23 PM
Like I said, get a clue -
Establishment (http://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/establishment?show=0&t=1286344142) noun
3 a public organization with a particular purpose or function
Synonyms establishment, foundation, institute
http://www.census.gov/epcd/ec97zip/ESTAB.HTM
An establishment is a single physical location at which business is conducted and/or services are provided. It is not necessarily identical with a company or enterprise, which may consist of one establishment or more
http://www.answers.com/topic/establishment-clause
Clause in the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution forbidding Congress from establishing a state religion. It prevents the passage of any law that gives preference to or forces belief in any one religion. It is paired with a clause that prohibits limiting the free expression of religion.
Great so by your definition they (the government)can SUPPORT a religion all they want they just can't build a structure to house it?!?!!?!?!?
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
Pagan
10-06-2010, 01:08 PM
I have to agree with pagan on this one, because of a simple two letter word, "an"
"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."
"an" clearly details the context needed for the word "establishment" if instead of "an" it had of read "the" then I would agree with your interpretation, but it doesn't so I don't.
It's so obvious and clear which is why I tend to be a bit of an ass on the subject. It shows one of two things (or both)
1. People will just argue just for the sake of arguing
2. Shows how far basic education has fallen
Nukeman
10-06-2010, 01:30 PM
It's so obvious and clear which is why I tend to be a bit of an ass on the subject. It shows one of two things (or both)
1. People will just argue just for the sake of arguing
2. Shows how far basic education has fallen
Your right!!! noun = person, place, or thing. So the government can not make a "person", "place", or "thing". What is your point.
Now if you were to use the word as a verb!!?!?!?!?
here let me get the definition for you....:poke:
any member of a class of words that are formally distinguished in many languages, as in English by taking the past ending in -ed, that function as the main elements of predicates, that typically express action, state, or a relation between two things, and that (when inflected) may be inflected for tense, aspect, voice, mood, and to show agreement with their subject or object
Pagan
10-06-2010, 10:33 PM
Your right!!! noun = person, place, or thing. So the government can not make a "person", "place", or "thing". What is your point.
Now if you were to use the word as a verb!!?!?!?!?
here let me get the definition for you....:poke:
Get a clue .... :lame2:
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
respecting (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respecting)
With respect to; concerning.
The basic rules for when to use "An" (http://www.world-english.org/articles.htm).
an = indefinite article (not a specific object, one of a number of the same objects) with vowels (a,e,i,o,u)
Can I have an apple?
Donata is an English teacher.
establishment (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establishment)
1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.
Now enough with the basic English lesson, if you're still having difficulty with understanding "basic" English I suggest you take a class. :rolleyes:
SassyLady
10-06-2010, 11:32 PM
Get a clue .... :lame2:
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
respecting (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respecting)
With respect to; concerning.
The basic rules for when to use "An" (http://www.world-english.org/articles.htm).
an = indefinite article (not a specific object, one of a number of the same objects) with vowels (a,e,i,o,u)
Can I have an apple?
Donata is an English teacher.
establishment (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establishment)
1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.
Now enough with the basic English lesson, if you're still having difficulty with understanding "basic" English I suggest you take a class. :rolleyes:
So, back to my original question ... how does sponsoring this parade cause Congress to create a law regarding "an establishment of religion"?
Pagan
10-07-2010, 12:10 AM
So, back to my original question ... how does sponsoring this parade cause Congress to create a law regarding "an establishment of religion"?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Simplified, Congress is forbidden to make ANY LAWS favoring OR discriminating a religion over any others
Capiche?
Now don't tell me you have no idea were Budgets come from ............
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
respecting (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respecting)
With respect to; concerning.
The basic rules for when to use "An" (http://www.world-english.org/articles.htm).
an = indefinite article (not a specific object, one of a number of the same objects) with vowels (a,e,i,o,u)
Can I have an apple?
Donata is an English teacher.
establishment (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establishment)
1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.
SassyLady
10-07-2010, 12:22 AM
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
Now don't tell me you have no idea were Budgets come from ............
You can't answer the question can you?
Sponsoring the parade isn't creating a law regarding the establishment of religion so I don't understand the flap over the parade, regardless of who is sponsoring it....private or public.
Pagan
10-07-2010, 12:24 AM
You can't answer the question can you?
Sponsoring the parade isn't creating a law regarding the establishment of religion so I don't understand the flap over the parade, regardless of who is sponsoring it....private or public.
So you have no idea how a budget is created then .....................
Here -
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
SassyLady
10-07-2010, 12:29 AM
So you have no idea how a budget is created then .....................
Here -
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
I know exactly how a budget is created ... you are diverting....and I understand...when you can no longer support a stance, divert.
Perhaps, instead of continuing to highlight, bold, underline...whatever, why don't you walk us uneducated folk through a step-by-step process of how sponsoring a parade violates the amendment you just keep repeating like a broken record.
Parade ... bands marching, floats with decorations on them, etc. --- how does this violate the amendment Pagan. I really would like to know.
Pagan
10-07-2010, 12:31 AM
I know exactly how a budget is created ... you are diverting....and I understand...when you can no longer support a stance, divert.
Perhaps, instead of continuing to highlight, bold, underline...whatever, why don't you walk us uneducated folk through a step-by-step process of how sponsoring a parade violates the amendment you just keep repeating like a broken record.
Parade ... bands marching, floats with decorations on them, etc. --- how does this violate the amendment Pagan. I really would like to know.
Any or one of - FUNDING, ADMINISTRATING, ORGANIZING, ETC. ETC. ETC.
Capiche?
SassyLady
10-07-2010, 01:13 AM
Any or one of - FUNDING, ADMINISTRATING, ORGANIZING, ETC. ETC. ETC.
Capiche?
Still can't make the connection huh?
Remember the question ... how is sponsoring a parade establishing a religion? Seems pretty basic to me.
but waiting for you to walk me through the steps.
capiche?
Pagan
10-07-2010, 02:22 AM
Still can't make the connection huh?
Remember the question ... how is sponsoring a parade establishing a religion? Seems pretty basic to me.
but waiting for you to walk me through the steps.
capiche?
Yes, it's pretty basic
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
respecting (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respecting)
With respect to; concerning.
The basic rules for when to use "An" (http://www.world-english.org/articles.htm).
an = indefinite article (not a specific object, one of a number of the same objects) with vowels (a,e,i,o,u)
Can I have an apple?
Donata is an English teacher.
establishment (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establishment)
1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
If you can't understand fundamental English nor the fundamentals of basic government than it's useless
Maybe I'm going about this wrong, you tell me what governs Government and Funds Government?
SassyLady
10-07-2010, 02:50 AM
Yes, it's pretty basic
http://kids.clerk.house.gov/grade-school/lesson.html?intID=17
respecting (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/respecting)
With respect to; concerning.
The basic rules for when to use "An" (http://www.world-english.org/articles.htm).
an = indefinite article (not a specific object, one of a number of the same objects) with vowels (a,e,i,o,u)
Can I have an apple?
Donata is an English teacher.
establishment (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/establishment)
1.
a. The act of establishing.
b. The condition or fact of being established.
2. Something established, as:
a. An arranged order or system, especially a legal code.
b. A permanent civil, political, or military organization.
c. An established church.
d. A place of residence or business with its possessions and staff.
e. A public or private institution, such as a hospital or school.
3. often Establishment An established social order, as:
a. A group of people holding most of the power and influence in a government or society. Often used with the.
b. A controlling group in a given field of activity. Often used with the.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion.
If you can't understand fundamental English nor the fundamentals of basic government than it's useless
Maybe I'm going about this wrong, you tell me what governs Government and Funds Government?
Where is the law that says sponsoring a parade is the establishment of religion? You can't answer this question because there isn't one.
The anti-religion wingnuts have convoluted the phrase to mean that any time a state or federal entity "touches" anything religion, then it is verbotten...which is hogwash. Sponsoring a parade does not violate the first amendment.
Now, spending public monies on a parade in these trying times may be stupid, but I think it's asinine to try and change the name from Christmas Parade to Holiday Parade based on the arguments you've given thus far.
I am probably more anti-religion than you are Pagan, but I also feel that removing the name of something that is traditional or declared as a national holiday could be seen as suppression of religion which would violate the amendment, don't you?
Where is the law that says sponsoring a parade is the establishment of religion? You can't answer this question because there isn't one.
The anti-religion wingnuts have convoluted the phrase to mean that any time a state or federal entity "touches" anything religion, then it is verbotten...which is hogwash. Sponsoring a parade does not violate the first amendment.
With respect MKP your question has nothing to do with our line of reasoning, why? Because you replaced the word "an" with the word "the" which completely changes the context of the word "establishment"
As I said earlier in the thread..."I have to agree with pagan on this one, because of a simple two letter word, "an"
"an" clearly details the context needed for the word "establishment" if instead of "an" it had of read "the" then I would agree with your interpretation, but it doesn't so I don't."
Now, spending public monies on a parade in these trying times may be stupid, but I think it's asinine to try and change the name from Christmas Parade to Holiday Parade based on the arguments you've given thus far.
I am probably more anti-religion than you are Pagan, but I also feel that removing the name of something that is traditional or declared as a national holiday could be seen as suppression of religion which would violate the amendment, don't you?
why is it suppression of religion to not favour one religion over another? How many Hindu parades are funded by the taxpayer etc?
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 08:31 AM
Any or one of - FUNDING, ADMINISTRATING, ORGANIZING, ETC. ETC. ETC.
Capiche?So tell me how do you feel about the Deerborn MI festival put on by the Islamic council.... It cast the city many thousands of "TAX PAYER" dollars to put on. Even though it is a private group there are still cost related to the festival.... I haven't seen you or noir bring up that and bitch about it.....
any large-scale event that occurs within the City of Dearborn inevitably
requires City services. For example, the [AACC] cannot close the streets and
sidewalks without the City’s permission. (Exhibit E.) Police support is
needed for crowd control, to maintain a perimeter around the event, and to
ensure public safety. (Transcript of deposition of Ronald Haddad, p. 15, 18,
attached as Exhibit K. [Hereinafter “Haddad dep.”]) To facilitate this
support, the Dearborn Police Department set up a command post within the
Festival boundaries. (Haddad dep., p. 52.) Additionally, the City is
responsible for maintaining the cleanliness of the streets and sidewalks.
Def. Br. at 5. Moreover,
[t]o ensure orderly planning, the City sends representatives to meetings of the
Festival committee. Five meetings took place for the 2009 Festival.
(Mrowka dep., p. 8.) City participants included Sgt. Jeffrey Mrowka and
Deputy Recreation Director Eric Peterson. (Mrowka dep., p. 9.) Mrowka is
special events coordinator for the police department. (Mrowka dep., p. 5.)
Peterson is the special events coordinator for the recreation department.
Mrowka and Peterson ensure that organizations hosting events in the City
obtain necessary approvals, and they identify the steps that will need to be
taken to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare during the event.
Just becasue a city or state allowes a "religious" themed event to take place does not mean they are "establishing" it means they are not prohibiting the free expression. Or are you honestly telling all of us that IF any religious themed event takes place on 'PUBLIC" ground it is illegal???? Your a real piece of work there slim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So tell me how do you feel about the Deerborn MI festival put on by the Islamic council.... It cast the city many thousands of "TAX PAYER" dollars to put on. Even though it is a private group there are still cost related to the festival.... I haven't seen you or noir bring up that and bitch about it.....
I've never heard of it, but if taxpayer dollars are beig spent to promote a religion, any religion, that's wrong and unconstitutional. IMO.
Just becasue a city or state allowes a "religious" themed event to take place does not mean they are "establishing" it means they are not prohibiting the free expression. Or are you honestly telling all of us that IF any religious themed event takes place on 'PUBLIC" ground it is illegal???? Your a real piece of work there slim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nothing wrong with letting a reliious march etc take place, that's guaranteed in the First, however, the state should not provide funding to one or another religious group or promote said religion.
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 08:58 AM
I've never heard of it, but if taxpayer dollars are beig spent to promote a religion, any religion, that's wrong and unconstitutional. IMO.
Nothing wrong with letting a reliious march etc take place, that's guaranteed in the First, however, the state should not provide funding to one or another religious group or promote said religion.
Here's the rub Noir... If something takes place on "public" land it involves some tax money to take care of, be it police, cleaning, or basic maintenence... You still need some tax money. Our founding fathers did not say we needed a governement devoid of religion only that they will not promote one over another.
Giving of some public monies to a group really isn't promoting one over another it is actually being fair. If a community has a large Muslim population I would expect the local gov't to help them just as I would with a large Jewish, Christian, or any other religion in the local area. After all those people are the TAX BASE from which the local gov't recieve their funds.........
Here's the rub Noir... If something takes place on "public" land it involves some tax money to take care of, be it police, cleaning, or basic maintenence... You still need some tax money. Our founding fathers did not say we needed a governement devoid of religion only that they will not promote one over another.
Giving of some public monies to a group really isn't promoting one over another it is actually being fair. If a community has a large Muslim population I would expect the local gov't to help them just as I would with a large Jewish, Christian, or any other religion in the local area. After all those people are the TAX BASE from which the local gov't recieve their funds.........
Ofcourse the tax payer should pay for policing etc, but that in itself is nothing to do with the religion, however, if the state goes out of it's way to favour a religion by funding a religious parade that is wrong, no?
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 09:29 AM
Ofcourse the tax payer should pay for policing etc, but that in itself is nothing to do with the religion, however, if the state goes out of it's way to favour a religion by funding a religious parade that is wrong, no?
Why!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????
If a person is elected and continues to attend their church they are essentialy elevating it over others just by their presence at said church. By the very nature of being elected and being a PUBLIC figure and attending a specific church they are promoting one over others!!! Are they not?!!?!?!?
If a community is predominately Jewish I would expect the local gov't to give some money for programs just as I would expect a community that is mostly Christian to give money for programs after all the money came MOSTLY from Christians or Jews.. Correct??????
You have to cater to your community, I am not talking federal funds but Local funds for local events... No one on here has pushed for federal funds to be used for anything......
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 09:32 AM
Ofcourse the tax payer should pay for policing etc, but that in itself is nothing to do with the religion, however, if the state goes out of it's way to favour a religion by funding a religious parade that is wrong, no?
sure it soes, if the religious organization didn't want to put on a program there would be no need. If and I say IF we have a true seperation of church and sate ANY religious themed event should ppay ALL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVENT. To include police, cleaning,...etc....
sure it soes, if the religious organization didn't want to put on a program there would be no need. If and I say IF we have a true seperation of church and sate ANY religious themed event should ppay ALL COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE EVENT. To include police, cleaning,...etc....
Maybe you believe that, I don't, communal services like police & street cleaning are what everyone pays there taxes for.
However, you do not pay your taxes to actively promote a religion of any stripe.
Edit - for example if you were to follow the *true* separation of church and state then Churches would be exempt from any and all laws.
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 09:49 AM
Maybe you believe that, I don't, communal services like police & street cleaning are what everyone pays there taxes for.
However, you do not pay your taxes to actively promote a religion of any stripe.
Edit - for example if you were to follow the *true* separation of church and state then Churches would be exempt from any and all laws.
So the point here is that there is NO TRUE SEPERATION of church and state!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? Correct??????
So the point here is that there is NO TRUE SEPERATION of church and state!?!?!?!?!?!!?!? Correct??????
Chruches MUST operate within the laws of a state, in that sense there can never be a "true" seperation. However, that is not to say that the state should promote a religion.
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 10:03 AM
Chruches MUST operate within the laws of a state, in that sense there can never be a "true" seperation. However, that is not to say that the state should promote a religion.How is it promoting??? if the parade is called a "holiday" parade or a "Christmas" parade what exactly is the difference.....???? it is a name on a flyer... That is it. What other holiday that is widely celibrated that time of year is there. so it is actually just semantics on the name of the parade!!!!!
So your OK if the gov't helps pay for a "holiday" parade knowing full well which holiday it is refrencing but have an issue with a "Christmas parade" due to the holidy being blatantly used in the title, even though the parade is EXACTLY the same!!!!!!!!!
I am sure "pagan" is going to come back with hie "winter solstice" bullshit but how many actually celebrate the WS...
How is it promoting??? if the parade is called a "holiday" parade or a "Christmas" parade what exactly is the difference.....???? it is a name on a flyer... That is it. What other holiday that is widely celibrated that time of year is there. so it is actually just semantics on the name of the parade!!!!!
So your OK if the gov't helps pay for a "holiday" parade knowing full well which holiday it is refrencing but have an issue with a "Christmas parade" due to the holidy being blatantly used in the title, even though the parade is EXACTLY the same!!!!!!!!!
I am sure "pagan" is going to come back with hie "winter solstice" bullshit but how many actually celebrate the WS...
If it is not a religious march why use a religious term to describe it?
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 11:43 AM
If it is not a religious march why use a religious term to describe it?
Because sometime we just like to celebrate the holiday with our friends and neighbors in a larger way!!!!!!
Because sometime we just like to celebrate the holiday with our friends and neighbors in a larger way!!!!!!
And you would be unable to have that celebration if Chirst is not referenced in the parades name?
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 12:11 PM
And you would be unable to have that celebration if Chirst is not referenced in the parades name?
But we can have the SAME parade if no mention of Christ or Christmas???? Makes NO difference it is only a word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But we can have the SAME parade if no mention of Christ or Christmas???? Makes NO difference it is only a word!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Exactly, so have the parade, without the religious word which is unessessery and alls fine :3
Pagan
10-07-2010, 12:26 PM
So tell me how do you feel about the Deerborn MI festival put on by the Islamic council.... It cast the city many thousands of "TAX PAYER" dollars to put on. Even though it is a private group there are still cost related to the festival.... I haven't seen you or noir bring up that and bitch about it.....
.
Just becasue a city or state allowes a "religious" themed event to take place does not mean they are "establishing" it means they are not prohibiting the free expression. Or are you honestly telling all of us that IF any religious themed event takes place on 'PUBLIC" ground it is illegal???? Your a real piece of work there slim!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's not put on or funded by Government, so it's not violating the 1st. Religious organizations can use Public land just like any other private organization. Religious organizations can use Public services just like any other private organization.
Nukeman
10-07-2010, 12:32 PM
Exactly, so have the parade, without the religious word which is unessessery and alls fine :3
It doesn't change the theme of the parade at all though..... So your primary bitch is the word CHRIST?!!?!?!?!?!?!
Wow just wow!!!!!!!! Didn't know that peace loving man could instill so much hate!!!!!!
It doesn't change the theme of the parade at all though..... So your primary bitch is the word CHRIST?!!?!?!?!?!?!
Wow just wow!!!!!!!! Didn't know that peace loving man could instill so much hate!!!!!!
Hate? Well you've got me wrong there.
I just think (leaving the legalities aside) it's pretty stupid to give a religious label to a non-religious parade, in the same way it would be stupid to call it the Richmond Hannukah parade if it had nothing to do with the Jewish religion.
SassyLady
10-07-2010, 01:27 PM
With respect MKP your question has nothing to do with our line of reasoning, why? Because you replaced the word "an" with the word "the" which completely changes the context of the word "establishment"
As I said earlier in the thread..."I have to agree with pagan on this one, because of a simple two letter word, "an"
"an" clearly details the context needed for the word "establishment" if instead of "an" it had of read "the" then I would agree with your interpretation, but it doesn't so I don't."
OK, Noir, let me rephrase the question .... how is sponsoring a parade violating the first amendment? How is Congress making a law regarding an establishment of religion by sponsoring a parade?
why is it suppression of religion to not favour one religion over another? How many Hindu parades are funded by the taxpayer etc?
If the Hindu want a parade let them submit their application to the parade organizers. I don't understand why you think everything should be all inclusive or not at all. Just because the Hindus haven't organized their own parade you want to horn in on someone else's parade. Classic example of bullying.
Pagan
10-07-2010, 01:45 PM
OK, Noir, let me rephrase the question .... how is sponsoring a parade violating the first amendment? How is Congress making a law regarding an establishment of religion by sponsoring a parade?
Where does the the Budget and Statutes come from?
Laws
Who creates the Laws?
Congress
If the Hindu want a parade let them submit their application to the parade organizers. I don't understand why you think everything should be all inclusive or not at all. Just because the Hindus haven't organized their own parade you want to horn in on someone else's parade. Classic example of bullying.
No it's called he Law.
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion
Little-Acorn
10-07-2010, 02:09 PM
Forget it, MKP. pagan is fanatically locked into ignoring the rest of the 1st amendment, that permits what he's whining about. Your efforts to get either integrity or honesty out of him, are wasted. He has an agenda to defend.
Pagan
10-07-2010, 02:16 PM
Forget it, MKP. pagan is fanatically locked into ignoring the rest of the 1st amendment, that permits what he's whining about. Your efforts to get either integrity or honesty out of him, are wasted. He has an agenda to defend.
Really?
I look at the entire text and it clearly states Government is forbidden to become involved with religion in order to protect the freedom of all.
So tell me this there Slick, how is being forbidden to favor one religion over another restricting freedom of religion?
Here, get a clue -
http://topics.law.cornell.edu/wex/establishment_clause
The First Amendment's Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or non-religion over religion
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.