THE LAW IS THE LAW

The following piece was forwarded to me by my former college roommate and one of the first fans to the Rant.  It has been making the rounds on the email circuit.

So “if” the   US government determines that it is against the law for the words “under God” to be on our money, then, so be it. 

And “if” that same government decides that the “Ten Commandments” are not to be used in or on a government installation, then, so be it.  

I say, “so be it,” because I would like to be a law-abiding US citizen.  

I say, “so be it,” because I would like to think that smarter people than I are in positions to make good decisions.  

I would like to think that those people have the American public’s best interests at heart.

BUT, YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE I’D LIKE?

Since we can’t pray to God, can’t Trust in God and cannot post His Commandments in Government buildings, I don’t believe the Government and its employees should participate in the Easter and Christmas celebrations  which honor the God that  our government is eliminating from many facets of American life.  

I’d like my   mail delivered on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter.   After all, it’s just another day.  

I’d like the “US Supreme Court to be in session on Christmas, Good Friday, Thanksgiving & Easter as well as Sundays.”   After all, it’s just another day.  

I’d like the Senate and the House of Representatives to not have to worry about getting home for the “Christmas Break.”   After all it’s just another day.  

I’m thinking that a lot of my taxpayer dollars could be saved, if all government offices & services would work on Christmas, Good Friday & Easter.   It shouldn’t cost any overtime since those would be just like any other day of the week  to a government that is trying to be “politically correct.”

In fact….

I think that our government should work on Sundays (initially set aside for worshipping God…) because, after all,  our government says that it should be just another day….

What do you all think????

If this idea gets to enough people,  maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the “minority opinions” and begin, once again,   to represent the “majority” of ALL of the American people.

SO BE IT………..

Please Dear Lord,  

Give us the help needed to keep you in our country!

‘Amen’ and ‘Amen’  

 I agree. 

Of course, this is just my opinion.

Rob’s Rant

Advertisements

27 Responses

  1. You certainly have not thought this through very far.

    There is a difference between recognizing the right of an individual to take a day off to worship and the enforcement of a single religion by the Government. The words on the money is the enforcement of a single religion – largely Christianity.

    What you are advocating is a tyranny by the government that does not allow a person to take time off to worship.

    The early settlers knew all about religious persecution. They fled the bloody history of Europe in imposing and enforcing a single religion. Nothing is more vivid then the civil war in England over religion.

    The founding fathers may have been raised in the Christian religion but they knew enough to pass the famous \”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof\”

    I personally don\’t want my tax dollars spent on Town sponsored Christmas. If they do, then they must celebrate Muslim holidays, as well as many other religions.

    Keep your religion in your churches, synagogues, and mosques.

    A tyranny of religion is what you are advocating.

    • Thanks for joining the Rant.

      You certainly have not thought this through very far.

      Actually, I have.

      There is a difference between recognizing the right of an individual to take a day off to worship and the enforcement of a single religion by the Government. The words on the money is the enforcement of a single religion – largely Christianity.

      I’m not sure you got the point of the post. The point was the everyone gets the day off of work for a Christian holiday. Personally I don’t have a problem with this since this is a Christian nation. The majority of the population identifies themselves as Christian or at least believes in God. Whether they are practicing as such is fodder for another post.

      What you are advocating is a tyranny by the government that does not allow a person to take time off to worship.

      That is a ridiculous assumption on your part. This is called illustrating the absurd by being absurd.

      The early settlers knew all about religious persecution. They fled the bloody history of Europe in imposing and enforcing a single religion. Nothing is more vivid then the civil war in England over religion.

      What does this have to do with the post?

      The founding fathers may have been raised in the Christian religion but they knew enough to pass the famous \”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof\”

      The point of the posted email was the fact that the mere idea of Christian concepts or anything related to GOD is subject to criticism and/or removal from activities because of the PC nature of our society – or the perceived PC nature of our society. I believe it is the later. I believe it is a small minority that has problems with the mention of Christianity, GOD or any other related idea. If this were a Muslim country then we would live a little differently, but it is not.

      I personally don\’t want my tax dollars spent on Town sponsored Christmas. If they do, then they must celebrate Muslim holidays, as well as many other religions.

      If you are PC, maybe. When the majority of people believe in God, majority rules. Feel free to make your point known in your town, but in all matters like this the majority rules. Move to another town if you don’t like their rules.

      Keep your religion in your churches, synagogues, and mosques.

      Putting God on money does not advocate any religion. The only people that should have some type of problem are those people that believe in no deity. A very small group indeed.

      A tyranny of religion is what you are advocating.

      Again, that is a ridiculous assumption on your part. I think you are reading too much into a light hearted email post.

  2. The Founding Fathers would be aghast at your suggestion — it goes against everything they stood for. When I posted their historical perspective based on the history of England and Europe, I was conveying just how the Founding Fathers really valued a government that did not side with a religion, any religion. I can see you missed that point entirely.

    Instead of following the wishes of the patriots, of the founding fathers, want to make a government that favors Christianity, because you happen to think that they are a majority.

    The stated goal of your post was that “Christian concepts or anything related to GOD is subject to criticism and/or removal from activities because of the PC nature of our society,” so says you.

    My point is that I object to the expenditure of my tax dollars to display the symbols from your religion. I would bet that you would object to the expenditure of your tax dollars to display the symbols from my religion, and that you would object to the expenditure of money for Muslim holidays, and any other non-Christian holidays.

    I will go much further. Some towns celebrate St Peter. Do you favor the approximately $10,000 spent o celebrate St Peter? Why not? Is it because you oppose Christianity? Why must you be so PC?

    I doubt you get the point, so I’ll state it in a way that you might: when do the expenditure of government dollars stops? Whose religion? Why yours? Why is yours favored?

    I don’t happen to see anything in the Constitution that says the presumed majority gets to decide how it is spent. That’s the point of the Constitution: the rules apply to everyone, whether the community is a Christian or a Muslim community.

    You happen to have bought into the War on Christmas that’s in vogue because you listen to conservative radio. Common sense says that religion belongs at the house of worship of your choice, and not paid for by taxes.

    Any mention of the majority as superceding the Constitution is morally bankrupt. Otherwise why have a Constitution at all.

    Finally, I said you wanted to have a tyranny of religion. If the majority can impose their will and their religious symbols, if they can spend a few dollars today on a manger, they will in time spend it on religious teachers, on religious books, on mandatory religious teachings in school. It’s a slippery slope. At that point everyone will have to believe whosoever majority belief is imposed (and it may not be your version of Christianity).

    What starts a foolish nonsense over a public display ends up as religion by government.

    I am surprised, literally, that you can so blatantly go against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. Do they teach civics in your school?

  3. The Founding Fathers would be aghast at your suggestion — it goes against everything they stood for. When I posted their historical perspective based on the history of England and Europe, I was conveying just how the Founding Fathers really valued a government that did not side with a religion, any religion. I can see you missed that point entirely.

    Instead of following the wishes of the patriots, of the founding fathers, want to make a government that favors Christianity, because you happen to think that they are a majority.

    The stated goal of your post was that “Christian concepts or anything related to GOD is subject to criticism and/or removal from activities because of the PC nature of our society,” so says you.

    My point is that I object to the expenditure of my tax dollars to display the symbols from your religion. I would bet that you would object to the expenditure of your tax dollars to display the symbols from my religion, and that you would object to the expenditure of money for Muslim holidays, and any other non-Christian holidays.

    I will go much further. Some towns celebrate St Peter. Do you favor the approximately $10,000 spent o celebrate St Peter? Why not? Is it because you oppose Christianity? Why must you be so PC?

    I doubt you get the point, so I’ll state it in a way that you might: when do the expenditure of government dollars stops? Whose religion? Why yours? Why is yours favored?

    I don’t happen to see anything in the Constitution that says the presumed majority gets to decide how it is spent. That’s the point of the Constitution: the rules apply to everyone, whether the community is a Christian or a Muslim community.

    You happen to have bought into the War on Christmas that’s in vogue because you listen to conservative radio. Common sense says that religion belongs at the house of worship of your choice, and not paid for by taxes.

    Any mention of the majority as superceding the Constitution is morally bankrupt. Otherwise why have a Constitution at all.

    Finally, I said you wanted to have a tyranny of religion. If the majority can impose their will and their religious symbols, if they can spend a few dollars today on a manger, they will in time spend it on religious teachers, on religious books, on mandatory religious teachings in school. It’s a slippery slope. At that point everyone will have to believe whosoever majority belief is imposed (and it may not be your version of Christianity).

    What starts a foolish nonsense over a public display ends up as religion by government.

    I am surprised, literally, that you can so blatantly go against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. Do they teach civics in your school?

  4. The Founding Fathers would be aghast at your suggestion — it goes against everything they stood for. When I posted their historical perspective based on the history of England and Europe, I was conveying just how the Founding Fathers really valued a government that did not side with a religion, any religion. I can see you missed that point entirely.

    Instead of following the wishes of the patriots, of the founding fathers, want to make a government that favors Christianity, because you happen to think that they are a majority.

    The stated goal of your post was that “Christian concepts or anything related to GOD is subject to criticism and/or removal from activities because of the PC nature of our society,” so says you.

    My point is that I object to the expenditure of my tax dollars to display the symbols from your religion. I would bet that you would object to the expenditure of your tax dollars to display the symbols from my religion, and that you would object to the expenditure of money for Muslim holidays, and any other non-Christian holidays.

    I will go much further. Some towns celebrate St Peter. Do you favor the approximately $10,000 spent o celebrate St Peter? Why not? Is it because you oppose Christianity? Why must you be so PC?

    I doubt you get the point, so I’ll state it in a way that you might: when do the expenditure of government dollars stops? Whose religion? Why yours? Why is yours favored?

    I don’t happen to see anything in the Constitution that says the presumed majority gets to decide how it is spent. That’s the point of the Constitution: the rules apply to everyone, whether the community is a Christian or a Muslim community.

    You happen to have bought into the War on Christmas that’s in vogue because you listen to conservative radio. Common sense says that religion belongs at the house of worship of your choice, and not paid for by taxes.

    Any mention of the majority as superceding the Constitution is morally bankrupt. Otherwise why have a Constitution at all.

    Finally, I said you wanted to have a tyranny of religion. If the majority can impose their will and their religious symbols, if they can spend a few dollars today on a manger, they will in time spend it on religious teachers, on religious books, on mandatory religious teachings in school. It’s a slippery slope. At that point everyone will have to believe whosoever majority belief is imposed (and it may not be your version of Christianity).

    What starts a foolish nonsense over a public display ends up as religion by government.

    I am surprised, literally, that you can so blatantly go against the wishes of the Founding Fathers. Do they teach civics in your school?

  5. for some strange reason I was on a vpn yesterday (traveling) and it looks like it didn’t match my name with posts. You can delete the extra copies

  6. A Christian Nation – we are not.

    I know it’s been popular, in some circles, to call America a Christian Nation. The term is a warp on reality, but a lot of fundamentalists really feel very strongly about it.

    Just 30 years ago, we had both the most Christian of presidents in office. He was replaced by a popular Republican president. Neither felt the need then to call America a Christian Nation.

    The term Christian Nation, as you use it in your post and as religious conservatives use it, is at odds with its international meaning. George Washington specifically called America not a Christian Nation.

    The meaning of an Islamic Republic, or Islamic Nation is that the government supports a single religion. The term is vacant because there are at least 4 versions of Islam. In Iran at least, it’s officially the Shite version.

    Israel is a Jewish State and it officially promotes Judaism.

    Countries like Ireland, Spain and Italy are much more Christian (something like 90%) but they don’t call themselves a Christian Nation. That is because their government is officially religion neutral (as in separation of church and state). The Papal States civil war in Italy settled that issue 130+ years ago.

    America’s constitution specifically makes America religion neutral. It by definition cannot be a Christian Nation anymore than it would be a Pilgrim Nation.

    Even if America were a Christian Nation, it would be a Catholic Nation. There are far more Catholics in America than all protestants put together. Think Irish, Italians, and Latinos and you pretty much get the profile. There are more Catholics in NY than there are protestants in Alabama and Mississippi combined.

    Still, America is religion neutral. Its core values are that you can come to America and we’ll respect your religion (so long as you don’t bomb anything, slaughter or imprison anyone).

    Any talk about America being a Christian Nation is going against what America stands for, it is going against the Founding Fathers, and it is subverting the meaning of the constitution.

    I had you pegged for a guy who believes in the Founding Fathers and the principles of the constitution — up until now. Now I know that your view of the constitution is to trash it up a bit.

    That’s why we have a constitution, so radio talking heads can’t put ideas in people to trash it. America’s only defense is the constitution, to keep people from subverting its value of life and liberty to all – regardless of beliefs or religion.

  7. Having trouble figuring out what name and email to use Mike, or Nike, Anonymous, or whomever you decide to be today shrouded in anonymity by the internet? I find this very humorous. Thanks for giving me a laugh. With all those identities and emails to keep up with I can see how you have no time to create your own website.

    Funnier is your backpedaling. I use a VPN connection as I travel across the country and I have yet to forget which email or identity to use.

    I originally was going to answer your many points one by one, but I really don’t want to take the time as I think you’ve blown the post and my initial comments way out of proportion.

    Again, the email in the post was being rather sarcastic about the hypocrisy of government officials who get off work for overtly Christian holidays (Christmas & Easter.) and then claim that the government is non-religious. While this may be true of specific individuals, we are still celebrating Christian holidays. I do believe, and can back this up, that the US is still a Christian nation in the fact of how her citizens identify themselves – not that it really matters.
    I don’t have a problem with Christmas displays mentioned by you (not related to this post), but this is my opinion. Others might have problems and I’m fine with that. Object for debate in the public forum.

    Bottom line is that you seem to have missed the entire point of the email that was posted. I suppose you were too busy hopping between your many email addresses and assumed identities to read the content and infer its meaning.

  8. Your post and position on Christmas and the government is ridiculous. It goes against the constitution, which you have yet to answer.

    In my opinion you have it backwards. People can’t work on Dec 25 cause the office is closed. period. Your take is backwards. You claim that it is a religious holiday, and therefore everyone and everything must now be religious.

    You may think it is tongue in cheek, but it is just ridiculous.

    You can believe what you want, but Nike is a mistyped of Mike. I posted it again just so there wouldn’t be a confusion about who posted the reply. But you are free to misinterpret this as you have the constitution.

    • Your post and position on Christmas and the government is ridiculous. It goes against the constitution, which you have yet to answer.

      Then you didn’t read the email. I answered the intent of the post but not your ramblings about unrelated topics. You were all over the place on this one.

      In my opinion you have it backwards. People can’t work on Dec 25 cause the office is closed. period. Your take is backwards. You claim that it is a religious holiday, and therefore everyone and everything must now be religious.

      They have the day off because it is a national holiday which in turn is a religious holiday. Whether you like it or not, Christmas is a religious based holiday. So is Easter. Period.

      You may think it is tongue in cheek, but it is just ridiculous.

      That’s me, the ridiculous one.

      You can believe what you want, but Nike is a mistyped of Mike. I posted it again just so there wouldn’t be a confusion about who posted the reply. But you are free to misinterpret this as you have the constitution.

      I’ll give you the mistyping your name fopaux, but you also used a different email address. No one but me can see that as it appears on the admin screen. Nice try Nike. The post did not have anything to do with the Constitution so I’m not sure where that came from.

  9. Nike/Mike the Constitution as written did not mean to keep religion out of the state. It was to keep the state out of religion.

  10. Thomas Jefferson would disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution. Your views may match the “politically-correct” views of conservatives, but they are at odds with the Founders.

    Any casual reading of the Constitution and its Amendments would clarify the matter for you. I will post Jefferson’s explanation of the separation of church and state below.

    To summarize your entire post, your logic was based on the following flawed and reverse thinking:

    – at one time in America, 80%+ of the country was Christian and privately celebrated Christmas. That was a time when the currency did not have the word “God” anywhere on it.

    – to accommodate its workers, the Fed Govt and most businesses closed on the 25th Dec. It essentially allowed people who believe the day off to celebrate.

    – The Fed Govt and most businesses also allow people who believe in other religions, their day off (or early departure where required), whatever day that may be.

    – today just barely 50% consider themselves Christian. The number of Christians has been going down ever since God was placed in the currency. But the holiday stays as a matter of cultural preference and as a matter of deferment to a large group of its employees.

    – given the above reason why the 25th is a day off, you now claim that the Federal Government must now allow Christianity into the everyday functioning of all aspects of its inner works.

    – further you claim we must become a Christian Nation.

    All just because it allowed people the day off to celebrate their religion.

    Everyone one in teh world knows that Christmas and Easter and Christian holidays. I have no idea why you felt the need to state such an obvious fact. No one is arguing that the holiday isn’t part of allowing Christians to celebrate; what I am arguing is that just because they get the day off to celebrate doesn’t mean we have to become a Christian Nation and the inner workings of the government have to now accept your version of Christianity (every one in the world also happens to know that there are at least 30 interpretations of the bible that are worshiped by large congregations, say those over 10 million.

    Now about the Jefferson matter. In the now famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, Jefferson wrote the words “wall of separation between church and state.” He then went on to specifically states that “Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts.”

    The executive is prohibited from any act that supports a religion, any religion.

    I think everyone in the world knows about separation of church and state. Your view comes from listening to talk radio. Once again, they are so wrong.

  11. at one time in America, 80%+ of the country was Christian and privately celebrated Christmas. That was a time when the currency did not have the word “God” anywhere on it.

    And “at one time” is still the same today. It’s 80% according to the Pew Research people. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

    to accommodate its workers, the Fed Govt and most businesses closed on the 25th Dec. It essentially allowed people who believe the day off to celebrate.

    Great, but it’s still a national holiday based on a Religious holiday.

    The Fed Govt and most businesses also allow people who believe in other religions, their day off (or early departure where required), whatever day that may be.

    Apples and oranges. Do those Christians get off for those other religious holidays? I think not. Everyone gets off for Christmas. Not a fair comparison.

    today just barely 50% consider themselves Christian. The number of Christians has been going down ever since God was placed in the currency. But the holiday stays as a matter of cultural preference and as a matter of deferment to a large group of its employees.

    Again, Closer to 80% according to the Pew Research people. http://religions.pewforum.org/reports

    given the above reason why the 25th is a day off, you now claim that the Federal Government must now allow Christianity into the everyday functioning of all aspects of its inner works.

    ??? You must be reading stuff in your mind. It’s always funny to me how you get to your illogical conclusions. Good for a laugh, though.

    further you claim we must become a Christian Nation.

    No, the claim was that we are a Christian nation. The numbers prove that fact.

    All just because it allowed people the day off to celebrate their religion.

    Great, it’s still a national holiday (for everyone) based on a religious holiday.

    Everyone one in teh world knows that Christmas and Easter and Christian holidays. I have no idea why you felt the need to state such an obvious fact. No one is arguing that the holiday isn’t part of allowing Christians to celebrate; what I am arguing is that just because they get the day off to celebrate doesn’t mean we have to become a Christian Nation and the inner workings of the government have to now accept your version of Christianity (every one in the world also happens to know that there are at least 30 interpretations of the bible that are worshiped by large congregations, say those over 10 million.

    And your point is….? I think we’ve covered the fact that you didn’t read the initial post.

    Interpretations of the bible and congregations have no bearing on this post. I have no earthly idea where you are going on this one. I’m guessing your VPN is acting up again and you meant to post this paragraph on another blog. Just a SWAG on my part.

    Now about the Jefferson matter. In the now famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut, Jefferson wrote the words “wall of separation between church and state.” He then went on to specifically states that “Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorized only to execute their acts.”

    This is not law, it is a letter and ideas. This whole “Separation of Church and State” thing has been taken as gospel and law, but it is not. Frankly I’m surprised you would bring it up. If that is really the case, then all vestiges of any religion should be banished from the public forum – which is the content of the original post. Of course I don’t believe that, but this is the point that the email was making.

    I think everyone in the world knows about separation of church and state. Your view comes from listening to talk radio. Once again, they are so wrong.

    What are they wrong about? The fact that there is this mythical separation of church and state?

  12. When you start throwing in derogatory comments I know I have you. Your irritation level comes through in terms a dig or two. I can take it. If you had a fact based logical answer you would have provided it.

    Your point, if I understand it correctly, is that you want religion in government. You want celebration of religion in government offices, in the town square (a term or art meaning any public place owned by town government), and hopefully in government decision making.

    Further, your point is that since we are a nation mostly composed of various Christian religious groups, we are a Christian Nation. Christians dominate, they are the majority, and their wishes should be addressed.

    I want to be sure I have your point of view correct, because I genuinely believe that this is the point you want to make. Feel free to correct me if I have not captured the essence of your position.

    I have a few questions, the type that the Supreme Court might ask,

    – Are displays in public squares going to be paid for in any way by tax dollars? Who pays for the electricity or liability insurance?

    – Would there be room in that Town Square for a Muslim display, maybe during Christmas or at the festive period of Eid?

    You quote Pew, who lists the number of self described members of a religion as 80% Christian. My numbers were practicing. I think we can reasonable agree that there were by far more people practicing (regular attend services, strongly believe, pray regularly) 50 years ago than there are today.

    I was being overly generous when I said 50% today practice. I very much doubt that 50% of Americans go to church. I’ve lived in the Midwest and South and while there are far more practicing Christians, I still don’t believe that it reaches 50%.

    I know tons of people and many would describe themselves as Catholic, Jews, or one form of protestant or the other. Few actually ever worship in a Church or Synagogue. They are just not practicing.

    Is there not a difference between the terms a nation composed of Christians and a Christian Nation? To me, the term Christian Nation means that the government officially endorses a religion. The United States does not.

    Central to this debate is the Separation of Church and State. The law is the interpretation of the First Amendment clause by the Supreme Court. I posted Jefferson’s comments (which I and the rest of the world understand is not law). It does describe Jefferson’s view, and as I stated, the Founding Fathers would be aghast at your proposition.

    More clearly is the position of the First Amendment, which is the Law. It states clearly,

    “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.”

    That’s why it’s the law; that is why it is not inside the government.

    • Sorry to disappoint you, but I can’t be had. I don’t get offended, especially by you. Better luck next time.

      I posted a great email that illustrated a good point and you have taken things way beyond what the post or I have said. Not sure why but I’m assuming there is some type of talking points you read recently. Just a guess on my part. I’ll answer some of your major points even though they are a bit rambling.

      You quote Pew, who lists the number of self described members of a religion as 80% Christian. My numbers were practicing. I think we can reasonable agree that there were by far more people practicing (regular attend services, strongly believe, pray regularly) 50 years ago than there are today.

      You are probably right about “practicing,” but I mentioned that in an earlier comment. It doesn’t really change anything.

      Is there not a difference between the terms a nation composed of Christians and a Christian Nation? To me, the term Christian Nation means that the government officially endorses a religion. The United States does not.

      I don’t see a difference in either term. You say potato, I say potato.

      Central to this debate is the Separation of Church and State. The law is the interpretation of the First Amendment clause by the Supreme Court. I posted Jefferson’s comments (which I and the rest of the world understand is not law). It does describe Jefferson’s view, and as I stated, the Founding Fathers would be aghast at your proposition

      I doubt they would be aghast at anything I have posted. I’m sure they would be much more aghast as suggestions to increase the size of our government.

      And my point is that the “Separation of Church and State” appears no where in law. I realize that the term is an interpretation of the first amendment, it still doesn’t matter.

      “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…….

      Kind of makes my original point. Is the US Government not recognizing Christmas (and Easter) as national holidays? I would say yes, but again, I don’t have a problem with it.

  13. I noticed that you didn’t, or couldn’t answer the questions I raised.

    When I read your post, I read that you want the federal government to allow religion within it’s institutions. Maybe it’s just to allow a Xmas tree inside the building, maybe it goes deeper with prayer groups, maybe deeper still.

    Maybe what you meant is just a celebration in the public square, as in a Nativity scene in a public park.

    You did not say. My questions and comments were to clarify what you meant.

    (I noticed that your last reply was a much welcomed dig-free zone. Our conversation is much better, more intelligent without the digs).

  14. I noticed that you didn’t, or couldn’t answer the questions I raised

    The only questions I did not answer were those that had nothing to do with the original post or any of my comments.

    When I read your post, I read that you want the federal government to allow religion within it’s institutions. Maybe it’s just to allow a Xmas tree inside the building, maybe it goes deeper with prayer groups, maybe deeper still.

    Thank didn’t read my comments very closely.

    (I noticed that your last reply was a much welcomed dig-free zone. Our conversation is much better, more intelligent without the digs).

    Pot meet kettle, kettle meet Mike.

    Dig free zone? Is this a joke? You are the king of digs and snarky hehavior. I usually laugh and let it roll off my back – you’re the one with the thin skin.

    The whole point of posting the email, which you missed entirely, was to show that the US government does recognize religious holidays with days off for Federal workers. Sorry you missed the point.

  15. Your post is about majority rule and ignoring other rights of other religions. The email you posted says “elected officials will stop giving in to the ‘minority opinions’ and begin, once again, to represent the ‘majority’ of ALL of the American people.

    I am hoping at this point that you read the entire email you posted because it quite clearly is about recognizing the religion of the majority and it is quite definitely not a small diatribe about the observance of a holiday or two.

    I say hoping because either you are walking away from your own, or you missed the entire point of your post. I think you’re unable to support your own post with a logical answer. Like I said before, when you get to that point you devolve into small and large digs. I know I’ve touched a raw nerve with you now.

    Bit I am quite sure that you didn’t post with the intent to make some sort of obvious point about Federal holidays.

    I asked what America would be like if your view of bowing to the majority became law. You should have answers to these questions since you claim that you’ve thought about this through quite far.

    Questions like,

    a) What is the purpose of the constitution if majority can just rule?

    b) If you want to establish Christianity as the religion of the state, as you have asked, what you are asking is that tax money be collected to serve the needs of one religion. You are asking me to subsidize your religion. I am quite sure that you would not want to subsidize mine.

    c) Are we going to support everyone who believes in God, the same God who instructed Abraham? Or are we only going to support the Son of God?

    d) Do you just care about Christmas decorations or do you want laws changed to support your religion?

    The majority is limited to electing representatives. They could amend the constitution, but if they didn’t do it when 80% were practicing Christians, they aren’t going to do it anytime now when less than 50% are practicing.

    To me, a nation that has an official religion is a tyranny.

  16. no answer, how sad.

  17. What is there to respond to? I’ve answered your questions in several posts. I realize I didn’t give you the answers you wanted, but that’s the way things go.

    I usually let you get the last word just to pacify you. Similar to my kids insistent on getting the last word in a conversation.

    You seem to live a huge majority of your life in the virtual world. No problem with that with me, but I live the majority of my life in the real world talking to real people and don’t have all the time in the world to respond to your every whim or comment.

    You should use all of your energy and create your own site. Let me know when you get that up and going and I’ll be sure to visit.

    What, no answer, how sad.

  18. I know I have you when you start with the digs. I asked several questions which you didn’t answer. I just don’t think you have an answer.

    Either you know what you are talking about, or you don’t. If you do, you should be able to explain it. You can’t. That is why you resort to the language and comments in your previous reply.

    Readers will decide.

    • I’m fine with digs, nothing new there. You love digs also so get off your high horse on that one. As far as resorting to language and comments – I have no idea what you are talking about.

      You’ve asked several questions. I’ve answered your questions related to the post. What I didn’t answer were unrelated items I felt had nothing to do with the original post. Feel free to comment but don’t expect me to answer every single comment you bring up.

      Also, I’ll say this again, you can’t get me. You can’t have me. I can’t be had. I don’t get offended. I’ll disagree with you and others and, as you say it, will dig a little – but don’t read anything into it. Feel free to think you have “gotten” me but my demeanor has not changed from when I started this blog. You give too much credit to the number of readers I have – many of them agree but never comment on the site. Yes, the readers will decide.

  19. By gotten I don’t mean had. I mean that your irritation at the question comes through very clearly and very strongly. It is almost always clear to see in verbal, written and non-verbal communications about the comfort level of the respondent.

    My comment is a way to tell you that I can see it, and I would be surprised if there is a reader out there that couldn’t see your irritation level.

    Your choice of a response level is up to you entirely. This is a conversation. You get out of it as much if not more than you put into it. It’s a two way street.

    Your post was about …maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the “minority opinions” and begin, once again, to represent the “majority” of ALL of the American people.

    Is it about respect for religions or is it majority rule? How does your concept of majority rule square with constitutional guarantees? Is it about using tax money for Christmas or is it about just celebration?

    These are all valid questions about your post. I don’t see any response about majority rule, or how majority rule square with the constitution, or how tax money is to be used. None.

    It isn’t about getting the answers I want, it’s about getting any answer.

    • By gotten I don’t mean had. I mean that your irritation at the question comes through very clearly and very strongly. It is almost always clear to see in verbal, written and non-verbal communications about the comfort level of the respondent. My comment is a way to tell you that I can see it, and I would be surprised if there is a reader out there that couldn’t see your irritation level.

      You are reading me wrong if you sense irritation.

      Your choice of a response level is up to you entirely. This is a conversation. You get out of it as much if not more than you put into it. It’s a two way street.

      That is true. I put as much as I wanted into the conversation. You wanted to take the post in a different direction. I made this an open forum from the start.

      Your post was about …maybe our elected officials will stop giving in to the “minority opinions” and begin, once again, to represent the “majority” of ALL of the American people.

      That was a small part at the bottom of the posted email. The real point, which you continue to miss, is the recognizing by the Federal Government that Christmas (and Easter) are Christian holidays. That is really not debatable. Those are facts.

      Is it about respect for religions or is it majority rule? How does your concept of majority rule square with constitutional guarantees? Is it about using tax money for Christmas or is it about just celebration? These are all valid questions about your post. I don’t see any response about majority rule, or how majority rule square with the constitution, or how tax money is to be used. None.

      If the majority of the country has no problem with the stated Christian holidays, then what is the problem? Our society caters to the minority opinion instead of the majority opinion in many facets. It’s the way things roll in our country today. Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays, not Jewish holidays, not Muslim holidays, not made up holidays (i.e. Kwanzaa). IF we as a country decide to officially celebrate other religious holidays then I have no problem with displays and celebrations, etc. etc. If the tax payers in an area want to spend tax money on displays, it’s fine with me.

      It isn’t about getting the answers I want, it’s about getting any answer.

      Right. That’s why you spend so much time trolling my little rant site. Ever wondered why you are one of the only people to comment on anything?

  20. To answer your last question, I assume that either people who visit your site don’t care what you have to say, or you don’t get that many readers to begin with. You would like it if I ignored your site completely.

    I take your post in its entirety. I don’t believe you have extra sentences just to fill up hyperspace and begging to be ignored. If you wrote it, I’ll ask what it means.

    And the sentence you wrote is really important. One that makes or breaks your post in its entirety. In fact, it may be so important that it defines and may change the way we view the issue of Christmas and religion.

    (Yes, everyone know that Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays.)

    You did not post about holidays. What you posted is that the majority should rule. What is the role of the constitution then if the majority can simply just rule?

    What if the majority wanted Catholic services? Do you have to now pay for it somehow?

    The constitutions means something. It means a great deal. I think your post goes against what the constitution stands for.

    You can’t just dismiss it by saying you don’t think so. Sure, people could vote to repeal or modify the 1st Amendment. Good luck with that.

    And that is why your post is so fundamental: it is either the 1st amendment rights or it is majority rule. It can’t be both – that would be illogical.

    Are you saying that you just don’t care about the 1st Amendment? If you care then what does it mean to you?

    (btw, what do you teach? public, private, college? you mentioned students)

  21. To answer your last question, I assume that either people who visit your site don’t care what you have to say, or you don’t get that many readers to begin with. You would like it if I ignored your site completely.

    I’ve said numerous times before that I don’t put posts up to appeal to anyone other than myself. I’ve never discouraged you from posting but I will never understand why you spend the time. Like I’ve said before, it’s your time.

    And the sentence you wrote is really important. One that makes or breaks your post in its entirety. In fact, it may be so important that it defines and may change the way we view the issue of Christmas and religion.(Yes, everyone know that Christmas and Easter are Christian holidays.)

    You did not post about holidays. What you posted is that the majority should rule. What is the role of the constitution then if the majority can simply just rule?

    The tenant of the post was about government workers taking off time on Christian holidays.

    What if the majority wanted Catholic services? Do you have to now pay for it somehow?

    Who said anything about services. We’re talking about Christian holidays here. Regardless of what you want to believe, the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. That does not negate the need to recognize freedom of religion.

    The constitutions means something. It means a great deal. I think your post goes against what the constitution stands for.

    You are reading into the initial post things that are not there.

    You can’t just dismiss it by saying you don’t think so. Sure, people could vote to repeal or modify the 1st Amendment. Good luck with that. And that is why your post is so fundamental: it is either the 1st amendment rights or it is majority rule. It can’t be both – that would be illogical.

    ??? The post was a tongue-in-cheek email that was forwarded to me. I liked the email so I posted in on MY site. I have no desire to change the 1st Amendment.

  22. So what happened to majority rules, and the majority should make the rules, and “caters to the minority opinion … It’s the way things roll”

    Surely you aren’t posting to fill hyperspace. You cannot have “caters to the minority opinion” and reconcile it with the 1st Amendment.

    I did not miss the point which you seem to feel is absolutely critical, that Christmas is a christian holiday. What I am trying to determine is what is the importance of it in your post.

    On the surface, I think you are saying that the Fed Gov (FG) recognizes a religious holiday and in doing so it is recognizing a group of religions categorized as Christian. You feel that the FG should then allow Christian traditions in the FG: decorated trees, displays of mangers, Santa’s happy face, mistletoe, etc…

    This opens up even more legal questions, questions of harassment and discrimination. I am sure that this statement comes as a surprise to you.

    If you allow religious symbolism in places of employment, you must allow it for all religions equally. People generally don’t take well to their religion being diminished in value. If one side gets to carol along, then the other should be allowed a prayer mat. If one is allowed a Christmas tree 6ft high, then the other should be allowed a menora 4ft high.

    Displays also call out peoples religions. Say “Rob, I don’t see you getting into the Chanuka spirit” is not something you’d want to hear on the job. Your religion is your own business. You happen to worship a specific sect of Protestants; I may find your sect odd. I should not be making employment decisions based on your involvement in religion in the work place.

    The same rule that protects your Protestant sect also protects Jews, and Muslims, and other lesser religions.

    You have never addressed the “majority rules” question. Is it going to be majority rules, or respect for religions? Respect for religions is what the 1st Amendment enshrines.

    That is why I asked the question.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: