Politics

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ill07

Disagree. The complete and total separation of church and state, regardless of whether you agree with it, is a legitimate viewpoint.

ill07 - I am not a lawyer. Can you show me where a complete and total separation of church and state became the law of the land? I am vaguely familiar with this:

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.

but as a layman I cannot see how that equals 'the complete and total separation of church and state.'

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

ill07 - I am not a lawyer. Can you show me where a complete and total separation of church and state became the law of the land? I am vaguely familiar with this:



but as a layman I cannot see how that equals 'the complete and total separation of church and state.'

I meant on a political level, though many advance the argument that religious symbols/decorations displayed by the government in effect serves to promote a religion (particularly when only one religion's symbols/decorations are displayed), which would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment. Not saying that I agree with that argument, but it has been made.

Personally, I prefer my government as secular as practicable. The only thing ever to come from mixing religion and politics is bloodshed. I'd like to stay as far away from that path as possible.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ill07

I meant on a political level, though many advance the argument that religious symbols/decorations displayed by the government in effect serves to promote a religion (particularly when only one religion's symbols/decorations are displayed), which would clearly run afoul of the First Amendment. Not saying that I agree with that argument, but it has been made.

Personally, I prefer my government as secular as practicable. The only thing ever to come from mixing religion and politics is bloodshed. I'd like to stay as far away from that path as possible.

I actually agree with you. I don't see how a public place that allows all forms of religious displays can be a problem but who really wants that anyway? For example the Illinois State House has a Christmas Tree, a Festivus Pole, a Star of David and a sign from some group of Madison atheists ridiculing all religions.

The problem that I have is with forcing change on embedded traditions (e.g. the 10 Commandments are displayed in the Supreme Court). The idea of sanitizing existing monuments, currency, etc. seems an unecessary burden and a destruction of traditions.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

For example the Illinois State House has a Christmas Tree, a Festivus Pole, a Star of David and a sign from some group of Madison atheists ridiculing all religions.

I had to look that up to see if you were kidding. And you are not. That is absolutely hysterical. I love Festivus because I am GREAT at airing my grievances.

I typically agree with you though, on not messing with tradition if it isn't hurting anyone. I'm not 100% sure about whether I wouldn't make an exception for getting rid of religious displays on government property, but more likely than not I'd let them stay.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by ill07

Disagree. The complete and total separation of church and state, regardless of whether you agree with it, is a legitimate viewpoint.

an angel on a christmas tree is in no way "preaching" so to speak. its a decoration that has existed for a long time.

and actually I would argue that there is no "seperation of church and state" in the constitution. what I believe it to mean anyway is that congress can pass no law that establishes a state church that everyone must belong to. it says freedom OF religion in constitution. not freedom FROM religion.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by ill07

I had to look that up to see if you were kidding. And you are not. That is absolutely hysterical. I love Festivus because I am GREAT at airing my grievances.

I typically agree with you though, on not messing with tradition if it isn't hurting anyone. I'm not 100% sure about whether I wouldn't make an exception for getting rid of religious displays on government property, but more likely than not I'd let them stay.

Festivus......for the rest of us. :laugh::laugh:

[ill07]

Originally Posted by bmb777

an angel on a christmas tree is in no way "preaching" so to speak. its a decoration that has existed for a long time.

and actually I would argue that there is no "seperation of church and state" in the constitution. what I believe it to mean anyway is that congress can pass no law that establishes a state church that everyone must belong to. it says freedom OF religion in constitution. not freedom FROM religion.

Freedom from religion is a corollary of freedom of religion. For instance: X law prohibiting an action is based on Y religion (won't give any example, so as to avoid firefights). Z religion does not ban, and perhaps even encourages the action prohibited by X law. X law is therefore an infringement on the followers of Z religion, in that it forces them to adhere to the standards of Y religion (thus, in a way, the state has established Y religion).

That's not a perfect analogy to holiday decorations, but you get my point. Distinction can be made between a law and holiday decorations, in my mind, and I don't have that much a problem with holiday decorations. But I completely and totally understand the people who want to make sure we don'[t even start down the path. Like I said, nothing good has ever come from mixing government with religion.

[Illini1956]

We need freedom from the few or the one. We were found on the common good and have dropped into the farce of one or two whiners and complainers calling the shots on everything.

Everyone loves the Christmas display in a town for years, then one complainer moves into town and thinks they have the right to halt everyone elses enjoyment.


Merry Christmas. I shop at stores that say Merry Christmas and tend to ignore the happy holiday stores.

After all the so called holiday of Kwanza was created by a marxist as an anti Christmas to undermine the United States.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by Illini1956

I shop at stores that say Merry Christmas and tend to ignore the happy holiday stores.

We wouldn't want to also extend seasons greetings to people of other faiths, now would we...:rolleyes:

Originally Posted by Illini1956

After all the so called holiday of Kwanza was created by a marxist as an anti Christmas to undermine the United States.

Are you for real? Like, seriously. I feel that my Illinois degree is losing its value...

[Illini1956]

I have posted the link before about Kwanza, feel free to look it up.

[Champaignillini]

Enjoy the holidays while it lasts. This brickbat can certainly wait for another day.

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year everyone.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

Enjoy the holidays while it lasts. This brickbat can certainly wait for another day.

Happy Holidays, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year everyone.

+1

Enjoy the Holidays.

[ill07]

But damnit, it's Christmas and I have nothing to do. Argue with me damnit!

Juust kidding. Enjoy the holiday everyone.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by Illini1956

We need freedom from the few or the one. We were found on the common good and have dropped into the farce of one or two whiners and complainers calling the shots on everything.

Everyone loves the Christmas display in a town for years, then one complainer moves into town and thinks they have the right to halt everyone elses enjoyment.

Merry Christmas. I shop at stores that say Merry Christmas and tend to ignore the happy holiday stores.

After all the so called holiday of Kwanza was created by a marxist as an anti Christmas to undermine the United States.

This is called The Tyranny of the Minority. It is an unfortunate effect of the politically correct movement of the 1980's and 1990's. Words and symbols can be hurtful and when they are hurtful to any sizeable reasonable minority or majority, they should be avoided when feasible. What defines sizeable and reasonable? Therein lies the problem.

There was a famous clash a decade ago over the word "niggardly". A very small portion of America, ignorant of the words meaning (cheap) and that it had no relationship to the racial slur that sounds similar were able to get a Mayor's aid to resign and a teacher in NC to innapropriately apologize. These incidents caused the Left to rethink its stance on PC. Some had previously claimed that if even ONE person is offended by a word it should be avoided. They realized that if a word could be banned because of an ignorant few, there was no end to the movement. What word would be banned next because it sounds similar to another? Thespian?

Companies and communities would do well to follow the same policy IMO. To settle the atheists down, I suggest making April 15th Atheist's Day. They can have their day and decorate the state house with their silly little DARWIN fish, and all the religions can have their days with their silly little decorations and people can learn not to be offended so easily by a well-meant greeting. After all if you inadvertently offend someone by telling them to have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah or whatever, are they really someone that you care about offending? Perhaps their being offended can OFFEND you! Peace.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

This is called The Tyranny of the Minority. It is an unfortunate effect of the politically correct movement of the 1980's and 1990's. Words and symbols can be hurtful and when they are hurtful to any sizeable reasonable minority or majority, they should be avoided when feasible. What defines sizeable and reasonable? Therein lies the problem.

There was a famous clash a decade ago over the word "niggardly". A very small portion of America, ignorant of the words meaning (cheap) and that it had no relationship to the racial slur that sounds similar were able to get a Mayor's aid to resign and a teacher in NC to innapropriately apologize. These incidents caused the Left to rethink its stance on PC. Some had previously claimed that if even ONE person is offended by a word it should be avoided. They realized that if a word could be banned because of an ignorant few, there was no end to the movement. What word would be banned next because it sounds similar to another? Thespian?

Companies and communities would do well to follow the same policy IMO. To settle the atheists down, I suggest making April 15th Atheist's Day. They can have their day and decorate the state house with their silly little DARWIN fish, and all the religions can have their days with their silly little decorations and people can learn not to be offended so easily by a well-meant greeting. After all if you inadvertently offend someone by telling them to have a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hannukah or whatever, are they really someone that you care about offending? Perhaps their being offended can OFFEND you! Peace.

I generally agree with everything in this post. The banning of words is especially troublesome, though there is no ban per se.

I would add that people who are offended when someone else chooses to say "Happy Holidays" are equally ridiculous as those who are offended by being greeted with the "wrong" seasons greetings per their religion/culture/whatever.

[Champaignillini]

On one hand, it's always 'safer' to wish someone (one whom you don't know well enough) Happy Holidays, rather than Merry Christmas. On the other, it is so innocuous that you wouldn't, even for a second, entertain the thought that someone could possibly get offended by it, even if the person doesn't celebrate Xmas. The same applies for people who get offended when you wish them 'Happy Holidays'. What gives ?

Why are people on such a short fuse ? It's a festive occasion, no matter what religion you belong to, and with so much going around, why would you ever want to be finicky and nitpicky over such trivialities ?

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ill07

I generally agree with everything in this post. The banning of words is especially troublesome, though there is no ban per se.

I would add that people who are offended when someone else chooses to say "Happy Holidays" are equally ridiculous as those who are offended by being greeted with the "wrong" seasons greetings per their religion/culture/whatever.

Yes.

I could not imagine being offended by a guy wishing me a Happy Ramadan, Happy Atheist's Day or Merry Christmas.

BTW - banned was an extreme comment. In essence I meant that you could earn a rebuke for using a word.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

On one hand, it's always 'safer' to wish someone (one whom you don't know well enough) Happy Holidays, rather than Merry Christmas. On the other, it is so innocuous that you wouldn't, even for a second, entertain the thought that someone could possibly get offended by it, even if the person doesn't celebrate Xmas. The same applies for people who get offended when you wish them 'Happy Holidays'. What gives ?

Why are people on such a short fuse ? It's a festive occasion, no matter what religion you belong to, and with so much going around, why would you ever want to be finicky and nitpicky over such trivialities ?

Great comment Grad.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Yes.

I could not imagine being offended by a guy wishing me a Happy Ramadan, Happy Atheist's Day or Merry Christmas.

BTW - banned was an extreme comment. In essence I meant that you could earn a rebuke for using a word.

I got what ya meant However, while extreme, you may have not been so far off from reality, considering the consequences that can come from using a word that society (or at least the PC police) have decided they don't like... It is almost like a de facto ban...

[Champaignillini]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

This is called The Tyranny of the Minority.

The Tyranny of the Majority and that of the minority are constantly at odds with one another. A lot of positives can be attributed to both these 'movements', but they sure do rile up passion among the extremists (on both sides). I'm afraid, I don't see any amicable 'solution' to this problem anytime soon. There will always be people who'll feel slighted by the majority, and the 'activists' among them will make sure that things are 'set straight', by titling the scale askew, when the real solution is somewhere in the middle (as always is). On the other side, you'll find a lot of people who'll feel that things are 'good as they are', and they'll always yearn for the 'good 'ol days of yore' (i.e. the status quo, where the minority is oppressed). Thankfully, both these sides are don't account for the mainstream.

In fact, I guess the situation has been worsening over the last decade, and most attempts to ameliorate it have been woefully lacking in substance.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinigrad

The Tyranny of the Majority and that of the minority are constantly at odds with one another. A lot of positives can be attributed to both these 'movements', but they sure do rile up passion among the extremists (on both sides). I'm afraid, I don't see any amicable 'solution' to this problem anytime soon. There will always be people who'll feel slighted by the majority, and the 'activists' among them will make sure that things are 'set straight', by titling the scale askew, when the real solution is somewhere in the middle (as always is). On the other side, you'll find a lot of people who'll feel that things are 'good as they are', and they'll always yearn for the 'good 'ol days of yore' (i.e. the status quo, where the minority is oppressed). Thankfully, both these sides are don't account for the mainstream.

In fact, I guess the situation has been worsening over the last decade, and most attempts to ameliorate it have been woefully lacking in substance.

Do you think that the internet and 24 hour cable channels might have something to do with this perception? At least that is where I assign the blame.

When I was a kid (in the 80's) there was only the local newspaper and news channels and a half hour national news show from which to get the news. There was very little opinion presented. Reporters reported. Now they are almost solely arbitrators of a Point - CounterPoint discussion between well-coiffed talking heads giving their vapid talking points.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by ill07

I got what ya meant However, while extreme, you may have not been so far off from reality, considering the consequences that can come from using a word that society (or at least the PC police) have decided they don't like... It is almost like a de facto ban...

You are correct. I almost did not include my example out of concern for how someone might take it.

[ill07]

A friend sent me this gem:

Earlier this month, conservative gay rights group GOProud announced that it would be a co-sponsor of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). But the group’s inclusion as a co-sponsor has led to a backlash from the anti-gay right, some of whom are threatening to boycott CPAC if GOProud’s sponsorship isn’t removed.

. . .

Keene admitted GOProud “has signed on as a CPAC co-sponsor, but will have no speakers and we told them that, in fact, since opposition to gay marriage, etc are consensus positions (if not unanimous) among conservatives, these topics are not open to debate.”

This is another chapter in the sad story of how the word "conservative" and the GOP have been hijacked by people who have no idea what true conservativism is. It's a damn shame that the party and the word "conservative" has been hijacked by this neo-con, bible-thumping garbage that is not even tangentially related to the principles of conservative governance. This isn't conservativism, this is theocratizing. Opposition to "gay marriage, etc" are only consensus positions to theocrats needing another name due to that pesky Constitution, not to TRUE conservatives.

There is really only one thing that will end this madness: leave the Republican party that has been hijacked by religious conservativism and either vote independent, or form a new party which focuses on actual conservative governance, rather than pontificating values that are best left to the individual to decide. It is an outright tragedy that I have to choose between two parties full of such stupidity. The time has never been better for a third--truly conservative, or even libertarian(my preference)--party to step up to the plate.

[DaytonIllini]

California going down the toilet in a hurry. I would be gleefully watching those idjuts drown in debt but I bet the feds (meaning the rest of us) bail them out. I sure hope not. They have enjoyed ridiculous benefits for decades. Why should states that were far more prudent in their outlays pick up the tab for them? The simple answer is that we should not.

Hey California - you want the stupid laws, rules and regulations and the excessive compensation plans for your state employees? Go ahead keep them. All you need to do is increase your income tax rate in California. In fact, according to some people that should encourage educated workers to move to your state.

The arsenal of one-time accounting maneuvers he and lawmakers have previously used to temporarily paper over parts of the gap -- such as accelerating income-tax collections -- has been mostly depleted, making efforts to erase the latest $21 billion deficit more difficult.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aKc0QT2U7Gc0

[Illest]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

California going down the toilet in a hurry. I would be gleefully watching those idjuts drown in debt but I bet the feds (meaning the rest of us) bail them out. I sure hope not. They have enjoyed ridiculous benefits for decades. Why should states that were far more prudent in their outlays pick up the tab for them? The simple answer is that we should not.

Hey California - you want the stupid laws, rules and regulations and the excessive compensation plans for your state employees? Go ahead keep them. All you need to do is increase your income tax rate in California. In fact, according to some people that should encourage educated workers to move to your state.



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aKc0QT2U7Gc0

California's fundamental issue is government by referendum. Their populace has voted for a system that guarantees all kinds of goodies that must be paid for but also makes it very difficult for the legislature to raise taxes.

From the perspective of fairness, I'm not entirely unsympathetic to California receiving a bailout, since California has contributed substantially more money than it's gotten back from the federal government for many years. But there are major moral hazard issues associated with bailing out a state government as well. It would be an awfully dangerous precedent to set.