The Constitution grants us freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. The government also should not force a particular religion on us. When President "Insert Name Here" makes Religion X the official state religion I will be the first to oppose it, but a town putting up a manger scene During Christmas time or a Manorah during Haunukah is not an endorsement of religion but the free expression of it as granted by the Constitution. People love to get this mixed up.

 

If government money goes towards the religious symbol, the government is sponsoring the religion. Period. How is THIS mixed up? I do NOT want my taxes (yes, I do pay an income tax which I do not get all back) going towards a religious symbol that I DO NOT BELIEVE IN. I would rather just have the money back.

 

Sponsoring religous activities is completely different than endorsing them. I do not like a lot of the things my taxes go to and I feel very strongly about those issues as people feel strongly about money going to religion. I am not a small person that I get threatened by other people's beliefs, sadly there are a lot of those people in this world.

 

I do not get threatened by others beliefs. I myself have went through a period of MANY beliefs, so I have an understanding of what people feel about religion. But if they want these symbols SO BAD, they can buy them themselves and put them up in their own property. I do not see what is so hard about this or how this is even unclear to people.

 

I was not necessarily implying you but more so the fanatics out there that want to strip any religion from society. And as long as government does not enforce or endorse on specific religion I have no problem with them supporting any religous festivities, as long as they do not descriminate.

 

Most people do not want to strip religion from society. However, like I said, many people do not want their tax dollars spent on religious things that they do not believe in. This is me.

Ask yourself, what if your city government decided to hold a Islamic weekend festival, using government land and government money. You would not care at all? What about a Wiccan festival?

 

Nope I would not care. I would actually be upset if a local government allowed religous Christmas symbols but not Islamic Ramadan ones. If a town or city has a local Islamic population they should have equal access to public areas and support as other religions.

Like I said I am not threatened by other peoples religions or beliefs and actually feel that the open display of such helps to foster a better understanding and tollerance about other religions. It is those that are intollerant that have the issue.

 

When the government spends money on a Christmas or Hanukah display, it is considered by the law to be an implicit endorsement of Christianity of Judaism. Preventing such a display is not considered abridging free speech because, believe it or not, the government has no right to free speech. The first amendment protects the speech of private entities, and not the state.

If a church wanted to pay for a manger display and was given permission from the mayor or whomever to display it on municipal property, I wonder if that would be considered an implicit endorsement as well. Any lawyers here?

 

Actually it is only in certain areas that laws have been passed like that after small minorities were able to convince sympathetic judges. In large areas of hte country public displays of religion are not an issue.

 

The displays is most of the country are not an issue because those areas are either homogeneous or the minorities are cowed and afraid to challenge the majority. Just because a local population chooses to ignore the substance of a particular law doesn't mean the law doesn't exist.

Anal sex, for example, is illegal in a few states. How often do you suppose John Law gives it to John Q Public up the ass for that one?