War on Christmas, 2016

[89Hen]

Certainly less imposing than the poster

[GannonFan]

Other than taste, what's wrong with the first two pictures? Neither one of them even indicates specifically a particular holiday. You can infer Christmas, but it's certainly not explicitly so.

I find nothing wrong with them personally and would be fine with it at my private business.

But that doesn't answer the question - neither the reindeer sweater or the tie with strings of colorful lights specifically indicates they are Christmas-related. You're saying that you would ban them from being worn in a place of public, government-run businesses. Why? Are you banning red sweaters in the month of December for fear they relate to Christmas?

[Gil Dobie]

I find nothing wrong with them personally and would be fine with it at my private business.

But that doesn't answer the question - neither the reindeer sweater or the tie with strings of colorful lights specifically indicates they are Christmas-related. You're saying that you would ban them from being worn in a place of public, government-run businesses. Why? Are you banning red sweaters in the month of December for fear they relate to Christmas?

How about red football fields in the month of December.

[kalm]

I find nothing wrong with them personally and would be fine with it at my private business.

But that doesn't answer the question - neither the reindeer sweater or the tie with strings of colorful lights specifically indicates they are Christmas-related. You're saying that you would ban them from being worn in a place of public, government-run businesses. Why? Are you banning red sweaters in the month of December for fear they relate to Christmas?

The sweater and lights should be banned too. They're clearly pagan symbols!

But I'm totally against banning red.

[Ibanez]

I find nothing wrong with them personally and would be fine with it at my private business.

But that doesn't answer the question - neither the reindeer sweater or the tie with strings of colorful lights specifically indicates they are Christmas-related. You're saying that you would ban them from being worn in a place of public, government-run businesses. Why? Are you banning red sweaters in the month of December for fear they relate to Christmas?

Red and green sweaters have no place in a public work environment. ESPECIALLY during the month of December.

[kalm]

Nothing makes donks sound like conks do on the gun issue more than religion in schools.

It's also interesting that a group of guys who generally aren't politically correct when it comes to bending over backwards to not offend people and are so adamantly against Christmas in schools. If you're argument isn't about sensitivity then you're an azzhole.

I'm all for it. If PS693 in Brooklyn wants to have a Christmas show, then they should get the approval from the parents but also allow any Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Zoroastrian, etc... to put on a show celebrating an important holiday when the time is appropriate.

I personally have no problem with it. Children being introduced to different philosophies and superstitions is part of the learning process and beneficial especially if their parents are involved helping them sort through it all.

But if you look at the Washington State Capitol nativity scene fiasco from a few years ago where you had something like 50 competing displays ranging from the little baby jeebus to Satan, or the concern school districts have over being sued if one religion is represented more than another, at some point you just through up your hands and say "fuck it". Religion is not a part of government and I'm not concerned about someone's limited first amendment rights being jeopardized because they can't put up a poster identifying the reason for the season at school.

Pwns correlated the gun debate. I'm perfectly fine with limitations on gun rights like not being able to pack at school either. Same deal. It needs to be a religious free zone (except for comparative religion classes) because not everyone can be trusted to be rational about it (just like guns at schools). If you don't like, go teach at a private school (who may also have some rules you don't like).

[kalm]

But that doesn't answer the question - neither the reindeer sweater or the tie with strings of colorful lights specifically indicates they are Christmas-related. You're saying that you would ban them from being worn in a place of public, government-run businesses. Why? Are you banning red sweaters in the month of December for fear they relate to Christmas?

How about red football fields in the month of December.

It was closer to pink last Saturday...

[Ibanez]

I'm all for it. If PS693 in Brooklyn wants to have a Christmas show, then they should get the approval from the parents but also allow any Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Zoroastrian, etc... to put on a show celebrating an important holiday when the time is appropriate.

I personally have no problem with it. Children being introduced to different philosophies and superstitions is part of the learning process and beneficial especially if their parents are involved helping them sort through it all.

But if you look at the Washington State Capitol nativity scene fiasco from a few years ago where you had something like 50 competing displays ranging from the little baby jeebus to Satan, or the concern school districts have over being sued if one religion is represented more than another, at some point you just through up your hands and say "fuck it". Religion is not a part of government and I'm not concerned about someone's limited first amendment rights being jeopardized because they can't put up a poster identifying the reason for the season at school.

Pwns correlated the gun debate. I'm perfectly fine with limitations on gun rights like not being able to pack at school either. Same deal. It needs to be a religious free zone (except for comparative religion classes) because not everyone can be trusted to be rational about it (just like guns at schools). If you don't like, go teach at a private school (who may also have some rules you don't like).

That makes sense, and I can agree to that. Most of the time I feel that these cases come up NOT because a community (not to say it doesn't happen) as a whole has an issue but some asshole parent or some Mrs. Kravitz has to share her opinion or belief. It's normally self-righteous Christians or Atheists that have problems with an event like this.

[Pwns]

Nothing makes donks sound like conks do on the gun issue more than religion in schools.

It's also interesting that a group of guys who generally aren't politically correct when it comes to bending over backwards to not offend people and are so adamantly against Christmas in schools. If you're argument isn't about sensitivity then you're an azzhole.

I'm all for it. If PS693 in Brooklyn wants to have a Christmas show, then they should get the approval from the parents but also allow any Hindu, Jew, Muslim, Zoroastrian, etc... to put on a show celebrating an important holiday when the time is appropriate.

I'm pretty sure no one would say a word if that were done.

Of course if it were Muslim stuff you know people would pitch a fit, but that's prejudice (justified or not) against one particular religion and not prejudice against all non-Christian religions.

I have no problem with religious expression of any kind as long as it's not threatening violence against anyone. In fact, I welcome it because love watching the Michael Newdow's of the world pitch fits.

[89Hen]

Trigger warning kalm...

Spoiler: show

[kalm]

I personally have no problem with it. Children being introduced to different philosophies and superstitions is part of the learning process and beneficial especially if their parents are involved helping them sort through it all.

But if you look at the Washington State Capitol nativity scene fiasco from a few years ago where you had something like 50 competing displays ranging from the little baby jeebus to Satan, or the concern school districts have over being sued if one religion is represented more than another, at some point you just through up your hands and say "fuck it". Religion is not a part of government and I'm not concerned about someone's limited first amendment rights being jeopardized because they can't put up a poster identifying the reason for the season at school.

Pwns correlated the gun debate. I'm perfectly fine with limitations on gun rights like not being able to pack at school either. Same deal. It needs to be a religious free zone (except for comparative religion classes) because not everyone can be trusted to be rational about it (just like guns at schools). If you don't like, go teach at a private school (who may also have some rules you don't like).

That makes sense, and I can agree to that. Most of the time I feel that these cases come up NOT because a community (not to say it doesn't happen) as a whole has an issue but some asshole parent or some Mrs. Kravitz has to share her opinion or belief. It's normally self-righteous Christians or Atheists that have problems with an event like this.

Yep. Halloween was banned at our local schools thanks to the Christians.

And just so you guys don't think I'm "one of those anti-religious types"...a local church reached out to us a few years ago about using our facility for an Easter Egg hunt. We partnered with them, hosted it, and promoted it through our marketing channels. I asked my boy's school if they would hand out fliers for us and they said yes, but when I dropped them off I was told I'd have to reprint all 600 as they said "Easter" on them which was unacceptable due to legal concerns. I had to reprint them with just "Egg Hunt".

Oh...and I ain't afraid to say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays".

[kalm]

Trigger warning kalm...

Spoiler: show

I think it's wonderful that you celebrate my ancestor's festival surrounding the annual return of the sun god!

Spoiler: show

[Ibanez]

That makes sense, and I can agree to that. Most of the time I feel that these cases come up NOT because a community (not to say it doesn't happen) as a whole has an issue but some asshole parent or some Mrs. Kravitz has to share her opinion or belief. It's normally self-righteous Christians or Atheists that have problems with an event like this.

Yep. Halloween was banned at our local schools thanks to the Christians.

And just so you guys don't think I'm "one of those anti-religious types"...a local church reached out to us a few years ago about using our facility for an Easter Egg hunt. We partnered with them, hosted it, and promoted it through our marketing channels. I asked my boy's school if they would hand out fliers for us and they said yes, but when I dropped them off I was told I'd have to reprint all 600 as they said "Easter" on them which was unacceptable due to legal concerns. I had to reprint them with just "Egg Hunt".

Oh...and I ain't afraid to say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays".

Halloween? You must not have many Irish out there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samhain

I tell people both and the one time that someone said it offended them I told them they should get themselves and embrace a strangers polite greeting. It's not the words, it's the spirit in which it's given.

[89Hen]

And just so you guys don't think I'm "one of those anti-religious types"...

Too late

[HI54UNI]

Since government shouldn't do this are you in agreement that publicly funded universities shouldn't be providing prayer rooms for Muslins?

[kalm]

Since government shouldn't do this are you in agreement that publicly funded universities shouldn't be providing prayer rooms for Muslins?

I'm down with that. No reason they can't be held off campus. Either that or enroll in a madrasa.

[kalm]

And just so you guys don't think I'm "one of those anti-religious types"...

Too late

[houndawg]

A atudent wearing a head scarf is different than a school official putting up a printed poster. Both from an authority/government representative standpoint and a speech standpoint.

How about a teacher wearing a headscarf then?

The poster still doesn't represent the schools view on religion, it still just represents the individual U.S. citizens view on their religion.

Maybe they took it down because it wasn't accurate?

There was a holiday at "Christmastime" long before the time that Jesus may or may not have been born.

[Bronco]

Terminally ill child dies in Santa's arms
Published December 12, 2016 FoxNews.com


A 60-year-old Tennessee man who spends time volunteering as Santa Claus at a local hospital granted a 5-year-old terminally ill boy his final wish this holiday season, and held him as he died in his arms.

“I spent four years in the Army with the 75th Rangers, and I’ve seen my share of [stuff],” Eric Schmitt-Matzen told USA Today. “But I ran by the nurses’ station bawling my head off. I know nurses and doctors see things like that every day, but I don’t know how they can take it.”

Schmitt-Matzen, a mechanical engineer and president of Packing Seals & Engineering in Jacksboro, Tennessee, had arrived at the unidentified hospital and met the boy’s mother and family members, who were also unidentified. A nurse had called with the special request and given him a toy to offer the child during his visit, USA Today reported.




“When I walked in, he was laying there so weak, it looked like he was ready to fall asleep,” Schmitt-Matzen told the news outlet. “I sat down on his bed and asked, ‘Say, what’s this I hear about you’re going to miss Christmas? There’s no way you can miss Christmas! You’re my No. 1 elf!’”

“He looked up and said, ‘I am?’ I said ‘Sure.’”

Schmitt-Matzen told USA Today that he watched him open the present and smile before he lay back down.

“’They say I’m going to die,’ he told me. ‘How can I tell when I get to where I’m going?’ I said, ‘Can you do me a big favor?’ He said ‘Sure!’ 'When you get there, you tell them you’re Santa’s No. 1 elf and I know they’ll let you in.’ He said, ‘They will?’ I said, ‘Sure.’”

“He kind of sat up, and gave me a big hug and asked one more question: ‘Santa can you help me?’ I wrapped my arms around him. Before I could say anything, he died right there. I let him stay, just kept hugging and holding on to him,” Schmitt-Matzen told USA Today.

The boy’s death left Schmitt-Matzen questioning whether he could continue donning the signature white beard and red suit, but he returned for other sick children and saw the effect it had on them.

“When I saw all those children laughing, it brought me back into the fold. It made me realize the role I have to play. For them and for me,” he told USA Today.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

Bronco......you bastard

[JoltinJoe]

The staffer's display is a display of a generic preference toward a religion that comes nowhere close to "establishing" a state religion.

The staffer who told her to remove it is as equally misinformed as the OP.

[kalm]

The staffer's display is a display of a generic preference toward a religion that comes nowhere close to "establishing" a state religion.

The staffer who told her to remove it is as equally misinformed as the OP.

What the hell does "generic preference" mean?

And please provide your opinion of what would constitute establishment under the constitution.

Thanks...

[Chizzang]

The staffer's display is a display of a generic preference toward a religion that comes nowhere close to "establishing" a state religion.

The staffer who told her to remove it is as equally misinformed as the OP.

What the hell does "generic preference" mean?

And please provide your opinion of what would constitute establishment under the constitution.

Thanks...

It's lawyer speak for:
"Stand still, I'm going to blow some smoke up your ass..."

[JoltinJoe]

The staffer's display is a display of a generic preference toward a religion that comes nowhere close to "establishing" a state religion.

The staffer who told her to remove it is as equally misinformed as the OP.

What the hell does "generic preference" mean?

And please provide your opinion of what would constitute establishment under the constitution.

Thanks...

"Generic preference" is routinely used in decisions by the US Supreme Court. In other words, the Constitution does not forbid when the government shows a "generic preference" toward religion, so long as the act does not "establish" any particular religion. This is why a generic prayer is permissible before a public meeting, for example. The prayer itself does not favor any specific religion, and no one at the meeting MUST say the prayer.

In this case, while the poster was a generic display of religion, it favored no particular Christian religious faith; and further, it did not "establish" any religion at all, since it did not compel anyone to perform any "religious" act required by the state, or favor any specific brand of Christianity. "Establishment" only occurs when the government shows a distinct preference to any specific religious faith; or when the government compels an individual to perform an act that favors a specific religion.

The opinion above is currently favored by four Supreme Court justices and is, I think, correct. (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy). It was the majority position until the death of Justice Scalia. It has always been clearly established constitutional law, until recently.

The counter-position is essentially one that reads "freedom from religion" clause into the First Amendment. It will become a decidedly minority position in the next generation of the Court, thankfully.

Of course, any other staff member could likewise display a poster that shows the same kind of generic preference toward Islam, or Judaism, Hinduism, etc.

I hope this helps.

[JoltinJoe]

Also, as an side, with respect to generic prayer in schools, you can expect that this will become a hot issue within the next four years.

Appellate rulings within the past generation have held that, even though a student may not be "compelled" to pray along, there may be a stigma associated with not praying along in a school environment, given the reality of "peer pressure" and the need to "fit it." This contrasts with a public meeting setting, where an adult is presumed to have the maturity to act in accordance with his or her own conscience and belief.

For the most part, I'm ok with that reasoning, but I do think that students should be offered a minute of silence at the beginning of the day to reflect, or pray, if that is their choice. For the life of me, I can't figure out why such laws would be unconstitutional. No one knows what you are doing in your head during that minute: reflecting, praying, or lusting after the head cheerleader a row over from you.