... So help me, Allah.

no gov't involvement whatsoever, then how it it that the secularists can successfully get rid of anything Christian in the public square yet allow the religious symbols of other religions? Is the no involvement whatsoever?

the secularists can successfully get rid of anything Christian in the public square.

Quote:

G.W.Bush - "I don't think nation-building missions are worthwhile."
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

I do believe that he meant this. Once he came into office, however, his handlers had other ideas for him to pursue.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

no gov't involvement whatsoever, then how it it that the secularists can successfully get rid of anything Christian in the public square yet allow the religious symbols of other religions? Is the no involvement whatsoever?

they were never supposed to be there in the first place. none of them were supposed to be.

note that you said;

Quote:

the secularists can successfully get rid of anything Christian in the public square.

that's the people doing a thing. not the government.

i don't really mind christmas trees, menorahs and such appearing at the appropriate holidays. but, as for the insertion of any religion into the daily business of government, i'm not for it.

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

.....i don't really mind christmas trees, menorahs and such appearing at the appropriate holidays. but, as for the insertion of any religion into the daily business of government, i'm not for it.

DTOM, I agree with you, but Christmas trees are not religious symbols.

I too find it ironic that menorahs are displayed and nativity scenes are prohibited in many public squares. I don't mind them either (any of them) but insisting, as some communities do, that wrapped presents, decorated trees, and large nutcrackers represent a religious adornment equivalent to a menorah bothers me as well.

Back to the topic of the article. The author is expressing his opinion. He's entitled to it. I'm equally entitled to think he's full of beans.

If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.

do you agree that's different than the "one nation, UNDER GOD" deal and all of the surrounding issues ?

Forgive me, but America should not give a hoot what Keith Ellison's favorite book is. Insofar as a member of Congress taking an oath to serve America and uphold its values is concerned, America is interested in only one book, the Bible. If you are incapable of taking an oath on that book, don't serve in Congress.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Setanta wrote:

At least concede that you's been got.

candidone1 wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Setanta wrote:

At least concede that you's been got.

I'll take a bet on that not happening.

JPB wrote:

DontTreadOnMe wrote:

.....i don't really mind christmas trees, menorahs and such appearing at the appropriate holidays. but, as for the insertion of any religion into the daily business of government, i'm not for it.

DTOM, I agree with you, but Christmas trees are not religious symbols.

you're right, they aren't. spiritual (in a pre-christian way) perhaps, but not part of christian doctorine.

maybe that's why they don't bother me. hehe..

JPB wrote:

I too find it ironic that menorahs are displayed and nativity scenes are prohibited in many public squares. I don't mind them either (any of them) but insisting, as some communities do, that wrapped presents, decorated trees, and large nutcrackers represent a religious adornment equivalent to a menorah bothers me as well.

i agree. for that couple of weeks a year, i'm cool with it. creche away.

do you agree that's different than the "one nation, UNDER GOD" deal and all of the surrounding issues ?

JPB wrote:

Back to the topic of the article. The author is expressing his opinion. He's entitled to it. I'm equally entitled to think he's full of beans.

yup.. to the brim.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

no gov't involvement whatsoever, then how it it that the secularists can successfully get rid of anything Christian in the public square yet allow the religious symbols of other religions? Is the no involvement whatsoever?

they were never supposed to be there in the first place. none of them were supposed to be.

note that you said;

Quote:

the secularists can successfully get rid of anything Christian in the public square.

that's the people doing a thing. not the government.

i don't really mind christmas trees, menorahs and such appearing at the appropriate holidays. but, as for the insertion of any religion into the daily business of government, i'm not for it.

So, LSM, you are saying that a Christian will pray for someone?
Why is that held as a virtue?
My grandma talked to her plants. It's the same thing.
Both will yield zero results.

My, how very UNdemocratic of you.
You find Christians unsavory? The difference in you & a Christian is, a Christian will pray for you, while you would deny them that right to pray.

The mayor of NYC is part of the gov't. Or maybe you didn't know that. You really should at least attempt to understand what's being discussed, that way you wouldn't embarrass yourself....not as much at least.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

My, how very UNdemocratic of you.
You find Christians unsavory? The difference in you & a Christian is, a Christian will pray for you, while you would deny them that right to pray.

where did i say either one of those things ?

and, i'm sorry... i was unaware that only christians prayed.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

The mayor of NYC is part of the gov't. Or maybe you didn't know that. You really should at least attempt to understand what's being discussed, that way you wouldn't embarrass yourself....not as much at least.

what the hell are you talking about ???

fyi. i have a lot of friends that are good christians. and they behave absolutely nothing like you.