Inspired by Cowboy: Due to pressure by the ACLU, an Indiana town removed a cross that was placed on the top of a Christmas tree located on public land.
Good. Because it looks tacky. Put an angel or a star on there instead.
Where are the agnostics and atheists speaking out against this?
Cowards. Stand up to the ACLU.
I wouldn't call them cowards. When you don't have the money, you simply can't do it.
That's not a luxury in a small town.
I'm guessing there are some deep pockets out there who would put up the money.
Check the update in my new poll!
My grandma and her daughter and grandkids live in that town. It’s called Knightstown, Indiana.
What are their thoughts?
Those are their thoughts. But less non-Christian.
It was only because some bitter, old man complained about it. Now they are placing crosses in their front lawns and he is eating crow.
Good. The govt is non religious.
That simply isn't true.
It shouldn't choose between religions
One asshole Communist shouldn't be able to take away a whole town's constitutional right to worship God.
And you know he's a communist how? Oh wait, I forgot that when someone doesn't agree with you or doesn't think your religion is the best religion(psssst! It's not) you get mad and call them names which don't even remotely relate to what the person was trying to do. Non Christians=communists?
Taking a towns right to worship god away? That's pretty hyperbolic don't you think? Since when do you need a huge tree and giant cross to worship god? Oh wait, I forgot, you DONT.
One asshole communist SHOULD be able to take away a religious icon from any public area. They can worship without. Besides, Jesus/god forbid them to worship idols.
Well that's the problem, isn't it? You don't respect the First Amendment.
I hate the ACLU.
You should not.
There shouldn't be anyone disagreeing with this. It was a tree on public property with an obvious religious message attached to it. That's a clear violation of separation of church and state. Imagine if this had been an Jewish, or Islamic symbol. We can either apply the law equally, or not at all.
Nope. Congress didn't make any law establishing a religion so the separation is intact. This is just another example of Communists trampling on Christians right to freedom of religion.
Obviously you misunderstand the central thesis of the establishment clause. You're right that Congress should not pass any laws favoring one religion over another. But, that idea also applies to the government giving one religion more attention than others on public property. If they want a cross, then there should also be a reference to Hanukkah, Kwanza, and any other Winter-oriented religions holiday. The government can't pick which religious are good or bad for the community.
No. I understand the First Amendment quite clearly. This was just one asshole Communist that wanted to take away this towns Constitutional right to their freedom of religion and did it by forcing his beliefs onto these good people.
Because the town couldn't afford to fight the Communists in court to protect their Constitutional right.
Okay. New rule: you can't just label people you disagree with as Communists. It's childish and misrepresents the views of the ACLU. Which by the way, you have yet to formally refute what I posted earlier.
What else am I supposed to call Communists?
I'd start by refuting their argument instead of name calling like a petulant child.
It's not name calling when it's what they are. It's like calling a fat person fat. Big deal.
The First Amendment clearly states that people have the freedom of religion. Communists hate that obviously and have perverted the courts to rule against the First Amendment. If I was the mayor of that town, I'd leave it up and have guards around it and make the Communists try and take my Christian town's Constitutional right away.
I'm Christian and I would not want to see a cross atop a Christmas tree. I think I would be offended by someone's poor taste in holiday decorations.
How is a reminder of why we celebrate Christmas poor taste?
I do not care for the combination of secular and religious symbols like this. It's my personal taste; if you enjoy it, fine, I don't care. It's just not for me.
The Establishment Clause prohibited it from being there. Good move.
And people try to say that the war on Christmas isn't real! Just show them this! If this is the same story I saw a few days ago, it was just one liberal who was offended, when all the other townspeople wanted it. Like seriously, there's no pleasing liberals, don't even try. If the majority of the town wants to see a cross on the Christian holiday of Christmas, then why does one liberal get to make them take it down? Disgusting.
*pagan holiday of Christmas
You guys know his birthday is in April, right?
Doesn't matter, we celebrate it in December. What is your point exactly?
Because the pagans had the holiday and it was very popular. The Catholic Church waged the first war on Christmas. They have no other reason for celebrating it in December.
It's been a Christian holiday for hundreds, if not thousands of years. I don't care about the history of it, it is currently a Christian holiday. What point are you trying to make?
If you can't figure out my point, you're being willfully ignorant. The pagan tradition, along with everything you do for Chistmas short of the nativity and midnight mass, is older than ANY Christmas tradition. History deniers...
You're arguing with a straw man. I never denied history. In fact, I accept that Christmas used to be a pagan holiday. I don't understand where anything you have said so far contradicts anything I have said so far. Christmas is currently a Christian tradition, not a pagan tradition. That's a fact. Either you are a present-denier, or you just think that the origin of Christmas from thousands of years ago means that Christians can't celebrate Christmas today.
Christmas is celebrated as a secular tradition by many individuals and families. And has only been recognized officially since the 4th century. Several Christian denominations do not celebrate Christmas, so it is not even universal within the faith.
I know of very few families who top their tree with a cross, most use a star or an angel, if not a completely secular image like Santa, a snowflake, or a pop icon.
The war on Christmas.....Ah, yes, nothing like hearing a bunch of Christian crybabies trying to go "BUT WE'RE BEING PERSECUTED TOO, WHERES OUR ATTENTION!" There's a difference between actual religious persecution and being denied the "right" to force your religion on others. You should all quit being such special snowflakes and get over that fact that your religion isn't special and that the government is not a theocracy, and should therefore be secular.
Facepalm, by your own admission, Christmas has been a part of the Christian tradition for like 1500 years. That's a very large amount of time. I'm really not sure what the point of bringing up ancient history is in a debate about freedom of religion.
GodBlessAmerica, if you can't see that Christians are being persecuted, then you need to open your eyes. In today's world, it is the minorities that oppress the majorities, and most people just go along with it.
Christmas as celebrated in modern times is NOT representative of the entirety of its history and given that the date chosen by Pope Julius is representative of celebrations that existed for centuries before then and continue in some form to the present, your argument lacks weight.
The real truth is this: Christmas as a Christian observance is not enriched or validated by prominent, overtly religious displays in public spaces. In fact it could be argued that doing so actually diminishes its significance by introducing a commercial, consumerist identity to what Many in the Christian community insist must be a sacred, albeit joyful, observation. Even so, no one can be in any doubt as to the predominance of the Christian nature if the majority population.
Christians are neither persecuted nor oppressed in the USA.
My argument lacks weight because I don't think ancient history is relevant in an argument about religious freedom? What?
The history of Christmas does not matter in this conversation. I am talking about the people's right to celebrate it how they want to, not the pagan origins of it. Bringing up the origins of Christmas really doesn't have any relevance whatsoever to a conversation about whether or not people can put a cross on a Christmas tree. If the townspeople want to put up a cross, then why shouldn't they be allowed to? The first amendment should protect their right to celebrate it the way they want to, but unfortunately the ACLU has blocked their rights once again.
Hogwash. As individuals they can do as they please. But as a group they cannot impose their faith or the trapping of it upon other members of the community in a public forum. Neither does the expression of Christian belief require such displays. YOU were the first one to bring up "ancient history", pointing to "thousands" of years. The bulk of my argument has bupkis to do with said history.
Christians are not victims. All the paint in the world will not change that fact.
Oh, and one last thing: There are millions of Liberal Christians in this country.
How is putting a cross up on a Christmas tree "imposing a religion"? It's just celebrating a national holiday. If other religious holidays get made into national holidays too, such as Hannukah or similar, then we can put up menorahs too. I really couldn't care less, but Christmas is a Christian national holiday, and thus can be celebrated on public property. Stop being such a party pooper and let people celebrate how they want to.
And no, I was not the first one to bring up ancient history, that's ridiculous. That would be getupbaby who brought it up initially.
Lastly, yes, I understand there are liberal Christians, what is your point? You keep bringing up these random facts and then not explaining how they advance any sort of point whatsoever. There are plenty of conservative Christians as well.
Read all of my words, not just the ones that trigger you. You should look over your own words too, while you are at it, so as to avoid confusion.
Your inability to see the distinction between a tree or a Chanukah menorah and a cross precludes me from continuing this discussion.
Wonderful. Religious iconography has no place on public or government owned property. You'd think this lesson would be learned by now, but idiots keep fighting it...in vain.
We're a Christian country, so why should crosses be banned from public property?
We have a cultural christian majority, but the country is constitutionally a secular republic. Always has been. I cannot for the life of me understand why the constitution's ardent dick-suckers keep fighting to ignore the first amendment.
Fuck your god, and keep him out of the government. Is this so hard to understand?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
That is what the Constitution says about religion. It does not say "Congress will make a law preventing townspeople from putting up a cross on public property". In fact, it says quite the opposite. If these townspeople want to freely exercise their religion on public property, then you are clearly the one not in favor of the Constitution.
This practice however, violates the preceding establishment clause. Just put the bloody cross on private property and we'll leave you the hell alone.
All it says is that Congress can't make a law regarding religion. Putting a cross up on public property is not making a "law respecting an establishment of religion".
And no, I will not just stand back and allow liberals to violate the first amendment rights of the townspeople. There was only one person upset by the cross being up, and everybody else wanted it up. Whoever that person was just needs to get over himself.
One person wanted it down and EVERYBODY else wanted it up, eh? Not likely at all.
I watched a video about it where they were interviewing lots of people of the community, and they all said it was just one person who wanted it taken down. I'd like to see your evidence that it was more than one person.
I'd like to see evidence that every person in the town felt the same about ANY single issue. Exaggerate somewhere else.
It was just one liberal that filed the lawsuit. In that article, they couldn't even find a single person who supported taking it down to interview. Everybody they interviewed wanted it to stay up, and they even said dozens gathered around to pray for it to stay up.
This is a disgusting violation of freedom of religion. The ACLU filed the lawsuit on behalf of some guy who claimed seeing the cross caused him "irreparable harm". In order for this to have any case, you're going to have to explain to me how seeing a cross can cause somebody irreparable harm. This guy probably sees crosses all the time on churches and stuff.
That's weird. They showed up at a religious protest and everyone there wanted to keep the cross....
Funny how that works.
Whether it was one person or not (it was only one person according to every single news report), the fact is the vast majority of people wanted to express their religion on a tree that is meant to celebrate their religious holiday. It is a blatant violation of the first amendment to stop these people from practicing their religion. Sickening.
I wonder how many of these upset protesters have anything to do at all with the tree or where it was placed. I strongly doubt it. I also doubt a whole community made the decision to put the cross up. I also doubt anyone would've cared if it was taken down without the ACLU's involvement. Sounds like ACLU trollers to me.
A blatant violation of their religious liberties is having a gestapo like government force come into their private homes, confiscate their religious iconography, assault and threaten them and disallow practice of religion. Kind of like Cuba or North Korea.
Yes, that is one. Here's another: Pulling down a cross from the top of a Christmas tree because it offends somebody.
No, it is not.
It's their town. They can put it up if that's what the townspeople want.
Good. Religion has no place in public.
It certainly does under the First Amendment. It's a Constitutional right.
Cowards. If people would stand up to the ACLU, we could eventually get them to back off of these phony "Church and State" issues.
You are correct. If more towns stood up to the ACLU we would be better off.
I heard they did not have the $ to fight the ACLU. I would guess ACLU Targets little towns to push their agenda!
One person complained...
That's too bad
And if this ☪️ was atop the tree?
Is a Christmas tree something they would display?
Just an example. I don't know what they'd display for Eid except maybe a sign that said Eid Mubarak. But would any of you want that display?
No problem. They can have their tree too
My point is, it's all or none. Some here wouldn't be happy with anything more than a cross.
Despite having serious objections to the religion of Islam, they can put religious symbols on public grounds. Nevertheless, don't expect me pretend that this country was founded on Muslim values.
No, it's not all or none. It's a Christmas tree. You're not going to put a menorah on a Christmas tree, nor would you put a Star and Crescent on a Christmas tree. Now, if you're going to put up some sort of Chanukah tree, you can decorate it with menorahs all day long. But there is no reason for any other religion's symbol to be on a Christmas tree.
Agreed, Pol. Our messages crossed.
There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that endorses this "all or nothing" doctrine.
Maybe I should have clarified. Not putting a crescent or menorah on a Christmas trees. Displaying either. Muslims don't have a tree. I was asking if you'd be ok with other symbolism. And yes, either you allow all, not some.
All is fine
According to what in the Constitution.
You can't establish a religion. To show favoritism to one is akin to just that so you can have a full display from everyone celebrating or none but you can't have only some.
So either we respect the constitution or we don't.
You are going to have a tough time proving how a cross on a Christmas tree establishes a religion.
Is it not government property?
Of course its government property. That doesn't change anything that I have been saying.
It's funny how in the Constitution it doesn't say "Separation of Church and State" and "no favoritism." I tend to believe that the Constitution contains the wording that it does for a reason.
I'm just saying. The unintended consequences far outweigh this one example.
You are correct. It doesn't say separation of church and state in the constitution but the establishment clause is in there and that more than covers it.
Doesn't matter. ACLU has been thrown out for that nonsense before and will be again. Now if the state were trying to use religion to influence legislative actions, that's totally different
What doesn't matter? The establishment clause? The constitution?
The establishment clause doesn't have anything to do with a cross on a Christmas tree.
It does if it's displayed on government property in a manner that excludes other displays or if it takes precedence over other displays.
Speed - please read.
That's adding words to the Constitution if you think that is the case, Mrs.
I'll stick with the government definition.
Check out the update in my new poll! They are fighting back against the Communists!
Replace 'cross' with 'menorah' 'Star of David' or 'star & crescent.' Still feel the same way?
It's a Christian holiday. I don't celebrate Ramadan or Hanukah
Yep. Still feel the same. If most Americans were Jewish or Muslim and the country had those roots. Nobody is forcing anyone to bend the knee to a religious symbol here.
It's a holiday Christians hijacked.
Yeah. A holiday about the birth of Christ created by Christians was hijacked by Christians. I thought liberals couldn't get any more ignorant
Actually the Catholic Church created Christmas and Halloween to get pagans into the church. Christmas symbols (many of them) have roots in paganism and many pagans celebrated holidays on the winter solstice (the "darkest day of the year") and on Halloween (which pagans called something else and the celebrated it due to the harvest and coming winter). Sure, the Catholics created Christmas but they stole many ideas from previous cultures (one being that Xmas is in December when Christ would've been born earlier in the year).
Anyone with knowledge of history would tell y'all this. While Christians get offended that secularists are hijacking Christmas, they forget that that's what happens in countries where there's a new majority. Christians have done it before as well.
"Yeah. A holiday about the birth of Christ created by Christians was hijacked by Christians."
Actually. It was. This is a common fun fact known by anyone with a basic understanding of religious history. First of all, evidence and analyses made/collected by archaeologists, historians, and even theologians place Christ's birth sometime between July-September. The reason why we celebrate it on December 25th is because the church absorbed the Pagan festivals of Yule and Saturnalia because they could not stop the peasantry from celebrating it. Christmas trees, bonfires, misteltoes, wreaths and the lighting we put on them are from the Norse Yule festival. Gift-giving, merrymaking, lavish dinners and drinking are from the Roman Saturnalia. Santa Claus, while not Christian in his modern form, is actually the amalgamation of the Christian Saint Nicholas and the Pagan God Odin, who would ride his eight-legged horse around the world and give children gifts in their shoes. We call them stockings.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only Christian thing about Christmas is the name and fake origin story. The rest is pagan. It's the Trump Brand of holidays.
There is no 'if.' You either allow all religions or no religions. I prefer none in the public sphere.
It's is a 100% Christian holiday with new traditions added in over time, most very recently. Only if you deconstruct history is it a pagan holiday. It was added days after a pagan holiday. It's literally called Cristes Mass. That as well as Easter are Christian holidays, but others celebrate as well. It was a transition from Roman paganism to Christianity because at that point Christianity was the main religion of the Roman Empire. They then spent that time honoring the nativity scene instead of worshiping Sol. Nobody believes in Sol or Roman gods hardly anymore at this time in history so it changed and it is what it is. Christians today follow this tradition to honor the birth of Jesus
Not recently at all, unless you're counting the geologic timescale. These traditions were brought into the holiday as a conversion tactic around the time the 'Christian' holiday was created. It may have been the official religion of the empire, but it was far from being the most numerous yet. Paganism needed to be converted and the church co-opted their festivals to bring them under the fold of the church. It may be an officially 'Christian' religion today, but the pagan practices are still there. Which is why I bring it up every Christmas. Its bloody hypocritical to be fighting to keep Christ in a holiday that Christ was forcefully inserted into in the fucking first place.
Santa Claus was introduced in 1770s, stockings in 1809 and trees in 1835. Decorations became popular after queen Victoria decorated hers in the 1850s. It wasn't even an American holiday until 1870, and by then, it was Christian with other festivities that were recently mixed in
Christ want forcefully inserted. People stopped worshipping the cultic Roman gods and it naturally transitioned through culture
Romans? Dude, paganism had the winter solstice in lock down. The tree, wreaths, lights, gift giving, all of it was pagan tradition a thousand years ago.
I know, but at about 400 AD, that's when paganism was dying. Christmas came into existence, and then some traditions were brought back in the 18th and 19th century
paganism is referring to Roman/Greek mythology
Paganism died because of the Catholic Church, in large part due to the overthrow of their holidays.
Religious symbols don't belong on public property. Besides, it was a resident that filed that suit with the help of the ACLU, so be certain you report your facts correctly.
My facts are correct. The ACLU most certainly pressured the town to take down the cross. Without the ACLU, the cross would likely still be there today.
Could be seen like that, but they did it for their client. If someone employs a law firm to sue Donald Trump for one million dollars, for example, and win, do you say the law firm won or the client won?
Regardless, a religious symbol doesn't belong on public property whether it's a cross, Star of David, star and crescent, aum, swastika, etcetera.
Just about all of the ACLU's cases are brought to their attention by someone in a particular community....
Are you really getting hung up over such a simple concept?
"Free speech doesn't belong on public property" is what you're really saying, jfish. You don't realize what you're really saying, do you?
Morning, Cowboy, it's been a while.
Have you not read the first amendment? The government cannot show favoritism when it comes to religions. It's such a simple concept it's incredible how many people get hung up on it.
The 1A says absolutely nothing about favoritism of religion. It says that they cannot force you to abide by a specific religion (establishment of religion). Does a cross on a tree suddenly force you to go to church? If you're that weak-minded you may want to see a psychiatrist.
Good morning. Yes, of course I've read the First Amendment and see nothing about favoritism in it.
If it was placed on public land by private citizens it should have been allowed to stay....provided that any other religious group that wanted to put up a display for their religious holiday was permitted to do so. If is placed on public lands and put up by the town then it would have to go
I think that it was placed by local government official. You can read the link below to make sure.
One Communist was butt hurt so made the whole town stop their wonderful tradition of celebrating Christmas. The small town couldn't afford to fight the Communists in court so was forced to take the cross down. Liberals love to force their mental disorder on good people.
The precious snowflake who was offended does not realize what he has done. By attempting to remove religious symbols, he has motivated Christians all across the United States to be reminded of the true meaning behind Christmas. The citizens in this small Indiana community will be even more passionate about celebrating the birth of Jesus.
Romans 8:31 What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us?
I certainly hope so. Those evil Communists at the ACLU exploiting people's mental disorders in order to force Christians into taking Jesus out of everything has been going on far too long.
They are fighting for an impossible goal. They will never take Jesus out of our hearts. I love it when these groups fight for an impossible goal.
This is why the Communists want guns banned. It's easier to take away their free speech and silence them with pens.
All of this outrage was because one person in this small town in Indiana was offended. Unfortunately, this small town in Indiana could not fight the ACLU bullies because they didn't have enough money. Nevertheless, I'm happy to see that the one person living in the town who was offended will see twice as many Cross symbols throughout the town on private property.
The culture war being waged against Christmas and Christians in America is horrible.