News-Record.com

Janet,

I realize your letter was in direct response to another letter and I applaud your view. I agree with what you have stated. However, with that being said, I think this whole situation has been blown way out of proportion, starting with Judy Stierand.

Shortly after Judy's letter, someone else sent in a letter about how Christians were targeted for abuse. Many Christians posted that they did not feel discriminated against nor abused. While Christians are criticized and the realness of God is questioned, so are all the other religions. In other words, we are not singled out but by a very few, like Judy.

This nation is a big place and there should be room for all views. I know there have been religious wars in the ME for thousands of years. I would hate to see us adopt that culture here. This is the major reason for the separation of church and state; to prevent a theocracy. One way to avoid getting sucked into a battle of religions is to be a little less sensitive to criticism from others. If the shoe does not fit, don't wear it. All my opinion, of course.

Yvonne,

I find myself in agreement. If I could sum up the best way out of this mess with one word it would be 'humility'.

That's a tough one cause we all want to be loved, adored, and acknowledged as relevant.

"I would like to tell Stierand there is proof that God exists"
We're still waiting for this "proof," even a bit of evidence, that has been variously promised and threatened by assorted Christina bloggers. The reports from various hospitals that have conducted well-controlled tests of prayer are not encouraging to Ms Tharpe's contention. Her lack of faith and reliance on "proof" - however much unstated and unobtainable - should be troubling to traditional believers.
One of Ms Tharpe's problems is that, having sort of sorted through the differences between the religious and secular observances that go on during December, she insists that the secular observances we all are willingly mindful of are subordinate to the religious ones that we can, as free citizens, take or leave as we choose. While the "real" reason seems most obviously to those of us who do not believe to be friendship, convivial times and generosity, Ms Tharpe thinks it is attending religious services and honoring her dead demigod. She is entitled to that opinion, but it seems completely unsubstantiated to me.
Since Ms Stierand's original LTE never made clear whether she was put off by holly and ivy wreaths with a few strings of ersatz icicle lights or by a crèche and cross, I suppose the confusion is ingrained in the topic.
The folks voyaging to Jamestown were a uniform lot: they all came from a nation that had a state-approved church whose services they observed - and for whose monarch they prayed good cheer and long life. That was not America in 1776, and is much less so today. Our founders, bless their little hearts, specifically made sure that we were not made a "Christian" nation, and no one can force us (yet) to attend "Christ's Mass" in December instead of honoring the day of the Solstice. I'm sorry that MS Stierand is so estranged from her neighbors that she cannot voice her opinion on the kinds of decorations in her subdivision without facing derision. I trust that those same neighbors are not so insensitive and presumptuous as to suppose that everyone in their subdivision willingly supports crèche and cross kinds of decorations - I'm assuming here that we are in reality talking about run of the mill, secular decorations. In which case I think that both Msses Tharpe and Stierand are way over the line fussbudgets who need more to do to fill the emptiness in their pitiful lives.

For those of you who have never bothered to read it word for word, here it is:

Bill of Rights
Amendment I
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.

Now correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't forcing someone to take down trees and decorations constitute "prohbiting the free exercise thereof". Also the law only pertains to what the US Congress can or cannot do regarding religion and no where in the US Constitution is it written there shall be a "seperation of church and state".
So I would advise those of you who think you know the Constitution to actually read it word for word and not take some radicals interpretation before-hand. Here's the link:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html#amendmenti

Overtaxed, would you be one of those "radicals" whose interpretation should not be "taken?"

I HAVE read the Constitution and DO find a separation between the government and the C/church. That was a very reason for the establishment of the new colonies. People wanted/desired religious freedom which was not afforded them in England.

Shalom

Has anyone, ANYONE, Ms Stierand or otherwise, said anything, ANYTHING, about forcing someone to take down their (personal) decorations? I thought we were discussing what a neighborhood association, presumably using money collected from all homeowners (called association dues or some such) should or shouldn't do in behalf of the entire neighborhood.
I don't care what my neighbor puts in his yard until the wattage makes it impossible for me to sleep at night or the traffic blocks my drive. Then it becomes a matter of public nuisance, not denying him his right to exercise his religious cravings.
BTW, the rights in the Bill of Rights apply to all citizens as a minimum protection. State and local governments can recognize more rights, but not fewer or lesser rights. (Amendments IX, X, XIV, and XV) OT needs to read the whole Constituion, not just the parts he likes. He also needs to figure out what "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means in good, plain English.

Also BTW, when the Constitution was written, most Protestants did not celebrate or decorate for Xmas. The Congregationalists (Puritans) forbade celebrations. In some of the Southern states, a few decorations were used, sometimes expensive and hard to come by pineapples, and some folks went from farm to farm and shot off their hunting guns. Both have at least as much to do with traditional Solstice celebrations as anything else. "Good Christians" were usually shocked by such goings on. Some states even held legislative sessions on Xmas day as long as it didn't fall on Sunday (day of the Sun).
Modern Christians can thank poets and cartoonists and other creative minds for devising the eclectic melange we have now. It didn't exist before the middle of the nineteenth century. Read Dickens' "A Christmas Carol" and see what he really says about the celebrations and decorations as compared with what you see on TV productions.

I think I might be more dumb now that I've read this whole thread. Seriously, is this really being discussed? Apparently according to Overtaxed, nothing can be implied in text. Seperation of Church and state is an implied concept. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that from the text. Here here 2fer.