How not to “get it”
The Indiana village, Knightstown, finds itself at the center of controversy with their Christmas display. The ACLU is suing them for putting a cross atop their Christmas tree and they’re fighting back, according to Fox59;
The ACLU sued the town on behalf of resident Joseph Tompkins, claiming the cross on top of the town’s Christmas tree is a violation of Tompkins’ First Amendment rights guaranteeing separation of church and state.
The suit requests the cross be removed and the town pay Tompkins damages for being “forced to come into direct and unwelcome contact with the cross display” every day.
“Just because one person’s offended, doesn’t mean they have to take away one particular thing,” said Knightstown resident Cynthia Sturgill.
I guess Mr Tomkins and the ACLU didn’t get the message last month when Americans decided that they are tired of being pushed around by the Left and elected Donald Trump despite the evidence to the contrary that they could be successful. After eight years of being preached to about Hope and Change, the folks of Knightstown have put crosses all over their town on their private property, I’m sure they’re hoping that Mr Tompkins comes into direct and unwelcomed contact with the cross wherever he goes in Knightstown;
Tompkins did not respond to a request for comment about the community’s reaction to his lawsuit.
Town officials also say they’re not ready to comment about how they plan to respond to the suit.
It’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.Knightstown
Category: Liberals suck
Maybe the little snowflake should move to San Francisco and seek out his safe place there, if it offends him that much.
What is needed is a cross over Thompsons grave and more over the ACLU!! Frigging ACLU sues and somehow some genius in our gubbermint decided they should get all their costs back from the people they sue, nice huh?
I wonder if the sniveling little SHIT would bawl about muzzie symbols being displayed, when was the last time the Anti-Christian Litigation Union screeched about muzzie religion being pushed upon people? I also say KUDOS to the fine folks displaying crosses in protest to the thin-skinned LITTLE SHIT of a snowflake.
Totally agree with the Village of Knightstown telling the ACLU to shove it. Seems to me that they (ACLU)need to change the name of the organization to something that clearly reflects they do NOT represent the way most of us who live in the USA feel.
Ive always wondered what the folks who bring these kinds of lawsuits do for a living…Im feeding two teenage sons, paying for decent house, trying to keep the CIC of the casa happy, in other words, I have a job, Im too damn tired at the end of the day to waste my life going; “OMG a Cross! That hurts my feelers.”
On a bit of a somewhat less controversial note ;)”ARMY WON!!! That makes me one win and two losses in my personal pantheon of important college football games. 🙂
It seems the atheist crowd is down on their luck even more. Rob Sherman, an atheist activist, died in the crash of his single-engine plane in Marengo, IL on Dec. 11.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-rob-sherman-plane-crash-met-20161212-story.html
He’s the one who gave me the idea of running for President as a WHIG, not because I endorse their silliness.
Was Bernath in charge of the aircraft?
Why, no. No, he was not.
Mr. Sherman was piloting his own plane, and had done so for many years. The cause of the crash is still under investigation. But you see, because I track my local weather, I can add that at the time, it was snowing and the humidity level was nearly 90%, rather high for this time of year and could possibly have contributed to a buildup of ice on the wings and elevators, preventing proper flight management. Also, the plane Sherman flew was an EAA home-built model, which may have had something to do with it.
and all this time I thought they just did Tanfoglios and other clones
As many Baptists I know would ask… “Was he saved?”
Too bad we can’t ask him how he likes all the fire, flames, heat, stench and torture…..bet he would like to talk to Jesus about now!!
I just want to thank the United States Supreme Court, without whose fanciful interpretations of the Establishment Clause we would not have to suffer this silly stuff. Yes, it was that small group of lawyers that gave us this crud. The Founders never intended to hide religion from the public square and they never intended to have the prohibition against establishing a national religion applied to the states. That’s all the doing of the serve-for-life, unelected, merry band of black-robed lawyers.
Applying stuff to the states comes to you courtesy of the Fourteenth Amendment, which of course was not the work of the founders, but was not invented by the Supreme Court.
Mind you, the Supreme Court did it by dubious reasoning. They should’ve incorporated the Bill of Rights through the “Privileges and Immunities” clause, but they preferred to do it through the Due Process Clause. But the point remains — the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Supreme Court acting alone, is what added most of the current Constitutional restrictions to the States.
No, that is the tool, the instrument that the Court uses. Nothing in the 14th A, one of the Civil War amendments, triggered the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, nor was any part of it intended to do so. It is the court’s employment of the 14th A as an incorporation instrument that is theirs, not the 14th A itself. And I disagree that the Court “should have” incorporated the Bill of Rights using anything at all.
Maybe Lars will join us for this exchange. He’s probably boning up through Wiki Law right now.
I’m actually enjoying the absence of him right now.
Fuck the ACLU and their “client”…
“Tompkins did not respond to a request for comment about the community’s reaction to his lawsuit.” Why of course he didn’t. He’s a useful idiot for the leftist ACLU who use their legal might to pound down anything THEY don’t like. Wonder if they would have challenged a crescent on that tree? Or quite the opposite, defended the town for having a symbol of Islam displayed even if it offended the entire populace?
Where I live, the ACLU would go nuts. There is a high-school sponsored Christmas pageant, a high-school sponsored “Christmas” parade, and a big ole Christmas tree on the high school’s front property. Nobody hides behind “the holidays” here, except Target. Target wants your money but does not want to acknowledge why you are spending it.
This puts me in mind of something I came across years ago. A couple who were offended that the school their snowflake went had a Holiday show that included the cast singing what they deemed as Christian Songs Threatened suit and the school bowed under pressure and changed the program, removing the “offending” music.
The night of the show the asshole couple showed up all smug in their victory. The school kept their word, HOWEVER, the Audience spontaneously sang the removed songs between acts.
The couple went whining later, but there wasn’t a damn thing they could do about it.
Ho…Lee…Schitt.
Hey lefties, your self-centered, egotistical, near-autistic pomposity on stuff like this is why I voted for Trump. Although I’m an agnostic (I identify as Spiritual Humanist) I view the cross as an example of self-sacrifice for the good of others. Maybe others should start viewing the cross the same way? Or would that require that they come out of their bitchy little shells and think of others for a change?
Dear Mister Tompkins,
I’m going to exercise my First Amendment right as well.
Pretty please, go die in a fire.
Them’s fighting words. Therefore not protected speech.
He said “please.”
True. And given that it was posted on the internet its hard to argue inciting an “immediate breach of the peace” (Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire).
On the other hand he did direct it to a specific individual and not a group (Snyder v. Phelps and Cohen v. California).
I know, lets get the ALCU involved! That’ll help us resolve this conundrum!
I expressed desire, not intent. Had I said, “I’m going to set you on fire and watch you die,” you would be correct.
Context is everything. Kinda like wishing someone would get hit by a bus. Unless you’re actually doing or planning said action, there’s not a whole lot you can do aside from put a little cream on that butthurt.
Christianity is offensive for the PC pumpkins. A grade school in Kentucky wants to edit out Linus’s Gospel of Luke monologue in A Charlie Brown Christmas school play.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/12/17/kentucky-grade-school-scrubs-all-references-to-christianity-in-charlie-brown-christmas/
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
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.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
…
Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is there the phrase “separation of church and state” nor anything resembling that.
The ACLU and their tools are attempting to do precisely what the 1st Amendment was designed to prevent. It is a travesty of law to interpret the 1st Amendment in any other manner.
And this is why I keep harping on the US Supreme Court. You will never read me going after the ACLU or, with one exception (Micky), individual plaintiffs in these actions. The culprits are the Supreme Court and ignorance of what is and is not acceptable to that crew.
Concur. All up and down the ticket and appointment process, our Judges are the most powerful and least accountable officials.
You have an answer in your reply, Establishment of religion the ACLU argument hinges on the concept that by promoting only one particular religion with this display the government (the city in this case) is promoting or establishing a de facto religion endorsed by the city. As a non-believer I understand this is not the case and as a non-believer I’m not at all concerned about seeing a cross on a christmas tree beyond being offended by the sheer ugliness of that particular cross. They could at least have chosen a more interesting tree topper, but that’s just me… With respect to separation of church and state I prefer the founder’s own words as opposed to modern day interpretations… Jefferson wrote the following: To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,”thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for… Read more »
Actually, where in the Constitution is promoting a religion prohibited? It isn’t. It took the Supreme Court to re-construct the Establishment Clause to get there. It took the Supreme Court to dictate the same to the states.
And it would take some different judges to turn that around if they were so inclined.
Many cases where the state seems to endorse only a single religious viewpoint have resulted in the state having to alter their actions to allow either more options or zero options such as these displays where you have a jewish symbol, christian symbol, and any assortment of other meaningful (or sometimes meaningless) symbols…
Those who don’t think it’s there in the constitution are welcome to that interpretation, it’s not however currently the accepted interpretation. There’s enough commentary from the founder’s themselves to allow for either conclusion. And judges often look to intent as well as the literal words written when it comes to in-depth considerations of weighty legal matters.
As I said this is much ado about nothing, but I understand where the rulings come from.
A little information can be a dangerous thing. There is no interpretation required to determine what is in the Constitution. Something is there or it is not there. Does the Cosntitution prohinit the Federal government from establishing a religion? Yes. It’s right there. Does the Constitution prohibit a state from establishing a state religion? No. How do I know that? I know because the Bill of Rights applied only to the Federal government. I also know that, as a matter of practice and law, some states continued to have official churches and collected taxes explicitly to support them. Individual states ceased that practice and either repealed or ignored their own laws over time but, again, the US Constitution’s Bill of Rights had no say in the matter. That’s just cold fact. So what happened? The Supreme Court, that’s what. Using selected language of the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court decided that one of rights in the Bill of Rights should bind the states. The case (Gitlow v. New York) had nothing to do with the Establishment Clause. That case was decided in 172–whoops…182…whoops again–1925. So, 135 or so years after the Constitution was effective came the first of what would be a series of such incorporation cases two to three decades later. So much for the Founders’ intent. By the way, this interpretation business done by the Supreme Court has itself taken on some craziness. It’s true that intent can be critical to construing a law but that is ONLY if the law is not clear on its face. The Court is not empowered to create new law by fancifully interpreting clear law, or even fuzzy law, but who would guess that nowadays? The Court needs its ass reined in and Congress or a Convention of States can do exactly that. I wish to God someone would.
You’re sounding like one of those libertarians…the ones who say there’s nothing in the Constitution that allows for the government to tax your income so abolish it and the IRS…a lot of folks could get behind that.
About the only thing that is not in doubt is that the first object of gov’t is to sustain itself through taxes. The other thing is that a noncompliant citizen will be financially ruined and put in prison.
Oh yeah, it’s also in the Constitution!
And here we have a conundrum rooted in a misunderstanding of what type of circumstance the Founding Fathers were referencing with the clause “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…” Consider the history (a terrible thing to forget!) behind the move of many of the early colonists to these shores. There had been a long period of time during which the British Throne had decreed that the official state religion would be either the Catholic or a Protestant form of Christianity – and that to not adhere to that was treason. To teach other than the accepted doctrine was treason. And treason was punishable by death. The Founders explicitly wished to avoid any state-controlled (and state established = state controlled) religion. That Thomas Jefferson wrote his opinion or interpretation of what was entailed is neither disputed nor relevant. Jefferson’s letter and opinion is his letter and opinion – not part and parcel of the 1st Amendment. It is not even part of the arguments written to explain and “sell” the Bill of Rights – the Federalist Papers. Those are used, properly, to understand the intent of the founders in writing the Bill of Rights. Jefferson’s letter is not. The recognition of a specific religion is, per the language of the 1st Amendment, neither forbidden nor discouraged. Recognizing that Christianity has been a vital force in establishing the moral compass requisite for a proper usage of the U.S. Constitution is nothing more than a recognition of facts. It is, indeed, not an accident that those we label the Left and the Progressives (as well as Hippies et al) are – as a group but not universally – not only non-Christian but rabidly anti-Christian, and that in consequence the tend to take things such as the Constitution as a document that means what they say it means without concern for what the Founders intended, and the very precise language they utilized. Disclaimer: I am not saying that all non-believers will take this view – and I tend to follow C.S. Lewis’ take on why that is so. But that… Read more »
Except judges haven’t shared your opinion in recent years, perhaps that’s changing with the new president. My opinion and yours bear the same legal weight, zero. The SCOTUS and lower courts have decided that intent as written by legislators can add insight into the decision making process. It’s how they decided that a corporation designed to separate an individual from a business was only for legal liability purposes and not for questions of personal beliefs. Which is how Hobby Lobby was decided. The law regarding incorporation only defines how the parties are legally separated, it makes no reference to personal views remaining affixed to a separated legal entity. The judges inferred that from the intent of the lawmakers…that’s where Jefferson’s words gain relevance. He is describing the process, which is exactly what judges are using as a means to ascertain intent.
I do not believe we will see judges of either party or particular affiliations relinquishing that aspect of consideration any time in the future. Thus my use of the words as supportive.
I think the days of literalist judges are over….and have been for some time and that is true of right leaning and left leaning judges.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsp&fileName=002/llsp002.db&recNum=24
Article 11 clearly states the Government was not founded on any religion,supporting the seperation of church and state. From the Treaty of Tripoli (1797)
You had better read Article 11 again, MrFace. It says that the government of the United States was not founded on the Christian religion, a statement that is most certainly true but absolutely devoid of value for contending that the US was not founded on any religion or for supporting the separation of church and state, as you assert. Before there was Article 11 and the Treaty of Tripoli, there was this other document, the US Constitution. Nowhere does that document assert that the nation or its government is a theocracy. It does, however, provide that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
Right I have no problem with that. I am unbiased in this argument, Just giving supporting documents for VOV. I understand what the Constitution says and am bound by oath to support and defend it.
Cheers,
MrFace
” or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Seems like the ACLU is trying to do just this, prohibit someone from freely exercising their rights under the first amendment.
The ACLU is not an element of government, Federal or state, so that Free Exercise clause doesn’t apply.
Amazing how they can be so offended by a God they don’t believe in.
I’m an atheist and I can’t stand it when other atheists act the way Tompkins is. Grow up!
Yeah, because you done’t give a fuck about the separation of Church and State other atheists shouldn’t either.
Maybe you atheists should pray for solidarity.
Even an atheist has to think about God in order to deny him.
Some of don’t think about your god or any god at all unless we stumble across stuff…it is fun to watch religious folks get all squirrelly though, they’ve so long ruled the roost when someone challenges that they tend to collectively shit their drawers.
Yet you state further down that your children and grandchildren have been a real blessing.
ssshhh, you’re not supposed to be checking out the little man behind the curtain…
Or we could start one of those Facebook Like and Share campaigns…you know 1 like = Amen and a share means Hallelujah…
I’m as lousy a non-believer as I was a believer….I don’t like organizations, especially the kind that would take in the likes of people like me.
I kind of feel the same way, VOV. I have my own beliefs and I get quite annoyed with people who insist that theirs is the only way. When the ‘born againers’ were roaming my college campus, looking for people they could snag, if you said ‘leave me alone’ or ‘I belong to whatever’, they screamed bloody murder at you, until finally, they were thrown off the campus for being disruptive. And that was a Wesleyan Presbyterian school.
Nobody likes an in-your-face proselytizer of anything. Who doesn’t appreciate the beauty of Midnight Mass? Only those who never attended one.
I love the smell of frankincense and myrrh at midnight.
Had a roommate who when approached by the old Campus Crusade for Christ back in the ’70s would accept their little flyers, and politely smile and hand them back while saying “No thank you, I’m with the opposition”
Nice paraphrase from the Sayings of Cardinal Groucho, VOV
I recognize that line, you Marxist you.
Oh? Perhaps he recognizes that scrubbing all trace of reliegion, in effect making it Atheist-compliant, would be as wrong as making everything Baptist compliant, or Buddhist compliant.
“Wall of separation” appears nowhere in the 1st amendment, or in the arguments for it in the various contemporary documents and publications. A poster above cited the -only- period use of the term “wall of separation”. (The -only- one, in a -private- correspondence, not published at the time.)
The same 1st amendment states that Conress shall make no law that -prohibits- the free expression. That also means you cant stop me form expressing my views. That means -even if I work for the government-. I still get my own Liberty.
Folks who want religion scrubbed, what I call the Evangelical Atheist crowd, want to warp the 1st so as to enforce their own belief system. (And it is -belief-, you can no more prove the universe is a closed system than you can prove it is an open system .)
If you are saying “Don’t pray here” you are part of the problem. No one has the right or the authority to say either “must pray” or “do not pray”.
So knock of this utterly false and utterly -wrong- view that only. Atheism is an acceptable position for our government, or for those who work there. Liberty belongs to all of us, and just because you take a job with a government institution does not mandate one comply with Atheist forms and behaviors.
You didn’t gain a privileged position by using “no” or “not” in your belief statement.
For the record I used a single reference for expediency, there are many others by other than Jefferson with respect to a separation of the state and the church.
It’s also apparent the term Creator is used once and the term God appears no where in any of the Constitution.
While some of those writing the bill of rights and the declaration wanted to include more godly reference that was denied by the majority…that was a purposeful avoidance of any reference to god and only the term religion or religious are used and only once each with respect to establishment and no religious test beyond that there is nothing to reference any god or gods…if one believes these founders wrote the 2nd amendment for a purpose allowing us to defend ourselves against our government which I firmly believe it follows that they must have had serious reasons for avoiding any reference to god when creating the nation except for being endowed by a deist god with certain inalienable rights.
Just an observation, probably not worth much than the $0.02 of standard pricing for such things.
Although God is not in the Constitution, neither is God barred by the Constitution. The terms Congress, religion and establishment in the 1700s had the same meanings they have today. When Congress prohibited itself from from establishing a religion, it did so clearly and succinctly. I wonder how those who like what the Supreme Court did with those plain words more than 150 years later would view the interpretive shenanigans of a Supreme Court that reversed itself and struck new precedent (as has happened previously) and decided that, indeed, it’s all good so long as a state or the Federal gov’t does not literally establish an official religion.
That would be a most interesting series of conversations no doubt…a great many things changed after the documents were written.
Go suck a bag of dick, Commissar PinkoCommie, you ignorant little technocrat.
People are not being pushed around in this issue.
Most of you would be outraged if you municipal government used taxpayer funds to put on a Ashura festival.
The separation of church and state has been affirmed through SCoTUS president.
People whining about being pushed around while they keep trying to use government to favor their religion over all others is pretty DEPLORABLE.
White christians are not being “pushed around”; people just expect the government to treat all citizens regardless one race or religion equally under the law.
This town government is wrong. They will lose. Meanwhile they will squander hundreds of thousands in taxpayer revenue defending an unnecessary and bullshit unconstitutional action.
Thanks for the laughs.
Don’tcha just love the precise grammar he utilizes?
Oh, lookie here!!! It’s the Piuperdink at his most noisy again!!!!
Here’s one for your salad bowl, shitstick.
The Governor of Illinois yesterday celebrated the start of the Hanukkah season in Chicago’s city center by spinning a dredel on a tabletop – that’s a JEWISH holiday toy – and dancing the Havah Nagila with a group of Hasiddim. So much for your idiotic claim!
And downtown Chicago’s central plaza is decorated, as always with the holiday village market as well as symbols of all religions, including Islam, for the holiday season. Since Hannukah starts on Christmas Eve and continues on Christmas Day, both holidays – which are SEASONAL holidays – it’s nice to know that we can celebrate both holidays together.
I find it strange that no one ever complains about decorating the plaza for Easter or any of those other holidays.
It must be those who didn’t get what they wanted for Christmas, like the Daisy BB rifle or the Red Flyer wagon, who do the most complaining around this time of year.
So stuff it. Even the Grinch thinks you’re a putz.
He didn’t get the “attaboy” he wanted from his ponytailed Birkenstock-wearing pothead UC Berserkely Perfessers so he’s compensating for it by peeing his britches in front of us for all the attention he can get.
You make one salient point, christian think they are being pushed around on these issues and they’re not. They’ve primarily enjoyed privilege since the inception of the nation and now that they are being questioned or forced to consider the equality of alternate view points they feel attacked.
When you are used to privilege, equality often feels like oppression.
Well, VOV, I beg to differ with you and Lars on this.
What I, as a Christian and as an American, object to here is a mis-reading of the Constitution.
One might argue that Christians are the most prominent faith-group in the USA and therefore the ones most frequently targeted by the ACLU et al. But, as some will indubitably point out, where are the ACLU types protesting, say, Muslim displays or activities? I’ve not heard of ACLU protests over Jewish displays or activities. Hindu, Buddhist, or Wiccan, either.
We can debate whether – and which – Founding Fathers were Christians but the fact remains even the non-Christians such as Jefferson were strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian thoughts and concepts. That may be behind the big target on Christian expressions of faith – it may not.
But until and unless one can make a reasonably good argument that – in proportion to the numbers of those professing adherence to a belief system [to include atheism] others are targeted to the same extent as Christians by the ACLU et al, then Christians have a point to be considered when they consider themselves to be the minority against whom it is PC to discriminate.
And until we have a proper understanding of and adherence to the 1st Amendment, then all of us are in danger of having our faith be targeted next.
When muslim displays become commonplace on town greens I suspect you’ll see more of the ACLU, after all they’ve even defended the conservative hero Limbaugh against privacy intrusions. The ACLU targets no one, what they do is defend the perimeters of the bill of rights. They are an important, if unpopular, force in our legal system to keep the government at bay.
Christians are not now and never have been a minority, atheists and heathens are despised and trusted less than everyone except muslims by republicans so if you want to talk minorities let’s have a chat sometime. Try telling your christian boss that you believe his god is a magical fantasy…and you get fired for it try finding a lawyer to take your case for wrongful firing.
Just because someone brings a case against a display doesn’t mean you’re under attack it just means that it’s finally a time when doing so is legally acceptable. Try bringing that case 40 years ago…
Christians have run everything in the country for so long and taken their dominant position as the de facto standard of life for so long they perceive these current questions as attacks and a threat to their way of life when the reality is that the legal cases are only designed to allow other voices to be heard.
There is indeed some truth to the concept that those who are used to the privilege of running things and having their view be the dominant societal position feel somehow threatened by dissenting voices and a lessening of their dominance in a society. For those who are used to privilege equality doesn’t feel all that good.
As always I appreciate your commentary and I value your opinion, if I offend it’s due to stupidity and not intent so you have my apology if I was offensive in my responses.
VOV – I am not offended by honest dialogue such as that we have. (Lars, on the other hand….) 🙂
And I have to say the situation is much more complex and nuanced than what we can easily address in this forum.
FWIW, I feel many claiming to be Christians squawk easily – and react in a manner unbecoming the faith they profess. But then – sometimes so do I (the acting, not the squawking).
For my part – we’re good. I appreciate the dialogue!
Graybeard, agreed this conversation would be a lot more enjoyable over a good meal with some adult beverages or sitting by a fire and listening…
Thank you.
I generally have no beef with the ACLU. They usually sue for compliance with Supreme Court decisions. As for those matters raised by the ACLU that did result in new pronouncements by the Supreme Court, the responsibility for the outcome is the Supreme Court’s and, I will add, a Congress that fails to legislatively overturn egregious Supreme Court decisions. Your dominance argument has commonsense appeal, VOV. Without taking it further, sure, I can readily see that when one occupies a position of dominance, he likes to retain it w/o competition.
Watch out, people! Commissar PinkoCommicrat is all butthurt once again!
Go drink your triple soy decaf latte and shut the fuck up.
Hey DICKHEAD, a whole city is being told by 1 person what to do. Also this person is wanting money for supposed butthurt. When is it that a minority rules over a majority. Read the article what the town’s reponse was. Joe
AND CROSSES ARE FUCKING RIDICULOUS TREE TOPPERS!
To Christians christmas is supposed to be a celebration of Christ’s BIRTH not his death. The star (Star of Bethlehem to Christians) is a much more appropriate topper and it has held up as sufficiently non-denominational to not create controversy.
Whatsa matter, Piuperdink? Someone piss in your cream-0-wheat this morning? Couldn’t find a coffee shop open 24 hours a day? Run out of things to do because school is closed for the holiday – AGAIN????
Like I said below, even the Grinch thinks you’re a putz.
HEY YOU candyassed thumbsucking booger-munch, I KNEW you couldn’t pass by this thread without peeing in your britches in full view.
MERRY CHRISTMAS, YOU SCHMUCK!
Lars, kindly go fuck yourself. Has anybody here indicated to you in any way that they give a fuck about your opinion? The answer is no. And it’s not because we don’t like your opinion, it’s because nobody likes YOU. You’re an arrogant prick, an idiot who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, an insecure little fuck who lashes out irrationally at those around him, and an insufferable asshole. All of this is old news, of course, because it’s been explicitly stated by damn near everyone on the blog on multiple occasions.
Disagreement is fine. I disagree with LC on most things. I haven’t once told LC to go fuck himself, because he doesn’t act like you.
You’re a douche. That’s all there is to it. If you were conservative, you’d still be a fucking douche, and nobody would like you any better. Your mother should’ve taken you up her asshole.
From beginning to end, this is probably one of the best comments I’ve ever read. Bravo.
I’ll second that.
BZ, TOW!
VERY well said, TOW! Has he taken you up on your offer of letting him say not to fear commies face to face to your Father in Law? I’m sure the answer is NO because he doesn’t have the balls.
This year I am going to put an American flag on top of my CHRISTMAS tree. The top is usually reserved for an ANGEL or sometimes a CRUCIFIX but this year it will be old glory because I thank god for saving my country from Hillary Clinton. My country was founded in the name of GOD and anybody who doesn’t believe that can kiss my ass.
Ridiculous treetoppers? Well, let’s do examine the reason for using a cross as a religious symbol. Under Roman law, in effect throughout the Imperium at the time, a cross was used to execute criminals. They weren’t usually nailed to it, but rather, were tied to it so that they suffocated from their own weight, hanging by their wrists and compressing the rib cage, making it impossible to breathe. Spartacus was executed this way. It was, in fact, a symbol of criminality, not religion. Jesus was a Jew raised in what would now be termed an orthodox Jewish home. When he returned from spending time in the desert, which some historians think may have been time with the Essenes, he began preaching a more temperate response to Roman rule. He did not, in fact, become seen as a troublemaker and a rabble rouser until he annoyed the Pharisees at the Temple in Jerusalem over that whole moneychanging thing, so they went to the Roman governor at the time, Pontius Pilatus, and asked him to arrest the annoying and inconvenient Jew. Pilatus wanted nothing to do with it, seeing it as nothing but a signal to cause more trouble, so he said ‘No’. That didn’t make the Pharisees happy at all, so they found excuse after excuse to get the Roman government to arrest Jesus, and it was less trouble to do it under Roman law than make the local Jews/Pharisees do it themselves. He was charged with what we would now call insurrection, which was what Spartacus was also charged with, and sentenced to be crucified, just like Spartacus. After he was declared dead, he was buried in the tomb of a Gethsemanean named Joseph and his corporeal body disappeared, allowing the whole miracle rising of rising from the dead to spring into existence. There are plenty of stories of his apotheosis, so I won’t go into that. Originally, because the early Christians were persecuted as a troublesome cult, they used a fish as a symbol, taken from the ‘miracle of the fishes’ at Galilee. (I could talk about the pot… Read more »
I’m a Catholic history nerd, Ex, and I think you summed it up quite succinctly. Whether Comrade Lars the Dickless is worth your effort is another matter entirely.
I just get tired of his insistence on being a jerk all the time. Boy needs a hobby or a job, or both. And he only does those things to piss people off.
But thank you, TOW!
Being a jerk is his hobby. If he could find a way to get paid for it, he’d be on easy street in no time.
Glad I had already swallowed my hot tea before I read that, Air Cav.
Bill Maher gets paid for it somehow.
When I was a kid my Dad would take one look at turds like Lars and say “Here’s a nickel, get a life!”
Well, Ex-PH2, I think you did a good job overall.
The fish symbol bit is a little off from what I understand. The Greek word for “fish” is spelled iota chi theta upsilon sigma – which is also an acronym for the first letters in the Greek words for “Jesus Christ Son [of] God Savior.” The symbol of a fish is also remarkably like that of the Greek lower-case alpha.
That Jesus recruited fishermen among His first disciples and then did miraculous things with the product of their livelihood no doubt played a part, but I believe the acronym is the best explanation.
Yrue, Graybeard, but I did want to keep it brief.
Good point. I can get wordy.
A Chaplain once explained the symbol could be discretly scratched into the dust with the edge of a sandle when chatting with someone as a pass phrase. If the other person recognized, the convo would continue.
It’s also used as a representation of Jesus Christ, as used in Christian symbolism.
Poodle Dickhead!
Herr Commissar, have you ever heard the story about why there is an angel on top of the Christmas tree? I’d love to see you emulate that.
He also emulates the one where the bear says to the hunter “Admit it. You’re not here for the hunting”
I will always miss the Good Old Days when this world wasn’t so overrun with perpetually offended PUSSIES.
Yeah. It’s called the pussification of America. It started in the 1960’s with all those “stank-ass hippies,” as we like to call them. As for the ACLU, let’s not forget its real goal, as stated by its founder, Roger Baldwin: “Remember, communism is our true goal,” or words that effect. It was founded to provide defense attorneys to Communist Party agents being prosecuted for various crimes.
C’mon now; everyone knows that there’s nothing to fear from Communism!
Right, it’s my understanding there was a lot of singing in the Gulags….of course you had to strain to hear it above the screaming but they assure me it was there….
“Yeah. It’s called the pussification of America. It started in the 1960’s with all those “stank-ass hippies,” as we like to call them.”
Yes indeed! A Korea/Vietnam Vet I once attended Church with (Retired LTC)was never bashful about his opinion that NO single decade in our Nation’s History did more damage to it than the 1960s and I have to heartily agree with him and you.
A 1A argument could conceivably be made over the display, though I would disagree with it. The attempt to get money out of it is chickenshit, though.
He claims he was “forced to come into contact” with it. Well, what the hell does he say about his neighbors’ Christmas decorations? There’s gotta be at least one Nativity scene on somebody’s front lawn. Is he going to piss and whine about that, too? What a douche.
‘forced to come into contact’ – Oh, that has so many jokes about it.
The cross jumped right off the fir tree and confronted him, demanding his wallet and his shoes, and then ran off down the alley.
When you get married, you do not really get it like you used too.
Just an observation.
I still do!
A little wine and pizza, perhaps, GT?
Just remember, we girls get tired, too.
Oh, we may get weary.
We girls, we may get weary
Wearing that same old shabby dress,
But when we get weary,
You can try a little tenderness.
Just a little advice from Otis Redding.
I don’t know what this has to do with the price of pigs in China, but in my experience romancing my wife has been wonderful for 40+ years.
YMMV – but if so, ask: are you treating your wife like you did when she was your girlfriend?
I spend more money on her now than I ever did before! Hmm…I suppose there could be a cause/effect correlation in there somewhere…
Good point.
Yes for the most past.
But we ain’t in our early 20’s anymore.
This is a two-way street for sure.
We just need to rekindle the “spark”. Emotional as well as physical.
To be honest, Green, my early 20’s were 40 years ago. Life changes, as do our energies and hormones. It does take work to romance our wives, and for many (most?) of us… experienced… types it ain’t gonna be like when we were 20.
In some ways, thought, it can be much better – although not in the same way.
Rekindle the emotional spark? Then become best friends forever.
Kissin’ don’t last. Cookin’ do. – something from my grandfather.
I’m the cook.
My beloved bride can cook some outstanding desserts.
Then she does pretty well with mac-and-cheese from a box, too. 😉
She had to learn to cook meals after we got married – with the additional challenge of doing that on my excuse for an income. Blackeyes and cornbread is still one of my favorites.
Grow old along with me.
The best is yet to be:
The last of life, for which the first was made.
Love Robert Browning.
Well, I tried, GT.
I have been married since 1973; even more amazing is it is to the same person. She has put up with me thru 23 years of service and over 20 years of retirement; I do not know how she has done it.
For myself I usually tell people when they ask: How long have you been married? Two
Sometime too long; but most of the time too short.
GT. Get away for a couple of days. No phone. No contact address. Just gone. Just don’t bring your wife! When you return, if she doesn’t kill you, it will be a Tony the Tiger evening.
Graybeard, agreed. I was unfortunate enough to be ejected from my first go round on the marriage ride, but this second time around has proven to be most wonderful and in fact my wife and I are as inseparable as the best of friends in addition the benefits of the “romance”….
We enjoy each other’s company and yet are comfortable enough in our own skin that we don’t need to spend every waking moment entertaining each other…two independent souls sharing a life. Our four kids and five grandkids have been a real blessing and now that we have the house to ourselves we are enjoying an entirely new aspect of our lives together…all good stuff.
Good stuff indeed.
I kept trying to, and she kept telling me no. Something about a headache and giving up sex for Lent? When, oh when, will Easter 1992 happen?
Knightstown, Indiana is a small community of somewhere north of 2000 residents. Its gym was used in the movie Hoosiers some years ago. The town isn’t much to look at but it’s home to some good people, I’m sure. The town has a big, live evergreen that is positioned on public property between some buildings and a parking lot. Each year, the tree is decorated with lights and is topped by a cross—not a crucifix but a cross. (Take note, Lars, there is a difference.) Anyway, the town council consulted with the town attorney and agreed to remove the cross. And the town has done so. Unfortunately for the plaintiff, one Joseph (nice name) Thompkins, many citizens are not happy and aren’t taking it quietly. Crosses are appearing all over town. One person made 200 of them and passed them out. They are appearing on many pieces of private property. One relative of Joseph was shocked and disappointed by what he did. I don’t blame her for getting some distance. Joseph will be hearing folks exercise their free speech right for a while, I would guess. One or two may use symbolic speech. And his big payday? It won’t be happening.
Was Mr. Tompkins being forced to look at a cross? No.
Was Mr. Tompkins being harassed about his lack of faith? No.
Was Mr. Tompkins being asked to cough up cash to pay for the decoration? No.
No, he was just another attention hog in a long, long line of them, and he failed.
I never really understood how one could be “offended” by simply seeing religious symbols. It is literally impossible for the sight of religious symbols alone to be enough to shut someone down and ruin their day or affect their life in any negative way.
As a child I remember singing both Christmas AND Hannakah songs in school.. heck we even did some Kwanzaa-related arts and crafts. No parents complained, no lives destroyed, no harm done in any way whatsoever. Life went on and we grew up and did just fine.
That one person (or any people) can go so far as to sue because they are atheists and they see a cross just screams “I’m an enormous asshole.”
I have to leave this here, because I was interested in the aspects of the belief system that is atheism. From an essay “Is Atheism a Religion?” The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions. The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the ‘secularisation’ of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential. Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so. Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a ‘hairstyle’. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions. The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews. Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government. In this instance, Mr.Tompkins’ insistence that no Christian symbols should be used as decorations on the city’s evergreen, a large blue spruce in the center of town, he action against is a violation of the rights of the other people in town. He is definitely not behaving in a strictly secular manner, but rather, he is engaging in prejudiced behavior towards other people whose beliefs are not the same as his. It has nothing to… Read more »
Some non-believers don’t deny god, they just see no evidence and consequently conclude the likelihood of god is about equal to santa and the fairies…. Others as you suggest spend an inordinate amount of time being offended by all things religious. And generally making an ass of themselves in the process. As long as the law continues to protect me from the tyranny of the majority which is why we have a republic and not a democracy by the way I’ve not much quarrel with whatever is done down at the town green…put up a cross, a menorah, or dinesh the elephant god and I’m not upset or offended as long as I’m not required to participate in any sort of ceremonies or rituals…. You’ll note I don’t use the term atheist, for the reasons you point out above in that you suggest atheists have a belief. I have none and this is after much time spent seeking a belief in many different christian variants over many years and a lot of biblical study…consequently it’s not that hold a belief, it’s that I find no evidence and simply draw a conclusion the same as I would regarding other presumably mystical beings. Most people are actually non-believers if the stop and consider it for a moment. Christians don’t believe in the elephant god of India any more than those who believe in the elephant god believe in the Christian god….I go one step further than most and don’t believe in any of them at all. But I don’t attend any meetings about it nor do I actually discuss it much except here where I get to express myself a bit more comfortably than in the real world and I thank you all for that, for reading my words and considering my comments. I just wanted to suggest that among the non-religious are perhaps more folks like me who are just not drawn to the church, any church but bear no real desire to be confrontational about it with the public. And those numbers who identify as unaffiliated are growing according to… Read more »
I prefer the Christopher Hitchens term “Antitheist”
“Closed Universe” versus “Open Universe”.
Since Logic cannot prove a negative, it is essential to be able to put a premise statement into a positive format, if one is to apply Logic to a proof based upon that premise.
Hhmmmmm……I’m still looking through my copy of the Constitution, the First Amendment, trying to find the wording about “separation of church and state”. Haven’t found it yet. Still looking. Let me know if you find it, tell me where to look.
In fact the 1st Amendment seems to say quite the opposite:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”…
That pesky little “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” part always throws me for a loop….
To get back on point… I have a suggestion for a response by the City to the ACLU – but that finger gesture ain’t real Christian-like…
It’s just telling them they’re number one, slightly modified.
Tell ’em it’s the NJ State Bird!
[…] blog of the day is This ain’t Hell…, with a post on how to not get […]
Apparently this Tompkins guy has been out of a job for a long time… some in his own home town suspect that is the ONLY reason he is doing this.
Surprise, surprise, surprise…
Tried finding the news link where folks from his town were discussing it, but there are so many articles up I can’t seem to find the one, but many in a Disqus forum were relaying that info.
UPDATE.
The cross has been returned to the Christmas tree. It now sits below the new star that is now the tree’s topper. And the fellow who filed suit? The town decided to help him and his family, not condemn him. His father is very ill and the family is not in a good way so the town decided that some compassion and goodwill was due. As Todd Starnes wrote about this, “What a wonderful Christmas lesson from the good people of Knightstown.” Indeed.
Great Christmas story. Thanks for the update, A/C.
Glad to know about this, Air Cav. Thank you.
And for all you sports fans out there, the Knightstown Hoosier Gym was where the Hickory Huskers played their home games.
Merry Christmas to Shooter, Myra Fleenor and Coach Dale.