| Author | Message | ||
     Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1784 Registered: 8-2003  |
Bobk, after 12 years of Catholic school, I know well the difference between Christian and Catholic. I'm using them in tandem in this instance because the nativity scene is being presented by a Catholic group on behalf (I would assume) of all Christians. here's my bottom line. Personally, I don't care if Alberto and the local Catholic church want to put a nativity scene in Ricalton Square. It's their legal right, there's no doubt about that. I'm not going to complain to the mayor, or write a letter to the N-R, or sue to get an injunction against it. But I also have the right to post on this board that I think it's a dumb idea. Why do I think it's dumb? First off, there already is a Christmas tree in the square. How do I know? I went to the tree lighting ceremony, and the program clearly identifies it as a Christmas tree. On top of that, the mayor each year then reads "Twas the Night Before Christmas." Note he doesn't say "night before Chanukah," or "night before the holidays" or "night before festivus." So the Christians already have a Christian symbol of Christmas in the square. As I posted above, even the Pope asserts the religious symbolism of the tree. Why they think they've been slighted, I don't know. But apparently they do, and they need a baby Jesus to make up for this historic slight at the hands of Maplewood's secular warriors. So go for it - have your nativity scene. But to me if feels like a bunch of people, in opposition to the true meaning of the season, went looking for a grievance, and are either consciously or unconsciously, looking to pick a fight with those damned secularists. But if it makes them happier to have the nativity in town instead of just in their churches and homes, so be it. I hope its presence there next year can bring them some sense of assurance that no one is trying to destroy their religion. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11611 Registered: 1-2003  |
Alberto, cmontyburns is pulling your leg. He's always making fun of me, because he knows it makes me laugh. I'm not radically anything, and I'm hardly even pro-anything. I guess I'm pro-inclusive and pro-universalist. To say I'm pro-Jewish would be to say I promote Judaism. I don't. I promote compassion, tolerance, understanding, patience, forgiveness, and forebearance. The proposed atheist display rubs me the wrong way because it promotes intolerance. As the anti-smoking activist (whose name I have forgotten) said: your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. Not that your proposed nativity scene is a punch to my nose. Have at it. Sorry about my bad choice of words to you. I'm sure I could have asked my question better. But as painful as the question might be for you, I think it would be useful for you to understand just why it is you want a symbol of your religion in public. Maybe it's just hard for me to get it. I'm not sure what religion I am, but I don't ask for any symbols of it on public property. You absolutely should be proud of what you are. Everyone should be proud of what he/she is. I guess we don't all want to express that pride in the same ways. And I understand that according to Catholics, pride is one of the seven deadly sins. But maybe there is a special definition of pride, because certain types of pride seem good to me, as long as it isn't out of control. | ||
| Lydia Supporter Username: Lydial Post Number: 1536 Registered: 5-2001 |
Tom,
Ahem, as a former "Jewp" and current agnostic, "Be[ing]Proud" (honoring/respecting your heritage, in this case) and "Pridefulness" are 2 different animals. | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 34 Registered: 12-2005 |
Tom, Thanks for your note. Alberto | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1785 Registered: 8-2003 |
Tom, I'm with you. I would also ask some of the pro-nativity folks - why don't you put a prominent nativity display in your front yards? that's a pretty public and prominent space, especially if you live on a main thoroughfare. It makes a compelling statement of your own personal devotion to Christ, and keeping Christ in Christmas. And it doesn't ask for the use of public space to do so. | ||
| Smarty Jones Citizen Username: Birdstone Post Number: 102 Registered: 10-2005 |
Won't ALL of us feel silly when Zeus and Athena greet us at the pearly gates? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11617 Registered: 1-2003 |
Lydia, would you mind explaining the difference between being proud and pridefulness? I sensed there is a difference, but it's not clear to me. Alberto:  and Merry Christmas! And for what it's worth, I'm a half breed and, thanks to my agnostic mother who grew up going to church, we also have Christmas family gatherings, but without any worship. And perhaps Militant Agnostics should hang signs with their motto: "I don't know if there is a god AND NEITHER DO YOU!"  | ||
| J. Crohn Supporter Username: Jcrohn Post Number: 2276 Registered: 3-2003 |
"To say I'm pro-Jewish would be to say I promote Judaism. I don't. I promote compassion, tolerance, understanding, patience, forgiveness, and forebearance." -Jesus Ben Reingold, Epistle to the Maplewoodians, 5:52, Vol. 11611 "And the Rabbi opened his mouth and he taught them, saying, Not that your proposed nativity scene is a punch to my nose. Have at it, whereupon shall I show you my other nostril." -Recently translated fragment attributed to the Gospel of Cmontyburns, discovered at Qumran, 1946 "... Jewp ..." Untranslatable fragment etched into pottery shard, Philippi, Greece, ca. 30 CE; thought to have been a talisman copied from the Lost Testimony of Lydia | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10098 Registered: 5-2001 |
As I have said before, I don't want this to end up being a contest of religious symbols in Ricalton Park, I really don't. This will further fragment our community. Is a Christmas Tree the equivalent of a Mennorah? | ||
| tjohn Supporter Username: Tjohn Post Number: 3898 Registered: 12-2001  |
Christmas trees and the concept of death and renewal (also known as Winter and Spring) predate Christianity. If we still followed the pagan practices of pre-Christian Europe, we would have a celebration around this time. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10103 Registered: 5-2001 |
tjohn, my favorite is the Yule log, also adopted by Christians. The original pagan version was to burn the largest log you could find and eat, drink, dance and wench until it burned out. If you picked the right log that could be up to two weeks. I think we need a Yule log at Ricalton Square. LOL | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1787 Registered: 8-2003 |
bobk, The menorah and the tree are equivalent. Neither are literal depictions of the historic events that the holidays are commemorating. They are both symbols, and regardless of its origins, the tree is now a Christian symbol of the holiday. again, the Maplewood Catholics have a right to their public nativity scene. but the whole thing rubs me a little bit the wrong way because if I recall my religious education, it seems more to me like the ostentatious religiosity of the Pharisees, and less like what Jesus would have taught. as I drive around town, I don't encounter a whole lot of nativity scenes on people's lawns. and there are thousands of Catholic families in Maplewood. why if they don't feel the need to build a creche on their own properties do they feel the need to ask the town for space to build one? seems to me it's more about winning a battle in the non-existent "war on Christmas" than it is about properly observing the birth of Christ. but hey, maybe I'm wrong and these folks sincerely believe what they're doing is the best and most proper way to worship Jesus. if that's the case, I apologize for doubting their faith. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10104 Registered: 5-2001 |
Doc, I have mixed feelings on the subject. I sometimes find nativity scenes a little to literal, as you point out. However, Christmas trees have pagan roots and are extensively used for marketing purposes in non-Christian countries such as Japan and here in the US for the same purpose. I believe the tree downtown is sponsored by the merchants. Offsetting that is the fact many non-Christians (and even apparently some Christians) are upset by Nativity displays. Is it necessary to honk these people off in order to make a point? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1788 Registered: 8-2003 |
bobk, you and I are in agreement on this, I believe. that's precisely what I'm saying - why take a chance of "honking these people off" to celebrate the birth of Jesus? is that what Jesus would have done? or is that what the Pharisees would have done? especially on something that these folks don't apparently think is important enough to build on their own lawns? go figure | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 35 Registered: 12-2005 |
Dr. Winston, - BobK Gentlemen, Not only did he Honk people off. I think he was crucified in the process by those that opposed him. You would approve of Nativities in the Home, Yes? | ||
| Dr. Winston O'Boogie Citizen Username: Casey Post Number: 1790 Registered: 8-2003 |
yes, Jesus "honked people off," but I don't recall any of his teachings where he encouraged his followers to purposely antagonize others. he was the "turn the other cheek" proponent if I recall correctly. and as far as home nativities, I say: go for it. build the biggest most elaborate one you want on your front lawn. it seems to me that would be the most appropriate way to show the world your devotion to the miracle of your faith. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10106 Registered: 5-2001 |
When the kiddies were little we set up a Nativity every year. As they got older we stopped doing this. It was a tradition in my wife's very Catholic family, but not in my watered down Presbyterian one. I will have to ask Mrs. K why we stopped, although it may be because all those years of CCD didn't really take on Miss K and Little K, | ||
| BGS Citizen Username: Bgs Post Number: 451 Registered: 10-2003 |
I consider myself to be practicing and faithful Protestant and completely believe in the "reason for the season" as it were. I am happy to see the menorah in the square but personally do not need to see a Nativity there to remind me of the Christian aspect of the season. | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 36 Registered: 12-2005 |
So much blah blah blah ie: Nativity Scene. What about the Menorah? Any takers here? Where is the outrage, the fundamental political arguments against it, the big menorahs on the neighbourhood lawns - O'Boogie- like I need your permission for anything. The Lord O'Boggie. | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 37 Registered: 12-2005 |
So much blah blah blah ie: Nativity Scene. What about the Menorah? Any takers here? Where is the outrage, the fundamental political arguments against it, the big menorahs on the neighbourhood lawns - O'Boogie- like I need your permission for anything. The Lord O'Boggie. | ||
| lah Citizen Username: Lah Post Number: 390 Registered: 5-2001  |
In reading through all these posts, it is not clear to me who has actually requested that the nativity scene be placed in Ricalton Square next year. Alberto, did you request it personally or did a specific church in the area do so? (No ax to grind, just curious.) | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 38 Registered: 12-2005 |
O'Boogie. (Just kidding) Don't really know - but if you find out, let me know. and, O'Boggie- I liked your post 1787. Its more like the last part of your posting that would seem most appropriate to how I think. Someday, maybe, a beer. | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 756 Registered: 11-2001 |
Alberto, are you looking for outrage regarding the menorah? Are you outraged? Are you trying to stir up something? From my understanding, the town erected a Christmas tree and a menorah in town to commemorate the celebrations of two holidays at this time of year. Period. End of story. Why try to create outrage at all? What exactly is your intention here? | ||
| michael brant Citizen Username: Mbrant Post Number: 63 Registered: 10-2005 |
Perhaps a Nativity Scene will scare off the gang members that hang out. | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11620 Registered: 1-2003 |
The menorah bugs me a bit, too, but like the nativity scene, opposing it is too strong a thing to do, because I expect opposing it would create more animosity than it would prevent. OK, Alberto? | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 39 Registered: 12-2005 |
The menorah is fine with me. Ess must be new in town, can't remember the Nativity scene from years ago. Anyway, its a topic that can't be discussed in this forum- ESS accuses me of looking to create outrage when he/she is the source of outrage. I must explain my intetions to it- get real. Tom- I'll leave this discussion for others from now on. Have a happy new year. Alberto | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10115 Registered: 5-2001 |
Ess, the Town didn't erect either the Christmas Tree or the Menorah. The tree was the work of the merchants and the Menorah was put up by the Jewish Community Center. One can be viewed an example of commercial speech and the other is an example of religious free speech. I ain't no stinkin' lawyer but I believe it would be unconstitutional for the Town to put up either, but would be equally unconsitutional to deny either party, or Alberto permission to put up a Creche. | ||
| anon Supporter Username: Anon Post Number: 2458 Registered: 6-2002 |
It was the Lubavitch sect of the Hassidim who first began putting large Menorahs in public spaces. They may still be the ones responsible for doing so. When they began most Jewish organizations disagreed with the idea. They didn't really believe in public displays of religion. Maybe they were right, because lighting the Menorah is supposed to be a family thing, done at home. Putting up Menorahs in public became more popular in part because it then justifies public Christmas displays. The public authorities cannot then be accused of "promoting" Christianity. They are just celebrating the "holiday season". | ||
| Valley_girl Citizen Username: Valley_girl Post Number: 89 Registered: 12-2004 |
Well good. Thank you someone for putting up the menorah, and I love the tree. Can't we just share our happiness with each other? | ||
| ess Citizen Username: Ess Post Number: 762 Registered: 11-2001 |
Quite frankly, I don't feel strongly about what gets put up during the season. BobK, thanks for the clarification as to who sponsored the tree and the menorah. If private funds are used for this, it doesn't seem to be a problem. None of what has been discussed here (in terms of symbols) is really offensive, anyway. For the record, I am not new in town, nor am I looking to create outrage. What I objected to, Alberto, is this quotation from you: What about the Menorah? Any takers here? Where is the outrage, the fundamental political arguments against it, the big menorahs on the neighbourhood lawns - THAT is why I asked if you were trying to create outrage. Otherwise, I see no need to ask permission from you, get approval from you, or even have you buy in to any of these displays. You wanted to stir things up, and you did it. Bravo. Another holier-than-thou up on your high horse. I can only hope you are not a typical Maplewoodian. As for me, I am done with this particular topic. | ||
| Barbara Citizen Username: Blh Post Number: 582 Registered: 5-2001  |
Well then, I demand equal time for my faith! So, does anyone know where I can get a 10' tall question mark? You know, I've come to a point in my life where I take the blessings of anyone's faith -- while practicing my own. I no longer bristle when someone says, "Merry Christmas" -- they wish me no ill by doing so. And I've come to see the the tree and the menorah in town as celebratory - sharing joy. As someone who grew up "non-Christian", this time of year was often uncomfortable, and sometimes painful, as a child. We've come a long way - and I appreciate that we even have these conversations. In my childhood town, you either accepted the majority celebration or, well you were abused. Alberto, I have to agree with ess -- your statement about "outrage" did cross a line for me. If you are truly wanting to celebrate the birth of your saviour, and what he stood for, then you wouldn't advocate "outrage." Perhaps a few breaths before posting would be a good thing. In any case, I wish you all a joyous, healthy, prosperous, and spiritual New Year -- one in which we continue to consider the wonder of the diversity (of thought, faith, race, etc.) we have the joy of experiencing here. Barbara | ||
| CM Townsend Citizen Username: Cm_townsend Post Number: 101 Registered: 2-2005 |
I. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution Protects the Right of Citizens, Civic Groups, and Churches to Erect Religious Displays in Public Fora. The Constitution protects the right of private citizens to engage in religious speech in a “public forum.” In a leading First Amendment case, the Supreme Court held that a private group could erect a cross in a public park during the holiday season. Pinette, 515 U.S. at 760. The Court noted: Respondents’ religious display in Capitol Square was private expression. Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression. Indeed, in Anglo-American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince. Id. (internal citations omitted). Key factors in the Court’s decision were: 1) the public park in question had historically been open to the public for a variety of expressive activities; 2) the group erecting the cross had requested permission through the same application process and on the same terms required of other private groups; and 3) the group planned to accompany the cross with a sign disclaiming any government sponsorship or endorsement. Id. at 763; id. at 782 (O’Connor, J., concurring); id. at 784 (Souter, J., concurring). Before Pinette, the Supreme Court decided two other cases specifically addressing the constitutionality of holiday displays: County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989), and Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). Lynch and County of Allegheny involved holiday displays erected by the government itself either on private property or on government property that was not a public forum. These two cases establish that religious displays on government property that is not a public forum may nevertheless be constitutional if they are accompanied by other secular symbols relating to the holiday. For example, the holiday display upheld in Lynch contained a crèche as well as a Santa Claus house, reindeer, candy canes, a Christmas tree, carolers, and toys. 465 U.S. at 671. The display upheld in County of Allegheny contained a menorah and a Christmas tree. 492 U.S. at 582. Thus, Pinette, Lynch, and County of Allegheny teach that private citizens may erect religious displays on public property if: 1) the property is a public forum on which the government has permitted a wide variety of expressive conduct, and there is a sign informing the public that the display is sponsored by private citizens and the government is not endorsing its message; or 2) the display is accompanied by a variety of secular holiday symbols such that the overall message of the display is not exclusively or primarily religious. The Ten Commandments cases decided by the Supreme Court in June 2005 reaffirmed that holiday displays similar to the one in Lynch are constitutional. In Van Orden v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 2854 (2005), the Court upheld a display of monuments and historical markers near the Texas State Capitol which included the Ten Commandments. The Van Orden plurality discussed Lynch at several points and reiterated the Lynch Court’s statement that “[t]here is an unbroken history of official acknowledgment by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life from at least 1789.” Id. at 2861 (Rehnquist, C.J., plurality) (quoting Lynch, 465 U.S. at 674); see also id. at 2863. Justice Breyer’s concurring opinion emphasized that the context of a Ten Commandments display largely determines whether it is constitutional, and Justice Souter’s dissent compared the Ten Commandments display to the holiday display that the Court struck down in County of Allegheny and noted that the display in Lynch had a more secular context. Id. at 2869-70 (Breyer, J., concurring); id. at 2893-97 (Souter, J., dissenting). In McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky, 125 S. Ct. 2722 (2005), the Court declared a courthouse display of historical documents which included the Ten Commandments unconstitutional. The Court analyzed the purpose, context, and history of the display, noting that it began as the Ten Commandments standing alone. Id. at 2734-38. The Court distinguished its holiday display cases by stating, “Crèches placed with holiday symbols . . . do not insistently call for religious action on the part of citizens; the history of posting the Commandments expressed a purpose to urge citizens to act in prescribed ways as a personal response to divine authority.” Id. at 2743, n.24. Justice Scalia’s dissent argued that “[t]he acknowledgment of the contribution that religion in general, and the Ten Commandments in particular, have made to our Nation’s legal and governmental heritage . . . seems to be on par with the inclusion of a crèche or a menorah in a ‘Holiday’ display that incorporates other secular symbols.” Id. at 2759 (Scalia, J., dissenting). He argued that Lynch and Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), “ought to decide this case.” Id. at 2760. Most lower federal courts have upheld the rights of private citizens and governments to erect holiday displays. What follows is a summary of the decisions from various federal courts of appeals and district courts around the country. Even in the absence of a case from your jurisdiction, it is imperative to understand that the Supreme Court’s decisions in Lynch, County of Allegheny, and Pinette are binding upon the courts in every state. C. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit – governing Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware The Third Circuit, in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (1999), upheld the constitutionality of a city holiday display depicting, inter alia, a crèche, menorah, Christmas trees, Santa Claus, Frosty the snowman, a sled, Kwanza candles, and two signs celebrating the cultural and ethnic heritage of the city’s residents. The city owned, maintained, and stored the items in the display, which was located in front of city hall. Using Lynch and County of Allegheny for the basic legal principles involved, the court lamented the conundrum of discerning what type of display passes constitutional muster. The court asked: Within what distance must each display element be from another element? What effect does the size of each element have on the constitutionality of the overall approach? “How many candy canes offset one Jesus?” The court upheld the display because it was similar in many respects to the display upheld in County of Allegheny. AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE WEBSITE | ||
| Alberto Citizen Username: Buckwheat Post Number: 40 Registered: 12-2005 |
For those offended, please accept my apology for the word outrage. Its best substituted with opposition- of which I am not. My argument was simply don't oppose one thing or the other. Both are acceptable. Thats it. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10118 Registered: 5-2001 |
I don't have a problem with the Menorah, in fact I applaud the individual who was behind its installation. However, I think it may start a, for lack of a better phrase, religious arms race in a community that already has been fractured by the goings on of the BOE last year. How about a twice life size creche with a glow in the dark baby Jesus? To be followed, of course, by the Lubavitzers installing one of their 30 foot Menorahs, followed by a 60 foot cross. Not to mention all sorts of other groups ranging from atheists to the Aryan Nation wanting to get in the act. Get my point? | ||
| Tom Reingold Supporter Username: Noglider Post Number: 11626 Registered: 1-2003 |
After reading this thread, my view has changed. I was uncomfortable with religious displays on public property. But apparently, the purpose of this property is analogous to a soapbox, for all to display symbols of their views. In that light, I support all religious displays. | ||
| cmontyburns Citizen Username: Cmontyburns Post Number: 1633 Registered: 12-2003  |
For those wondering about CM's post: The American Center for Law and Justice was founded by Pat "Thou Shalt Not Kill Unless It's a Venezuelan" Robertson. More info: http://www.aclj.org/ | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10132 Registered: 5-2001 |
I just talked to my friend Chucky, the owner of Chuck's Heavy Lift Choppers, Inc. of Provo, Utah. Chucky is a former Vietnam era Huey driver who found God, or at least his version of Him, while watching half inch holes appear, seemingly by magic, in the side of his Slick while flying medevac flights in the Central Highlands. His normal business is to place high tension utility poles on concrete pads in the Rockies, but will be happy to fly east next year to lower the Baby Jesus into the manger at 12:01 am on Christmas day. He says it is a piece of cake. Talk about escalation.  On a more serious note did anyone else catch the opinion piece in last weeks News Record threatening suit if any religious symbols are placed in Ricalton Park? | ||
| Ukealalio Citizen Username: Ukealalio Post Number: 2523 Registered: 6-2003 |
This kind of one upmanship is getting a little sickening. The Christmas tree and the Menorah are fine. If next year, there is a Christmas tree, a Menorah and a Nativity scene, you may be giving some extra points to the Jews, since the individuals in the scene themselves were Jewish. This is just getting silly. | ||
| Bob K Supporter Username: Bobk Post Number: 10134 Registered: 5-2001 |
Well, in that case Chuckie can bring in a 60 foot cross and set it in place, no problemo. But of course we wouldn't do this until the Lubavitchers set up a thrity foot Menorah. | ||
| susan1014 Supporter Username: Susan1014 Post Number: 1236 Registered: 3-2002 |
I'm looking toward the day when we have: Dicken's village (secular Christmas) Lit up tree (secular/semi-religious Christmas) Menorah (religious Hanukkah) Nativity (religious Christmas) Giant light-up dreidel (secular Hanukkah) Giant anti-religious sign (athiest response) and anything that the agnostics, muslims, buddhists, etc. want to add. Maybe with this level of gaudiness, I'll be able to get parking in downtown Maplewood! |
