XPost: nyc.politics, nyc.general, nyc.events
On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 22:03:41 -0500, Phil
wrote:
>On Sat, 01 Dec 2007 01:47:55 GMT, "Freedom Fighter"
>wrote:
>
>>"Phil" wrote in message
>>news:g85vk3tpu5sae4v7k49ptl1e6i68s7i8ej@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:41:51 GMT, "Freedom Fighter"
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We also have a Constitutional right to be free from the imposition of
>>>>others' beliefs and practices on ourselves.
>>
>>> We're talking about changing the name of the Christmas tree to the
>>> Holiday tree, just for the sake of being politically correct. It's
>>> been called Christmas tree for centuries and, all of a sudden, it's
>>> wrong?
>>
>>You can call it whatever you wish. I think such decorated trees are
>>beautiful and desirable, but if they are financed by public funds or
erected
>>in a public place, it is a violation of our Constitutional separation of
>>church and state to officially endorse any religion by any means, which the
>>noun "Christmas" does. So have decorated trees around, they are beautiful,
>>but simply respect the right of non-Christians to not have their tax money
>>used to promote Christianity.
>
>I think, for the most part, they are funded by donations.
>
>Either way, calling it a holiday tree is a joke, though. Everyone
>knows that it's a symbol of Christmas.
>
>
>Phil
What everyone "knows" and what it officially is
are supposed to be two different things, that is
if you really support the idea of freedom of religion.
It cannot be officially paid for with gov't funds if
it is a Christmas tree. That much is settled law,
whether or not you are aware of it!
But, the gov't can use its funds to pay for
a holiday tree! Whether or not you believe
in Christmas et al, you do enjoy the holidays
they bring with them. So a "Holiday Tree" it
is, and that's the end of the matter!
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|