Posted on 11/13/2008 10:03:51 PM PST by stevelackner
A Rabbi asked the City of Golden if he could put up a menorah near the Christmas tree and the reaction of the city is to consider banning all religous symbols. The City of Golden claims that they do not want to have any religous symbols such as the menorah on city property. City of Golen spokesman Jonathan Ashford said that "the goal here is to set guidelines. The city has had a history of having a display downtown that didn't include any kind of specific religious message or theme. We've tried to keep it neutral, very open, very inclusive." The irony of banning a Jewish holiday symbol in the name of being "inclusive" and "very open" does not seem to dawn on Ashford.
How do they explain away a Christmas tree which they have no intention of getting rid of? After all, that is the symbol of the Christian holiday of Christmas. Don't be ridiculous, says the city, it's a "Holiday Tree." And what holiday would that be again?
I have a suggestion for the city. They should simply allow the Rabbi to put up his "Holiday Candelabra" next to the "Holiday Tree." Problem solved.
The first amendment is about freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. The secular-left crusade to ban any and all religous symbols marches on. A holiday tree? Are you kidding me? The first amendment was not meant to ban religion from the public square, it was meant to protect the freedom of worship. It was not meant to banish Christmas or Hanukah. The City of Golden should not be falling for this ACLU nonsense.
John Adams said, "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." In 1796 George Washington said, "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." I dare say that if these guys were running the City of Golden things would be different.
[See the news video reporting this story at stevelackner.com]
punish the religion of 90 plus% for the wittle crybabies
that sorta logic sure doesn’t work in families
oh Well- I heard God doesn’t like Colorado anyway- maybe He’ll remove His blessings if they remove religious symbols- Guess Colorado officials want hteir state to lay in the gutter that htey seem so desperate to run to full steam
It still tickles my funny bone that people consider the Christmas tree a religious symbol.
The Majority of this country celebrate the holiday. If you don't...please feel free to go to work and not honor the day.
From what I understand from my Jewish friends, Hanuka is not their most important holiday. But if putting up a menorah to honor a Christian holiday (I know this would not be the intent) is important, I welcome it.
And I may put up a Christmas Tree during Yom Kippur.
And they won’t say Merry Christmas and prefer saying Happy Holidays. ‘Holidays’ is derived from Holy Days.
Heh, heh. That, too.
What happened to those people?
First they voted for that communist POS Obama, and now they are banning religious symbols?
What a nuthouse.
What holiday does the holiday tree represent?
one word, “californication.”
I have zero interest in visiting that place.
Kwanzaa ?
One question, how would you feel if a Muslim group wanted to put up a crescent moon display with big letters proclaiming “Allah Akbar!’
But we’re told Kwanzaa is religious......
The rabbi countered that Christmas lights are religious in nature.
The city disagreed and Thursday night’s resolution allows the lights to stay up.
There is one exception. A Santa Claus
http://www.9news.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=103865&catid=346
The resolution allows symbols such as snowflakes and icicles. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that lighted trees are primarily secular.
Residents still may put up religious displays on their own property. Events such as the Candlelight Walk and Christmas parade will continue.
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10980385
I think that I remember this situation, or one like it, from previous years. And if I was part of the city's decision-making body concerning such issues, I wouldn't want to get caught in the middle of religious groups wining about religious displays and their rights again.
And by the way, the Founders wrote the 1st and 10th Amendments to delegate government power to regulate our 1st A. personal protections to the states, regardless that they wrote the 1st A. to entirely prohibit such powers to the feds. In fact, Thomas Jefferson, Mr. "wall of separation" himself, included religion when he explained the relationship between the 1st and 10th Amendments.
"3. Resolved that it is true as a general principle and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the constitution that ‘the powers not delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively or to the people’: and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the US. by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, & were reserved, to the states or the people (emphasis added): that thus was manifested their determination to retain to themselves the right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech and of the press may be abridged without lessening their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which cannot be separated from their use should be tolerated rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they guarded against all abridgement by the US. of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, & retained to themselves the right of protecting the same (emphasis added), as this state, by a law passed on the general demand of it’s citizens, had already protected them, from all human restraint or interference: ..." --Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. http://tinyurl.com/oozooNote that while the post-Civil War 14th A. applied all constitutional privileges and immunities to the states, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th A., clarified that the 14th A. did not take away the constitutional rights of states, rights protected by the 10th Amendment. And he made these clarifications both before and after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. This is evidenced by the following extracts from the congressional record.
"The adoption of the proposed amendment will take from the States no rights (emphasis added) that belong to the States." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2rfc5dAs opposed to the federal government which does not have power to regulate our basic federal freedoms, as Justice Reed pointed out, it is the job of judges, judges who actually do their jobs to protect the Constitution that they have sworn to defend that is, to balance between 10th A. protected state powers and 14th A. protected personal federal rights."No right (emphasis added) reserved by the Constitution to the States should be impaired..." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/2qglzy
"Do gentlemen say that by so legislating we would strike down the rights of the State? God forbid. I believe our dual system of government essential to our national existance." --John Bingham, Appendix to the Congressional Globe http://tinyurl.com/y3ne4n
"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech, and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure order living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." --Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942The reason that these facts may be confusing to people is because of the ongoing perversion of the Constitution by special-interest justices, particularly since the time of constitutional flunky FDR.
The bottom line is that the city in question is reasonably within its constitutional rights to say no to religious displays on city property, in my opinion.
On the other hand, if the people involved in this issue starting showing some of God's love for each other, then the city might soften up and permit the displays.
http://ci.golden.co.us/Page.asp?NavID=330
Santa Claus comes from St. Ni”cholas”, an actual saint and strong christian that gave gifts to kids.
Let the menorah up next to the tree, throw up a nativity scene, and allow the muslim drummer boy beat out some Kwanza tunes and make everybody happy. Oh, and allow the Sikh king to offer some frankincense.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.