The Hollings Cancer Center in Charleston, SC, created a firestorm of yuletide controversy after they told a volunteer that he would not be allowed to dress up as Santa Claus, according to FoxNews.Posted on 11/25/2011 8:58:08 AM PST by 2nd amendment mama
A South Carolina cancer center that gave Santa Claus the boot has reversed its decision, but said they will ban any Christmas decorations that are religious in nature - including the Nativity.
The Hollings Cancer Center in Charleston, SC, created a firestorm of yuletide controversy after they told a volunteer that he would not be allowed to dress up as Santa Claus, according to FoxNews.
Their Santa ban lasted about two days before they reversed course.
"Perhaps we stumbled here," Hollings spokeswoman Vicky Agnew said. "We are very well aware that Santa is not a religious figure, but we are a state institution and we wanted to tone down the overt commercial and any religious aspects to it."
Did you catch that? A cancer treatment center wants to "tone down" any religious aspects of Christmas!
So Santa gets a reprieve - but religious-themed Christmas decorations do not.
"That still stands," Agnew said. "We've got a diverse population here and a lot of folks celebrate the season differently – or don't celebrate it."
Hollings will not allow any religious symbols - at all.
"No Nativity scenes," Agnew said.
Folks, riddle me this: why is it that if there were NO decorations up during Christmas season that that would not offend Christians? Are Christians the only ones who do not count?
You substituted two words in error. The original words are both extremely important words, and your quote in error changes the meaning significantly.
‘Respecting’ and ‘governing’ have two totally different meanings, and you changed the meaning of the clause by a bunch.
To a lesser degree, the substitution of ‘the’ for ‘an’ changes the meaning of that clause as well.
Words mean things, very specific things and especially with regard to the Constitution should never be changed. However, your attitude toward that is obvious to all. You think anyone who corrects you is being picky and silly.
I don’t think I like you. My intent was pretty clear and you are nitpicking. Simply making your point in a single message respectfully would have been adequate instead of employing an imperious interrogational style.
And THAT is obvious to all.
You’re proving one of the points I made by calling me picky.
The main point is, you do not know the Constitution well enough to quote it. Rather than attacking me, you should be embarrassed and contrite.
The thing to do after this incident the next time you want to quote it, is to pull up the Constitution in your web browser then copy and paste. That will greatly reduce the chance of making an error WRT our founding document, the supreme law of the land.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
I’m not embarrassed and I’m not contrite. I thought I had memorized that section. Apparently I had not. But I think I know the gist of it. The Government has no authority to establish a state church, nor has it the authority to interfere with the free exercise of religion. I missed a couple of words.
And I don’t need a lecture from you on it.
The discussion was an important issue involving the eradication of God and religion from public life in America and you sought to use this as a forum to be hypercritical of me.
I don’t know who the heck you are, or think you are, but I have a good grasp of the Constitution and American history and what led up to American History.
As I said, I don’t need a lecture from you.
Have a great day.
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.