Gee... Right here at home...

So, I take it no one has an intelligent comment to make about the original post, and the fact that the City of Denver and/or the Evergreen Parks & Rec District are telling the Jewish community that they cannot have a display at the Lake House?

Insert standard irrelevant Obama snarky attack line here: ______________________

But do let me know if you ever have a relevant comment to make about the article.

LadyJazzer wrote: So, I take it no one has an intelligent comment to make about the original post, and the fact that the City of Denver and/or the Evergreen Parks & Rec District are telling the Jewish community that they cannot have a display at the Lake House?

Insert standard irrelevant Obama snarky attack line here: ______________________

But do let me know if you ever have a relevant comment to make about the article.

I already stated that "I think it should all go." I'm not for any public displays of religious symbols when that public display is in anyway associated with governmental space, taxpayers money or time and effort put in by public employees. I'm against city governments putting up Christmas lights (or holiday lights, call them what you want), Christmas trees, angels, stars, evergreen wreaths, Santa, elves, Christmas songs, gifts, images, sounds, songs... the whole enchilada. There is no such thing as a secular holiday symbol, it all exists because of a religious celebration. Even though that celebration has been partially co-opted by some public as a secular activity, the origins and meanings behind the symbols have not change one bit.

It all should go away from the public arena.

As long as taxpayer funds aren't involved, go crazy, er, as long as it isn't over the top. Like a 100 foot tall menorah or a 30 acre burning man.

FredHayek wrote: As long as taxpayer funds aren't involved, go crazy, er, as long as it isn't over the top. Like a 100 foot tall menorah or a 30 acre burning man.

Not if it's on city property. I don't want any of it, religious symbols, holiday symbols, lights, angels what ever... it's all religious... period.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

FredHayek wrote: As long as taxpayer funds aren't involved, go crazy, er, as long as it isn't over the top. Like a 100 foot tall menorah or a 30 acre burning man.

Not if it's on city property. I don't want any of it, religious symbols, holiday symbols, lights, angels what ever... it's all religious... period.

I prefer an inclusive country.

FredHayek wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

FredHayek wrote: As long as taxpayer funds aren't involved, go crazy, er, as long as it isn't over the top. Like a 100 foot tall menorah or a 30 acre burning man.

Not if it's on city property. I don't want any of it, religious symbols, holiday symbols, lights, angels what ever... it's all religious... period.

I prefer an inclusive country.

What kind of constitutional term is that?

I have no problem at all with displays including nativity scenes, lights, elves, reindeer, Santa Claus, trees, menorahs, etc. on public property during the Christmas season. I think it adds much to the enjoyment of the season. I have much enjoyed the lights in downtown Littleton for years, as well as many other displays.

However, due to the constant attacks by very vocal minorities, who are apparently unwilling to allow anyone else to enjoy anything, I think it is inevitable that these displays on public property will be forced to be discontinued. We may as well accept the inevitable, and enjoy the cost savings, rather than the displays which have brought joy to so many for so long.

I say it is up to whoever the towns people were wimpy enough to give their rights up to. If they elected or allowed planning boards or park boards to form to make their decisions for them, let them decide, if the people don't like the decision of the year, they can change the group or disband the deciders next year. Who is everyone afraid is going to influence who? Just don't forget to leave room for a Satanistic display.

Please people, if millions of people have to look up a that huge ass ugly rocky mountain skyline ruining cross next to 285 every night, is it really worth debating a little town display that includes or does not include this or that a couple of hills over??

Converse of the Inverse wrote: I say it is up to whoever the towns people were wimpy enough to give their rights up to. If they elected or allowed planning boards or park boards to form to make their decisions for them, let them decide, if the people don't like the decision of the year, they can change the group or disband the deciders next year. Who is everyone afraid is going to influence who? Just don't forget to leave room for a Satanistic display.

Please people, if millions of people have to look up a that huge ass ugly rocky mountain skyline ruining cross next to 285 every night, is it really worth debating a little town display that includes or does not include this or that a couple of hills over??

I agree. If they are wimpy enough to give up their rights, and allow these spineless park boards or planning boards step on their rights to not having religious symbolism displayed on public property... then it's their own fault. Evidently the religious element in most communities have managed to influence these towns and cities to violate the constitution every year at this time. But you're correct, you never see a satanic symbolism... why... because those religious folk who have grabbed the balls of the park boards or planning boards are hypocrites.

Evidently the religious element in most communities have managed to influence these towns and cities to violate the constitution every year at this time.

IMO, that is BS, no violation of the constitution was involved, but you are entitled to your opinion.