Gee... Right here at home...

Nobody that matters wrote: I've seen alot of arguments (on other forums) that a lighted tree is actually a Saturnalia or Druid tradition pre-dating Christiainity. Some fundamental Christians quote verses that forbid decorated trees at Christmas as being false idols.

I've even seen trees decorated with lights and small ornaments shaped like menorahs and dredels. It is after all a festival of lights.

The tree is not a Christain symbol, and has been pretty much accepted as a 'holiday' tradition - representing all December holidays.

So, there are no religious symbols at the lakehouse. If they allow the menorah, they're opening themselves up to lawsuits by some nutty Wisconsin group of athiests that'll want to post signs about how there is no God. They'll wind up having to allow nativity scenes, pentagrams and festivus poles.

It's either all or nothing here. Denver and EPR chose nothing.

It doesn't matter if it's been co-opted by Christianity or it's some original icon, it has an historical meaning that you cannot erase, Tress, lights, angles what ever, however co-opted, however they got into the Christmas tradition... it has become a symbol associated with a religious event. To claim otherwise is simply lying. And all of these symbols, including the lights that cities and town erect with public money should be taken down. The holiday, no matter how secular it may have become still has a direct connection to a religious event.

None of it should be displayed.

I'm thinking that many of the posters on this board have been sitting on the mountain all by themselves for far too long. I must say this is probably the best form of free entertainment or the biggest waste of billions of dollars worth of technology. rofllol

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

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?

What has the Constitution to do with what a city or state decides to do with regards to religion? There was, and remained, state sponsored religion for 30 years in the union after the Constitution was ratified, so clearly there is no constitutional restrictions regarding what a State wishes to do with regards to religion.

Gee, and I always thought the tree was just so Santa Clause had a place to put all my presents. tongue:

Maybe the folks that will miss the menorah lighting this year will boycott other Rec District functions and activities (New Years, Skate the Lake, Summer Concert Series, boat rentals, Earth Day, etc) or simply fail to renew their Rec District membership next year.

I fail to see what all the hubub is about. I could have sworn that LJ and crowd wanted all displays of religion driven from the public square; and yet when that is done, they complain just as loudly about that as they did having the religious display to begin with. It would seem that not only is a menorah being prohibited from being displayed by adherence to this rule, but a creche would likewise be prohibited. Isn't that what the "progressives" wanted? Either allow all or prohibit all? I guess some folks aren't happy unless they can invent something to be outraged about.

PrintSmith wrote: I fail to see what all the hubub is about. I could have sworn that LJ and crowd wanted all displays of religion driven from the public square; and yet when that is done, they complain just as loudly about that as they did having the religious display to begin with. It would seem that not only is a menorah being prohibited from being displayed by adherence to this rule, but a creche would likewise be prohibited. Isn't that what the "progressives" wanted? Either allow all or prohibit all? I guess some folks aren't happy unless they can invent something to be outraged about.

They want the lights on the lakehouse and the tree next to it taken down as well... cuz light strings are obviously a call for everyone that views them to immediately drop to one knee and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

PrintSmith wrote: I fail to see what all the hubub is about. I could have sworn that LJ and crowd wanted all displays of religion driven from the public square; and yet when that is done, they complain just as loudly about that as they did having the religious display to begin with. It would seem that not only is a menorah being prohibited from being displayed by adherence to this rule, but a creche would likewise be prohibited. Isn't that what the "progressives" wanted? Either allow all or prohibit all? I guess some folks aren't happy unless they can invent something to be outraged about.

I'm far from being against holiday displays on public property, supported by public funds. What I am against is when a community decides to censor one group over another. That's why I take the tact that all of it needs to go. Because evidently these communities cannot act like adults and find a way to accommodate interested parties. The religious right is just as guilty of wanting to limit the kind of objects that are installed at these sites as much as the heathen left (was that a fair comparison?) wants to see all of these objects relegated to obscurity.

Nobody that matters wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: I fail to see what all the hubub is about. I could have sworn that LJ and crowd wanted all displays of religion driven from the public square; and yet when that is done, they complain just as loudly about that as they did having the religious display to begin with. It would seem that not only is a menorah being prohibited from being displayed by adherence to this rule, but a creche would likewise be prohibited. Isn't that what the "progressives" wanted? Either allow all or prohibit all? I guess some folks aren't happy unless they can invent something to be outraged about.

They want the lights on the lakehouse and the tree next to it taken down as well... cuz light strings are obviously a call for everyone that views them to immediately drop to one knee and accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior.

Name me a Christian that wouldn't like to see someone be "saved" because they viewed a religious holiday display that caused them to consider the meanings behind the displays?

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote: Name me a Christian that wouldn't like to see someone be "saved" because they viewed a religious holiday display that caused them to consider the meanings behind the displays?

I'd like to see people consider their spirituality and follow the path best suited to them. If that happens to be Christianity, that's great. If not, that's great too.

I still contend that the lights at the lakehouse are not a religious display. They are in celebration of the season - 'the season' includes all December holidays, and the New Year.