Gee... Right here at home...

Nobody that matters wrote: Or, as another possibility... Since this hit the news, is that there will be a manorah, lights on the tree, a nativity scene, and a big ol sign letting everyone know their belief in God is just fantasy - curteousy of the national athiest zealots.

And courtesy of the national Jewish zealots, and the national Christian zealots. The others have just as much right to be there as the others if you open it up--thanks to the First Amendment. OR, don't open it at all, let each one put up their displays on their own, (or someone else's) private property, and leave the displays off of public property... Personally, I don't consider a lighted tree a "religious symbol." I think that's a rather specious argument.

But then, we've been down this road before... [sigh]

Converse of the Inverse wrote: 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??

Actually, The Cross is on private property and the electricity and maintenance is paid for by private money. More information is included in the link below.

For me, this cross is a sign of "home"...as a little girl living in and outside the Denver metro area, and traveling with my parents, my sister and brother and I would look for it at night and watch it until we couldn't see it anymore. Now that I know more about the reasons for its being, I like it even more.

"Colorado’s Mount Lindo Cross
Colorado’s Mount Lindo Cemetery and Mausoleum rests on top of a mountain that overlooks Highway 285 and Denver. On the East side of the mountain is the largest lighted cross in the United States. The history of the lighted cross goes back to the Olinger family, who founded the Olinger mortuary company in Denver in the 1890s."

http://cemeteries.wordpress.com/2007/03 ... ndo-cross/

LadyJazzer wrote: But then, we've been down this road before... [sigh]

It's a wide and easy road, paved with good intentions.

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: But then, we've been down this road before... [sigh]

It's a wide and easy road, paved with good intentions.

Whatever melts your butter....

ComputerBreath wrote: Now that I know more about the reasons for its being, I like it even more.

"Colorado’s Mount Lindo Cross
Colorado’s Mount Lindo Cemetery and Mausoleum rests on top of a mountain that overlooks Highway 285 and Denver. On the East side of the mountain is the largest lighted cross in the United States. The history of the lighted cross goes back to the Olinger family, who founded the Olinger mortuary company in Denver in the 1890s."

http://cemeteries.wordpress.com/2007/03 ... ndo-cross/

And now for the opposing view: someone that has googled the stories about the builder of the cross and feels the need to destroy any positive image it might hold for people....

LadyJazzer wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: But then, we've been down this road before... [sigh]

It's a wide and easy road, paved with good intentions.

Whatever melts your butter....

I think we should just paint all government buildings battleship grey and not allow any decorations of any type.

That'd be fair, so it'd make everyone happy, right?

On the contrary... I LOVE the lights and the decorations. I decorate my own house. I put up my tree.

What part of: "Personally, I don't consider a lighted tree a "religious symbol." I think that's a rather specious argument" did you not understand?

LadyJazzer wrote: On the contrary... I LOVE the lights and the decorations. I decorate my own house. I put up my tree.

What part of: "Personally, I don't consider a lighted tree a "religious symbol." I think that's a rather specious argument" did you not understand?

Sorry LJ, that wasn't aimed at you. I was just griping in general, and did it in a post where I quoted you. I made a mistake.

I'm bummed about what I read in one of the articles that basically said that all faiths would be allowed this year, and the policy will be reviewed for next year.

I guess I'm letting my pessimism run rampant when I predict that the review of the policy will result in no displays at the lakehouse next year in order to avoid the current controversy. I'm sure since it hit the news that it's attracted the attention of other groups salivating to make a point about religion on public land.

LadyJazzer wrote:

Nobody that matters wrote: Or, as another possibility... Since this hit the news, is that there will be a manorah, lights on the tree, a nativity scene, and a big ol sign letting everyone know their belief in God is just fantasy - curteousy of the national athiest zealots.

And courtesy of the national Jewish zealots, and the national Christian zealots. The others have just as much right to be there as the others if you open it up--thanks to the First Amendment. OR, don't open it at all, let each one put up their displays on their own, (or someone else's) private property, and leave the displays off of public property... Personally, I don't consider a lighted tree a "religious symbol." I think that's a rather specious argument.

But then, we've been down this road before... [sigh]

Wait, now I'm confused. If the public policy is that all religious displays will be allowed during the annual winter holiday season, wouldn't that by definition prevent the atheists from having a display since atheism isn't a religion?

Yes, I'm sure you are confused... But I'll get over it.