Texas official will remove nativity scene ‘when hell freezes

AspenValley wrote: As it happens, I don't agree with the wording on that sign and I think it's a very poor way to represent humanism. But it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. If they want to participate by displaying THEIR beliefs, whether I or even ANYONE else agrees with them, they have that right. And once they say they want to participate and are turned down while the Christmas stuff stays, it's illegal.

The law doesn't say your beliefs have to be popular in order to have protection under the law.

I know you are kidding. No one is that slow. Serious, next wedding you are at I guess you are OK with people putting up divorce signs on THEIR celebration? WHY do they want it put on during Christmas? Just out of spite. People like that deserve to be told no. They are just trying to cause issues and have followers like you defend them. What is your business? Next sale you have I will put up signs for another sale at another store. Makes sense according to your logic.

Soulshiner wrote: Commercial Christmas is everywhere. You can't escape it. So why is it so all fire important that nativity scenes MUST be displayed on public government land? Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday? I would think that a true christian would be offended by all of the glitter and money that has become the new truth of Xma$ and not the message of their religion. Being pepper sprayed trying to get a cheap Xbox all in the name of Christ does not advertise the religion very well in my opinion.

Go ahead be a Christian, just don't expect that everyone else is going to bow down and accept your idea of being superior to them.

You are not even making sense. First you say Christmas has become too commercialized. Then you ask why those of us who want to keep the true meaning alive don't just give in and let it go and lose the meaning? Are you serious? Not a chance! You talk about all the bad during Christmas, I don't. I don't commerialize it and I try to keep the true meaning alive. Then this line..... 'Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday?' WHAT? That isn't Christmas! To you it might be but not to those of us who are stil fighting to keep the true meaning of the holiday alive. You guys just want to commercialize it and take all the true meaning out of it. Why not take Martin Luther King out of Martin Luther King day? Same screwed up logic.

The Viking wrote:

AspenValley wrote: As it happens, I don't agree with the wording on that sign and I think it's a very poor way to represent humanism. But it doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. If they want to participate by displaying THEIR beliefs, whether I or even ANYONE else agrees with them, they have that right. And once they say they want to participate and are turned down while the Christmas stuff stays, it's illegal.

The law doesn't say your beliefs have to be popular in order to have protection under the law.

I know you are kidding. No one is that slow. Serious, next wedding you are at I guess you are OK with people putting up divorce signs on THEIR celebration? WHY do they want it put on during Christmas? Just out of spite. People like that deserve to be told no. They are just trying to cause issues and have followers like you defend them. What is your business? Next sale you have I will put up signs for another sale at another store. Makes sense according to your logic.

You really have no idea of the legal difference between a private event/space (a wedding or a private business) and a public one (a holiday display) and how that might affect the legality of various actions, do you?

The Viking wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: Commercial Christmas is everywhere. You can't escape it. So why is it so all fire important that nativity scenes MUST be displayed on public government land? Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday? I would think that a true christian would be offended by all of the glitter and money that has become the new truth of Xma$ and not the message of their religion. Being pepper sprayed trying to get a cheap Xbox all in the name of Christ does not advertise the religion very well in my opinion.

Go ahead be a Christian, just don't expect that everyone else is going to bow down and accept your idea of being superior to them.

You are not even making sense. First you say Christmas has become too commercialized. Then you ask why those of us who want to keep the true meaning alive don't just give in and let it go and lose the meaning? Are you serious? Not a chance! You talk about all the bad during Christmas, I don't. I don't commerialize it and I try to keep the true meaning alive. Then this line..... 'Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday?' WHAT? That isn't Christmas! To you it might be but not to those of us who are stil fighting to keep the true meaning of the holiday alive. You guys just want to commercialize it and take all the true meaning out of it. Why not take Martin Luther King out of Martin Luther King day? Same screwed up logic.

You're not fooling me, you participate in Xma$.

The Viking wrote: You are not even making sense. First you say Christmas has become too commercialized. Then you ask why those of us who want to keep the true meaning alive don't just give in and let it go and lose the meaning? Are you serious? Not a chance! You talk about all the bad during Christmas, I don't. I don't commerialize it and I try to keep the true meaning alive. Then this line..... 'Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday?' WHAT? That isn't Christmas! To you it might be but not to those of us who are stil fighting to keep the true meaning of the holiday alive. You guys just want to commercialize it and take all the true meaning out of it. Why not take Martin Luther King out of Martin Luther King day? Same screwed up logic.

You want to keep the true meaning alive. Then get your butt out into a field on Christmas Eve, tend to some sheep, and read the Bible or something. If you even have a Christmas Tree in your house, you've commercialized it. If you exchange gifts, you've commercialized it. If you put up lights, you've commercialized it. Cause none of that has anything to do with the birth of Christ.

Soulshiner wrote:

The Viking wrote:

Soulshiner wrote: Commercial Christmas is everywhere. You can't escape it. So why is it so all fire important that nativity scenes MUST be displayed on public government land? Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday? I would think that a true christian would be offended by all of the glitter and money that has become the new truth of Xma$ and not the message of their religion. Being pepper sprayed trying to get a cheap Xbox all in the name of Christ does not advertise the religion very well in my opinion.

Go ahead be a Christian, just don't expect that everyone else is going to bow down and accept your idea of being superior to them.

You are not even making sense. First you say Christmas has become too commercialized. Then you ask why those of us who want to keep the true meaning alive don't just give in and let it go and lose the meaning? Are you serious? Not a chance! You talk about all the bad during Christmas, I don't. I don't commerialize it and I try to keep the true meaning alive. Then this line..... 'Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday?' WHAT? That isn't Christmas! To you it might be but not to those of us who are stil fighting to keep the true meaning of the holiday alive. You guys just want to commercialize it and take all the true meaning out of it. Why not take Martin Luther King out of Martin Luther King day? Same screwed up logic.

You're not fooling me, you participate in Xma$.

Well of course! But I keep the birth of Jesus as the main reason and centerpiece of the holiday. And I don't spend thousands on gifts. In fact if I don't make it home this year, I am looking to volunteer at the shelter.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

The Viking wrote: You are not even making sense. First you say Christmas has become too commercialized. Then you ask why those of us who want to keep the true meaning alive don't just give in and let it go and lose the meaning? Are you serious? Not a chance! You talk about all the bad during Christmas, I don't. I don't commerialize it and I try to keep the true meaning alive. Then this line..... 'Are people not getting enough Christmas from the constant bombardment of the commercialism of the holiday?' WHAT? That isn't Christmas! To you it might be but not to those of us who are stil fighting to keep the true meaning of the holiday alive. You guys just want to commercialize it and take all the true meaning out of it. Why not take Martin Luther King out of Martin Luther King day? Same screwed up logic.

You want to keep the true meaning alive. Then get your butt out into a field on Christmas Eve, tend to some sheep, and read the Bible or something. If you even have a Christmas Tree in your house, you've commercialized it. If you exchange gifts, you've commercialized it. If you put up lights, you've commercialized it. Cause none of that has anything to do with the birth of Christ.

Are you being serious right now? I can never tell with you. So by your logic since there was no fireworks on the original Independence day, we should not be doing that as a sign of celebrating it correct? Gifts were a part of the first Christmas as the wisemen brought them. And a tree and other decorations to celebrate a glorious holiday are totally in line. Celebrating does not mean commercializing depending upon how you do it.

It is interesting that Wisconsin people go pretty far looking for a fight. It would seem that they are troublemakers. Texas is a VERY good place to find trouble. I hope that the busybodies in Wisconsin get their noses tweaked.

Yes, one can see that working on a legal recall election of someone that the majority appears to disapprove of is "going pretty far looking for a fight." Hopefully, they can do their LEGAL process without physical assaults from the Hitler Youth and rabid teabaggers of the GOP.

LadyJazzer wrote: Yes, one can see that working on a legal recall election of someone that the majority appears to disapprove of is "going pretty far looking for a fight." Hopefully, they can do their LEGAL process without physical assaults from the Hitler Youth and rabid teabaggers of the GOP.

No kidding... did you see those tea party people shut down those sea ports the other day... rabid.