"Americans United for Separation of Church and State has urged officials in Green Bay, Wisc., to remove a nativity scene from government property. The display, Americans United points out, amounts to an unconstitutional endorsement of religion by government."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . "

Ok, Constitutional lawyers, get off your duffs this holiday season and do your jobs! I have no law degree and I may have figured it out . . . maybe . . .
 

Establishment clause: "Congress shall make no law." I have not scoured the Constitution, but will someone in the ACLU please point me toward Federal codes which state that specific religious ornaments must be placed in governmental institutions, thus fulfilling an "establishment" condition which would violate law. Then, how removing religiously based ornaments from public areas that have not been mandated by acts of legislatures is not a violation of the "prohibition of free exercise" clause for objects placed not by law.

Now I as a private citizen--be I President of the United States or the janitor thereof--of the government property I deem to place a religious reference on my own stead--barring any safety or spatial concerns--which precept of Amendment 1 do I violate in doing so? If I offend an atheist in my action, am I violating his Constitutional rights since I am not "establishing" a state religion just expressing my personal belief at which point--should this atheist address a grievance against me--in reciprocity--be denying me the second clause of the "establishment" amendment in which my freedom is being denied? Doesn't anyone find it just a bit odd that Amendment 1 is conveniently phrased as it is so as not to leave in the shadow of doubt that "establishment" requires a legislative mandate to legitimate a violation of "establishment" while the very next phrase validates the free expression of a personal nature and does not limit it with the exclusions of those it might offend?

Government should not be in the business of "establishing" what people should believe but surely must protect the rights of those who chose to believe in something and their free exercise thereof. And if the majority of governmental officials sympathize with a cultural acceptance of religious ornaments on publically owned property and have passed no law mandating their presence under penalty of law, does that constitute a legislative action, thus a violation of law and the establishment clause when no official proclamation has been made?

It's quite plain that the COTUS protects freedom of speech and religion and as such does not prohibit what a person believes or says. It does protect us from governmental decree of a particluar belief system, but nowhere can I find that a person who doesn't believe in anything has a Constitutional right to file grievance against a government that does not "establish" a religion but represents a majority of a population that does have one and thinks that those who do express themselves freely--a Constitutional guarantee no matter their position as an elected official or plain citizen--anymore than the insistence that "freedom" constitutes a protection "from" a reference to a belief system which is freely offered and not imposed by legislative action.

"Nietzsche calls himself an immoralist and harshly criticizes the prominent moral schemes of his day: Christianity, Kantianism, and Utilitarianism. However, in one important sense he seeks not only to destroy morality, but to reconstruct a new, more naturalistic source of value in the vital impulses of life itself (readers have also often seen this as a desire to return to the values of Homeric Greece)."--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

Isn't it odd that nihilistic, deconstructionistic philosophers work so hard to destroy progressive civilizations that have emerged doing so much good in this world (along with the prerequisite bad on occasion!) by decrying Christian religion as the threat to all that we can be if we just believed in nothing? We could revert back to Darwinian monkeys, devoid of morality and belief, and justify smashing a ceramic baby Jesus as instinctual rather than guided by a morality no matter its source, a considered and debated framework by which no other animal however exalted on this planet can achieve at present.

Have a banana, atheists, because humanity has not been cursed by religion because you don't see its relevance. We just resist the vacuum you are trying to create since "freedom of" does not translate "freedom from" in any lexicon I can find. And it's about time our legal experts started basing their arguments on counter-nihilistic points like "if our forefathers wanted to exclude religious expression along with "the establishment of a state religion," they would of in their brilliance written the clause "Government shall make no mention of religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof . . . " That would have been much clearer . . . were it not for "intent."

Merry Christmas to all and to all may you not be sued by the ACLU protecting someone else's freedom while denying yours.

<P>Ah, Conservatives as grinches . . . how original. But you did not spell that right . . . got a few letters wrong . . . you meant g-i-n-g-r-i-c-h . . . right, huh? Now that would make sense if you used that tact.</P>
<P>In this holiday season, we celebrate the birth of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ--in the off time when we aren't hiring lawyers to defend placement of a baby statue in a manger filed by the ACLU who is protecting Americans from being violated by a ceramic infant. In this land of religious freedom, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" so those who wish to inhibit the freedom of other Americans petition the courts that display of religious material on government property violates the rights of those who believe in nothing destroying the tradition of this and other nations who choose to honor this religious heritage as if for 200+ years no other jurists of the High Courts saw any "establishment" action in the freely sanctioned display of a religious symbol representing Peace, Joy and Hope in a land founded by religionists of many Christian persuasions.</P>
<P>I remember the Christmas story told by Luke about those centuries ago and the evil king who decreed all male children under the age of two be killed to hopefully extinguish the life of a King. And I read the papers now and read "Roe vs. Wade," freedom of choice, pro-lifers are selfish, chauvinistic people who want to control your female life. Then I realize our methods and science have geometrically progressed and that king Herod's excuse could written off to ignorance. So now we have become enlightened. We can now--with the assurance of Constitutional Rights and advanced scientific inquiry--kill our inconvenient truths before they see the light of day and maybe catch a glimpse of the Christ child which is no longer displayed at the courthouse conveniently--or by some other "intelligent design" of those who would have us as a society deny the source of our faith as if this 2000 year old child were a threat to those who don't believe. Or maybe THAT'S what they are afraid of . . . we who have faith could be right. And then where would they be? Killing infants to prevent the reign of a King, maybe. For their personal rights instead of the rights of our society as a whole.</P>
<P>The child that survived infanticide and wound up being crucified for his belief--and I will not assign validity to any claim of his essence or the veracity of his claims . . . that is between you and He solely--from a secular OR religious point of view, the story and ideals one can glean from the narratives of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John far outweigh our progressive enlightenment we have achieved over the past few centuries whether we be Conservative or Liberal-minded, both have left unseemly footprints along the same paths he wished us to walk. Now we wear Nikes with blinking lights or maybe springs instead of the lowly peasant sandals of a carpenter/evangelist/savior and think we know the best roads to travel while glory in our self-ness of superior intellect. We can fly to the moon, cure diseases that wiped out nations, we can clone sheep and we're on our way to stop climate change. But we can't suggest to young women that abstinence is 100% effective and--God forbid--placing a ceramic figure of a baby born by a virgin nestled in hay for all to see because someone's rights would be violated.</P>
<P>It's sadly ironic, Lilly, but I don't see Conservatives "grinching" the real meaning of Christmas joy as much as I see the enlightened Progressive minds trying to quell any mention of it.</P>
<P>Have a wonderful Winter Solstice, Lilly! And to the rest of you, Merry Christmas with the real joy and understanding of what we should be celebrating Christmas morning while opening our presents.</P>

That is equally absurd to make that condemnation! What Mr. Burney expounds upon is Mormon founding documents and perhaps the precise words of Joseph Smith who received a revelation from the angel Moroni of the presentation of a new Gospel on two gold tablets and the story grows from there. As stated in popular current Mormon advertising, what is offered is "another Gospel" of Jesus Christ.

Contrast Galatians 1:8, 9: "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed." This is not my judgment or condemnation of Mormonism but a definite argument that validates a necessary debate between Evangelicals and LDS. The mere assertion that Joseph Smith was let in on "another Gospel" by a personal angel and founded a religion of now 13,000,000 with the assumption that the first Gospel didn't really do the job for about 1 billion others--well--if that's not calling Evangelicals "liars" . . .

Do you see how lame your argument really is? It's a personal attack on an opinion and doesn't even graze Truth and reconciliation. Or face the facts Mr. Smith's Southern American civilization as the basis for this "gospel" has never been found though meticulously described in his writings in the Book of Mormon. That doesn't prove all Mormon doctrine errant but it does invite skepticism since the bases seemed to have been built on sand instead of rock.

The Mormons I have met and debated with have seemed to be wonderful, faithful and stable individuals. If Gov. Romney were nominated I would have no hesitation pulling the lever for him. But that doesn't mean I have to agree with his religion's founding father on doctrinal issues. And, unfortunately, many on both sides of this argument will be functionally "ignorant" of what we are voting on and think this is a vote for the nature of Jesus Christ instead of a president of the United States.