CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Pony Shoe — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 09:33:11 -0000

To Nick Naylor (and the rest of the country): The free exercise clause and esablishment clause are in direct contradiction of each other.

This is why reconciliation of the two has been so difficult over the years.

What the founders did not want was a state church, like the C of E, founded by King Henry VIII after the Pope would not grant him a divorce.

So, no establishment--hey, worship however you want.

But the founders were overwhelmingly Christian and in their frame of reference did not foresee Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Wiccan or anything else.

What seemed like an easy and reasonable way to settle a legitimate concern at the time has, by virtue of the diversity of modern times, become a giant controversy.

It was not so intended.

P.S. Snidely: You are 100% correct that if Congress adjourned for Good Friday it would be the end of the world from the MSM. Not so last week.

Re: Question of the day

Disgusted — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 07:21:36 -0000

Speaking At Will - Friday, Oct 3, 08 @ 11:29 am:

I would have to say that I would be against putting up the Nativity scene. Government has no business getting into the faith business.

Yet the government wants us to take this bailout on faith that it will all work out.

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:04:51 -0000

I just can't help myself, Rich. I try to quit, to go cold turkey, but I can only hold off the urge for so long, and then there I am, typing away at two in the morning on something...it's a curse.

Re: Question of the day

Say WHAT? — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:11:59 -0000

Steve, Weren't Christains fed to lions as entertainment by the romans?

Re: Question of the day

Say WHAT? — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 18:08:34 -0000

Yes he should allow it. Jesse White wouldn't exclude other groups. Why exclude Christians? I liked things the way they used to be, before we all got insane with political correctness. In the 1960's there were nativity scenes every December at government buildings and parks. People don't freak out over religious displays, just the ones that have something to do with Jesus. Heck, I was just reading where some PUBLIC schools are now providing a special room, set apart for Muslim students to pray in. When my son attended public school, he was told he could not carry a Bible, and was allowed to pray on campus only once a year at a special event called "See You at the Pole." Jason B - Religion and politics are intermingled everywhere, don't kid yourself.

When the founding fathers of this great nation spoke of God, it wasn't "Whoever each of you says God is" We are still ONE NATION UNDER GOD. If you don't believe, I won't force my beliefs on you. Just because something is displayed in the capitol building doesn't mean you have to believe in it or practice it. I am not ashamed. Christians have had to stuff our symbols into the closet as not to offend for too long. I say get over it. Let Freedom Ring!

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:57:28 -0000

So you commented why?

Re: Question of the day

steve schnorf — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:54:47 -0000

Geez. Does anyone remember why the Roman had their circuses, and their gladiators and lions? To distract the citizenry from the important things that were happening. Well, you all are sure being distracted. This deserves less than a nanosecond of attention.

Re: Question of the day

VanillaMan — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:51:36 -0000

A government democratically elected and representative of it's people, should reflect that community's beliefs. All holidays are a part of our community and all religions within our community should be reflective.

Since about 90% of this community is Christian, it would be ridiculous to demand not to acknowledge this basic tenant between citizens and their government. Menorahs, etc, should also be a part of any public displays.

It makes life more interesting.

When a government recognizes your faith enough to welcome public displays of it, then you have a government focusing on inclusion with it's citizens.

As Frosty the Wealthy Media Snowlady famously says: "It's a good thing!"

Re: Question of the day

Jason B — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 17:08:10 -0000

A wise man once told me, "Never argue politics or religion in a VFW, those old men will kill you." What I'm saying is that these are the two most sensitive topics. With all of the differing views, politics should not be in religion and religion should not be in politics. It's difficult enough to come to a consensus without combining the two. As soon as we start mixing the two, we're doomed to fight till the end without any resolution.

Re: Question of the day

Anon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:43:05 -0000

What about all those crosses that go up on the State Capitol grounds every year for the pro life folks? Are they suppose to disallow those types of groups to do things as well because they display crosses? I personally find them offensive so let's stop that as well! Prayer services during session in the rotunda? As along as we are on a role let's ban those too! All that praying gets on my nerves. Where do you draw the line folks?

Re: Question of the day

Black Ivy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:26:06 -0000

As a card-carrying ACLU member and practicing CAtholic, absolutely not! The Capitol Complex is no place for any religiion to display it sfaith as the "Separation of Church and State" philosophy is very much the law. Why do citizens continue to disregard the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?

Re: Question of the day

LS — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:12:09 -0000

as as avowed atheist, it really doesn't bother me all that much. People have gotten too sentsative about this issue on both sides. I have seen displays at capital for Falun Gong that were down right disturbing to look at (torture practices by the Chinese government and all) and while that was more a political message than a faith message, it was still about a religon and no one complained. The captiol belongs to us all and, within reason, should be a place where expressions of all faiths are allowed.

Re: Question of the day

Jaded — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 16:09:39 -0000

i think it is a great idea. The nativity scene pretty much sums up why we celebrate Christmas, doesn't it?
Wilkepedia defines Christmas as the annual holiday celebrated on December 25 to honor the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. I can't think of a better way to mark that celebraton than with a nativity scene.

Re: Question of the day

Dan S. a Voter and Cubs Fan — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:51:41 -0000

You know maybe if Government would look to The Lord for help things just might get fixed. They sure are fouling it up without The Lord.

Re: Question of the day

Anon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:20:46 -0000

465 U.S. 668 (1984) - A city may erect a Christmas display consisting of a nativity scene and not violate the EC

492 U.S. 573 (1989) - Prohibits unmistakably endorsing language such as "Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ" from appearing with a nativity scene on county grounds, however, a menorah placed in an inconspicuous place does not violate the EC

545 U.S. 677 (2005) - The 10 commandments on Capitol grounds does not violate the EC, so long as its intention is historical and not the advancement of religion. See also 545 U.S. 844 (2005).

That is some of the most relevant case law. I think folks are going to have a hard time if they want to challenge the constitutionality of this under the establishment clause.

Re: Question of the day

Nick Naylor — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 15:02:50 -0000

I love how everyone remembers the "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" part of the 1st amendment but seems to conveniently forget (or at least neglect) the "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" portion.

Re: Question of the day

Lefty Lefty — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:39:22 -0000

I think that the creche has now become a secular symbol of Christmas just like Santa Claus (who was a saint! Irony alert!) and the tree (definitely full-on secular). And I think all the crying about fairness and discrimination by Christians while flooding the countryside with "Christian" decorations has made it this way.

Soon they can have Baby Jesus Christmas lights to hang on the tree and Holy Family wrapping paper just to really bring the whole sorry affair to its appropriate end.

Re: Question of the day

Snidely Whiplash — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:33:25 -0000

=== I worry that allowing other religions to be displayed reflects an attitude that they arenâ€™t â€œreal.â€ ===

Sorry, but I have no idea what you're trying to say. If you're attempting to say that government only allows displays of Jewish, Muslim and other religions because they don't view them as "religions," I'd have to say that it's a pretty whacky statement.

Re: Question of the day

Rich Miller — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:26:02 -0000

Um, click through to the story and you'll see this...

===White spokesman Henry Haupt says the secretary has an "open policy" on displays in the Capitol. ===

Re: Question of the day

Just My Opinion — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:22:26 -0000

"A central Illinois man says". Has anyone confirmed with the SOS if this is truth or rumor? And to whom did they speak with?

Re: Question of the day

Excessively rabid — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:18:51 -0000

Re: SoS, I believe the policy in place is that you can put up any kind of religious display if you get the appropriate permission. I'm told that in recent years they've had a menorah and items from other religions. So if anyone makes too big a deal, this creche guy can reasonably claim to be discriminated against. Personally I would prefer no PDR's (Public Displays of Religion).

Re: Question of the day

Anon — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:14:58 -0000

== The double standards in this country are just shocking. These days, every one has a right to freedom of religion except the majority. ==

I worry that allowing other religions to be displayed reflects an attitude that they aren't "real."

Re: Question of the day

wordslinger — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:13:32 -0000

Of course. That way, we can know there at least three wise men at the Capitol once a year

Re: Question of the day

BigDog — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 14:09:12 -0000

So just to clarify, if the State ends up buying Wrigley Field, does that mean Carlos Zambrano has to stop doing his pointing to the heavens thing when he ends an inning?

Re: Question of the day

the Other Anonymous — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:59:45 -0000

I'm taking this question to mean what do I think of a Nativity display, regardless of what is required to make it consitutional. As Phineas points out in his rhetorical question, nativity displays have been litigated to death.

Also, it's hard to say anything about this particular religious display without seeing it.

Generically, though, Nativity displays do not offend me, even if they are on government property. But they do stir up a hornet's nest, evoking overly passionate feelings on both sides. Moreover, as in Vote Quimby's anecdote, too often the displays and the fights around them are overtly political. That does offend me.

Given the ill feelings and ugliness generated by some religious displays, I just think the better policy in keeping with the spirit is to put up generic holiday decorations (lights, etc.) during the end of December on government buildings. I don't need the government to acknowledge Christmas for it to be a religious holiday. (Actually, in my case this is literally true; my parish celebrates Christmas on the Julian calendar, January 7.)

The argument that Christmas is under attack because the government will not place Nativity scenes at its cost is as much of a red herring as the idea that marriage is under attack by same-sex marriage.