Xmas displays on public land

[kalt]

Every year we hear about challenges to citys’ using public land for religious displays. In my area, very Christians and fewer churches have outside displays of their own.

My questions is, Is it logical for Christians to complain that others are denying their right to display a creche on public property, when they don’t have one on their own lawns or on the church’s lawn?

If every Christian replaced his blow-up frosty or light-up sleigh and reindeer with a nativity scene, I can’t imagine that anyone would feel that the real meaning of Christmas wasn’t openly visible enough in their city.

 

[rev_kevin]

When I was growing up there were all kind of Christmas religion items all over town. In the publis square, in pepoles lawns, at town hall, downtown main street. But then things started to take a turn. Some claim they are offended by the displays and site seperation of church and state. So what happened, the ones who say they were offended won. And as a result of that not only Christmas desplays aren’t allowed but all religious symbols are not allowed. The meaning of Christmas has been forgotten. Some stores won’t allow their employees to say Merry Christmas instead they have to say happy holiday but in response to that I say back to them “and Merry Christmas to you also.” But do I thank Christmas displays should be on public land? Well its public land and we are the public that pays for the land and if the majority wants the displays then the majority rules. So yes I believe the displays should be allowed on public land if the majority wants it.

 

[sterryfamily]

You make good points in the OP. If more Christians would put their own heart and effort into showing the world what Christmas means to them, these discussions would be completely overshadowed.

However, the issue of displays on public property is more one of politics and freedom than it is about religion. It’s the same thing with allowing the boy scouts to pray or any of the other issues that the supreme court has (only in recent times) thrown into contention.

The supreme court has chosen to replace “government of the people, by the people, for the people” with “government of the people, by the establishment of the elite, for the special interests of the establishment”.

Take for instance our public school funding. We the people are good enough when collecting taxes, but not good enough when disbursing the funds. The government happily takes money from Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Agnostics and secularists. Then when they have to give the money back to educate the children they tell us “you can have this money only if you send your children to the secularist school”. The money came from “we the people” but “we the people” don’t get to decide. Same as with the funds “we the people” paid to build city hall.

The constitution says that the federal government will stay out of religion and leave it up to locals. But the supreme court conveniently “interpreted” that clause to say we must separate church and state (however they want such a separation to be carried out). This taking of power away from the people is what the contention is all about when it comes to local nativity displays or prayers of the Boy Scouts, etc.

 

[rev_kevin]

You make good points in the OP. If more Christians would put their own heart and effort into showing the world what Christmas means to them, these discussions would be completely overshadowed.

However, the issue of displays on public property is more one of politics and freedom than it is about religion. It’s the same thing with allowing the boy scouts to pray or any of the other issues that the supreme court has (only in recent times) thrown into contention.

The supreme court has chosen to replace “government of the people, by the people, for the people” with “government of the people, by the establishment of the elite, for the special interests of the establishment”.

Take for instance our public school funding. We the people are good enough when collecting taxes, but not good enough when disbursing the funds. The government happily takes money from Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Episcopalians, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, Agnostics and secularists. Then when they have to give the money back to educate the children they tell us “you can have this money only if you send your children to the secularist school”. The money came from “we the people” but “we the people” don’t get to decide. Same as with the funds “we the people” paid to build city hall.

The constitution says that the federal government will stay out of religion and leave it up to locals. But the supreme court conveniently “interpreted” that clause to say we must separate church and state (however they want such a separation to be carried out). This taking of power away from the people is what the contention is all about when it comes to local nativity displays or prayers of the Boy Scouts, etc.

A BIG AMEN on that.

 

[StrawberryJam]

Every year we hear about challenges to citys’ using public land for religious displays. In my area, very Christians and fewer churches have outside displays of their own.

My questions is, Is it logical for Christians to complain that others are denying their right to display a creche on public property, when they don’t have one on their own lawns or on the church’s lawn?

If every Christian replaced his blow-up frosty or light-up sleigh and reindeer with a nativity scene, I can’t imagine that anyone would feel that the real meaning of Christmas wasn’t openly visible enough in their city.

Kalt, I tend to agree with you. Many christian churches don’t even have nativity scenes visible to the passerby. I also think that another point overlooked is not just decorations and displays, (outward signs) but the most important thing should be inward reality. Christians, be nice. It will show up larger to the non believer than the largest nativity scene. The real meaning of Christmas can not be in either displays of belief on the outside or just in living the faith from the inside but not showing it to anyone.
As that cute children’s sunday school song goes, This little light of mine, I’m gonna let it shine… If everyone did that, you would never need to spend so much money on multicolored twinkling, blinking lights.