  Rb336 Member Username: Rb336 Post Number: 3385 Registered: 02-2007 |
well, i'm sure there are SOME out there who believe that. congrats to Berkley for voting no on the nativity, congrats to ferndale on the mayoral elections | ||
Rugbyman Member Username: Rugbyman Post Number: 151 Registered: 06-2005 |
What were the differences in Covey and Gagne's platforms? I live in Ferndale and kept trying to find out, but to no avail. Anyone know? | ||
Charlottepaul Member Username: Charlottepaul Post Number: 1981 Registered: 10-2006 |
More specifically, what are you applauding? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9907 Registered: 10-2003 |
Just a guess but maybe council nixed the idea of a Nativity scene at city hall? Yeah way to applaud a Christian theme in a Christian country. "Get your season tree here! Get your holiday wreath here"...Christmas is Christmas regardless of what PC spin is put on it. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3409 Registered: 10-2003 |
Gagne's platform was essentially that he felt too much attention is paid to downtown, and not enough to the neighborhoods or the Hilton and Livernois businesses. He was also running on the platform that haircuts are for losers. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3410 Registered: 10-2003 |
The council of Berkeley had resolved the issue of the Nativity by voting it be displayed at a local church. Then some fanatical residents with the help of special interest groups decided that wasn't good enough and tried to demand it be put on display at city hall. The ACLU threatened to get involved, and suddenly the issue started to get out of the control of the people who's business it actually is, Berkeley residents. In the end, the residents had their say. Even local religious leaders didn't want the Nativity forced onto city hall property, because the scene would have had to include secular icons as well, and they didn't think Santa needed to be hanging out by the manger. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 2997 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: It is not about "PC", it is about the Constitution. | ||
The_ed Member Username: The_ed Post Number: 727 Registered: 10-2007 |
Santa was delivering gifts. He was busy that year, too. | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9910 Registered: 10-2003 |
The same constitution that uses GOD on their money? The same constition that has "the right to have guns" manipulated? | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3411 Registered: 10-2003 |
The people have spoken, the Council's previous decision was upheld. There need not be further discussion, especially from those who aren't even residents of said city. The forcing of religion onto city property by a vocal minority failed. Lick you wounds, and enjoy the Nativity in front of the church down the street. | ||
Alan55 Member Username: Alan55 Post Number: 718 Registered: 09-2005 |
"Yeah way to applaud a Christian theme in a Christian country." Goat, your Canadian-ness is showing. The U.S. has never been a "Christian" country. At most, the U.S. is a country where a majority of he citizens profess to be Christians. That's it. The U.S. is a country officially indifferent to religion - a citizen can have any religion they want, or no religion, if that is their choice. The government exists to deliver the services that the citizens require from it, not to promote religion. True, many religious fanatics, like Dobson, Falwell, Robertson, Bush, et al, have tried to promote revisionist history and convince us that the our country was founded as a Christian nation - so far, they are not convincing many people. So, to your assertion - never has been, never will be. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 2998 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: Actually that is also unconstitutional and should be overturned. http://www.petitiononline.com/ igwtrfc/petition.html | ||
Detroitduo Member Username: Detroitduo Post Number: 887 Registered: 06-2005 |
I didn't know the Constitution even USED Money!••• Amazing what I learn on this Forum, sometimes. btw, I agree with Alan55.... those are all things this country are "supposed" to be, but the people he named would love to turn this country into the Christian power that the Europeans left in the 1700-1900's!•••• What I find disgusting is that the US is closer to that type of situation than Europe is, today. The whole reason why many European-american ancestors came over here to begin with. The Europeans have really gone out of their way to separate the Church from Govt... even more than the US has, but it seems that the US is going more backwards than forwards, these days. | ||
Iheartthed Member Username: Iheartthed Post Number: 2097 Registered: 04-2006 |
The people have spoken, the Council's previous decision was upheld. There need not be further discussion, especially from those who aren't even residents of said city. I dunno, local referendums still have to adhere to state and federal law... | ||
Gsgeorge Member Username: Gsgeorge Post Number: 310 Registered: 08-2006 |
quote: 925 signatures, eh? Looks like you guys are getting real far with that. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 2999 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: You guys? I don't know the people behind it. I found it through google. Just an example of the school of thought that god does not belong on money. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3414 Registered: 10-2003 |
Personally I am not offended one way or the other. Star of David, Cross, Crescent, Nativity, none of it bothers me. However, when the citizenry comes out to vote on what they want or don't want in front of the building they pay for, as well as paying the salaries of everybody inside of it, they must be listened to. In America, Democracy comes first. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10687 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: The church can support a Christian theme. The church was willing to do it and the city preferred it that way. Additionally, I believe the language of the referndum stated that it 'required' the scene to be at city hall. Sorry but government is no place for your religion or anyone else's. I'm not too sure why so many Christians have a hard time understanding that. What would you think if the bill stated that it 'required' sysmbols for all religious holidays for all religions that are represented by a citizen in the city. Would you support displays for jewish holidays, islamic holidays, wiccan holidays, etc, etc? I love the fact that this was shot down. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10688 Registered: 10-2003 |
PS - Here is the actual verbage used: "Amend the charter to require a Christmas holiday display that includes a nativity scene?" They probably lost a fair amount of support using the word "require" as well they should of lost support due to that. | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 6373 Registered: 11-2004 |
I'm thankful this bill was voted down by its residents as well. I know that this country was founded on Judeo Christian beliefs but people have often forgotten why those people came here to begin with- they wanted to escape religious oppression. And somone correct me here but even if the bill had passed, the Nativity scene would've included all sorts of OTHER icons (such as the Star of David, candy canes, etc.), nearly making it some sort of watered down, scatter shot nativity scene, right? | ||
Goat Member Username: Goat Post Number: 9911 Registered: 10-2003 |
Detroitduo, never said it did (how could it?) But for those who hold up the constitution with regards to religion should know better... Johnlodge, I agree. What is done is done it was voted on which I believe to the best most fair way on this topic. At least the church still has the ability to display the Nativity. JT1, AS stated at least the church was able to to stil display the Nativity. The issue I have over stuff like this is the Christmas is just that, Christmas. It doesn't matter how we change it or what we try to call it instead it is still Christmas to the vast majority. As for other religions being allowed to have their holidays shown at city hall...all the better. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3415 Registered: 10-2003 |
Correct Smogboy. Santa Claus would have been hanging out with the wise men, and Donald Duck in a christmas suit would have come bearing gifts for the newborn king. Church leaders in the area said it would be better off in front of the church, where it could be seen and enjoyed as it should be. Some people are not happy unless they are forcing their beliefs on others. The church is down the street. This was obviously NOT about being able to see the nativity. It is still the city's nativity, it is just down the street. No, this was about forcing religion on a population that has clearly stated it doesn't want that. | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 6375 Registered: 11-2004 |
Thanks for the clarification there, Johnlodge. I thought I had heard that rumor that it was going to be more Heidelberg Project than true Nativity scene. | ||
Pam Member Username: Pam Post Number: 3000 Registered: 11-2005 |
quote: When was the right of a church to have a nativity ever in dispute? BTW, Christmas has a lot of pagan elements in it. (Trees, candles, lights, being held near the solstice etc.) | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10689 Registered: 10-2003 |
I fully support churches displaying whatever they want on their property. That goes for all churches. I just do not support a government entity being forced to recognize a specific reilgion. quote: Goat - I respect that opinion. If only most in the US thought that way. We know the uproar that would be caused if anything beyong christian and jewish symbols were displayed. I think that your open-minded views of other religions clouds the fact that most don't see things in the same manner as you. | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 6377 Registered: 11-2004 |
"As for other religions being allowed to have their holidays shown at city hall...all the better." I think part of the issue here also would've been that the City of Berkley would've also had to maintain all of them as well during the holiday season. What if it wasn't just the Christian & Jewish faiths that wanted to display there? What would the city folk think about Satan worshipers or some other religons wanting to impart their icons on city property? Would they be so open minded then to allow these "other religons" as well? | ||
Perfectgentleman Member Username: Perfectgentleman Post Number: 4862 Registered: 03-2006 |
I suppose we should also get rid of the Christmas national holiday altogether. I am sure the UAW folks wouldn't mind working on Christmas. | ||
Johnlodge Member Username: Johnlodge Post Number: 3416 Registered: 10-2003 |
Nonsense, pot-stirring rhetoric. | ||
Jt1 Member Username: Jt1 Post Number: 10691 Registered: 10-2003 |
quote: Fine by me. What are your thoughts on those from other religions not having their holidays national days off. | ||
Oldredfordette Member Username: Oldredfordette Post Number: 3159 Registered: 02-2004 |
If the good citizens of Berkley voted on this matter, why are we still arguing it? Unless we live in Berkley? |
