12-18-2005, 05:12 PM
Quote:See, here\'s the thing - Do a little research and you\'ll discover that that means the Government can\'t tell you what religion you have to be (as was the case in England at the time. You worshipped how they told you too, and that was it).
It\'s freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
If you don\'t celebrate Christmas, well then that\'s your choice. That doesn\'t deny me MY right to say "Merry Christmas" and talk about it in public.
Now go cut down a tree and decorate it for Jesus.
[post=\"128717\"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]
Do a little research? First of all, I have a Master\'s Degree in history. Now, although I\'m sure you have a background as well...I might have a little info on the subject myself.
In this situation......You\'re absolutely right. In a public place, there are and should be no restrictions on speech. The phrase "Separation of church and state" refers to religious institutions and governmental structures. So long that "Christ-anything" doesn\'t enter a public domain where my tax dollars are at work - no Consitutional damage has been done. But I felt this topic probably didn\'t just start at a blog.
Now although I agree that individuals have the right to worship whatever bearded fellow born on Dec. 25th or a machete-wielding hockey faced killer, I also agree that if private enterpreneurs (such as the now infamous Target Superstores chain - which I thought maybe prompted this thread, or even the individual blog moderator - which now I\'m not sure whether they were serious or not) decide to enforce a "no religious banter law/policy", then, IMO, it should not be mocked with the same type of malicious degradation that caused our founding fathers to seek religious freedom in the first place.
I just thought maybe the moderators were serious, and I was trying to help defend their claim. (But maybe I missed the sarcasm - which then I apologize for my stupidity.)
Now I\'m going to cut down a Christmas tree, but I ain\'t gonna like it.