The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
It's About Tolerance
I'm guessing it's a result of the season but thanks to the FFN WebTeam, they've posted yet another controversial "news" item about a firehouse that was ordered to remove a creche.
And again, people are starting to line up to decry the loss of freedom of speech and religion, blindly ignoring the realities of it all. It (like the merry xmas sign in n. andover ma) was placed on a firehouse which, unless proven otherwise, is municipal property (local government) which prohibits the endorsement or sponsorship of any religion. In other words, at all government levels government needs to be religiously neutral.
This neutrality in no diminishes any one religion, it simply does not promote one over any other. Why are people so damned threatened about this issue? The government is not shutting down places of worship or preventing services. As it is any established religion is not subject to property taxes or income taxes. Would you rather see those exclusions removed? By being excluded it prevents local and federal government from in some way harassing religion and establishes a clear separation between the two.
This post is about tolerance, and many people think that by being ordered to remove religious symbols from public buildings is a form of intolerance. Perhaps, but regardless of the motivation it is based on the constitution. The reason may be intolerance but the outcome is soundly based on the constitution.
The other 'hot' topic is racism. Whether it's about tests and testing, hiring practices, forwarding of emails or nooses it all comes about as a result of intolerance. Some people can not tolerate it when somebody else gets something they wanted. Some people still have personal problems with people of a different color. Why again is that? It's 2009 and a week or so away from 2010 and there are still people with a civil war mentality when it comes to race.
Interestingly there have not been any recent threads from members, or any from the WebTeam about sexual discrimination in the fire service. Have we conquered that? Are women now readily accepted as equals in departments? What about gays and lesbians? Does your department accept those of a different sexual orientation? Or of a different sex? Do people still think women should be at home? There are some that do. And why would anyone be threatened by a gay man or woman? Or is it only straight men that have the right to make salacious comments and inappropriate actions?
No one is readily going to post that women should not be firefighters or that gays and lesbians shouldnt. They know that they will be immediately shot down if not outright removed. As well they should be. And no one is going to say that no black, latino or asian should not be firefighters, for the same reason. Although I'm sure that there are those that strongly believe they shouldn't.
Yet bring up an issue of religion and there seems to be no reserve, no issue in claiming that this nation is a christian one only and that if people don't like it they should leave this country, and that the removal of their religious symbols from public property is nothing more than an attack on them personally and on their religious beliefs. I see this as nothing more than a christian taliban.
So folks, it's christmas, how about showing some of that christian love, compassion, acceptance and tolerance that jesus himself taught. How can you claim yourself to be a christian when jesus himself would be shamed by your behavior. Unless of course, jesus meant that only for other christians, although historically, it wasn't until long after his death that people identified themselves as christian. So I'm pretty sure he was teaching that everyone should love and respect all others, not just those that believe as you do.
And again, people are starting to line up to decry the loss of freedom of speech and religion, blindly ignoring the realities of it all. It (like the merry xmas sign in n. andover ma) was placed on a firehouse which, unless proven otherwise, is municipal property (local government) which prohibits the endorsement or sponsorship of any religion. In other words, at all government levels government needs to be religiously neutral.
This neutrality in no diminishes any one religion, it simply does not promote one over any other. Why are people so damned threatened about this issue? The government is not shutting down places of worship or preventing services. As it is any established religion is not subject to property taxes or income taxes. Would you rather see those exclusions removed? By being excluded it prevents local and federal government from in some way harassing religion and establishes a clear separation between the two.
This post is about tolerance, and many people think that by being ordered to remove religious symbols from public buildings is a form of intolerance. Perhaps, but regardless of the motivation it is based on the constitution. The reason may be intolerance but the outcome is soundly based on the constitution.
The other 'hot' topic is racism. Whether it's about tests and testing, hiring practices, forwarding of emails or nooses it all comes about as a result of intolerance. Some people can not tolerate it when somebody else gets something they wanted. Some people still have personal problems with people of a different color. Why again is that? It's 2009 and a week or so away from 2010 and there are still people with a civil war mentality when it comes to race.
Interestingly there have not been any recent threads from members, or any from the WebTeam about sexual discrimination in the fire service. Have we conquered that? Are women now readily accepted as equals in departments? What about gays and lesbians? Does your department accept those of a different sexual orientation? Or of a different sex? Do people still think women should be at home? There are some that do. And why would anyone be threatened by a gay man or woman? Or is it only straight men that have the right to make salacious comments and inappropriate actions?
No one is readily going to post that women should not be firefighters or that gays and lesbians shouldnt. They know that they will be immediately shot down if not outright removed. As well they should be. And no one is going to say that no black, latino or asian should not be firefighters, for the same reason. Although I'm sure that there are those that strongly believe they shouldn't.
Yet bring up an issue of religion and there seems to be no reserve, no issue in claiming that this nation is a christian one only and that if people don't like it they should leave this country, and that the removal of their religious symbols from public property is nothing more than an attack on them personally and on their religious beliefs. I see this as nothing more than a christian taliban.
So folks, it's christmas, how about showing some of that christian love, compassion, acceptance and tolerance that jesus himself taught. How can you claim yourself to be a christian when jesus himself would be shamed by your behavior. Unless of course, jesus meant that only for other christians, although historically, it wasn't until long after his death that people identified themselves as christian. So I'm pretty sure he was teaching that everyone should love and respect all others, not just those that believe as you do.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
Jack:
With regards to TOS, I was not pointing the finger at you. It was an opinion from my observations of the trials and tribulations that find their way onto these pages.
When people qualify their statements with " why can someone else post on this subject, but if I do, the thread is taken down" or "I said the same thing as they did, but I was deleted and issued a warning". Apparently, everything wasn't the same, but in no way says that someone was treated differently than someone else.
It is obvious to me and many others that you give your posts great thought and it shows. I wasn't for a minute inferring that you are flippant in your replies. Many times, I will be late to a discussion that might have already have been locked or deleted. I don't wonder why anymore; I simply look for another discussion that might evoke a response from me.
'Poking the nest with a stick", "stirring the pot" or any other description in that vein is merely meant to mean that you're (not you, you) pushing the envelope for a reaction. My point is that posters can disagree without getting nasty or believing that there are always ulterior motives or a conspiracy or a personal vendetta involved.
With regards to my absence from threads that discuss the true meaning of Christmas or the inclusion/exclusion of religious symbols, I am not that comfortable with joining in due to a lack of theological knowledge. I try to stick with topics where I might have only tacit knowledge, but is germaine to the topic.
My comment on KAYA's remark was meant in humor, but not to make fun of his English. If it appeared to be making fun of him, then I apologize.
I don't try to stay ABOVE the fray. I really like getting into it, but again, I try to do it with respect for the others, when possible. I "swoop" because, like a hawk, I see an opening and I take it.
Crabbe's post was well crafted and his points made, I agree.
But, for the sake of argument, when we talk about what a firefighter can do while in uniform, how is it that they can solicit money while in uniform for say, muscular dystrophy? And that is not to say that I'm against that. Why is it that they can wear "Firefighters for Kerry" or Firefighters for your-name-here and be seen in the public eye doing so? I mean; if there's suppose to be a disconnect, then how is that done? And what about all of those arguments that say we are in the public eye even when we are "off-duty". Example: "off-duty firefighters wrecks and is charged with DUI"?
I'm simply asking.
Art
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
But, for the sake of argument, when we talk about what a firefighter can do while in uniform, how is it that they can solicit money while in uniform for say, muscular dystrophy?
Ah, let me interject then here Art. Collecting money for MDA is a partnership which started with fire departments and MDA became the adoptive charity of the IAFF. The process of the FTB on duty is completely up to the dept whether to allow it or not.....for us, last year was the first time we were able to do it on duty. However, it was also the option of the crews whether or not to go out and collect and nobody was forced to go, along with that, nobody is passing their personal opinion or beliefs as a representation of the views of the dept.
Why is it that they can wear "Firefighters for Kerry" or Firefighters for your-name-here and be seen in the public eye doing so? I mean; if there's suppose to be a disconnect, then how is that done?
Difference there Art, is that the firefighters are OFF-DUTY and that is a form of freedom of speech which is constitutionally protected. If you also look, such shirts are yellow in color and does have the IAFF logo on them to depict that this is a union voice, not the voice of the dept. As such, many firefighters don't agree with the endorsement of candidates that the IAFF may and so is the reason that you do not see IAFF signs or other campaign signs outside of fire stations. It isn't that the views and opinions of others are quashed and there is no freedom of speech, it is just that it can be easily misconstued that campaign signs in front of the firehouse is the DEPARTMENT'S view, not the individual firefighters. So that is why you see firefighters campaigning OFF-DUTY and not in a fire department uniform. It is the same reason you don't see military members in uniform campaigning for someone, because the image can be misconstrued as a PUBLIC endorsement....not private.
The point is though that such rules are defined, to show that individuals have personal freedoms and rights, but a sign in front of the firehouse can be easily misconstrued as a PUBLIC endorsement. The rules are there for campaigns, you still have the freedom of speech and endorse whomever you want (off-duty), but if you had campaign signs out in front of a station and told to remove them, it is NOT an infringement on personal freedoms, nor freedom of speech......as so many others rushed to such conclusions.
-
Permalink Reply by Glen Garland on
-
Jack I hate to sound like the firehouse lawyer (Lord knows we have enough of them around lol) but there are many examples of case law dealing with the Christmas display on public property issue. Very generally govt. can't endorse religion, in other words put up the display using public funds. However govt. also can't prevent a group (church etc) from putting up a religious display on public property ie in a park or similar site as long as other groups or religions are tolerated as well. No establishment of, nor prevention of the free exercise of religion! We tend to make it more complicated than it really is. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to all!
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Glen,
Yes you've defined it nicely. It is about allowance, giving everyone equal opportunity. I think the issue many overlooked on some of these discussions is that when putting up displays or signs on fire department buildings or property, it suggests a departmental/municipal endorsement and, as it is not a park or town square is not accessible to anyone not in the fire department. For that reason I am against using public buildings for any such displays. Parks and greens are different and so long as groups etc. meet the letter of the law, both federal and local, I say have at it.
-
Permalink Reply by Jesse Garcia on
-
This last Advent Sunday I listened to a fiery and poignant sermon. The statement that really took hold of me was, "Differences are from God; Divisions are not". I stewed on that line for quite some time afterward and realized that we as a society waste an awful lot of energy on creating divisions amongst ourselves. I agree that public agencies need to stay neutral. Beyond that, differences need to be celebrated. If you're Christian, say "Shabbot Shalom" to a Jewish brother. If you're Jewish, say Merry Christmas. Be proud for your gay or lesbian crew mate. The first time I wished a Jewish friend peace on a Jewish holiday, man, you should have seen his eyes light up. Two words made us closer friends. Anyway, the Reverend issued a challenge to his Catholic parish: prepare the way for the Lord by confronting and destroying the boundaries that are leading you off the path. This means reaching out to help those across the border if you're not a fan of immigration. Get to know someone who has a different political point of view, religion or sexual orientation, etc. It's a challenge because, obviously, it's not easy.
Ghandi said something that ruffled my feathers a little bit: “I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Although it miffed me somewhat, I realized it was true. So, I want to be part of the solution. I want to be part of the wave of Christians that are truly Christ-like. I have learned about and celebrated differences as I see them. And guess what, you end up a happier person and that good mojo, i.e. The Holy Spirit, gets passed on. Plus, you become a more effective public servant. What better way to live life, ay?
-
Permalink Reply by Holly on
-
All I'm gonna say on this one is that all religions need to be welcomed. Whatever it may be. If a Christian organiztion wants to decorate for Christmas then so be it. If a Jewish organization has an issue with it then they should decorate for Hannakah and so on and so forth. Instead of complaining that there is a Christmas Tree at city hall have a Mannorah to put up as well. If your not part of the solution then you are part of the problem. Why raise a fuss to the point that the current decorations need to be removed? It seems like less trouble to add to it. If a request is made to decorate for a religion other than Christianity and it is denied thats a different story all together.
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
That's exactly the point I've been trying to make. Equal intolerance does not equal tolerance.
Tolerance, in this case, would be the Freedom from Religion folks being tolerant of others' religions. They are not tolerant - in fact, their organization's very name broadcasts intolerance.
The Constitution guarantees that we have the right to "free exercise" of our various freedoms, speech, religion, the press, peaceful public assembly, public redress of grievances, etc.
When we deny everyone the right to public speech or expression, that's not freedom of speech, it's equal oppression of freedom of speech.
When we deny everyone the right to peacefully assemble in public, that's not freedom of assembly, it's equal oppression of freedom of assembly.
When we deny everyone the right to display religious symbols in public, that's not freedom of religion, it's equal oppression of freedom of religion.
Breaking news for the Wisconsin group that complained; Freedom from Religion is not the same thing as freedom of religion. Apparently, Charleston's city attorney was smart enough to figure this out, and even the group that complained can't find any illegality in the result.
So, when we're asking for tolerance, let's focus it where it belongs - on the legal decisions that have purported to further tolerance by being intolerant, and on the groups like Freedom from Religion that practice intolerance under the guise of tolerance.
-
Permalink Reply by Erin T. on
-
It seems as if everyone else gets to express their beliefs but if a Christian shares what they feel it's not okay. Get used to it. I am an American Christian and I belong to a Penetcostal devil stomping Bible preaching Witnessing CHURCH. Jesus Christ did not come to force God's beliefs on the human race. He gave you and I ALL a free will to either accept the gift of Eternal life or reject it. I'm not holding a gun to your head and forcing you to submit to Christianity like some of these radical terrorists do who kill our first responders and maim and destroy innocent lives. If I were you, I would take a step back and reevaluate what it means to have first amendement rights to freedom of expression and religion. They may soon disappear along with our rights to free speech.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
