The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Nativity Allowed at Charleston Firehouse
CHARLESTON, S.C. - A South Carolina fire station that removed a nativity display following a complaint has put it back up after adding other holiday decorations.
The Charleston Fire Department announced Tuesday that one of its stations has modified its holiday display to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings. It has added a menorah, Kwanzaa Kinara, Santa Claus, elves and reindeer.
Chief Thomas Carr Jr. says the nativity scene is one part of celebrating the holiday season.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter dated Dec. 17 asking city officials to remove the display because it promoted one religion over another. It was taken down in response.
Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor says the change is a sham but appears to fall in the law.
Related
Charleston Firehouse Ordered to Remove Nativity Scene
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The Charleston Fire Department announced Tuesday that one of its stations has modified its holiday display to comply with U.S. Supreme Court rulings. It has added a menorah, Kwanzaa Kinara, Santa Claus, elves and reindeer.
Chief Thomas Carr Jr. says the nativity scene is one part of celebrating the holiday season.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter dated Dec. 17 asking city officials to remove the display because it promoted one religion over another. It was taken down in response.
Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor says the change is a sham but appears to fall in the law.
Related
Charleston Firehouse Ordered to Remove Nativity Scene
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
"Personal freedoms and personal beliefs are not being attacked or quashed when the symbols of one's personal faiths are instructed to be removed from the public place."
That's not accurate, John. Prohibiting everyone from displaying religious symbols in a public place is quashing everyone's free exercise of their religion. Equal prohibition of a Constitutional freedom isn't freedom.
Let's apply your argument to other Constitutional freedoms. Do we allow the free exercise of freedom of speech by not allowing anyone to say what they think in a public place? Of course, we don't. Do we allow the freedom of peaceful assembly by prohibiting assembly? Of course we don't. So, how is it that we are allowing freedom of religion by prohibiting the display of religious symbols?
I'll repeat - equal oppression of a right isn't "freedom".
Part of the American tradition of tolerance includes being tolerant of others when they say things with which you disagree or in which you don't believe. In this case, the Freedom from Religion folks are being intolerant. Their request for suppression of other's religious freedom isn't tolerant.
-
Permalink Reply by Art "ChiefReason" Goodrich on
-
And you have to love the invocation of Ted Kennedy's name at every turn.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ayotte on
-
The question is.. is the "webteam" here like the one at firehouse.com?
If it is.. this thread will rage on for at leat another 2 to 3 weeks.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Ben, read what I initially wrote, YOU brought up "in ? we trust" and I simply pointed out that money, with that on it, was used for, among other things, supporting war. One word, one reference, that was it. Then you had to bring in some biblical references to war and then I countered So yes I did indeed mention the word war first, but you felt compelled to then quote scripture as some means/form of justification. And no, the nonsense was you bringing in biblical references.
-
-
Michael S - correct, the only happy people are christians. Careful, your tolerance is showing,
-
-
Richard,
"This is what happens when the federal government and special interest groups run the country." Please explain how the defense of marriage act was passed, and by whom?
Also, explain how for 8 years sex education was NOT allowed to be taught in schools and birth control and family planning was banned from all discussions funded by FEDERAL MONEY?
The right for same-sex couples have been defeated or repealed in various states and the greater majority of states have amended their constitutions to prevent same-sex marriage, I'm confidant that that was not done by atheists or non-christians but by.....?
"Why should the state of South Carolina acknowkedge anything coming from a Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation?" Because they are challenging laws or displays that are counter to the constitution?
"Why should we have philosophical discussions about it on this website."
Really no point in discussing it right? I believe it is best defended by that adage: 'god said it, i believe it, that settles it.' Not much room for tolerance in there, is there?
And finally, WOW! an ex-pat is a turncoat? What rock exactly did you come out from beneath?
-
-
Ron, the "webteam" seems to intervene only when the discussion is paid vs. volunteer. Or if there are unfavorable comments directed at sponsors, owners or managers. Beyond that it's pretty much a free-for-all.
-
-
Jack, the Biblical references are what a lot of people believe. I'm tolerant enough to a) understand their beliefs and b) defend their right to them.
As for the money, regardless of what you may think of the origin, the reference to God is on money printed by the U.S. government, which to me is no different than allowing a reference to a religious celebration or religious symbols on public property.
Your reaction about that money being used for war brings a "so what" reaction from me, thus the reference to Biblical wars, including ones that the Bible states God told his people to either participate in or to start. At that point, it doesn't matter if you believe the Biblical stories or not, the point is that the people who believe in the Bible believe them and don't have a problem with money being used to fund wars. War, money, and religious beliefs are not incompatible.
When the vast majority of Christians and religious Jews believing the Old Testament war stories, it is not nonsense to bring it into the discussion once you opened the door, particularly since it ties into the religious beliefs of the same general groups whose beliefs are tied up in the CFD Sta. 12 display.
Contrary to your statement, I didn't "quote Scripture" at all, much less as "some means/form" of justification. I don't have to justify my understanding for and tolerance of others' beliefs to you or anyone else, nor did I try.
Further, I also included a reference to the Christian crosses and Jewish Stars of David that fill Arlington and other national cemetaries, and you responded with a comment about representing religious beliefs for our war dead. I'm all about honoring our war dead, but you shouldn't have to be dead to be able to freely express your religion on public property.
My reference to the "In God We Trust" was strictly in the sense of a public acknowledgement of religion by the government, as the headstones at Arlington are. Seeking to ban them from a fire station is a double standard, and it's silly. I
I'll repeat my earlier statement; "Equal oppression is NOT freedom." Equal oppression is what the FrF people want, and I'm frankly glad that the Charleston city attorney and Mayor Riley were smart enough to figure out a way to let the firefighters express their choices in a legal and common-sense way.
-
-
Ben,
Your bias is showing.
It's great that people believe in those stories from the bible, to me it is irrelevant with regard to the discussion at it has to do with OUR constitution, not biblical interpretation. People can believe all they want but their beliefs end (IMO) right at the constitution. Unfortunately many want or insist that it be interpreted through a biblical glass.
Not sure what your hangup is with arlington. Is it because it is a national cemetery? The equality you speak of is evident at that cemetery in that ALL religious displays are allowed including none, which is the way it should be. It is not an endorsement of any religious belief it is rather, an acknowledgment of the sacrifice that men made for their country and in return, the country acknowledges that by providing a national place of honor in which to be buried, by whatever manner one chooses, with respect, dignity and honor. That is the true egalitarian way.
While everyone (many at least) seem to agree that a fire department is municipal property, it is in many respects private property in that access to it by the public is limited or restricted. So while firefighters have the access to put up their displays no one else does. Therein lies the inequality. And I have to wonder exactly how welcome an islamic display would be in certain parts of this country where they lack the ability to distinguish a muslim from a muslim from a hindu from a sikh. (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20031001/ai_n11428478/)
"in god we trust" was put on our currency by 'fervent' christians who were absolutely certain this nation was blessed by god. Actually another instance of a 'special interest group' forcing the government to bend to its wishes.
You may not like FfR but I personally see them as a necessary evil, existing to counter the other side of the spectrum wherein those people would have us governed by and as a christian nation (taliban). As is usually the case it is a result of the extremes of the spectrum that ends up finding a middle ground of reason and compromise.
I at least am willing to work to find that common ground which is more than can be said for many in here who have voiced their opinions. In so many ways, nothing more than barking dogs.
merry christmas to all.
-
-
Curiously, I'm intolerant because I express disbelief, yet all others are tolerant whilst they express their beliefs.
Ben, your double standard is showing.
-
-
Jack, First, please don't put words in my mouth.
Second, What double standard? My lack of response to other people who are obviously are expressing intolerance isn't a double standard, particularly to the ones that are clearly intolerant in their views. It's just a choice to avoid comment on the obvious. Those folks were not exactly preaching tolerance, either.
My point here is that you were preaching tolerance while espousing things that are frankly intolerant - apparently because you find those things distasteful. Tolerance doesn't just include being tolerant of things that appeal to you personally and throwing up the STOP sign to everything else.
If you're going to set yourself up as the bastion of tolerance, you need to practice it - uniformly.
Once again, I'll repeat myself on the issue at hand - Uniform oppression is NOT the same thing as freedom. It's not the same thing as tolerance, either.
-
-
Maybe ol' Teddy's reaching deity-like status with some of our other federal legislators, perhaps?
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
