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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.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
-
If there are non-Christian firefighters who wish to show different beliefs differently, they should be able to do it just as they can keep beards.
The symbol does not speak for all - it speaks for the ones that placed it.
-
Permalink Reply by John Crabbe on
-
But that symbol can be misconstrued that it does in fact speak for all. A religious symbol inside or outside a firehouse is different than a person expressing their individual belief in their personal way.
The cross outside a church or the Star of David outside a synagog, speaks for the beliefs of the people who go there and as such a religious symbol outside a firehouse can be construed as the same speaking for all who are there.
-
-
Jack, I have no doubt that you believe that you are tolerant, and that in many ways you are. I just think that you have a blind spot here, based on your experience with the restrictions in how the Constitution has been interpreted for the past 30 years or so, resulting in the twisting of equal oppression somehow equals freedom. That nohow equates to me thinking that you are intentionally intolerant.
As for the Biblical references, when those are part of the religious beliefs for which the Constitution guarantees freedom, then yes, they are pertinent. They might not be relevant to you, but they are relevant to others. Does that make your narrower definition of the debate either completely tolerant or correct? Dunno, that one is subjective, but it could be interpreted negatively.
I didn't say what I said simply to make a point, either. It was based upon how your comments appeared to me.
The bottom line - I think that stifling a religious Christmas display is an oppression of an individual's religous beliefs. Further, when the Constitution states "Congress shall make..." as the introduction to our religious freedom guarantee, that means that the federal government shall not establish a state church or punish anyone for being a member of one denomination or another. It does not say "Thou Shalt Not Post a Religious Display On Public Property" as it has been interpreted recently.
The bottom line is that we're probably going to keep disagreeing on this topic, so there's no further point in continuing it. As stated elsewhere, if I've offended you, I apologize.
And Jack, I have no idea where you live or work. It simply doesn't matter to me for the purposes of this conversation, or any other. I won't hold the N.E. against Kali, though. :-)
Merry Christmas to you and yours.
-
-
John, the symbol in question wasn't as specific as a cross or Star of David, and it wasn't on public property.
The fact that someone may misconstrue someone else's religious freedom shouldn't be a reason to stifle religious expression.
-
Permalink Reply by Aussie on
-
And as long as we're quoting scripture - how about Jeremiah 10:2-4...."Thus saith the Lord, learn not the way of the heathen.... For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with the axe. They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with nails and with hammers, that it move not." Just some food for thought. Anyway, Happy Holidays to everyone!
-
Permalink Reply by Richard Embrey on
-
Well Jack,
We're not talking about the marriage act.
We're not talking about sex education in schools, but the federal government is right. That is a subject to be handled by state legislation and education funds, a portion of which comes from the fed.
And I don't give a care about same sex marriages. I'm against it. But, if the US Judicary seems to think it should be treated with equality under the Contitution and Bill of Rights. That's the way it is. I wasn't given the opportunity to vote for or against so I'm not reponsible for ruining this country's moral standards.
As to what rock I crawled out from... there have been a few on at least two continents that don't have contitutional rights for their citizens to speak freely. After 30 years of military service to this country, I have come to the conclusion that most Americans abuse thier rights and those of others. If the shoe fits Jack.........
-
-
I didn't expect somebody like you would understand.
You're canadien brother-in-law had his reasons I'm sure. I'm not talking about him.
The colonel probably has a good reason to consider his position and I can't fault him for that. If I were retiring from the military now, I'd probably contemplate the same. If you understood anything about military retirement and how our retirement is treated by most states in this country plus the deteriorating benefits, you wouldn't have made the statement you did.
Sisters of charity have a global mission and it was idiotic to even mention it.
Lastly I say to you, don't talk to me about the constitution, I defended it in uniform for 30 years, I well aware of its contents.
-
Permalink Reply by Vic Silverfish on
-
wow...I can't believe I haven't heard that quote in this context before. Well found!
-
-
You can cram it, jarhead. I am still a US citizen, and I continue to pay taxes, vote, and own property the the US. I could really care less if I am American enough for the likes of you.
-
-
I can understand your point, but you have to recognise that the courts have consistently come down against ANY government opinion on religion. The courts have been very consistent on this. A quick peek at Wiki has a recent case: Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)
The entire goal is to be equally unfair to everyone. My advice is to find some private property and display whatever the heck you like! I do not question the motives of anyone taking the "pro creche" position, but you need to ask yourself what position you would take if the Catholics insisted on a photo of the Pope, Hindus wanted a giant Ganesh out front, or if the Moslems erected a banner reading "There is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his Prophet"
None of these symbols has a place on public property, or should have access to public funding. Freedom of religion cuts both ways.
-
-
Ron, you have the best suggestion I've seen on this thread. I'm off to convince someone to buy me a beer!
Cheers!
-
-
"Those who get on the soapbox and preach tolerance for their religion are the most intolerable of all."
Ron, that's a generalization that doesn't apply to many people who preach tolerance.
That generalization also applies to a lot of people who preach intolerance for all religion under the guise of fairness, such as the FfRF.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
