Christmas display ramifications

Christmas display ramifications (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Termyn8or -> Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 6:27:26 PM)
So I sat here and read the thread on the advent conspiracy or something like that. Then, trying to be a good bah humbug MF I dug a joke up and threw it in Humor about the new classic Christmas party. Now comes work. There is a TV at work, I have no choice. The local Fox affiliate had something local today. Someone had a fairly large display of Jesus standing there with a shotgun and Santa laying on the ground in front of him. The locals don't like it and local authorities said flat out that there is nothing they can do about it. They are thinking of getting up a petition. Do they have the right ? Why should they be offended and then go home and watch Two Girls One Cup ? Watch blood and gore and guts on the cable TV. Laugh when a frog gets caught in the lawnmower. On another level, just regular TV is not suitable for the young or faint of heart these days. Total bullshit. Because it's on private property they can't make him take it down. Bet they could if it was a statue of a big penis. Blow this off if you want, but I think it has issues on so many levels that it is not funny. T

Kirata -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 6:35:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Someone had a fairly large display of Jesus standing there with a shotgun and Santa laying on the ground in front of him. That just sucks... Maybe it will "disappear" in the middle of the night. [:D] K.

tsatske -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 6:38:28 PM)
Yea, I don't believe in censorship. But everyone has the right to live cofotably in their own space. It is approprate for there to be more control, the more things are 'out there'. As in, in public veiw, harder to avoid seeing, ect. More good taste in what is on network TV would be nice, for instance. I can't watch common sitcoms with my 10 year old niece anymore. I think I could explain away the display you describe, by the time mykids were 10 or so. but what do the parents of 3 year olds tell the kids?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 6:39:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: Termyn8or Someone had a fairly large display of Jesus standing there with a shotgun and Santa laying on the ground in front of him. That just sucks... Maybe it will "disappear" in the middle of the night. [:D] K. geez ... I dunno, K. I kinda like the idea .... [8\|] Firm

Kirata -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 6:44:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tsatske but what do the parents of 3 year olds tell the kids? Oh don't worry, you'll get an answer. Someone will be along shortly to say that parents shouldn't LIE to their children in the first place. Or fill their heads with fairy tales either, I suppose. Grimm was a subversive, you know. K.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 6:44:58 PM)
quote: hat just sucks... Maybe it will "disappear" in the middle of the night. K. ORIGINAL: Kirata Why does it suck? I mean, past the "well it's gross and doesn't show respect for other people's beliefs", what is wrong with it? Now personally, having been raised as a Jew, I never found the crucifix to be a particularly comforting symbol. To me it was a man dying on a torture device. It was also a symbol of a people who spent a lot of time trying to kill people like me for "our part in killing the savior". As an atheist by choice, I see it as a symbol of a religion I find ethically disturbing to say the least. That being said, I would never tell someone not to put a crucifix or any other religious decoration on their private property. Nor would I ever think of it "disappearing" during the night as an appropriate response. The same freedom to show respect for such symbols as the cross, Jesus and Santa requires that others have the freedom to show their disrespect for such symbols. That some may be offended is part of what that freedom costs.

tsatske -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 6:57:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Oh don't worry, you'll get an answer. Someone will be along shortly to say that parents shouldn't LIE to their children in the first place. Or fill their heads with fairy tales either, I suppose. Grimm was a subversive, you know. I raised four children who became damn fine adults. I always laugh when people say 'you shouldn't lie to your children.' I told my children there were elves living in the knothole in the backyard and, if they wrote them, the elves would write them back. And they did. i told my daughter that the fairy of good manners would leave white shoes under her bed for easter morning, if she didn't try to wear white between labor day and easter. I told my children that if they left their shoes sitting on the heating vent on the night of Dec. fifth, santa would come while they slept and fill their shoes with candy necklaces and candy rings and ring pops. Why those candies, i don't know, but that was our tradition for Sant Nicks day. And when I got damn tired of sitting in the mcdonalds with children who weren't really hungry, and I wanted to go home, I snitched thier fries and nuggets while they weren't looking and told them the hamburgular did it. Not lie to children? LOL. Now THAT's funny.

vincentML -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 7:19:46 PM)
Sorta puts an exclamation mark at the end of the slogan: Jesus is the reason for the season ! Vincent

Kirata -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 7:45:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales The same freedom to show respect for such symbols as the cross, Jesus and Santa requires that others have the freedom to show their disrespect for such symbols. That some may be offended is part of what that freedom costs. Oh bullshit. Freedom doesn't last long in an uncivil society. We have an ordinance in the city I live in that requires people who have lawns to maintain them in a well kempt state, to prevent eyesores that would detract from the ability of others to enjoy their neighborhood, as well as laws of similar purpose related to loud music and so forth. Living harmoniously with each other is also a part of what freedom costs. K.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 8:12:50 PM)
quote: Oh bullshit. Freedom doesn't last long in an uncivil society. We have an ordinance in the city I live in that requires people who have lawns to maintain them in a well kempt state, to prevent eyesores that would detract from our ability to enjoy our neighborhoods, as well as other laws of a similar purpose related to loud music and so forth. Living harmoniously with each other is also a part of what freedom costs. K. ORIGINAL: Kirata Please tell me two things so I understand your stance. 1) What makes the sensibilities of those who find this display disturbing more valid than my feeling of discomfort on seeing a statue rendered in what I find gruesome detail of a man being tortured to death? 2) Where does the civil duty to not offend begin and end? If enough people in a neighborhood find a menorah offensive should it be taken down? If everyone in a neighborhood finds a sign endorsing a political candidate of which they don't approve offensive should it be removed? How do you see the demarcation between the need to be civil and the right of free expression? I think you're off the mark on this one, Kirata. The first amendment has always been recognized as existing to protect offensive speech. As Michael Savage says "Inoffensive speech doesn't need protection." In this case, one might question whether the creator of this display should have done so, but to question his right to do so leads to some very dangerous territory.

Kirata -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 8:14:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales 1) What makes the sensibilities of those who find this display disturbing more valid than my feeling of discomfort on seeing a statue rendered in what I find gruesome detail of a man being tortured to death? 2) Where does the civil duty to not offend begin and end? If enough people in a neighborhood find a menorah offensive should it be taken down? If everyone in a neighborhood finds a sign endorsing a political candidate of which they don't approve offensive should it be removed? How do you see the demarcation between the need to be civil and the right of free expression? Rather than just exchange opinions, let's exchange questions. Do you think laws regarding maintaining your property and refraining from inflicting discomfort on your neighbors constitute an offense against our personal freedoms? Do you perceive any difference between an overgrown lawn with loud music blaring, and a menorah? Do you think there should have to be some reasonable basis for claiming that a display or a symbol causes discomfort besides the complainant's idiosyncratic views toward it? K.

dcnovice -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 8:17:46 PM)
http://www.kcoy.com/global/story.asp?s=11697824

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 8:17:55 PM)
I only lied to my oldest son once...when I told him I wasn't going to spank him for something and I did anyway. 18 years later and he still won't let it go. But, without ever discussing politics or religion with him he is an atheist and a conservative, so I did something well.

servantforuse -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 8:22:02 PM)
What would have happened if the same display showed Jesus with Bin ladin dead on the ground ? Would that have been politically incorrect ? I doubt it.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 8:25:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse What would have happened if the same display showed Jesus with Bin ladin dead on the ground ? Would that have been politically incorrect ? I doubt it. Depends on who's politics youre talking about. Ask Salman Rushdie or the Swedish cartoonist who made a dog of Mohammed.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 9:13:34 PM)
quote: Rather than just exchange opinions, let's exchange questions. Do you think laws regarding maintaining your property and refraining from inflicting discomfort on your neighbors constitute an offense against our personal freedoms? Do you see any difference between an overgrown weed-infested lawn with loud music blaring, and a menorah? Do you think there should have to be some reasonable basis for claiming that a display or a symbol causes discomfort besides the complainant's idiosyncratic views toward it? quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Ok..I'll answer yours and hope you answer mine. I have no problem with laws against loud music. Loud music crosses the bounds of both the player's private property and public property into the private property of others. However, such a law must be equally applied. A law that says "Music above this volume after this time is not allowable" is fine. A law that says "Hip Hop played above this volume after this time is not allowable" but allows classic rock to be played above that volume after that time is not. It doesn't matter how much I enjoy classic rock and dislike hip hop. I am not incredibly comfortable with laws regulating how one keeps their lawn and hedges. Again, it seems subjective to me. However, I can see the point to it. Again, though, the rules must be equally applied. No matter how people feel personally, juniper bushes have to be treated the same as rose bushes. In this case, either lawn displays are allowable or they are not allowable. In order not to interfere with freedom of speech, a cross, a menorah, a santa clause and even a display of Jesus having shot Santa have to be given the same protection. If not, the precedent is set that the content of ideas is subject to legal control. That I find unacceptable. So I've answered your questions. Will you now take a shot at mine?

MichiganHeadmast -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 9:15:35 PM)
That's ridiculous. Jesus would use a 30.06 at 1000 yards.

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 9:19:51 PM)
Let's not be so sure....remember, Santa has the sleigh and the reigndeer. Air power always trumps artillery.

Termyn8or -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 9:33:33 PM)
Spinner, amazing how you don't tear into me on Jewish issues like certain others like k.... ummm who shall remain nameless. Now it is possible that I can't see this quite right because of a Christian sort of background. Judaism is in a way a forerunner of Christianity, and therefore dependent upon the former's existence. Even so I have very little knowledge of the Jewish faith. In fact I don't have all that much knowledge of the Christian faith. Kirata, you find it distastful, and that is fine. You are entitled to your opinion, but where is the line drawn ? I read a story a long time ago about a hillbilly who chopped down a billboard because it obstructed his view of the sunset, and it was not on his property. He said straight out that he would do it again, and again, and again. They put him in jail. So now what you say is that something offensive to you should not be on others' property. Or did I read it wrong ? dcnovice, I might have missed something, I thought it was local. Actually this is the town for stuff like that. More on that later. I'll be baaack. T

Mercnbeth -> RE: Christmas display ramifications (12/18/2009 10:39:02 PM)
quote: ...Actually this is the town for stuff like that... this slave grew up near Nipomo...it's a small town with an overabundance of small minds, it's just the kind of town for something like that and it is no suprise. anyone who knows anything about the area that this slave has talked about it to has said the same thing. most of the economy there is based on agriculture and Mexican Mafia activity...heroin and marijuana sales, meth labs, the usual shit. Nipomo has always had and still has a lot of serious problems...this is the least of their worries for their children to be exposed to.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875