[exoskeleton]

Originally Posted by futureMACH1racer Exo, are you a bureaucrat? Do you work on Federal Property? I do everyday, I'm on federal property right now, and I wear a Cross, and a St. Christopher's Medal. There isn't a single person going to stop from wearing them either. So, unless you're in a situation like myself just shut your pie hole, and live with it, because odds are that it won't even affect you. It will however affect me, and I will not take off my cross that I've worn since I went through my first communion. Not for you, and certainly not for some athiest who doesn't like the fact that I have faith.

if the legislation in question was trying to make people remove personal property from thier person, i could see why you would be upset ( i wear a st. jude's medallion myself), but i highly doubt this is the case..am i incorrect here?

[ReverendDexter]

Originally Posted by futureMACH1racer Exo, are you a bureaucrat? Do you work on Federal Property? I do everyday, I'm on federal property right now, and I wear a Cross, and a St. Christopher's Medal. There isn't a single person going to stop from wearing them either.

I don't think anyone would ever ask you to. Your wearing a cross and medal is a representation of you as a person, and thoroughly covered by the First Ammendment. I think you should wear these, and I personally will fight tooth and nail against any attempt to prevent you from doing so.

However, putting a single, specific religious symbol on the wall of a federal building becomes no longer a representation of certain people's beliefs in that building, but of the U.S. Government as a whole.

[futureMACH1racer]

I have a huge bumper sticker on my truck that says "Honk if you love Jesus" Does that mean that I won't be able to park my truck on federal property.


OK, now I'm just playing, but seriously they can't do that. You guys are correct and I wanted you to bring that up, because that is part 2 to my statement. The government has these laws about separation between church, and state.

Here is the wiki definition for you guys.

Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2]

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

The concept has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism

This reason being I do have a cross, on the wall in my office on the site. It has been there on all of our jobs, it was a gift from my father, who had on his sites. Which was passed down from his father, and which passed down from his father. This cross is more than just a cross as you can see. It's a symbol for are strong family pride, honor, and it's kept all of safe in this dangerous trade that we're in. So we like to believe, and we have that right, and ain't nobody going to take that away.

If they do this, then theoretically I will have to remove that cross off my wall, thus breaking a family tradition. I just see myself not being able to do that, as it has 3 generations before. I'd rather tell government to stick my $6 million project where the corn don't grow than do that. Call me crazy, but sometimes the government, just needs to take a step back and not try to fix what isn't broken.

[silverstang]

i dont often get into the religious talks and lectures, its just not my area to be arguing/debating. I believe in god 100%, i respect all religions, i dont care if you worship a gerbal. but dont talk to me about it, and if you ever got in my face about it you would most likely not walk away.

I also agree with everything mach1 is saying in this post, but i see the good points some of the others have.

[exoskeleton]

Originally Posted by futureMACH1racer I have a huge bumper sticker on my truck that says "Honk if you love Jesus" Does that mean that I won't be able to park my truck on federal property. OK, now I'm just playing, but seriously they can't do that. You guys are correct and I wanted you to bring that up, because that is part 2 to my statement. The government has these laws about separation between church, and state. Here is the wiki definition for you guys. Separation of church and state is a political and legal doctrine that government and religious institutions are to be kept separate and independent from each other.[1] The term most often refers to the combination of two principles: secularity of government and freedom of religious exercise.[2] The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept. The concept has since been adopted in a number of countries, to varying degrees depending on the applicable legal structures and prevalent views toward the proper role of religion in society. A similar principle of laïcité has been applied in France and Turkey, while some socially secularized countries such as Norway have maintained constitutional recognition of an official state religion. The concept parallels various other international social and political ideas, including secularism, disestablishment, religious liberty, and religious pluralism This reason being I do have a cross, on the wall in my office on the site. It has been there on all of our jobs, it was a gift from my father, who had on his sites. Which was passed down from his father, and which passed down from his father. This cross is more than just a cross as you can see. It's a symbol for are strong family pride, honor, and it's kept all of safe in this dangerous trade that we're in. So we like to believe, and we have that right, and ain't nobody going to take that away. If they do this, then theoretically I will have to remove that cross off my wall, thus breaking a family tradition. I just see myself not being able to do that, as it has 3 generations before. I'd rather tell government to stick my $6 million project where the corn don't grow than do that. Call me crazy, but sometimes the government, just needs to take a step back and not try to fix what isn't broken.

are you working in a federal building, or an on-site contractor office?
i would think if it is an on-site office, then it's technically your property to decorate as you wish, but i'm no expert on that.
i don't think uncle sam is trying to come in people's offices and remove personal effects here.

[rk_2000_Z/28]

This may be hard for you guys to believe, but I'm a HUGE Bill O'Reilly fan. I subscribe to his newsletter and the latest edition was interesting. Just thought I would post it here:






"In 1870, President Grant signed a law making Christmas Day a federal holiday, a national day of celebration. Congress overwhelmingly voted to make that happen and Grant understood that this was not a trivial gesture. The nation remained deeply divided in the aftermath of the Civil War and the federal government was looking for ways to reunite the people. Since Christmas was loved by almost everyone, the national holiday became a symbol of healing and unity.

Now, America is divided again, this time over social behavior. Traditional Americans want to hold on to the beliefs and institutions that, they believe, have made the country great, while secular-progressives lobby for aggressive change—things like redefining marriage to include homosexuals and other redefinitions of tradition.

Thus, deep divisions are growing in America and, somewhat shockingly, Christmas is right in the middle of it.

A few years ago some retail companies ordered their employees not to say the words "Merry Christmas" because they might offend people who do not celebrate the national holiday. Of course, that was insane. These companies were marketing the gift-giving season that accompanies Christmas but were refusing to utter the word? Please.

After an exposition of this by me and some other media people, millions of Americans decided not to spend money in the offending quarters, and the banishment of Christmas quickly ceased. I guess money trumps offending people all day long.

This season there is another Christmas controversy, this one engineered by some atheists who want to display signs on public property if Christmas or Hanukkah symbols are present. So far, only Illinois, Wisconsin and Washington state have caved in to the atheists, but it is just a matter of time before the non-believers come to a state house near you.

The problem with the atheist displays in Washington and Wisconsin is that the message is hateful, an attack on religion rather than a positive message. In Madison, then-Governor Tommy Thompson allowed the anti-religious sign, but posted it far away from the Nativity scene and the Menorah.

But in Olympia, Governor Christine Gregoire, a secular-progressive politician, has allowed a sign in the capitol rotunda that says religion enslaves people, among other not-nice things, to be placed within a few feet of Jesus in the manger. And peace on earth to you, too, Governor.

Of course, Gregoire did not have to do that. The legal settlement in Washington clearly states that any holiday display must be appropriate and reflect the decorum of the state capitol building.

So, the atheist anti-religion sign could have easily been rejected as being inappropriate. If the non-believers want a seasonal display, make it a positive thing. Put a picture of Charles Darwin and Bill Maher up there with the words "These are our guys... happy Winter Solstice!"

But, no, the atheists have to attack the baby Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the Wise Men and whoever else dropped by the Bethlehem birthplace.

Atheists well understand that Christmas is the most visible display of religion in the world, and any diminishment of it is a good thing to militant secularists. But it is inconceivable that Ulysses S. Grant, believing he finally had a slam-dunk issue in which to unite a fractured country, could have foreseen the social civil war we have today.

Sadly, we are no longer one nation under God. But those of us who truly understand the spirit of Christmas, the simple message of good will toward all men, understand that Ulysses S. Grant was on to something. Christmas should be a time of peace and understanding. It's sad that we now have to defend that."

-By Bill O'Reilly for BillOReilly.com
Thursday, December 18, 2008

[Regency 2007]

Good letter by Bill

[futureMACH1racer]

Very nice piece there RK.

[futureMACH1racer]

I have an office in on the premises. Therefore it's government property. I have to abide by there rules, I use there heat, electricity, water, and sanitary. If it comes down to it, I will walk off of the job over it. I will be writing a letter to congress about this. I think that it's bullshit. I think that these people who want to attack what this nation was founded on are ridiculous. I do agree that some change is needed, but the cahnge we need is to take a step back to our older ways. Not the way that we're going. Call me a traditional American, a conservative, or whatever the fuck you wan to call me, but I love this country a lot more than the fucks that want to change it. If everyone is so unhappy with well there are a couple hundred other nations that they move to.

[ReverendDexter]

Holy crap, Bill Oreilly said something I agree with.

[futureMACH1racer]

[exoskeleton]

you know, anyone that gets all offensive at a christmas display is as bad or worse than the fanatical zealot christian yelling "you are going to burn in hell if you don't (fill in the blank) from the streetcorner.
if you don't believe in the religious roots of the holiday, you should still be able to get into the spirit of giving and family closeness that comes with it.
some people are just too anal.
it seems this whole matter isn't being handled well at all, there has to be some kind of compromise here that satisfies seperation of church and state yet doesn't turn us into a PC police state.
what we have here-
1-a small percentage of fanatical fundamentalists hellbent on forcing thier beliefs on everyone, everywhere...
2- a small percentage of over-zealously politically correct anal athiest nutjobs that want to stamp out any sign of religion whatsoever in public view
3-the vast majority of christians and athiests/agnostics with moderate views that understand seperation of church and state and have no problem with it so long as it does not intrude on them personally
like always, it's that small batch of bad apples making things miserable for everyone else..