The case for the Nativity

[Pah]

the complete Guest Editorial-The case for the Nativity

In my capacity as president of the Big Bear City Community Services District I have placed an agenda item on the schedule for the Dec. 6 meeting of the CSD. The board will discuss the possibility of allowing a Nativity to be placed by the Christmas tree in the small park next to the Big Bear City Fire Station during the holidays.

Reactions to my motion have ranged from strong support to shock that I would advocate the violation of the separation of church and state. More commonly, people have said, "It's a good idea, but you are going to get sued."

Maybe so, but some things are worth being sued for-like society as we know it, our children's future, or heck, just the ability to enjoy the holiday as we always have. Frankly, I'm tired of being pushed around by the left wing litigious organizations like the ACLU. I'm fed up with people who don't live here dictating the way we conduct our lives. It's not right.

More over, it's not in keeping with the basic tenant that United States citizens should be able to live their lives with a minimum of intrusion by the government. I worry that if the soldiers of the extreme left are not stopped, our lifestyles will be affected and our freedoms will diminish. Where will it stop? This year it's the Nativity that disappears from public view. Next year, what, Christmas as a national holiday? I believe it's time we took a stand, and I hope the majority of our community will support me.

But honestly, I don't think we will be sued. For one thing, we are a very small community, and probably not worth the time of those who would deprive us of a seasonal expression of faith. Also, I plan to make the same area available for displays by persons of other faiths. I hope the town square will be decorated by a Star of David, a Star and Crescent, and other appropriate symbols, thus embracing all cultures in the Valley.

First of all, don't you think it is a bit naive to think the town would not be sued?

Second, why not take a comprehensive approach to the composition of the display before it's passed into local law?

Thirdly, doesn't this "hope" of "appropiate symbols" indicate a real reason of it being just another promotion of Christianity?

Bob

 

[Dr. Nosophoros]

I think they might be a little naive if they felt someone with a point to make wouldn't try to sue them in this age of litigation. This is one of the reasons I despise much of the "political correctness" crowd. They seem to have nothing better to do than to try to tell people not only what they can and can't do, but also how they are supposed to think, they are no different than the people that they claim they are "correcting" IMO. Additionally I feel the quote from the B.C cartoon character Wiley "There's a buck to be made here" (if they find out it's worth their while) plays into it as much as the lofty stated beliefs.

If the majority of people in the town are of that belief and want it, why bother trying to tell them that they can't or try to sue them over it, it's not like they are twisting arms for people to go to church or promoting certain beliefs, we deal with advertisements everyday- that doesn't mean we buy every product advertised. Besides, if you really look into the generally accepted customs of Christmas, much of everything, including the timing and symbolism is rooted in Pagan belief as are almost all American and some European holidays. The concept of a "god child" with a near deity mother (or deity mother depending on the belief) whether a belief in a physical or non-physical is nothing new or unique to Christianity. I'm not interested in trying to "change the world" under a self serving banner while trying to believe and convince others it isn't, only myself.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

First of all, ...
Second, ...
Thirdly, ...

Whatever happened to: "whatever floats his boat"? After all, his "subjective truth" is just different than your, that's all. Why all the fuss?

 

[Pah]

Whatever happened to: "whatever floats his boat"? After all, his "subjective truth" is just different than your, that's all. Why all the fuss?

Snipping out of the thread where that thought originated does not become you and shows me that you have not closely read my statements in that thread. In the original posting, I took pains to indicate that my personal opinion and actions are such that they would void this harrasment before it began.

Now, in spite of the personal attack, and your being off-topic to the thread, would you care to provide concrete comment on the legal ramifications of the article?

Bob

My apologies! It was not the opening post but Post #9

 

[Anti-Manicheist]

First of all, don't you think it is a bit naive to think the town would not be sued?

Not really. Lawsuits are expensive and I'm sure they could find organizations to defend them if they were sued.

Also, traditionally the meaning of separation of Church and State has been their "autonomy" not their "segregation" and having a small Nativity scene on public land would not be a violation.

Second, why not take a comprehensive approach to the composition of the display before it's passed into local law?

USAmerican Individualism. It is up to the adherents of the different faith to put together the resources for their display and lobby for it to be included.

Thirdly, doesn't this "hope" of "appropiate symbols" indicate a real reason of it being just another promotion of Christianity?

I think the last sentence is a smart political statement. I doubt many Christians do sincerely take joy in the multiculturalism of the public display of other "culture's" appropriate symbols. Yes, having a nativity scene could be seen as a promotion of Christianity. It also is a reminder to Christians of why we celebrate Christmas in the first place, apart from the rampant hedonistic materialism that is propagated in the private sector. And so it is political statement supporting a change in law and a change in akin to a different understanding of the separation of Church and State.

I personally would rather people get fussed up over what the private sector does to make money of off Xmas rather than whether a nativity is displayed on some public property. I think people's priorities are mixed up, or they may be resigned to the commercialization of Xmas and believe that this public property is somewhere they can actually have some voice.

dlw