Golden council OKs Santa, nixes menorah
By Julie Hutchinson, Special to the Rocky
Published November 14, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Video: Rabbi Levi Brackman's request to add a menorah to holiday displays in Golden, Colo. has led to some controversy. On Thursday night the city council debated whether to approve a ban on all religious holiday decorations. Watch »
Santa Claus will ride Golden's historic downtown arch again this holiday season, but an Evergreen rabbi will not be allowed to erect a menorah alongside a 30-foot spruce tree decorated with lights on city property.
The Golden City Council unanimously approved a resolution regarding holiday displays that was amended at the last minute to allow Santa to stay on the downtown arch because of its historical significance.
The ordinance prohibits holiday displays on city property of any religious symbols or symbols associated with a particular religious or cultural tradition.
City officials had amended the resolution to include Santa over concerns that he might be viewed as a religious symbol.
Rabbi Levi Brackman, who addressed council members Thursday night, said he was surprised at the exception in spite of an overwhelming show of support from citizens calling on the council to figure out a way to allow all kinds of religious displays during the Christmas season.
"I am stunned that council completely ignored the citizens here tonight," Brackman said.
The council passed the ordinance in response to Brackman's request to erect a menorah, a nine-stemmed candelabra that symbolizes the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah.
Council members vowed to revisit the issue this spring to study ways to make holiday displays more inclusive of religious traditions. Mayor Jacob Smith said the council should take its time in making such decisions.
More than 25 citizens addressed the council about the controversy, frequently breaking into applause when speakers exhorted council members to find a way to include holiday displays from all religions., 43, a 14-year Golden resident, described herself as "anti religious" and called on council members to find a way to include all religious views in holiday displays.
"This is a chance for Golden to lead," said Ellene Duffy, 43. "I want to argue for diversity instead of neutrality. This should be a time to celebrate everything."
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Boulder Wildfire
See photos from the Boulder County fire.
-
Legislature Blog
The Rocky's Lynn Bartels and Ed Sealover provide live updates from the Capitol.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Weekend plans?
Figure out things to do this weekend with the help of our entertainment calendar.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's rant on what's next for the Broncos.
-
Live updates
Sign up for mobile alerts and breaking news e-mails to keep up with the latest news.
November 14, 2008
5:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
VVVV writes:
Wow. Racism is alive and well and living right next to you.
November 14, 2008
6:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
nicolec writes:
What? This is absurd- all or nothing I say. In fact I'll bet they won't be able to keep that ruling- you can't use public funds to decide which religions you're going to uphold/respect/promote and not allow others the same right. Either you let all the major religions put something up or none of them.
November 14, 2008
6:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
Aaron writes:
Goyim. Ya just gotta love 'em. Betcha a million shekels that if some folks wanted a Kwanza display or a Fast of Eid (Muslim) display, there would be no problem. But oh, us pesky Jews...now we're a horse of a different color.
Hey there, fellow Jews! If you have to do some shopping, please do not shop in Golden.
November 14, 2008
6:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Aaron writes:
Santa is an historical character and our menorah is not? How much beer have the members of Golden's city counsil been guzzling?
Oy to the world....
November 14, 2008
6:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Art writes:
Can you say anti Semitic? Saint Nicholas is certainly a Christian character. So Christian religious symbols are OK but not Jewish ones. Interesting thoughts from Golden. Intolerance is alive and well.
November 14, 2008
6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
Highcountry writes:
The holidays should be a celebration of all traditions and points of view. Golden screwed this one up big time.
November 14, 2008
6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Highcountry writes:
If I lived in Golden, I'd organize a RECALL!
November 14, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
HollyGoLightly writes:
I consider myself a Christian as I was raised as one even though I don't attend church. I certainly wouldn't be offended if they put up symbols of other religions. I honestly don't see what the big deal is. Put up the Christmas displays, the menorah, and whatever else. We certainly have bigger things to worry about than this. Let everyone celebrate.
November 14, 2008
7:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
TopGun writes:
I love Golden, but this is embarrassing... How ignorant can a city council be?
November 14, 2008
7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
TopGun writes:
Here's a resolution... Allow all religious symbols. Who the F cares...
November 14, 2008
7:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
VVVV,
What does removing religious displays from public property have to do with racism?
OK, so if we allowed Christians and Jews and display their icons, what do you think those groups do if Muslims and Wikipedians and Pagans and Satanists and practioners of Witchcraft wanted their symbols added? I suspect a loud outcry and picketers and another lawsuit would be the result.
I don't give a hoot what people put on their own lawns, or what sort of dancing and prancing and snake-handling they do in their own house, but why do their various beliefs always have to be on public property? Why, why, why?
Don't go off about how atheism is a religion because it's really just a lack of religion. What most atheists want is an equal playing field where no one religion is paraded and forced down people throats, even those with different beliefs.
American citzens have the right to practice any religion they want, and they have the right to build their own houses of worship, which is far more tolerant than most countries. Nobody is restricting children from praying on their own in school, despite what many Christians claim. Nobody is prohibiting children from bringing a Bible or any other sort of religious tract to school. It's only when they begin trying to recruit other children that schools draw the line. Children have hours and hours to pray on their own, so why do they need public prayer in school?
All or nothing. Isn't that fair?
November 14, 2008
7:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
LingLingfor_prez writes:
I say ignore the city council and encourage businesses and homeowners put up decorations as they see fit. If the city council doesn't like it they can jump off a cliff. Try not to offend a few people you end up offending everyone else.
November 14, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Christmas (IPA: /krɪsməs/), also referred to as Christmas Day or Christmastide, is an annual holiday celebrated on December 25[2] that marks and honors the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.[3][4][5] His birth, which is the basis for the Anno Domini system of dating, has been determined by modern historians as having occurred between 7 and 2 BC. The date of celebration is not thought to be Jesus' actual date of birth, and may have been chosen to coincide with ancient Roman solar festivals that were held on December 25.[6]
Modern customs of the holiday include gift-giving, church celebrations, and the display of various decorations—including the Christmas tree, lights, mistletoe, nativity scenes and holly. Santa Claus (also referred to as Father Christmas, although the two figures have different origins) is a popular mythological figure often associated with bringing gifts at Christmas. Santa is generally believed to be the result of a syncretization between St. Nicholas of Myra and elements from pagan Nordic and Christian mythology, and his modern appearance is believed to have originated in 19th century media.
Christmas is celebrated throughout the Christian population, but is also celebrated by many non-Christians as a secular, cultural festival. The holiday is widely celebrated around the world, including in the United States, where it is celebrated by 96% of the population.
So, if 96% of the US population celebrates Christmas in some form, is that not a majority? Wake up America, your freedoms of expression are being stripped away by the minorities.
November 14, 2008
8:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
elkman,
Nobody is trying to ban Christmas in its present form. It's still a national holiday. But if Christmas is such an international event, why allow one group to hijack it? Why not leave it, as you say, a secular holiday?
November 14, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
LingLing,
I agree with you. The businesses can put up any decorations they want. It doesn't make sense to boycott those businesses because of what the City Council did.
If Santa is a historical figure, then so is the Christmas tree as well as the menorah. Aren't we supposed to be celebrating diversity, rather that making everyone feel isolated?
November 14, 2008
8:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
My point, is that if 96% of the people in the US celebrate it, then why the big deal? The majority of people here are not Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or athiest. Therefore, why not let the majority rule?
November 14, 2008
8:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
LingLing,
Why would the city protest as long as it is NOT being something more sinister, such as causing genuinely targetted racist strife or public disorder? Racist...Is meaning a particular skin color, not religious belief people. I'm Christian, does this make me the same race as the other...Oh? What's the number? About 2.7 billion or so other Christians (including Catholics) on Earth today?
I frankly think government should stay neutral. In America today, according to various studies, the average demagraphic religiousily is about 7 to 8 (depanding on area) Christians for every 10 Americans living in the country. Second largest grouping is Jewish, with over 8 million. Next would be Muslim, unless you believe they're vastly inflated (and voter intemidating) 8 to 10 million number rather than the more studied (Pew people) number of about 2 to 3 million.
That being said, if the Christians really wanted control, they already have the votes to win. I think that's an interesting thing to imagine being as......We aren't having bibles or any other such thing in there. I think Santa really has become an AMERICAN icon that can easily transcent almost any belief. Especially as Christmas (very sadly) as been so successfully commercialized away from its historical roots.
If they want Santa let them have it. Christ.
I.
November 14, 2008
8:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
EastVail writes:
I want a giant frog on display for my frog religion. Do you think the city council will approve that alongside the menorah? If not, they are obviously racists.
November 14, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
NotUrFriend writes:
Elkman,
Majority rule is what has given us the foundation of modern law and common thinking. I agree. You can't run the universe with 90 + % of the population disagreeing with you. Majority rule has been a proven success of governance for most of written history. That's not to say we stamp on minorities. But if you want to think in such a way, take a look at any current Islamic nation and talk to them about minority rights. It's a joke.
Anyway, good rebuttal. Though, with the exception of some locations, only around 80 to about 90 percent of American's directly (or indirectly) associate themselves with the Christian (including Catholic) belief.
I could be off by a bit, but years ago I remember studying it.
I.
November 14, 2008
8:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
I grew up in Golden my whole life. Apparently it is still run by rednecks "Where The West Still Lives." Golden needs to get over its redneck past and move forward. If you are going to violate the constitution you should violate it for all. I see this one becoming a civil suit against the city. It's obvious the City of Golden does not accept anything other than good ole down home Christian folk. You know, love, forgiveness, absolution and all those other good Christian values. What a joke.
November 14, 2008
8:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
I don't think that love, forgiveness, absolution and all those other good values are attributes of only Christians. Don't other people have those attritutes as well?
November 14, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Yes elkman, other religions, philosophies, etc. also share those same values.
AGAIN! Why can't the spineless politicians allow each and every religion to put up its seasonal decorations at the appropriate time of the year!? Let's celebrate ALL of them!
Or are the spineless politicians running scared of the [CENSORED] that file the lawsuits for the American Communist Litigation Union?
Scott
November 14, 2008
8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
UNV_ME writes:
The Golden City Council has labeled itself ignorant and not very intelligent. Why even have a meeting about this subject? It's all or nothing. You MUST be fair to EVERY religious sect on PUBLIC property. It's not even a question. Golden... pull your head outta your @$s.
November 14, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
WhadUsay writes:
Santa is not a secular cultural icon - he is a manifestation of a mixture of beliefs that has come to represent the Christian religion and the bringing of gifts to children at Christmas - call it what it is.
I do not celebrate Christmas, I never have, I enjoy other people's celebration of Christmas and when they invite me to join them it is to celebrate THEIR holiday not MINE. They also come to celebrate Hanukkah with me. We accept and enjoy our diversity - there is no mixing of religions.
Golden is playing a game of symantics to get their way - but, when all is said and done - they have once again disenfranchized part of their community by allowing Christian symbols (whatever name they are giving them) and not other symbols.
It is not a "majority rules" issue - it is not a "holiday symbols" issue - it is an issue of the establishment marginalizing what they don't understand or don't like. What, do they think that if they let a Hanukkah Menorah stand on city property everyone will convert to Judaism?
If they don't want religious items on City property what about the Priest and the Rabbi who walk into City Hall - are they now in violation? I know that's an extreme and silly comparison but this is an extreme and silly decision by the Golden City Council.
I still can't believe that in 2008 a City would think that this is a proper solution. This happens every year and last year they said they were going to discuss it in the spring - guess they forgot - now AGAIN they say they'll discuss it in the spring - are they that rediculous that they think this will happen? They say this so that they don't have to deal with it for another year and then next year the same thing will happen. So much for a honest government.
If no religious symbols are allowed on city property than no lights or santas, menorahs or kwanza candles. But, if this city wants to show it's evolvement and involvement with its citizens it should make a place for everyone to put up a display.
If parents are worried that their children's holiday will be lessened by not seeing Santa downtown or a Christmas tree they should use this opportunity to educate their children on tolerance and acceptance and tell them that the City Council does not believe in such things and that they can choose to be better than the Coucil right here and right now by accepting peoples differences and learning from them.
November 14, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
blacksho89 writes:
Eastvail: Are you paying for the giant frog? Go right ahead, then. Rabbi Brackman IS paying for the display.
November 14, 2008
9:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
toocool writes:
Department store displays would better suit the day since religion took a dive years ago replaced by before and after Christmas shopping sales.....
November 14, 2008
9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
elkman,
Majority rule? Isn't that what gave us such pleasant things such as witch burning, slavery, no vote for women, segregation, discrimination against Irish immegrants, Asian displacement during WWII, and a host of other ills?
Again I ask: why must religious displays be on public property? Why can't Golden take a neutral stance?
marshdale,
You wrote: "If you are going to violate the constitution you should violate it for all." Explain how, in as much detail as you want, how preventing religious from taking over public property is a violation? Nobody is outlawing the free expression of religion, they're just restricting it on government property which all of us pay for.
As I said before, people are free to erect any sort of display on their own property. Businesses are free to create any sort of display. Religious schools and houses of worship can do anything they want. Why do they need to add their own beliefs to public property.
As far as the majority of the country celebrating Christmas, it doesn't mean everyone is Christian. Even some Christians, such as Mormons and Christian Scientists and more, don't celebrate "pagan" holidays like Christmas and Easter.
I have nothing against Christmas. I enjoy some aspects of it. But why allow one group to subvert it for their own dogma? Can't we all get along?
November 14, 2008
9:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heidi writes:
toocool,
You are right. I suppose that's why they want to keep the Santa. He symbolizes the giving of gifts. And spending money is what they want people to do.
November 14, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Why do any religious figures have to be put up on public land at all? Last time I checked, that wasn't a "right" of any religious group. Why not just put your particular religious things up on your privately-owned land? Why make it any more complicated?
November 14, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Acemon is someone who I can respect for his/her beliefs which are completly neutral and logical. I can't understand why so many find this such a difficult concept.
Remember Jim Jones had his religion. Do you want him erecting his vision on Golden city property? Anyone who says they are willing to accept all religious displays are not truthful with themselves and make that arguement because it sounds PC and acceptable to all. It's not. I would find it humerous to see a Satanic display right next to a Nativity scene. ROFL!
I agree, keep Santa out of it as well. Businesses can erect any displays they wish as long as it adheres to city codes. KEEP RELIGIOUS CULT DISPLAYS OFF OF GOVERNMENT PROPERTY!!!
Happy Holidays!
November 14, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Acemon
"Majority rule? Isn't that what gave us such pleasant things such as witch burning, slavery, no vote for women, segregation, discrimination against Irish immegrants, Asian displacement during WWII, and a host of other ills?"
Hardly a rational or fair comparrison. Majority rule had nothing to do with the women vote, as I would imagine most women wanted to vote. Witch burning and slavery were carried not carried out by the majority of people. More like the leaders of the country at that time in history. If you want to make comparrisons, be realistic and not just pulling something out of your a--.
November 14, 2008
9:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"elkman writes:
My point, is that if 96% of the people in the US celebrate it, then why the big deal? The majority of people here are not Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or athiest. Therefore, why not let the majority rule?"
The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority. In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.
November 14, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
asa_watcher writes:
We atheists (and other types of secularists) are really enjoying this sideshow.
When, in the past, we tried to keep the wall a separation from being breached, we were characterized as "waging war against Christmas". Actually, we were simply trying to keep the current "war" we see now from breaking out.
Hope all you religionists are enjoying yourselves. Oh, and Merry Christmas already.
November 14, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
"This is a chance for Golden to lead," said Ellene Duffy, 43. "I want to argue for diversity instead of neutrality. This should be a time to celebrate everything."
Ok Ellene, I would like to see you celebrate Satanic worship. Something tells me you wouldn't, hypocrite!
November 14, 2008
9:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
homerj0216 writes:
I am Jewish, and I think it’s great that the city of Golden is willing to display an image of Santa! Since he isn't truly a Christian symbol, he is a Pagan symbol. The story of Santa is one of a shaman (medicine man) who would collect mushrooms in the wild, and bring them to the villagers. The mushrooms he brought to the villagers were Amanita Muscaria, one of the most powerful hallucinogenic mushrooms known to the world. He would dry the mushrooms on conifer trees while he picked them, then would throw them into his bag, and deliver them via sled to the villagers. Some of these villagers lived in areas where the snow would be well up to the top of their huts (or yurts as they were called). In instances where the door was covered, Santa would drop in through the chimney in the roof. So, I think it is great that the city of Golden is so willing to embrace this pagan symbol and display it to the world!
If you would like to know more about the true origins of Santa, check out: http://www.secondattention.org/articl...
November 14, 2008
9:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
I wish Santa would come down my chiminey with some mushrooms, or at least a little bit of marijuana. Merry Christmas indeed! No wonder we leave him some munchies!
November 14, 2008
10:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
Thanks for the lesson in government. However, what then is your point? If your point is that the minority has rights, yes I agree. But only to a point. My point is that "whats good for the many outweighs the good of the one, or the few". Its like the ban on smoking in public buildings in Colorado. "Most" of the people in this state do not smoke. It would be unfair for "most" of the people in this state to submit to having smoke-filled public buildings.
November 14, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Uh homerj0216, ya better read up on how Santa Clause (Dutch for SAINT Nicholas) came about. While the image that we have today of Santa Clause came from an old Coke-a-Cola advertising campaign, the man really did exist in Asia Minor (now Turkey).
Try this site: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Ni... to start with.
Scott
November 14, 2008
10:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
hoopoe36 writes:
All or nothing; there's plenty of private property, churches, temples, mosques for Nativity scenes, menorahs, crescent moons. The state has no business endorsing religions, even the old pagan Xmas trees we all love.
The score thus far: Pagans 2, Christians 1, Jew 0. Level the playing field and get all religious symbols off taxpayer property.
Unless, of course, it's Santa w 'shrooms . . .
November 14, 2008
10:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Elkman, smoking is not a human rights issue. It's a sociological issue. When it comes to the government and the majority vs. minority arguement, it comes down to human rights. The majority cannot take away or deny human rights to the minority.
November 14, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Scott, if you had attended college recently, you would understand that Wikipedia is not a valid source. Not that the magic mushroom site is either, but college professors do not allow wiki sources for academic papers/research.
November 14, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"If your point is that the minority has rights, yes I agree. But only to a point."
You need to step back and think about what you just said. Thinking like this is why we have the Patriot Act and a quasi-police state.
Your example of smoking cannot be compared to the issue in the article above. Secondhand smoke has been proven to cause harm and infringe upon the rights of other citizens, so therefore the law has merit because its purpose is protect the rights of the citizens.
Hanukkah decorations do not infringe upon the rights of citizens any more than a plastic jolly old fat man with a crusty white beard does.
November 14, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
c4l2a0
I never said smoking was a human rights issue. Just wanted to use a comparrison that most people could identify with.
You stated "When it comes to the government and the majority vs. minority arguement, it comes down to human rights. The majority cannot take away or deny human rights to the minority".
But the majority can still rule. Thats the point!
November 14, 2008
10:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Not_Alike94 writes:
Art, I don't know what book or source you ever read, watched, etc but St. Nick was never a christian symbol... My kids dont believe in santa they believe in Jesus though.
I do think that all religions should be displayed. Its like leaving out a soul. It just shouldn't happen.
November 14, 2008
10:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
I stand by my statement. "Only to a point". Otherwise, the minority would be ruling. Is that what you would like in America? The few people ruling the majority of people? Maybe we need kings and queens ruling this country?
November 14, 2008
10:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
Get a grip c4l2a0, then try:
http://www.stnicholascenter.org/Brix?...
or
http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint....
or
http://www.culture.gouv.fr/culture/no...
or
http://www.stnicholassociety.com/
Ya know, all you have to do is "google" on the ALGORE's invention and you can come up with a whole bunch of references. In my first posting I put up the first link that showed up when I Googled "Saint Nicholas". Since you have decided to arrogantly diss my references, would the Encyclopaedia Brittannica site meet your level of academic research arrogance?
See: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/t...
Scott
November 14, 2008
10:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
I stand by my statement. "Only to a point". Otherwise, the minority would be ruling. Is that what you would like in America? The few people ruling the majority of people? Maybe we need kings and queens ruling this country?"
Sigh, let me try and explain a little more clearly:
The system of Constitution-making, for the purpose of establishing constitutionally limited government, is designed to put into practice the principle of the Declaration of Independence: that the people form their governments and grant to them only "just powers," limited powers, in order primarily to secure (to make and keep secure) their God-given, unalienable rights. The American philosophy and system of government thus bar equally the "snob-rule" of a governing Elite and the "mob-rule" of an Omnipotent Majority. This is designed, above all else, to preclude the existence in America of any governmental power capable of being misused so as to violate The Individual’s rights--to endanger the people’s liberties.
http://www.lexrex.com/enlightened/Ame...
November 14, 2008
10:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Not_Alike94, if you think ALL religions should be displayed, would you enjoy explaining to your kids what the Satanic display is next to the Nativity scene, or the Rastafarian display?
November 14, 2008
10:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Scott, I meant no disrespect by my comment. If you found it to be an "arrogant diss", then that's your issue. I just like to remind people that Wiki needs to be taken with a little bit of skepticism (By the way, I just edited that Wiki "article" to reinforce my arguement) No, not really.
I'm not saying that the other link was any more valid, I really don't care what the "truth" is regarding Santa Clause.
I also don't qoute the scriptures as "proof" of anything.
November 14, 2008
10:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
I don't really need another lesson in American government. Let me repeat a statement in an earlier blog. "Whats good for the many outweighs the good of the one, or the few". That is not to say that the few do not have human rights. Many of our laws are in fact based on minority rights. For instance, all the discrimination laws. All set up to protect the minorities. You make it sound like only the minorities have rights. Not so. The majority has the same rights. My original post states that 96% of the US population celebrates Christmas in some form. To me that is a majority. That has been my point from the begining.
November 14, 2008
10:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
hillbillygoth writes:
Before Christianity and Judaism were "invented" everybody was pagan. Get over your faux selves.
November 14, 2008
10:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
blindrid writes:
I guess I don't view Santa Claus as a Christian symbol. In view of this, they may be OK not allowing a Mennorah. I was surprised but can understand the stance taken.
It's too bad we live in a time when the Supreme Court has to rule if a lighted tree is OK or not.
To those that use statistics to support their cause, I found this interesting from the census:
Religion
58.02% of the people in Denver, CO are religious, meaning they affiliate with a religion. 16.90% are Catholic; 10.91% are Protestant; 0.85% are LDS; 10.94% are another Christian faith; 0.00% in Denver, CO are Jewish; 0.01% are an eastern faith; 0.00% affilite with Islam.
That's even before we get to the subject of "unique" religious groups like "One thing's almost certain- services at the The First Church of Jesus Christ, Elvis can't be dull". See: http://altreligion.about.com/od/weird... .
Anyway, I sympathize with the Rabbi and appreciate the way he went about this subject, not condemning others but attempting to persuade others toward his view in a non-confrontational manner. To Rabbi Brackman, Good luck.
November 14, 2008
10:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
I don't really need another lesson in American government. Let me repeat a statement in an earlier blog. "Whats good for the many outweighs the good of the one, or the few". That is not to say that the few do not have human rights. Many of our laws are in fact based on minority rights. For instance, all the discrimination laws. All set up to protect the minorities. You make it sound like only the minorities have rights. Not so. The majority has the same rights. My original post states that 96% of the US population celebrates Christmas in some form. To me that is a majority. That has been my point from the begining."
Apparently you do, bud, because "Whats good for the many outweighs the good of the one, or the few" isn't the system of government we have here in the good ole US of A despite what you want to believe.
Our Constitutional fathers, familiar with the strength and weakness of both autocracy and democracy, with fixed principles definitely in mind, defined a representative republican form of government. They "made a very marked distinction between a republic and a democracy and said repeatedly and emphatically that they had founded a republic. A republic is a government of law under a Constitution. The Constitution holds the government in check and prevents the majority (acting through their government) from violating the rights of the individual. Under this system of government a lynch mob is illegal. The suspected criminal cannot be denied his right to a fair trial even if a majority of the citizenry demands otherwise.
"You make it sound like only the minorities have rights. Not so. The majority has the same rights."
Can you really fail to see that this is a contradictory statement?
"My original post states that 96% of the US population celebrates Christmas in some form. To me that is a majority. That has been my point from the begining."
And my point is you are dead wrong in you're thinking. We do not have majority rule in America so it doesn't matter what the majority wants or believes.
November 14, 2008
11:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
c4l2a0, sorry about my misinterpretation of your posting. To me it read that you were rubbing my nose in using Wikipeadia. I was wrong.
The reason that I am pointing out the truth about Santa Clause/Saint Nicholas is that the character is based upon a real religious person. Therefore, if a city is going to put up Santa Clause, then in my view, they are celebrating/honoring a religious holiday ... regardless of what the idiots on the SCOTUS claim.
To reiterate a previous post. Why can't we celebrate/honor ALL religious holidays!? Wouldn't that help for all of us to understand each others views/customs/beliefs/etc.?
I also do not like people quoting scripture as TRUTH.
Scott
November 14, 2008
11:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
personally, i just don't see the problem in celebrating all cultures' year end superstitions and customs. i think it's nice to celebrate our cultural diversity.
the problem with golden is that they wanted to dictate with superstitions and customs were the "right" ones.
i hope they get sued for it. they'll lose.
mrwiizrd, you're fighting an uphill battle against willful ignorance.
best of luck, you have the patience of an oak.
November 14, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
Congradulations! You must be a history professor! This story was about the city of Golden and the ruling they made last night. You have managed to make it into God knows what! You state that "you are dead wrong". So, that makes you dead right? What an ego you have. I am totally right about my statement (the good of the many outweighs the good of the one or the few). To prove it, who won the election? Did the majority or the minority elect him? I rest my case. You stated "We do not have majority rule in America so it doesn't matter what the majority wants or believes". You are way off base Pal. Look around you. The majority does rule, whether you like it or not!
November 14, 2008
11:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Scott, you don't need to apologize. I got slammed for using Wiki in my college paper (only did it once).
I agree, I think including Santa and denying a menorah is unfair, but I believe that the government having any displays is wrong. If I wanted to live in an Islamic state I would move to the middle east, if I wanted to live in a Buddhist state I would move to ???, If I wanted to live in a Christian state should I live in America? If I'm not religious, where should I live? Antarctica? The beauty of this country is that we accept all people regardless of their religious beliefs and do not show favoritism.
You say "Why can't we celebrate/honor ALL religious holidays!? Wouldn't that help for all of us to understand each others views/customs/beliefs/etc.?"
I don't think that is what people really want. As already stated in previous posts, I don't think that people would accept a "cult" display next to their religious display. People only truly accept what they themselves believe in.
November 14, 2008
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
"mrwiizrd
Congradulations! You must be a history professor!"
Nope, just a citizen that places the utmost priority on the rights of the individual over the majority, just like our Founding Fathers did.
"So, that makes you dead right?"
The Constitution of the United States of America.
"This story was about the city of Golden and the ruling they made last night. You have managed to make it into God knows what!"
Actually bud, you managed to make it into discussion about majority rule with these misguided statements:
"My point, is that if 96% of the people in the US celebrate it, then why the big deal? The majority of people here are not Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or athiest. Therefore, why not let the majority rule?"
"(the good of the many outweighs the good of the one or the few)."
November 14, 2008
11:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
You really do have an ego, don't you? Instead of telling me that I am dead wrong about all of this, why did you not address my last post about the election? Let me see, the senate and the house have many members from all over the US. That I am sure of. Do the minority control the vote or the majority? Seems to me that when the vote is counted, the MAJORITY vote wins and rules. Please tell me that I am wrong about that too. Your problem Pal, is you are probably not part of the majority.My point, is that if 96% of the people in the US celebrate it, then why the big deal? I stated it once, and I stand by it "The majority of people here are not Jewish, Hindu, Muslim, or athiest. Therefore, why not let the majority rule?" and like it or not Pal, the good of the many does outweigh the good of the one or the few.
November 14, 2008
11:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
elkman, do you not understand that no matter how large, a marjority may not restrict the rights of a minority in the united states of america?
i'm just not sure why folks are still confused about this...
November 14, 2008
11:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
c4l2a0:
Yes I do need to apologize for screwing up. If more people would do that, then would be less misunderstandings and venom.
You said, ".. People only truly accept what they themselves believe in."
Unfortunately you are probably correct. However, the multi-culture flakes tout that we all need to be "educated" in each others beliefs? In this instance I agree with them SO LONG as the other person's belief is NOT rammed down my throat. To be informed about them, great; to have it rammed down my throat, WRONGO!
As far as having a cult display parked next to a religious display that would not really fly with most, including me. But then when the decorations are set up, some amount of intelligence needs to be used in the placement of the decorations. I know, I know, "intelligence" is a rather rare commodity.
Scott
November 14, 2008
11:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrwiizrd writes:
elkman, I'm out of patience, please, do us all a favor and read this:
http://www.constitution.org/fed/feder...
November 14, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
So what if 96% of the people celebrate christmas? That doesn't answer why religious symbols--from any religion--have a right to be put on public land. Actually, if your number is correct, then think of all that private land just waiting to be adorned by your cute pagan-inspired decorations.
November 14, 2008
12:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Scott, I re-read my post and I can see how it was taken wrong. It sounded like the emphasis was on "if you had been to college" instead of on "recently". Most students these days use the internet for sources instead of books. So I apologize for not being more clear with my tone.
I wish the rest of the world would see things as I do! (sarcasm...sort of)
November 14, 2008
12:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
BigSky182 writes:
And the award for best post of the week goes to:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
TopGun writes:
Here's a resolution... Allow all religious symbols. Who the F cares...
November 14, 2008
12:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Scott writes:
No sweat c4l2a0, we got the issue squared away. That was the main thing.
BTW, I remember back from grade school (1960s) that we were forbidden from using Encyclopedias for research! The teachers never told us why. My guess is that they wanted us to learn how to use other sources. It sure would have been nice if they had given us a reason other than, "Because I'm the teacher!"
Scott
November 14, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
mrwiizrd
Why cannot you address my questions in previous posts? Must be some reason? No, I will not go to the web site for more of your precious history lessons. Because you will not address my questions, I have lost patience and respect for you.
November 14, 2008
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Reason writes:
"Don't go off about how atheism is a religion because it's really just a lack of religion."
Atheism and secularism are not synonyms.
November 14, 2008
1:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
jay writes: "elkman, do you not understand that no matter how large, a marjority may not restrict the rights of a minority in the united states of america?"
Yes, I most certainly do. Do you? The MAJORITY of people do rule in many cases. Lets say (as an example only) that I am part of the minority that does not like gambling. However the MAJORITY of people in this state voted for gambling. My rights have been overlooked, why, because the MAJORITY won and therefore rules. Happens in most elections. The MAJORITY of voters control the minority. I stand by my statement "the good of the many outweighs the good of the one or the few". Especially when the MAJORITY consists of 96% of the United States of America.
November 14, 2008
2:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
CaptainObvious writes:
Something tells me elkman wouldn't be so thick-headed and condescending if he were not IN that majority. Save your breath.
November 14, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
CaptainObvious
What a great asset to the discussion you are. I may be thick-headed in my beliefs, but I have not been condescending, like jay and mrwiizrd. Maybe you should read some of their comments about me.
November 14, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Elkman, the majority can rule in your hypothetical situation, along with similar issues such as smoking bans, speed limits, legalization of marijuana, etc. Those are sociological issues.
The majority is irrelavent when it comes to human rights issues, such as gay marriage, freedom of religion, slavery, the right to vote etc.
Do you see the difference between the two?
November 14, 2008
2:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
c4l2a0
Excuse me. Did or did not California ban same sex marriages? Many states, including our own have very strong views on the "human rights" issue of gay marriage. Seems to me that the MAJORITY of people still believe that gay marriage is wrong. Otherwise, it would be legal everywhere. And just who has controlled the other issues such as freedom of marriage, slavery, the right to vote? Believe it has been the MAJORITY.
November 14, 2008
2:37 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Not the majority, but the Supreme Court of the US. They will overturn the Calif. proposition (again) and they are the ones with the final say. They will probably rule on similar cases regarding religious display in June.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/0...
November 14, 2008
2:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
elkman, your still not getting the point.
when i said "do you not understand that no matter how large, a marjority may not restrict the rights of a minority in the united states of america?"
you initially said "yes", then turned right around and tried to claim that the majority can take rights away from the minority.
this is either ignorance or willful ignorance.
you also seem to be confusing the rights of people not to be discriminated against because of race, gender or sexual orientation and the majority rule against "choices" like gambling, smoking in public (you still don't have the right to give employees cancer), etc.
i'm just dumbfounded that you're still confused about this.
like i said, it's either ignorance or willful ignorance.
one can be helped, the other is a waste of our collective time.
November 14, 2008
2:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
I say this respectfully Elkman, you need a Civics class refresher. Do yourself a favor and take a class at your local community college.
If you think the cost of an education is high, the cost of ignorance is even higher.
November 14, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"If you think the cost of an education is high, the cost of ignorance is even higher"
bingo.
November 14, 2008
3 p.m.
Suggest removal
Marshdale writes:
Elkman; You are correct. I'm just so sick of the christians rights hypocricy.
November 14, 2008
3:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
c4l2a0 and jay
Glad you two are soooooooooo smart they you can call someone else ignorant. I won't lower myself to name-calling, as it is degrading. Your egos must be happy today. I am not confused, just confident in my beliefs. Lets have another go at MAJORITY. How many seats on the Supreme Court? More than one? Do the MAJORITY of the Justices make decisions or do the minority? You see, you cannot get around the MAJORITY. Like it or not, in one way or another, the MAJORITY of whoever is making decisions or laws or policies is the "many" that I keep talking about. Why don't you get it?
November 14, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Hey, elkman, you were being condescending AND wrong.
November 14, 2008
3:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Shaupeen
Welcome to the conversation. You had something important to add to the subject?
November 14, 2008
3:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"you cannot get around the MAJORITY"
and you can't get around your willful ignorance.
once more, elkman, the majority can not take human rights away from the minority.
but hey, let's put your "theory" to the test.
if the majority of americans vote to rescind the right for black and white people to marry...do you think that would be enough to ban interracial marriage?
hint: this is an easy one if you're intellectually honest about it....
November 14, 2008
4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
I would gladly answer your question. But first, answer mine about the Supreme Court. You guys all seem to be the sam. Don't address anyone's questions. Just my willful ignorance I guess.
November 14, 2008
4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i have no idea what you're talking about in regards to the supreme court, elkman.
they don't have the authority to take away americans' human rights either.
November 14, 2008
4:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
I have posed many questions to you, mrwizzrd, and c4l2a0. All of your refusals to address my questions leave me wondering. I wonder if you even bother to read my posts, before ranting and raving about "my being ingnorant". I wonder if any of you have a tolernant bone in your body. I wonder if you ever understood my meaning of "majority". Others on these posts obviously have and agree with me. The Supreme Court is made up of justices who have many issues come before them each day. Including abortion, civil rights, etc. The MAJORITY of them make decisions for these issues. My only point and still main point is this: No matter what the issue, there will always be a MAJORITY of people making the final decision. Whenever there are more than 2 people in a decision making process, there will be a MAJORITY that rules.
November 14, 2008
4:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
all of your "questions" stem from a basic misunderstanding, elkman.
"No matter what the issue, there will always be a MAJORITY of people making the final decision"
absolutely not in the case of americans' human rights.
no matter how many people in this country believe that black people should no longer be allowed to marry white people, you sipmly can't take away those kind of rights.
i don't think you're ignorant, elkman. i think you're willfully refusing to acknowledge politically or theologically inconvenient facts...which is the definition of willful ignorance.
making you a waste of time.
November 14, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
c4l2a0 writes:
Elkman, the Supreme Court will decide cases based on the majority of their votes. That is something entirely different than putting it to a majority vote of the people. The Supreme Court is the be all, end all when it comes to the constitutionality of our laws. They don't make their decisions based solely on their beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, it's based on their interpretation of the constitution.
I'll say it again, I mean no disrespect in anything I have said to you.
November 14, 2008
5:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
What dumb decision. Let the menorah be displayed. And while they're at it, stop the ban on Christian symbols too. Erect a nativity scene since it IS Christmas.
Put it to a decision by the community. Let all the groups wanting to display some symbols on public property on a ballot and let the public vote on which ones to allow. That's called DEMOCRACY. What a novel idea.
If the left can vote to allow the continued killing of kids through abortion, then ALL citizens in Golden should be allowed to vote on what symbols are displayed on public property.... THEIR public property.
November 15, 2008
8:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
Jay
Thanks for showing your true colors to all the post readers. Must make you proud to dis someone just because "you" think you are smarter and better than someone else. If I am a waste of time...what are you?
November 15, 2008
10:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
elkman...
You have to understand Jay. He's actually a funny guy.
He pretends to be smarter than everyone else, but when pressed to provide the sources of his "knowledge", he provides links that appear to be made by a guy who lives in a van down by the river.
Once, when confronted with data from the Federal Reserve that refuted everything Jay was claimining about economic history, he posted a link to a site that looked like it had been created by a 14 year old kid as a homework assignment. It was a riot!
He's actually become pretty funny. I look forward to his posts, because they remind me that he was the inspiration for this......
http://www.hulu.com/watch/4183/saturd...
November 15, 2008
11:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
i never claimed either, elkman, but it appears that because of your insistence to stick to your willful ignorance (like our new Pouting Troll, rickybobby) i am smarter than you on this particular issue because i'm not hindered by my dogma.
it doesn't take a genius to understand that.
November 17, 2008
9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
elkman writes:
jay
The constitution guarantees a great many things. However, that does not mean that the constitution is followed. For instance, the founding fathers of this country stated that all men are created equal. However, these same founding fathers owned slaves. In fact, slavery was practiced in this country until after the Civil War. So it was with the vote for women. Just because the constitution guarantees something does not mean that it is being upheld. Now, that again is where the majority comes into play. Like it or not, the majority ruled about slavery and the women's vote even when the constitution said otherwise.