SAD CHRISTMAS NEWS FROM PARLIMENT HILL

[madmax]

The Supreme Court has ruled that there cannot be a Nativity Scene in Canada's, capital this Christmas season.

This isn't for any religious reason, they simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation's capitol, nor could they find a virgin.

P.S. There was no problem, however, finding enough asses to fill the stable.

[Oleg Bach]

Maybe they can go for an early Easter scene. A cruxifiction of legislative crimminals with Dion in the middle. Your joke about not finding any wise men was amuzing - I am sure they can find some wise guys though - MERRY CHRISTMAS.

[Argus]

Hey, I know a virgin in Ottawa! Well, technically she is just outside of Ottawa, and she's only 15, but she's a virgin.

As for wise men, I am here, so you only need 2 more.

[cybercoma]

Not to completely ruin the comedy in this thread, but there shouldn't be a nativity scene on government property anyway. The Canadian Government has no religious affiliation and should not decorate its properties as though it does.

[Wilber]

This isn't for any religious reason, they simply have not been able to find Three Wise Men in the Nation's capitol, nor could they find a virgin.

Good one, is anyone surprised?

[blueblood]

Not to completely ruin the comedy in this thread, but there shouldn't be a nativity scene on government property anyway. The Canadian Government has no religious affiliation and should not decorate its properties as though it does.

why not? they can have a bloody nativity scene if they want to. That would be denial of a few charter freedoms there. We suck up the other guys, they can suck it up too.

[Smallc]

That would be denial of a few charter freedoms there.

Actually, if there was one on parliament hill, it might be an infringement of some.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Smallc

[blueblood]

Actually, if there was one on parliament hill, it might be an infringement of some.

What people aren't allowed to have freedom of association, religion, and expression.

[Smallc]

What people aren't allowed to have freedom of association, religion, and expression.

People are, but it may be seen as the government showing preference to have one there. Maybe not, but its probably best left alone.

[-VMG-]

What people aren't allowed to have freedom of association, religion, and expression.

People can, except the government of Canada is supposed to embody all religions... so either they have all or none. but because some people would be even more offended if they had all of them... it's best to have none.

[blueblood]

People are, but it may be seen as the government showing preference to have one there. Maybe not, but its probably best left alone.

Should they take down the Christmas lights on parliament hill while they're at it?

[blueblood]

People can, except the government of Canada is supposed to embody all religions... so either they have all or none. but because some people would be even more offended if they had all of them... it's best to have none.

The government of Canada can embody what it wants. To hell with offending people. If other people want to bring in their decorations, they can knock themselves out. The people of the gov't are people too, why can't they express themselves?

[Smallc]

Should they take down the Christmas lights on parliament hill while they're at it?

Christmas is more of a consumer holiday now than a religious one.

[Smallc]

The people of the gov't are people too,

Yes, but they don't all have the same beliefs. The government isn't a person.

[blueblood]

Christmas is more of a consumer holiday now than a religious one.

Bullshit, it's a religious holiday. Consumers joined the bandwagon. No nativity scene, no christmas lights.

The PC thought police are at it again...

[blueblood]

Yes, but they don't all have the same beliefs. The government isn't a person.

Tough titties, rights are being infringed, putting up a nativity scene doesn't hurt anybody.

[cybercoma]

why not? they can have a bloody nativity scene if they want to. That would be denial of a few charter freedoms there. We suck up the other guys, they can suck it up too.

Who is they? And what religion are they?

[cybercoma]

Should they take down the Christmas lights on parliament hill while they're at it?

Completely irrational line of reasoning.

The Nativity is a model depiction of the birth of Jesus, which is distinctly Christian. The government is not a member of any particular religion. Since the government has no religion, it should not be acting as though it does by displaying the Nativity on its front lawn.

Christmas lights are not the same thing as a displaying the birth of Jesus.

[cybercoma]

The government of Canada can embody what it wants. To hell with offending people. If other people want to bring in their decorations, they can knock themselves out. The people of the gov't are people too, why can't they express themselves?

The people of the government can express themselves. The government itself should not in that way because it is not a member of that religion. Edited December 7, 2008 by cybercoma

[blueblood]

Completely irrational line of reasoning.

The Nativity is a model depiction of the birth of Jesus, which is distinctly Christian. The government is not a member of any particular religion. Since the government has no religion, it should not be acting as though it does by displaying the Nativity on its front lawn.

Christmas lights are not the same thing as a displaying the birth of Jesus.

Who cares about what religion "they" are, "they" shouldn't impede anybody's right to display the nativity.

And christmas is the celebration of his birthday. Lights are all part of it.

By that logic we should ban gay pride parades because they would offend religious people.

Displaying the nativity is just displaying the nativity, no harm no foul. PC thought police strike again!!!

Christmas lights are part of the birthday party. All or nothing. Lets see some consistency here.

[cybercoma]

Tough titties, rights are being infringed, putting up a nativity scene doesn't hurt anybody.

Yes it does. It indicates that the government belongs to a certain religious conviction. Canadians that do not belong to that religion may not feel the government has their best interests in mind when passing legislation because the government is of a different religion. A nativity scene on parliament hill would exclude many Canadians from feeling as though the Canadian government represents them.

[cybercoma]

Who cares about what religion "they" are, "they" shouldn't impede anybody's right to display the nativity.

And christmas is the celebration of his birthday. Lights are all part of it.

By that logic we should ban gay pride parades because they would offend religious people.

Displaying the nativity is just displaying the nativity, no harm no foul. PC thought police strike again!!!

Christmas lights are part of the birthday party. All or nothing. Lets see some consistency here.

There you go personifying the government again. I didn't suggest that any person's right to display the nativity should be impeded. I'm saying that the government should not be of any particular religion, as would be the case were they to display a nativity scene. Furthermore, Christmas is celebrate by more people than those who believe in the Christ story. So, displaying Christmas lights is not part of His birthday party, whether you agree or disagree.

Edited December 7, 2008 by cybercoma

[blueblood]

Yes it does. It indicates that the government belongs to a certain religious conviction. Canadians that do not belong to that religion may not feel the government has their best interests in mind when passing legislation because the government is of a different religion. A nativity scene on parliament hill would exclude many Canadians from feeling as though the Canadian government represents them.

If people think a government belongs to a religious conviction for putting up the nativity scene, give your head a shake. It's tradition. Harper is a regular church goer and the face of the government, do Canadians that aren't his religion not feel the gov't has their best interests in mind when passing legislation. Why should expression rights be trampled because someone feels excluded?

[cybercoma]

If people think a government belongs to a religious conviction for putting up the nativity scene, give your head a shake. It's tradition. Harper is a regular church goer and the face of the government, do Canadians that aren't his religion not feel the gov't has their best interests in mind when passing legislation. Why should expression rights be trampled because someone feels excluded?

1) Whose tradition is it?

2) Harper doesn't pass legislation, parliament does.

3) Whose expression rights are being trampled?

[blueblood]

There you go personifying the government again. I didn't suggest that any person's right to display the nativity should be impeded. I'm saying that the government should not be of any particular religion, as would be the case were they to display a nativity scene. Furthermore, Christmas is celebrate by more people than those who believe in the Christ story. So, displaying Christmas lights is not part of His birthday party, whether you agree or disagree.

It's a religious holiday whether you want it to or not. Lights are part of the birthday party. Anyone who celebrates christmas is celebrating his birthday party, no nativity scene, no lights.