Tyranny of the minority.

“but Monday night the Bible was removed from their Christmas celebration.”

Removing the Bible from a Christmas celebration is the same as removing the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights from an American Independence Day celebration!

Congress – that is the Federal Government and by extension state governments

shall make no law – will not make a law

regarding an establishment of religion – with regard to establishing a state/national official religion such as the Church of England

or prohibiting – the government will not prohibit

the free exercise thereof – doing religious things as one sees fit

How difficult is that? The Federal and state governments will not establish an official state-sponsored religion nor will they interfere with people doing their religious activities. Period.

Jefferson’s “separation of church and state” is utterly misquoted and taken out of context by people who wish to suppress liberty. As long as nobody tries to force me to do religious things I do not want to do, I cannot force people to refrain from them, either. That is liberty – something these asshats choose to not grasp.

I could understand cutting the Bible reading if there had been a huge volume of complaints. Traditions (and opinions) do change over time and, while I wouldn’t agree with it, the citizens of Maryville have every right to demand that their city government no longer continue this particular tradition if they so choose. That, after all, is the very essence of state’s rights.

The real problem here is that they cancelled a quarter-century old tradition after one complaint.

ONE. COMPLAINT.

One single, unelected person should NEVER have that much authority over any government, whether state, local, or national.

I don’t mind one person stopping something that’s wrong. That’s not tyranny, its proper: it should only take one person to stop things that ought not be done, we shouldn’t need a majority vote to end evil or injustice.

The question is whether or not this is evil or unjust, or even unconstitutional. I argue it is not, but the atheist, Christophobes are ruling the day, and their word matters more than the truth or reason.

Posted by Christopher_Taylor 2009-12-08 14:00:51

Do you think a single complaint from a Christian would cause a change in a Jewish or Muslim celebration?

I think anyone that complains about a religious festival like this should be made to show IN PUBLIC how they would be damaged by it. If their belief system is so inadequate that the mere presence of a nativity scene or the reading of a Bible story will cause it to collapse, then they are the ones with the issues.

I don’t mind one person stopping something that’s wrong.

I mind it when the person in question is a single, unelected individual.

If the Mayor had decided that he didn’t want the Nativity story read during the city’s Christmas celebration, that would be different. As Mayor, he is invested with the authority to make decisions like this by dint of being elected by the people. This unnamed woman who called to complain about the Nativity story was NOT elected. Her opinion that the Nativity story is inappropriate is just that, an opinion, and something best handled by extended deliberation in a court of law or a mandate from the voters as a whole.

So I figured that someone might bring up the “If this was a muslim thing…” arguement. Would the town cancel a koran reading? Would anyone even dare complain?

I think not. Not because it might inspire someone to slit throats, no. I think that to those who would complain about creshes, bible readings or menorahs, it would simply not occur to complain. After all, it woiuld be “diversity” and “inclusiveness” to have muslim events. Christian or Jewish events, now THOSE would be a problem.

Why can’t the one that has a problem with the tradition stay home instead of the rest of the town that wanted the tradition?

If they didn’t want to stay home, I have a full roll of duct tape the town could have. Someone’s basement would be a proper location for them since they wouldn’t hear the joyous celebration.

What a shame…..so many people in elected possitions of power that know nothing of the constitution. It isnt the ignorant lady and her obsurd question that bother me…..she is free to be as stupid as she wants. It is the mayor that didnt know the answer to her question and knee jerk reacts to it. Shame. Much like a simple test to vote in this country, there should be a simple test to hold office. Ah yes, modern democrats. Very stupid.

I tend to agree with trlrk2006. The only person who actually stopped the practice was the Mayor. Perhaps he did this because he feared a lawsuit and just didn’t have the energy to deal with it. Who knows? But let’s be clear here. The one person who complained had nothing to do with the decision to stop the reading. According to what we read in this posting, all this person did was to ask if having the Mayor read the Bible were legal. And all the Mayor had to do was to say: “Yes, it is legal as I see it, and we’re reading it.” And that would have been that. And if this complainant then threatened to sue, the Mayor could have said: “If you want to sue, then be my guest. But I’m reading it anyway.” I imagine that he either stopped the reading out of personal cowardice, or he stopped it because he got legal advice that informed him the practice was illegal and that he would likely lose in a lawsuit. But what seems to me to be improper is for anyone to flip this around and try to blame the person who complained for the outcome.

The one person who complained had nothing to do with the decision to stop the reading.

Oh nonsense. If she hadn’t complained the Nativity story would never have been cut in the first place. To say she had nothing at all to do with it is just asinine. (But then, it fits in perfectly with your “sees what he wants to see, hears what he wants to hear” modus operandi, doesn’t it Huck?)