By that reasoning then...

Words have multiple definitions. By the definition and reasoning which lead you to classify Santa Claus as a religious symbol, you would also have to classify Christmas trees as a religious symbol. Which, in popular usage, it certainly isn't. Furthermore if it came to a court of law, it wouldn't be as well.

Splitting linguistic hairs to come to a wrong conclusion about how courts will decide something is pointless. The courts will decide as they decide. Ours is not to tell them how they should intend their language. It is to understand what they did intend, regardless of how much we argue with how it was put.

Furthermore you can drop the non-sequitor. Yes, I'm talking about:

Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree.

Since you seem to be missing the boat, Norm asked about what was discussed at [link|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#7|http://caselaw.lp.fi...dment01/04.html#7]. That turns out to be the legality of the placement of symbols with possible religious significance in courthouses. We are not comparing and contrasting between their right to put up such a symbol in a court and the right of government to order you to do it. We are contrasting between why a creche was allowed at one courthouse, while at a second courthouse the creche was not allowed but a menorah was.

Now questions of what underlies this may seem to be splitting hairs. And it is. Unless it is the legal system that you live under, and you wish to understand it (as inane as it might be).

So if you're not interested in the topic, ignore the discussion. You don't live here, after all. But if you do participate, I'd appreciate it if you at least try to figure out what we're discussing.

Regards,
Ben

Post #145,274 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 12:30:00 PM Reply	By that reasoning then... A Christmas tree is a clearly religious symbol (this time pagan) and so should not be displayed either. Yet in the USA the presence of Christmas trees in various public spaces (including government offices) is readily accepted. Illogical as it may strike you, that isn't how the US court system actually draws the line when they say "secular". Cheers, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]
Post #145,294 by pwhysall 3/10/04 1:04:57 PM Reply	I didn't reason at all. I just disagreed with Norman when he said that "secular" is a vague word. It isn't. That's all. Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree. Peter [link\|http://www.debian.org\|Shill For Hire] [link\|http://www.kuro5hin.org\|There is no K5 Cabal] [link\|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org\|Home Page - Now with added Zing!]
Post #145,338 by ben_tilly 3/10/04 2:35:11 PM Reply	Do try to keep up, willya? Words have multiple definitions. By the definition and reasoning which lead you to classify Santa Claus as a religious symbol, you would also have to classify Christmas trees as a religious symbol. Which, in popular usage, it certainly isn't. Furthermore if it came to a court of law, it wouldn't be as well. Splitting linguistic hairs to come to a wrong conclusion about how courts will decide something is pointless. The courts will decide as they decide. Ours is not to tell them how they should intend their language. It is to understand what they did intend, regardless of how much we argue with how it was put. Furthermore you can drop the non-sequitor. Yes, I'm talking about: Putting up an xmas tree in a government building is one thing. That's fine. Legislating that I must do so is completely different, I think you'll agree. Since you seem to be missing the boat, Norm asked about what was discussed at [link\|http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html#7\|http://caselaw.lp.fi...dment01/04.html#7]. That turns out to be the legality of the placement of symbols with possible religious significance in courthouses. We are not comparing and contrasting between their right to put up such a symbol in a court and the right of government to order you to do it. We are contrasting between why a creche was allowed at one courthouse, while at a second courthouse the creche was not allowed but a menorah was. Now questions of what underlies this may seem to be splitting hairs. And it is. Unless it is the legal system that you live under, and you wish to understand it (as inane as it might be). So if you're not interested in the topic, ignore the discussion. You don't live here, after all. But if you do participate, I'd appreciate it if you at least try to figure out what we're discussing. Regards, Ben "good ideas and bad code build communities, the other three combinations do not" - [link\|http://archives.real-time.com/pipermail/cocoon-devel/2000-October/003023.html\|Stefano Mazzocchi]

Welcome to IWETHEY!