The article goes on to state the objections of some progressives and such, and harps about the need to include other symbols (secular or other religions) to keep the scenes (nativity) from being 'un-constitutional'. If we had a Supreme Court with the gumption to shoot down people like the ACLU and the Americans United for Seperation of Church and State, then we wouldn't have all these problems with people getting 'offended' by scenes. How many such offended people are monetarily motivated? You'd have to look into the case histories, but there's a money trail in every anti-christian case I've read about dealing with 'offense' and the 'seperation of church and state'.
Poll: Alabama supports Christmas expressionSunday, December 24, 2006By SEBASTIAN KITCHENCapital Bureau
People in Alabama overwhelmingly favor nativity scenes on public property and disapprove of stores mandating that employees use greetings other than "Merry Christmas," according to a Press-Register/University of South Alabama poll.
Eighty-eight percent of respondents agreed that nativity scenes should be allowed on public property, and more than half said the scenes need not include symbols of religions such as Judaism or Buddhism.
The statewide poll of 402 adults was conducted by telephone Dec. 13-17. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points. (link)
Why is it that the ACLU and their ilk cannot or will not read the entirety of the 1st amendment and realize that making a law against a religion is also against the constitution. Why can't the SCOTUS see that? Is it simply because people in the world are too 'pc' to care anymore?
This country was based on the will of the majority ruling. In the past few years/decades we have become ruled by the offended minority. Any 'group' can easily get any law passed simply by being offended by something. Especially if it's anti-christian.
Reason for the season