Complainers Complain About Nativity Scenes At Gitmo, Forcing Removal

Well, we know who should be pulling full duty on Christmas

(Fox News) The commander of the Guantanamo Bay naval base decided Wednesday to move Nativity scenes from two dining halls following complaints that the decorations improperly promoted Christianity.

Both Nativity scenes will be moved to the courtyard of the base chapel, said Kelly Wirfel, a spokeswoman for Capt. John Nettleton, commander of the base in southeastern Cuba.

The displays were set up by foreign contractors who manage the two dining facilities and were “not intended to endorse any religion,” Wirfel said in response to concerns raised by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation.

Showing religion on government grounds (remember, government grounds are owned by We The People) is not an endorsement per the 1st Amendment. But, Scrooges want to be Scrooges. 18 troops anonymously complained to the MRFF, and supposedly

Eleven of those who complained are Protestant or Roman Catholic and the rest are Muslim, Jewish, agnostic or atheist, he said.

Most likely those “eleven” were brought up as Protestant and Catholic, and have switched to atheism, though they do not want to say it. Now, will these 18 whiners who want to screw it up for everyone else as they think only of themselves be skipping the special Christmas day meal, along with all the extras, presents, and everything that goes with the Christmas celebration? Who wants to bet the answer is “no”?

The senders (of the email to the MRFF) said they put up with a great deal of hardship in their jobs, including having bodily fluids hurled at them by prisoners, and should not be made uncomfortable on their time off.

Oh, no, made to feel “uncomfortable”. How horrible for them. So, again, they ruin it for everyone else.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

RSS feed

You can login to comment with:

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

5 Comments

Comment by Jeffery
2013-12-19 08:47:17

The government cannot constitutionally promote a religion.

Your assumptions that Christians who oppose government sponsorship of religions are not Christian is insulting and flawed. Once again you use a logically false debate tactic to smear those with whom you disagree. In my opinion, a purported “Christian” who needs the government to force their religion on others is no Christian at all.

Why do you insist on US government support of your religion?

Are your religious beliefs so shaky that you require the state to support them or else it “ruin(s) it for everyone else”?

 
Comment by Jl
2013-12-19 09:59:19

It’s hardly a case of promoting religion. Remember, it’s freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. I guess I missed the part in the constitution where it guarantees you freedom from an uncomfortable feeling. Poor babies.

 
Comment by William Teach
2013-12-19 11:09:00

The government cannot constitutionally promote a religion.

Wrong. The federal government cannot establish a national religion, and cannot constitutionally stop people from practicing their religion, even if someone is offended.

But, by your POV, Jeff, having Christmas as a federally recognized holiday is “promoting religion”. And Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Democrats, anyone who works for government should be restricted from mentioning religion. All those “diversity” and “multicultural ” exercises in public schools should be immediately banned. Federal workers should not be given a paid day off on Christmas. Etc.

You should go and read what the Framers meant by that clause in the 1st.

 
Comment by Jeffery
2013-12-19 17:04:53

Christmas is both a secular and religious holiday. For the purposes of government, secular Santa is OK, a religious crèche is not. Perhaps the point is too fine, but that’s the way things have evolved politically and judicially.

People are not complaining about being offended they are complaining about a first amendment issue. By all means, place manger scenes on private property just not government property. Not everyone who supports the government is a member of your religion, and our government cannot favor one religion over another.

 
Comment by gitarcarver Subscribed to comments via email
2013-12-19 18:52:35

It is less than shocking that Jeffy doesn’t understand the Constitution and the First Amendment.

There can be religious displays on public, government owned property. The standard of whether the display is allowed has to do with allowing other displays from other religions and secular groups.

Despite Jeffy’s ignorance, a creche on public property is allowed as long as other groups can have a display.

In this case, that was not done. A vendor who is in charge of the area put up a display and was told to take it down even though there was no indication that other groups had wanted to put up a display.

The government cannot advance or impede a religion, and in this case appears to have done so.

 

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Bad Behavior has blocked 9433 access attempts in the last 7 days.

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE