Posted on 11/16/2004 9:06:20 AM PST by Lindykim
I suppose this is the wrong time to mention how totally obnoxious I find it to hear "Merry Christmas!" when it's still NOVEMBER ...
Have a nice day, anyway :-).
(Just picked you at random for my rant, MM)
Charlotte-Mecklenburg schools are incredible ... the theft and corruption, as much as the moral and social climate. Thank God we couldn't afford the house we liked that was in Mecklenburg County!
It can happen more readily than you imagine. In fact there are several proposals for tax credits and the like.
"That would make no sense unless you were trying to make some point. Kinda like saying "have a nice day on April 22nd". No need to differentiate."
I'm not sure that, were I to wish another person to have a Merry Christmas, that I would be trying to "make some point" -- other than to wish the other person a degree of happiness on a day that is special to me.
I don't make it a habit to wish people happy April 22nd's (Unless, of course, they are, like me, from Nebraska.)
Isn't it rather sad that we've reached the point where the mere wishing of "Merry" on a particular day means, to some, that the person making such a wish is "trying to make some point"??
I don't look at it the same way as you. You made the exception, not me. You just couldn't bring yourself to consider a scenario that didn't include some reference to a day that has meaning to you, but not necessarily the other person. Instead of have a nice day, it's "have a nice day on a certain day", one of your choosing.
I don't think it's a problem to say Merry Christmas, some might, but I just question why someone would would wish someone a greeting about a religious holiday which they might not belong to. It makes no sense.
Unless someone wanted to secularize a religious holiday. Kinda like Christmas has been secularized.
I'm not talking about you.
Is it really a victory if the case is settled out of court?
It's at best a draw - nothing is resolved.
I'd say yes, because the school district has agreed that they violated the First Amendment rights of the church. If they'd made a financial settlement without a clear agreement on the principle, then that wouldn't be a victory that made the free speech point.
When I looked again at the article, they said, " ... both sides now agree on the legal principles that regulate equal access to school property for community groups." I'm not sure whether, in practice, that means the church puts their sign up, or whether "equal access" means there won't be any community signs!
It's interesting that there is no public school ban on the Religion of Homosexuality.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.