"non-Christians are "confronted" with the artificial decoration, which makes them feel "they are not part of this institution.''
If they didn't break the law they wouldn't be in the "institution".
T.O. judge orders Christmas tree out of lobby
14/12/2006 12:17:12 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Toronto judge has ordered a Christmas tree out of a provincial courthouse lobby, saying it's not an appropriate symbol to non-Christians.
toronto.ctv.ca
A Christmas tree sits in Queen's Park, Ontario's provincial legislature, on Thursday.
The move by Justice Marion Cohen has upset staff, some of whom have called the decision stupid and insulting.
Cohen says she understands the tree has stood in the lobby at 311 Jarvis St. for years during the Christmas season, but in a letter to employees says non-Christians are "confronted" with the artificial decoration, which makes them feel "they are not part of this institution.''
The judge said it's inappropriate that a Christian symbol is the first thing visitors see when they enter the building.
A number of Christmas trees are on full display inside other public institutions, including at the Ontario legislature, Toronto City Hall and at Nathan Phillips Square. There are also trees inside the Old City Hall courts.
Staff at the 311 Jarvis St. courthouse were unwilling to comment on camera, but told CTV's Janice Golding they are disheartened. One man, who said the tree has been a Christmas tradition for decades, was infuriated when he learned of the decision.
Lawyers who work in the building were also upset and couldn't understand the reasoning.
"There's no reason why a Christmas tree can't be put wherever people want it to be. It's by no means an offense, I believe, to any religion," said one counsellor.
"I don't know that it falls upon judges to make decisions of that sort anymore than upon any other member of the public," added another.
The attorney general's office says there is no court or ministry policy that addresses this particular situation.
Cohen would not comment on camera.
The small tree has been moved to an administrative corridor off to the side.
With a report from CTV's Janice Golding and files from The Canadian Press
It does show the level of ignorance of the judge. There is no reference in the Old Testament, or the New Testament, to a "Christmas Tree".
Christmas, as a religious event, relates to the birth of Christ. On the other hand, Christmas trees are a part of a pagan festival, arising in Western Europe's pagan past. It's merely coincidental that the two festivals have merged into one.
So, Christians shouldn't be offended. The judge didn't actually put any Christian symbolism under attack.
Mind you, she was TRYING to do so. So much for religious tolerance, I guess.
"Gun Control Laws"--trying to nag criminals into submission.
I find it alarming that the minority is in control. It's the same minority that keeps trying to get me to drop my arms. It's really time to make a stand. Let's say no to the minorities and mean it.
I'd rather wear out than rust out.
Perception trumps intention.
The real problem is that the masses just don't care enough to make it an issue. Government does what the elected officials think is appropriate and not the will of the people since the people just let it be. It is our faults for not screaming with our letters, demonstrations, phone calls, etc. Unless it affects people directly they just don't care... So we are losing our rights at a record rate. Sad... And I'm one of those apathetic sheep who ignore what's happening to us.
Stupid!!! Take the tree down because it "might" offend someone....taking the tree down did offend, many people.
What about people wearing wedding bands on their left hand, that could be offensive to those cultures that wear them elsewhere or don't wear them at all.
Oh even though there are people who do not celebrate Christmas, I bet they sure enjoy the time off work they get this time of year!!! If thye don't want to be offended then they shouldn't get the time off either.
You can take the man out of the woods but you can't take the woods out of the man.
"Celebrate your harvest with a Bloodtrail Ale(tm)!!"
"It CAN Be Done!"
chris4570 wrote:Stupid!!! Take the tree down because it "might" offend someone....taking the tree down did offend, many people.
What about people wearing wedding bands on their left hand, that could be offensive to those cultures that wear them elsewhere or don't wear them at all.
Oh even though there are people who do not celebrate Christmas, I bet they sure enjoy the time off work they get this time of year!!! If thye don't want to be offended then they shouldn't get the time off either.
I'll agree with that as well ,,,, and uh bye the way
MERRY CHRISTMAS
Exocet 175
Munch Mount
ComfyBear String
DaGriz Knife
Who’s supposed to
protect our rights?
By John Silveira
Who is supposed to protect our rights? The President? The Congress? The courts? The police? Before you answer, let me remind you of something: Our rights are supposed to protect us from the President, the Congress, the courts, and the police.
Now, most people think it’s the job of the Supreme Court to protect our rights. But you know something? There’s no provision in the Constitution for the courts to adjudicate our rights. I know the Supreme Court makes rulings on them all the time. It has for the last 200-plus years. But the idea that the Court, a branch of the federal government whose members are appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, is allowed to decide which rights we are allowed to exercise is a tradition, not a part of the original Constitution. It’s not even a constitutional amendment.
Where did the idea of the Supreme Court making these decisions for us come from? Actually, it came from the early days of the Republic when, in 1803, with the decision Marbury vs. Madison, the concept of judicial review was established. Judicial review wasn’t a big hit at first, but it grew until, today, the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that the courts are supposed to be the adjudicators of our God-given or natural rights.
The good news is that the Court used to (usually) rule for the individual and against the government when questions of individual rights were brought before it. The bad news is that since the early part of the 20th century, and especially since the explosive growth of Big Government that started during the Great Depression, the courts have reversed that trend and typically now rule against the individual and for Government.
So, if not the courts, who’s supposed to decide what our rights are? We are. And the reason we are in danger of losing our rights like this is because We the People don’t stand up to the very people our rights are supposed to protect us from.
Okay, you may stand up, and certainly I do, but the fact is, a handful of people here and a handful there cannot protect the rights of a nation of 300 million people if the overwhelming majority of them don’t care. The obvious question now is: Can the citizens actually make a difference? Can they get control of and protect their rights? Of course they can—if they care.
Let’s do a thought experiment. It’ll be an easy one. Let’s say the Congress writes into law that the United States will, from this moment on, officially be Moslem (I could have said Buddhist, Baptist, Jewish, or whatever, but I think you see where this is going) and the practice of any other religion is to be prohibited. How many people do you think would go around saying, “Well, it’s official. Congress has made it a law, and the courts have rules, that I can’t be Catholic (Mormon, Methodist, etc.). Guess I’ll no longer worship as I please.”
Compliance, of course, would be nearly zero. No matter what the courts did, no matter who the police arrested, there would be no compliance with the law. In fact, it may go beyond noncompliance. There could even be open revolt.
On the other hand, say just Unitarianism was outlawed. Well, there may be protests, there’d even be court arguments by the ACLU, but most people would go on about their business because, well, let’s be honest, most of us aren’t Unitarians, so we wouldn’t care.
And this is how we are losing our rights to free speech, a free press, our rights to bear arms, and even our rights to worship as we wish. They’ve taken them away a little at a time. Free speech? It’s not removed all at once. In politics it’s now restricted to “free speech zones.” Congress passes a law making it illegal to criticize incumbents by name for their performance for 60 days before an election (the McCain-Feingold law, which, in effect, says you can’t place ads to tell people who’s screwing up in office in the 60 days before an election when it would most matter because that’s when people are most apt to be paying attention). Did you stand up and yell, “No!” They passed this despite the fact that the Constitution plainly states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Where were you when your representatives and senators passed the PATRIOT Act, taking away even more of your rights? Where were you when your President signed it into law? What about when the RICO Act, which denies we have any property rights, was passed in 1970? Were you yelling and screaming when Congress, the President, and the courts were denying you have a right to your house, your car, and even your cash? Where were you when the DEA, the FDA, and the courts said you have no right to determine what you put into your body. Get it? You don’t own that—your body—anymore either. You did, but not now. Where are you every time your Supreme Court says it’s okay if yet another right is abrogated? I would imagine you didn’t care when they did any of these things because you didn’t think any of them affected you. I would guess you probably didn’t even know what was being taken away.
Okay, some of us screamed, some of us protested, but a handful of us alone can’t save the rights of 300 million.
Once again, who’s supposed to protect our rights if it’s not the job of the very people those rights are supposed to protect us from? That’s right, we are.
And, if in a year, five years, ten years...the voting booth, the letter writing, and resistance don’t work, remember what Thomas Jefferson said: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
some of whom have called the decision stupid and insulting.
stupid and insulting just like at my sisters school were they are not allowed to have a christmas party, because it offends some religions , bullshit .
Hi5 wrote:It does show the level of ignorance of the judge. There is no reference in the Old Testament, or the New Testament, to a "Christmas Tree".
Maybe the judge knows the Bible. What about this passage:
Jeremiah 10:3-5
3 For the customs of the peoples are worthless;
they cut a tree out of the forest,
and a craftsman shapes it with his chisel.
4 They adorn it with silver and gold;
they fasten it with hammer and nails
so it will not totter.
5 Like a scarecrow in a melon patch,
their idols cannot speak;
they must be carried
because they cannot walk.
Do not fear them;
they can do no harm
nor can they do any good."
If it's her courthouse then, I suppose when in Rome do as the Romans.
just like at my sisters school were they are not allowed to have a christmas party, because it offends some religions 
