What I am referring to is that the city of Chicago has prevented the playing of the nativity story at a Christmas festival  because of that fact that it might offend some people. When I heard this I about went through the roof.  I find that reason bogus and completely pathetic.

Obviously, you are not offended by it.  Perhaps that has something to do with the fact that all taxpayers, whether they want to or not, are forced to pay for a religious pageant that celebrates your religion.  Personally, I would like the city of Chicago to send up fireworks on December 25 that spell out "God does not exist" in the night sky.  But, hey, us minorities should try to get used to the fact that the majority needs official backing for their beliefs.  Good heavens, but people might begin to doubt Christianity if the government didn't trumpet it all over the place.    The rest of us are curmudgeons for thinking that the government should spend money to promote ours.

Here are the reasons

If some one did get offended I would say that they need a life.
The majority of America celebrates Christmas and is this not a country where the majority rules.

Right.  Forget the Constitution, which mandates equal treatment regardless of creed.  Since the majority is Christian, why not have the government just tithe the entire population and distribute the proceeds to various Christian denominations, based on their share of the population?  That would favor the Catholics, but they do represent a plurality of Christians in this country, not to mention the world.

Christmas believe it or not was created to celebrate the birth of chirst and the story of Mary and Joseph is an integral part of chirst's birth.

I had forgotten these important details, which are clearly important to everybody, not just Christians. 

If our country is so devoted to tolerance and diversity then should not those who do not celebrate Christmas be just as tolerant as we are of them. after all they did com in to our country. There is nothing wrong about learning about other holidays and seeing what other cultures do? but that does not mean I have to replace mine.

Here's a thought.  Why not pay for these ceremonies out of funds from private donations by the faithful?  Why does it have to be officially sponsored by the government? 

If the fact that the movie presents the baby Jesus as the bible says he is (the savior of all man kind) which is true as the problem no one however is being forced to believe that The city does not endorse it.

Why should the city endorse it?  That's what you want when you take the position that this kind of thing should be done at public expense on public property.

All in all I think that this stupid fear of offending people will drive us down. I fear that at some point in the not to distant future that Christmas will soon be so homogenized that it will lose the reason for its existence to celebrate the birth of Christ. not as long as I am alive. Merry Christmas

It should be up to Christians to make sure that this doesn't happen, but with their own funding and their own efforts.  There is no need to give Christianity a free government handout.  This country has a secular government.

Uh, I hate to belabor the obvious here, Cop, but the sad irony is that this was a CHRISTMAS festival.  We aren't talking about a winter solstice festival here, or just a random 'let's celebrate.'  Its stupid to have a CHRISTMAS festival but then exclude the thing that makes CHRISTMAS, CHRISTMAS.

Sntjohnny, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.  You've got official government sanction for a religious holiday by a government that is nominally neutral with respect to religion.  How do they do it?  Simple.  They declare it a secular holiday.  So you've got Jews and atheists out there who buy Christmas trees and pass around presents on Christmas day.  They don't particularly care for YOUR version of Christmas, which is a deeply religious experience. The nativity story is simply not part of the secular version.

But, hey, what's the big deal with secularizing Christmas?  Christmas day started out as a pagan holiday anyway--Natalis Solis Invicti--which preempted Saturnalia.  Christianity, a mirror image to the Mithraic traditions in so many ways, simply adopted that day as their own celebration of Christ's birth, rather than that of the "unconquered Sun god".  And even that wasn't without controversy.  Origen denounced the practice of celebrating Christ's birth.  So it is ludicrous to claim this as a tradition unique to Christianity.  Winter solstice celebrations exist in many cultures.  Stop trying to exclude everyone who isn't Christian from celebrating the official "secular" holiday in the way that they find fitting.  And the nativity scene is just too much of a specialized religious symbol for a substantial minority of people in the US.  Santa Claus and Rudolph the Red-nosed Reindeer are far more acceptable symbols of Christmas for everyone, and Christians use those symbols, too.

If your concerns were to have any merit at all, it would have to have been something else all along.  This was the city's own idea, as far as I know.  Sounds like it wanted the money but not the controversy.

Don't ignore the fact that the controversy is rooted in the nature of the nativity scene as a specifically Christian symbol.  It crosses the line for those of us who are not religious or who follow a different religious tradition from yours.

More importantly, as I understand it, what was really excluded here was in fact the ability for the movie, "The Nativity Story," to be a SPONSOR for the event.   Thus, this comment is totally incongruous:

"There is no need to give Christianity a free government handout.  This country has a secular government."

I still stand by that comment.  Christmas cannot legally be an advertisement for the Christian religion when it is a government-sponsored event.  For many of us, it is not a religious holiday.  Nobody says that you can't celebrate it with all the religious trappings.  Just don't use the government for the religious bits.

There is no free government hand out here.  A movie, made by a secular firm (I believe), about the Nativity, wanted to sponsor- ie, advertise- in a CHRISTmas festival.  Presumably, as long as anyone can pony up the price for the advertising, no one should be excluded.  Right?

Wrong!  When you use the government Commons, you use tax-supported facilities to promote a religious function.  This isn't just about private funds, because religious groups will be happy to pay out of their own pocket to use the government as a megaphone for their beliefs.  This is about the use of a government of EVERYBODY to support religious convictions that are not shared by everybody.  In theory, the law sees no difference between you and me when it comes to use of the Commons.  In practice, religion in general, and Christianity in particular, get too many free passes to use the government to promote their systems of belief.  That makes me a lesser citizen (or none at all, according to the senior Bush at one time) than any Christian. 

Having heard this story, I would support a boycott of the event by Christians, not because they excluded the Nativity Story movie, but because the event exposes Chicago for being a money-grubbing city seeking to gain cash dollars out of a "sacred religious holiday" while simultaneously excluding representations of that particular holiday.  If Christians can't make money on their own holiday, why should Chicago politicans be able to? 

Now who's the Grinch?

But I think Jesusboy had something right here... If we are suppose to be love all, no matter what they are, then why is it that the Christians get knocked down all the time.  Believing in no God is a religion.  Their religion is allowed in schools, Christian religion is not.

As a teacher, I am forced to teach my students about Kwanza (Not a real holidy unitl like 1995, questionable if its even a real holiday now).  I am force to teach them about Evolution.  (which has been proven wrong over and over again)

Christmas comes from two words, Christ and Mass.  Mass is a service, or celebration (most common in the Roman Cathloic church)  Christ, is a person, an individual that Christian believe came to earth to save mankind.  So Christmas was a service or celebration to celebrate the Birth of Christ.

Its funny that the Secular Major Holidays have all these Religious undertones.  Maybe its because this Government was based on Religious Beliefs.

I know I'm a little late to the game here, but..

If our country is so devoted to tolerance and diversity then should not those who do not celebrate Christmas be just as tolerant as we are of them?

You're gonna have a lot of fun in college. Don't let them beat this thinking out of you, no matter what you do. Because they will try. Boy howdy will they try.

I know the topic's probably dead already, but I feel the need to put in my two cents, after which I'll be broke again.

• The Costitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
• Any religious display(s) on PRIVATE or Public LAND should not be prevented by force of law, unless that religious display violates the rights, property, or safety of others, or conspires to do so.
• No religious display(s) should be REQUIRED ANYWHERE by force of law, even if they DON'T violate the rights, property, or safety of others, or conspire to do so.
• In any case, no religious display on public land should be funded by the tax-payers, but by private donation only.

But I could be wrong.

I know the topic's probably dead already, but I feel the need to put in my two cents, after which I'll be broke again.

• The Costitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.

Actually, the Constitution is not spelling out our right to freedom of conscience in the First Amendment, although that seems to be how people view it.  It is really spelling out a restriction on government interference in our freedom of conscience on religious matters.  Public property belongs to people of all religious persuasions, including those who are persuaded not to be religious.  If the courthouse lawn is to be used for religious advertisements, then it is interfering with freedom of conscience by attempting to persuade people to choose particular beliefs over others.  That's why this whole issue is so controversial.  People who think that the majority has a right to use public property to promote their religious viewpoint simply think that they are discriminated against by this restriction on government.  Do not confuse it with a restriction on your religious belief.  It is not.  You don't need to use government facilities to persuade an overwhelmingly religious society that they ought to remain overwhelmingly religious.

• Any religious display(s) on PRIVATE or Public LAND should not be prevented by force of law, unless that religious display violates the rights, property, or safety of others, or conspires to do so.

How do you define such a conspiracy?  Obviously, YOU don't feel like a second class citizen when your religion is advertised on government property.  I can remember a time in the Soviet Union when slogans, placards and posters were everywhere promoting the virtues of materialist atheism.  Christians were reminded every day that the government thought their beliefs inferior to official doctrine.  That was just as disgusting as pro-religious propaganda by government is in Western countries.  I don't need my government to tell me which way my conscience should swing on religious matters.  Why do you?

• No religious display(s) should be REQUIRED ANYWHERE by force of law, even if they DON'T violate the rights, property, or safety of others, or conspire to do so.

Again, you open up a real can of worms.  Politicians here are the same as Soviet apparatchiks.  They'll make sure that the party line gets displayed.  If the government is allowed to endorse religion, expect daily doses everywhere you turn.  Is that what you really want?  Why not leave it to private individuals to use private property for that purpose?  There is absolutely no reason why religious advertisements need to go up on public property.

• In any case, no religious display on public land should be funded by the tax-payers, but by private donation only.

This is nonsense.  Religious groups would be glad to donate religious displays if it gave them a chance to use government facilities and government property to send out religious messages.  In fact, it would be a great opportunity for local politicians to collect fat campaign checks and under-the-table donations. You'll find city hall getting into shoving matches over whose display gets to sit front and center and whose display gets put behind the shrubbery.   What's next?  Do we let businesses put up signs advertising what brand of toothpaste you should use?  I'm sure that they would be happy to donate their displays for free to be set up on public land.

But I could be wrong.

In this case, I think you are.  The government should not get involved in promoting or discouraging religion.