Perhaps they should rename the city Pavelgrad to avoid the oppressive and evil reference to the Christian concept of sainthood.
Chuck | 03.24.06 - 2:05 pm | #

Why would the Easter bunny be offensive to non Christians?
Frankly, I'm still peeved that the Christians stole the holiday from the
equinox/fertility/rabbit cult.
The name Easter derived from the Saxon Eostre (a.k.a. Eastre). The ancient Saxons in Northern Europe worshiped the Goddess Oestre at the time of the Spring Equinox. The Goddess Easter represents the sunrise, spring-time and fertility, the renewal of life.Only later did the Christians pilfer the name for themselves and graft their religion onto a pagan celebration
The pagans of Easter celebrations did just that: celebrate. They produced an atmosphere of giving and happiness, a renewal of life. A time of sex and love. They had fun! The Christian Easter, on the other hand, represents a time of morbid suffering, their minds filled with the horror of a tortured man dying on lumber for the selfish purpose of getting into heaven, as long as you flatter God with your own insignificance and suffering. If you don't accept their beliefs, well, sorry, you go to Hell, a place of eternal torment. I choose to celebrate the first day of spring on the day of the actual equinox, thank you.
JONBOY | 03.25.06 - 11:46 am | #

Jonboy, seriously: don't you have something better to do? It's patently obvious where you stand with regard to this website and to David's ideas. Could we at least just create a macro for you that automatically comments the same thing every couple of hours or so?

It would save everyone so much time... especially you!
recompress | 03.25.06 - 11:01 pm | #

Jonboy great post dont you just love all of the stolen pagan holidays i mean seriously dont they have any of there own
udonman | Homepage | 03.26.06 - 1:15 am | #

The Easter bunny is offensive to a Christian?
How bizarre.
I find your Man on a Stick so very offensive.
Maybe that's why the early Christians co-opted the bunny anyway, because your story is so scary for the children.

Good post, JONBOY!
karen | 03.26.06 - 3:55 pm | #

It does actually happen to be true that easter isn't the 'actual' date that Jesus died on the cross and is a converted pagan holiday. Personally, I find that the whole focus on commercialised aspects like easter bunnies, chocolate eggs and the like are somewhat taking away any meaning easter had.

I know that holidays can change their meaning and focus over time, which is what the modern Easter is to begin with. It seems funny that we go from a pagan tradition, to becoming more Christian and then finally going to being more secular.

In the end removing 'bunnies' and 'eggs' because they offend non-Christians seems daft though. I see these things as symbols that easter is less religious and more secular in nature, not the opposite way.
Joseph O'Donnell | Homepage | 03.26.06 - 10:33 pm | #

It's not so much a matter of others finding religious symbols as offensive, but rather it is creating something that is inclusive for everyone.

The lobby of the local city council should be a place where EVERYONE who pays rates should feel welcome, and whether you like it or not, there are some citizens who are not religious or of a different religion than the Christian religion.

Before criticising this decision, maybe you should try living within a different culture for a while, it can be quite daunting when you feel you are being excluded because you believe something different, or come from a different place.

Please keep your religious symbols within your places of worship. I do not believe your mythology.
Gun Of Sod | 03.26.06 - 11:32 pm | #

recompress,
Perhaps you could listen to what JONBOY says before you dismiss it out of hand? Did you know that Easter was co-opted from pagan holidays? I'm betting you didn't.

On topic,
To add to what Gun of Sod said, let's also not forget the Constitutions prohibition on mixing state and religion. Keeping religious symbols out of the City Hall seems like a good idea. Remember, the Constitution protects all of us from government intrusion into our religion, not just the majority.
GCT | 03.27.06 - 6:39 am | #

GCT: Yes, I know very well the history of the Easter holiday. I also read carefully Jonboy's post, which is to say I did not dismiss it out of hand.

Jonboy writes:

"The Christian Easter, on the other hand, represents a time of morbid suffering, their minds filled with the horror of a tortured man dying on lumber for the selfish purpose of getting into heaven, as long as you flatter God with your own insignificance and suffering. If you don't accept their beliefs, well, sorry, you go to Hell, a place of eternal torment."

This can be only one of two things: a statement made from pure ignorance, or a smelly troll.

I will give Jonboy the benefit of the doubt and assume he's not ignorant, which leaves the other option as the only viable one.

Still, I wish to retract my previous comment, which was spiteful and mean-spirited and not at all in agreement with the Christian principles by which I (poorly) attempt to order my life.

I am grateful for David's site and his ideas, many of which I agree with and some of which I don't. I am also grateful that people who do not believe as I do visit this site, as it is my most sincere hope that by exposure to David's ministry, perhaps they can come to know the God I know on their own terms.

-recompress
recompress | 03.28.06 - 12:50 am | #

recompress said, "This can be only one of two things: a statement made from pure ignorance, or a smelly troll."
Nice "Xtian like" statement.but I think your remarks, and those of others on this blog require a response.
This site implies the Bible is the fountain from which morality flows. Yet, I know of no evidence showing those adhering closest to this book are more moral, more decent, more concerned about the welfare of others than those who don't. Nor am I aware of any information proving those attending biblically-oriented schools become better, more honest individuals that those who don't. My experience has been to the contrary. Second, which position is the result of moral teachings--doing that which is right because it's the decent thing to do, or doing that which is right because one expects a reward, a kickback, a payoff, someday? Third, if you are going to teach morality via the Bible, then a substantial portion of the entire book will have to be ignored or soft-peddled. Fourth, not only are many biblical heroes and role-models disreputable characters at best, but many biblical teachings are certainly not in the tradition of the Ten Commandments and the golden rule. The Bible's support of slavery and denunciation of all opposition to oppressive rule are notable examples. Fifth, many books contain moral teachings. Why adopt the Bible instead of the Koran, for instance? Sixth, do you really need a book to tell you right from wrong, to tell you lying, stealing, and cheating are abhorrent? Contrary to apologetic teachings, the Bible is not holding the immoralists at bay. And lastly,is it better to believe that which is erroneous than to have no position? It's better to believe Jesus is God and the door to salvation,than not?
You don't really care whether the Bible is true or not. As long as it looks good, feels good, and seems to make sense, that's all that matters. Remember, a wide variety of chemicals will provide a comparable euphoria.
David only offers one side of his Gods character,I try to show there is another side.The bible may be a source of inspiration for many, but it is by no means a fountain of truth for all.
JONBOY | 03.28.06 - 10:57 am | #

Jonboy didn't write that - he took it directly from this website.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/easter.htm
K.B. | 05.10.06 - 7:36 pm | #