Show of Hands

Last!

No one made a law that these needed to be displayed. If it was a law then I would answer yes.

Giggity ;-)

Um since they didn't make a law out of it then no

Hehe. Masterdebaters.

If it were constitutional, why would they need to fulfill all those requirements? That's the only question that has to be asked. If you need to modify something in order for it to be allowed, then that means that it's in violation. You being stubborn doesn't help, it makes us look bad. Fuck this guy

@brr I think drome is right here....

In other words, you do have a problem accepting it when you're wrong.

in with a wider, secular context (where it stops being a "nativity scene" and becomes a "Christmas" or "holiday" display). Do that or get out. Seems reasonable to me.

Put some Christmas hats on the wiseman, a tree next to baby Jesus. Some elves around Mary... THEN we got a party!

Are nativity scenes in government buildings (courthouses, city hall etc) unconstitutional displays of religious promotion, proselytizing, favoritism-- WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT-??

Why yes. Yes they are. Religious items must convey a secular message to be put in govt buildings. Put your nativity

"This particular display"- as in, the full, uncensored nativity scene complete with Christian greetings, an angel and all it's Christian goodness

Hehehe I thought we established this already:
"This particular setting"- referring to the setting in which the nativity found itself: all by itself, in a prominent location and w/no secular themes to diminish the religious message the nativity scene conveys

Which, as far as I'm aware, you still insist.

The court is very clear on this, "this particular physical setting", "this particular display", "in this particular context, the menorah does not have..." ,

It is no minor mistake, you're still confusing the principle unconstitutionality of government endorsement of religion with the incidental unconstitutionality of that particular creche when you say that crèches on core government buildings are unconstitutional.

All of you arm chair philosophers and master debaters make me want to vomit. A large portion of you pretentious fools argue for the sake of argument without seeking the goal of understanding and compromise. Screw education as long as I trip up my opponent on externalities or grammar.

Brr, I'm more than willing to admit my mistakes. That's fine. I'm sorry I didn't write w/extreme precision. It's a bit hard when you're forced to write what's basically a tweet regarding something as complicated as a Supreme Court ruling. That being said, it doesn't really matter. Claim stands

A bad book about the love of God remains a bad book.
-Thomas Merton

My point still stands.

I was replying to Palindrome.

I think if you were that comfortable with Christianity you probably wouldn't feel the need to defend it so vehemently.
Perhaps you're faith in the fake god isn't so strong as you think?

Notice how little problem I have accepting it when I am wrong, and notice how you have still fail to accept your (at least 2) errors. This is probably because I have more self-esteem than you do.

You pretend to believe that when the court says "God" maybe they are referring to the phone you're on, and I got twisted?

Although you are correct, as far as I know the study does not explicitly indicate any particular religion.

How can teaching children about systems of violence help them? Or are Christians now going to toss the bible away and acknowledge its irrelevance in modern society? Do that and we will take about a god or a creator. That book must go.

He's talking about Christians here Brr. That study didn't specify religion. It just said young people that engage in religious activity w/no distinction on what religion they belonged to...
Seriously, that type of premature assessment and emotional knee-jerk response is what got you twisted earlier

Bleh

However you rationalize it, you were wrong.

Eh, god could be anything. Could be this phone I'm on. If it doesn't say Christian God--- then who cares? Our Declaration of Independence mentions our creator. whatever. I feel that getting that nativity scene hurled out must have made up for whatever foul feelings they may or may not have felt

It's probably comforting thinking that an invisible daddy in the sky is watching over you. Better an inconvenient truth than a comfortable lie. It doesn't help children cope with reality when they live in a fantasy world.

"religious involvement found to have largest influence on self-esteem of young adolescents, according to national survey" - APA

This is still America.

This post was meant to be down there. ⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇⬇

Like you as in same as you.
Not to be confused with liking you.

The USA is mostly Christian, and it is not like you are telling other people from other religions to be Christian.

Quit trying to convert everyone and just worship in your own way. This low self esteem shít is getting old. Leaders can be Christians but Christianity should not rule this country.

The problem you Christians have, is you want to make everyone like you. Saying god on government buildings,while I don't like it,doesn't mean everyone should believe in Jesus or your view of religion. At this point it's only symbolism. " god" can mean anything to anyone.

Although, you must admit, it must have been quite hilarious when the grouchy atheists from the ACLU went to the supreme court to complain about the nativity scene, only to have their case begin with "God save the United States and this Honorable court". Wouldn't you say?

The unconstitutionality of a particular nativity scene is only incidental, the principal is the unconstitutionality of government endorsing Christianity.
Speaking with precision is important, it isn't obvious when talking about nativity scenes, but you see how damaging it can be in the coin example

Think of it this way, when a coin falls and makes a sound, the principle behind the fall is gravity, the sound is merely incidental.
When you say a nativity scene is removed because they are unconstitutional, it is as ridiculous as saying the coin fell because it made a sound.

Yeah... This debate is just about burnt

The supreme court that opens each case with a blurb that ends with "God save the united states and this honorable court", that court?

Sure, there may be a link between the principle and the incidental, that still does not make the incidental the principle, and never will.

Lots if different forms of religious observance are forbidden. You can't hold mass in a courthouse. You can't put up a Jesus cross, Quran verses etc... It just so happens that this topic is about nativity scenes.

Or perhaps you can't connect the obvious link between, what basically amounts to sponsoring, a symbol of religion and the principal that guided the court to blocking the Allegheny nativity scene. Maybe you're too hung up on nativity scenes. It's not JUST nativity scenes, but again, THIS IS THE TOPIC

You are confusing the principle -government cannot endorse religion,
with the incidental -nativity scene had to be removed in allegheny

Of course, if you really did mean to say that nativity scenes in core government buildings are unconstitutional; there's always the possibility that you are unable to think with precision. This is the principle vs incidental issue I brought up yesterday.

You call it getting you with semantics, I call it speaking with precision.
Perhaps your inability to speak with precision is also why you keep insisting that nativity scenes in core government buildings are unconstitutional when you really mean government endorsement of religion is unconstitutional

in city hall, courthouses etc...

Look, if you want to "get me" on semantics. Fine. But the claim still stands. The nativity scene is unconstitutional in city hall, courthouses and other gov buildings. This is a secular state

Throughout the convo in the beginning, middle and end, I made it clear that there were places that displays were allowed. I overly-condensed it, maybe by leaving out the word *some*, but then I also said govt buildings throughout...original claim still stands: the nativity scene is unconstitutional

Alright. But when asked for a no fluff version you condensed it down to "yes, nativity scenes in public places/property are unconstitutional. Court says that" if anything, it proves that you need fluff to try and make your point. Since you have now abandoned your fluff-free version.

Let me help you out brr, the most earliest instance of me making my claim occured on 27 Nov @10:57 when I made the claim (which I STILL hold)
"The city and its controlling offices are secular, public institutions. Erecting ANY kind of religious display can be seen as amounting to an endorsement of

Let me help you out brr, the most earliest instance of me making my claim occured on 27 Nov @10:57 when I made the claim (which I STILL hold)
"The city and its controlling offices are secular, public institutions. Erecting ANY kind of religious display can be seen as amounting to an endorsement"

Meant to reply below