Show of Hands

Statute:
An act of a legislature that declares, proscribes, or commands something; a specific law, expressed in writing.

Otherwise known as a motion, declaration or vote allowing the erection of a nativity scene on public property.Again, no one just rolls in and starts building stuff w/o permission

I don't need to, I'm still waiting on that statute that violates the ruling.

Haha "didn't think so"

I knew you couldn't retort lol

In which the atheist finds himself flustered by the realization that our law is not conducive to his vision for the secular utopian pipe dream.

Lets use simple language and speak slowly ... hopefully you'll get it then ... the first amendment says that the government shall not "... prohibit the free exercise ..." of religion.

Would removing the nativity or menorah result in prohibiting the free exercise? Yes, it would!

"sponsorship, financial support, and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." Walz v. Tax Commission, 397 U.S. 664, 668 (1970)."
Justice Burger (Lemon v Kurtzman)


So... Take your "didn't think so" ans roll it on back to your little Breitbart forum.

Furthermore, mr brr,
"In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions, we must draw lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection:

(Cont) A given law might not establish a state religion but nevertheless be one "respecting" that end in the sense of being a step that could lead to such establishment and hence offend the First Amendment."
Justice Burger (Lemon v Kurtzman)

Dear brr,
"A law may be one "respecting" the forbidden objective while falling short of its total realization. A law "respecting" the proscribed result, that is, the establishment of religion, is not always easily identifiable as one violative of the Clause....

Didn't think so

I'm looking at the ENTIRE opinion if Burger, Black, Harlan, Marshall Stewart etc

Hahaha I LOVE radical conservatives. They're like little minions and yes-men of the conservative blogosphere! So cute!

Hahahaha! Isn't that what I just said? Statute.. Government action--- it's an all encompassing judgement! Haha and I'm guessing you are implying that I got my info from Wikipedia. Wrong again sir, I have a mini-library of Supreme Court court judgements and I'm looking not only at the lemon test

*Primary effect, not primary purpose

Quote the exact statutes that have a primary purpose of advancing religion (the 'primary purpose' part is important), until then enjoy being wrong.

Wrong!

"First, the STATUTE must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its (the statute's) principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion..."

This is what happens when everything you know comes from Wikipedia.

3) The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

If ANY of these 3 prongs are violated, the government's action is deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution." ~~Supreme Court

2) The government's action must not have the primary effect of either ADVANCING or INHIBITING religion;

Lemon test:

"1) The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

...

Nor promote it, think, nor promote it

Why are religious symbols at public places anyway? One person does not own the land. Religion does not own the land. Why are people so intent on mixing them? Does religion really need to be in every part of people's lives? Can government be acknowledged as neutral?

Why are religions in the public square? That isn't the purpose of the public square, and it isn't truly public if one religion is dominating.

So the manger scene should be allowed but not art?

Not what fascism really is, but whatever

The law of the land is that the government shall do nothing to hinder or limit the express of religion. You fascists on the left are trying to do just this.

Merry CHRISTmas Democrats! May the CHRISTmas holidays find you full of joy, peace and grace!

And if you REALLY feel compelled to force your religious objects and views onto publicly owned land, then prepare to have your religion taxed. But we all know it won't get to that, because if anyone wants these things off public property, all they have to do is ask. There's not even a fight here

quite explicitly for a reason. Organized religion is dangerous. That's why the constitution has ALWAYS been understood to LIMIT religions involvement in the state. There's a separation of church and state. Nothing you say over and over will change that. It's the law of the land.

Religion has little to do with amoral behavior-- yet has been the rationale and the basis for violence on an unprecedented level. That's a very very different background than art. That's why the constitution doesn't go to task on restricting/limiting art. Religion was addressed in the constitution

As far as I know, that type of art isn't publicly funded. And yes, I don't feel that it should be either. Now, because the art is a form of expression and NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, I do feel it should be allowed to be displayed wherever people are ok with it.

So, of course you are outraged by the crucifix and the picture of Jesus in the "Piss Christ", right? You feel that public funding for this kind of sick "art" should be eliminated, right?

The point here is that Christmas trees are NOT a violation of the 1st amendment. In fact, the feeble attempts of Atheist religious zealots to remove other religions from the public square are the violation

It's not surprising that you can't see the hypocrisy of your statements.

We could engage in the sophomoric back and forth about how religion has little to do with amoral behavior. But again you attempt to obscure your inability to effectively argue the point.

It's called the wonder of your own home... Oooo.... Aaaaahhhh...

If they make room for displays of all religions, then no. If it's only Christianity, then yes.

Oh, and for the record, I could care less about Christmas trees. It's the explicitly religious items like nativity scenes, crosses etc that I'm against

Look. It's simple. The "free exercise" clause conservatives have taken to bringing up is... Cute, but it's wrong. No one is prohibiting your free exercise of your religion. It's just prohibited on property that doesn't belong to you haha it's property that belongs to ALL of us

It's really shocking that you can't process the obvious distinctions.

for non-adherence. Religion is led and directed, not something enjoyed for entertainment value. Unlike art, religion is not just limited to expression. Religion isn't art

Wow Think. I've never seen anyone pat themselves on the back for being so wrong lmao! You really think you're smart don't you? Look, here's a couple reasons why you're wrong. Unlike art:
- religion is an organized belief in the supernatural. It has a long and dark history of intolerance and killing

Also hilarious how you hate the "piss Christ" art yet demand to have religion plastered all over city hall.

And their god has some esteem issues too. Worship me or else. Do not worship them or else. Or else is used a lot in religion.

If you can't display those things, like the nativity, you no longer have freedom to express yourself.

The religion for people with low self-esteem. Yes your god is the correct god those other gods are just silly.

Weird thing the founders failing to include Christianity in our constitution. They must have recognized the division that would cause. Symbols of virgin births and Jewish zombies don't belong anywhere but in a museum. And embarrassing footnote of a violent theology.

I have never once said I'm anti Christian or for ridiculous public art. There is no war on Christianity or war on Christmas. You do not need to put your holiday everywhere, and when you hit the boundary of what is acceptable, you claim personal attacks. You're still free to celebrate whatever.

Why do you need to have your religion displayed in public places to be happy? Can you not be happy while considering others' feelings? Christians whine just as much if not more when they don't get their way, so don't act all high and mighty. You aren't better than anyone.

While it does not violate the letter of the law, it may violate the spirit of the law.

Sara ... That's all they've got, please take pity on them. There's no valid excuse for the secular progressive attack on the first amendment rights of Christians.

Mitwister ... You lie again as you and your twisted anti-Christian deviants have no problem with public funding of so-called "art" as long as its garbage like "Piss Christ".

You are attempting to trample on Christians first amendment right to freely express their religion.

The whiners are the anti-Christians who just can't stand it when others are happy. Suck it up yourself, cry babies!