Show of Hands

2.51 AM my time. 2nd December. It was after I said no fluff. Fluff is just a term that refers to details that are irrelevant to this poll.

Post the time on that... I wanna know if that was before or after you said "don't fluff it up"

"yes, nativity scenes in public areas/property are unconstitutional. Court says that"

Post my "initial argument" brr. Back up what you say for God's sake. You're only convincing yourself

And the reason you'll never get what you want is simple. The people of America have not abandoned God, and only after they do will he give this nation unto the secular ruin that atheists desire.

There doesn't need to be a court opinion supporting something for it to to be constitutional. One need only look at allegheny and notice the lack of anything remotely close to 'nativity scenes in core government buildings are unconstitutional' to know you were wrong.

But you were wrong. Just look at the quote from you stating your Initial position and look at how far away from that you have now retreated. You are wrong, and you are desperate to convince yourself that the government supports your secular atheist vision.

totally constitutional in city hall and courthouses. When I challenge you, you respond with childish and totally ignorant "it's a truism" --- and not much else.

So if you're right, then surely you can provide SCOTUS opinions to back up those two claims.

Lets make this simple, bc repeating "you're desperate" and "you're wrong" isn't doing a single thing for your argument. So lets make this so simple even you can do it:
This whole time, your argument with me has consisted of 1)saying America is a religious country and 2) saying nativity scenes are

"yes, nativity scenes in public areas/property are unconstitutional. Court says that" - Palindrome

Now 'traditional nativity scenes are unconstitutional in core government buildings'
Face it, you were wrong twice. And once more when you failed to differentiate between a statute and a motion.

Brr- I'm now convinced you're arguing just for the sake of arguing. Your whole time has been devote to saying that nativity scenes are not a violation. They are. Court proves that by requiring nativity scenes to be secular in nature if they're going to be public.

Is this lost on anyone else?

You've lost this brr. Your own quote proves it. My WHOLE ARGUMENT is and always has been: YOU CANNOT PUTUP NATIVITY SCENES IN PUBLIC SPACES (courthouse and city hall AS THE POLL QUESTION ASKS) BC IT'S A VIOLATION. THE ONLY WAY IT CAN BE DONE IS IF THE SCENE IS A SECULAR, WINTER THEME.

Omfg- you're totally up your ass now. Go back to the start of this jackass. I've been saying the same fucking thing for over a week. You called it me "fluffing things up" so I referred to it as the nativity scene. But IT'S THE SAME DAMN POSITION. You're trolling. Playing semantic games and trolling

Essentially you've been forced off 2 positions you tried to defend and failed.

Now you've retreated from nativity scene to "traditional nativity scene" now?

People who know what a nativity scene are going to recognize it whether or not it's 'traditional', people who do not know what it is will fail to recognize it whether it is or isn't 'traditional'.

If you INSIST on putting a nativity scene in govt buildings: The traditional nativity scene. The angel, the wise-men, the baby and the animals-- that's a violation. When no other message exists to dilute the proselytizing effect of the crèche or to convey a message of secularism, it fails the test

Like I've said REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY REPEATEDLY (I sound like a broken fuckin record):

IF YOU WANT TO PUT A NATIVITY SCENE, IT MUST BE SECULAR IN THEME (like a winter wonderland w/Santa and elves etc) ... If you DON'T want to do that, TAKE YOUR ASS BACK HOME

in Allegheny were ENOUGH for the court to say- uh uh, it's a violation. Throw it out- then THAT GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF JUST HOW SECULAR 1) the state must be and 2) JUST HOW DILUTED AND TOTALLY DETACHED FROM GOVERNMENT APPROVAL AND FAVOR the crèche MUST be.

For cripes sake! The simple flowers- hardly enough for anyone to really notice! But the flowers were ENOUGH for the court to rule the crèche violated the separation of Church and state. If your own quote doesn't prove my point, idk what does. If the flowers the courthouse put around the crèche

Scene, BUT - I SAY AGAIN: it MUST be diluted into a secular theme. It cannot be placed in preferential areas in a way that CONVEYS A MESSAGE OF GOVT. APPROVAL (hmm, I wonder why that is if our govt is Christian?? Lol). The flowers around the scene, THE SIMPLE FLOWERS AROUND THE SCENE IN ALLEGHENY,

2) I'm glad your brought those quotes. Because they're basically what I've been saying and you keep saying, "don't fluff it up"... The nativity scene- as we know it, it's purest form- is not allowed. Why? As they said, bc of the msg it conveys. Again, for the millionth time, you CAN have a nativity

1) our GOVERNMENT isn't a person. Our government is made up of people, sure. But that's getting into a whole different topic. Our government, in all instances, refers to THE STATE. Not Barack Obama, not senators and not you or me. We're talking about the STATE. Our state is SECULAR

Notice how they consistently fail to say 'it is a crèche in a core government building, therefore it is unconstitutional.'

You were wrong before, you are wrong again.

"our present task is to determine whether the display of the crèche and the menorah, in their respective "particular physical setting", has the effect of endorsing or disapproving religious beliefs"

Here are a few more quotes.
"every government practice must be judged in its unique circumstance"
"...and the effect of the governments use of religious symbolism depends upon its context"

3) the crèche was placed in the most beautiful part of the building
4) some of the carols sang at the crèche were religious
5) people who see the crèche when the carols are not being performed will not associate it with the carol program.

Now let's look at the case. If nativity scenes were unconstitutional in core government buildings, the should have said so at least once. Instead here are the reasons they give.
1) nothing detracts from the religious message
2) the plants around it further emphasized the religious message

For example, Obama has openly said he prays for help running the country. When they say this is a secular government, what they mean is that they try to remain neutral.

Have you convinced yourself yet?
'the government', isn't some entity capable of being or not being secular. 'the government' is made up of individuals who happen to be largely Christian. They may try to keep their their religious views out of their jobs, but they can only do that to an extent.

Agreed!

Why? Its just as much a secular holiday as it is a religious one in spite of its name...

I'm also an atheist and say Merry Christmas (it's just as much a secular holiday as it is a religious one)... but I highly object to sponsorship of non-historical religious statements on govt land...

No double standard... the constitution protects the rights of private individuals and groups to exercise... you can put a nativity scene on YOUR private land... you are NOT free to put it on govt land, though

The nativity is not an established historical event... not even close to being one...

You miss the point... this isn't about not allowing you to put a nativity scene on YOUR land or on church land or a private businesses land. You are absolutely free to do so and I rigorously defend your right to do that. However, it is a different matter when you want to put that nativity scene on g

disseminated from a particular location on govt. property, has the EFFECT of demonstrating the govt. endorsement of Christian faith, then it necessarily follows that the practice MUST BE ENJOINED TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of those citizens who follow some creed OTHER THAN CHRISITIANITY"

FAITH LOCATED ON GOVT. PROPERTY ARE PERMITTED BY THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE JUST BECAUSE THEY OCCUR DURING THE CHRISTMAS SEASON, as the example of a Mass [being held] in the courthouse surely illustrates. And once the judgement has been made that a particular proclamation of Christian belief, when

Christian club at a public university to sing carols during their Christmas meeting. The reason is that activities of this nature do not demonstrate the govt. allegiance to, or endorsement of, the Christian faith.
Equally obvious, however, is the proposition that NOT ALL PROCLAMATIONS OF CHRISTIAN

And finally:
"Of course, not all religious celebrations of Christmas located on govt. property violate the Establishment clause. It obviously is not unconstitutional, for example, for any group of parishioners from a local church to go caroling through a city park on any Sunday in Advent or for a

it is the purpose of the establishment clause to protect"

Another blow to your cause Brr:
"To be sure, some Christians (like YOU) may wish to see govt. proclaim its allegiance to Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas, but the constitution does NOT permit the gratification of that desire, which would contradict 'the logic of secular liberty'

institutions, precisely in order to avoid discriminating among citizens on the basis of their religious faiths"

From Allegheny:
"The govt. does not discriminate against any citizen on the basis of the citizen's religious faith if the govt. is secular in its functions and operations. On the contrary, THE CONSTITUTION MANDATES THE GOVT. REMAIN SECULAR, rather than affiliate itself w/religious beliefs or

Again, to try and put you to rest Brr. You seem to be dead-set on saying this govt. is somehow or another religious or that this is a Christian nation. It's isn't. This is a CONSTITUTIONALLY MANDATED SECULAR STATE. The government does not respect or endorse Christianity, or any other religion.

Again, irrelevant. And if you ACTUALLY READ THE CASES, you'd know that. The justices talk a great deal about this

The courts, that is

Is that why they made "in God we trust" the national motto and put it all over the money?

I do know. But that bears no relevance here. This isn't a religious state. And the courts have repeatedly sided with a secularist government image. No matter HOW they rule, they NEVER (to my knowledge) say ours isn't a secular government. This is a constitutionally established secular state

Democrats are going to destroy this nation, that was founded because of religion. It's our right to practice religion freely, and if we want to show a simple nativity! It's not like we're beating up people making them convert.

While we're at it, did you know that apart from opening prayers that congress holds, the library of congress has has a plaque that says "nature is the art of God" and one that says "the heavens declare the glory of God. And the firmament showeth his handiwork" and a few others too!