Show of HandsShow of Hands

Show Of Hands November 27th, 2012 12:00am

Are Christmas trees or nativity scenes in public places (city hall, etc.) a violation of the 1st Amendment clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."?

1 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

12/07/12 10:26 pm

I said I didn't read the entire brown case, however from the bits I read it did appear to apply solely to education. It is entirely possibly that I missed something, and I specified that.

12/07/12 10:22 pm

"yes, nativity scenes in public areas/property are unconstitutional. Court says that" that's a quote from you.

palindrome California
12/07/12 10:09 pm

Actually, I've been saying that nativity scenes needed to be watered down (diluted) and made more secular ALL ALONG here. And there's also a clear distinction that was raised between PRIVATE displays that have no affiliation w/govt and public holiday displays that include the nativity.

palindrome California
12/07/12 10:06 pm

So... All this arguing. And all it's about is you claiming that government buildings are not CONSTITUIONALLY PROHIBITED from displaying explicitly religious symbols???

And you gathered this from the same logic that told you Brown vs the Board ONLY applied to schools as well...?
Well alright then..

12/07/12 9:37 pm

And you've been proven wrong once already. Initially you claimed that nativity scenes were prohibited on public property. You were shown to be wrong in that. And now you've retreated to 'core government buildings'.

12/07/12 9:29 pm

Counterclaim. There is no constitutional prohibition on nativity scenes on government buildings.

However calling this a counter claim is senseless, since it is not a claim of any sort. Just a truism that you cannot handle.

12/07/12 9:27 pm

One thing we're seeing however is how desperate atheists are to convince themselves that the law supports their cause, when it plainly does not.

12/07/12 9:22 pm

You have not found, and never will find a ruling saying that nativity scenes on government building, core or not, are unconstitutional. Because they are not.

All this is you just trying to convince yourself that the law is on the side of the atheists, it is not.

palindrome California
12/07/12 7:37 pm

Now, I'm going to ask you again. I don't understand why you can't answer questions but demand I do. It's getting old and beyond ridiculous.

What is your counterclaim here? What is your issue of contention? Can you answer that?

palindrome California
12/07/12 7:35 pm

Quoted more from Allegheny, Lynch, Engel, McCreary etc that clearly defined the role government plays on endorsing religion: THAT ROLE BEING NONE.

That is the core issue here: Is our govt. allowed to display explicitly religious messages or objects in key state-owned buildings?
The answer is NO

palindrome California
12/07/12 7:33 pm

nativity scenes were to be erected, they'd have to be diluted into a grander secular theme and in no way show a governmental preference towards Christianity

Then you went into the weeds about this and that... Then we got back onto language "specifically banning nativity scenes" again... So I

palindrome California
12/07/12 7:31 pm

And then I quoted the court that said the "particular physical setting" only exhonerated the menorah bc it was just secular enough.
-then you moved the issue to "oh, nothing in the rulings specifically ban nativity scenes on public spaces"... So I showed you their specific language stating that if

palindrome California
12/07/12 7:28 pm

You're out of gas here Brr. Admit it.
You claim I'm "ignoring the issue"-- but that's only bc there's nothing left to talk about.
-First the issue was the lemon test an it's relevance to nativity scenes on public property. Then I showed you Allegheny
-Then the issue was "particular physical setting"

palindrome California
12/07/12 7:24 pm

The thing that got all this started was my claim that nativity scenes (and other explicitly religious objects) violate the constitution based on the lemon test, by precedents established in Allegheny and by the historic principle of separation of church and state.
I've proved all this.

palindrome California
12/07/12 7:04 pm

1) what's the issue
2) when did I make ANY claim about how "well versed" I am. Cite that but before you do, tell me what the claim is haha I think you've bitten off more than you can chew.
Two simple questions. Let's see if you can answer them

12/07/12 4:09 pm

These types of errors clearly indicate to that you are not as well-versed in these issues as you are claiming to be. You are instead just making it up as you go.

12/07/12 4:07 pm

4) inadvertently quoting from allegheny statements that clearly say it was different from donnely and so the donnely precedents, if any, didn't matter and were not replaced
5) quoting from the dissent, but using the framing from the opinion, including half a sentence which changes the meaning of the

12/07/12 4:06 pm

Another list of errors you might want to address.
1) confusing statute with a motion
2) not knowing what precedent is
3) pretending that you knew what precedent was and that allegheny replaced the donnely precedent

12/07/12 3:50 pm

The more likely explanation is that you didn't know it was from the dissent. And just posted it out of context because you thought it supported your position. The kind of thing a Wikipedia reader would do.

12/07/12 2:52 pm

If you continue to ignore this issue, one must conclude that you are doing so because you cannot address it in manner that satisfies your earlier claim that nativity scenes are unconstitutional on core government buildings.

12/07/12 2:46 pm

You are no longer dealing with the issue Palindrome. You are engaging in meta-speak. You have stopped the discussion and are now speaking about the discussion.
You have yet to address the issue of the principle vs the incidental.

palindrome California
12/07/12 1:38 pm

I was just wondering if I was somehow not being clear...? Was the courts opinion that vague-sounding?

Idk. Some people will deny all truth in favor of their own personal views. Take the blinders off and read the writing in the wall already, you know? It was the same thing in the run-up to election

longtimelurker Georgia
12/07/12 1:11 pm

Hate to break it to you palindrone is correct here for the most part. Separation of church and state. What were you thinking when you said Brown v Board only applied strictly to schools? That's also incorrect.

palindrome California
12/07/12 10:40 am

I thank you. But the purpose of removing symbols of bias like this is to remove these "us" and "they" distinctions that ravaged Europe and caused so much death and destruction. It's not to insult or piss of Christians.
Keeping religion private hurts no one

mrdru Illinois
12/07/12 10:04 am

I think many of us just strongly believe this is a Christian nation and it's being destroyed now but I def see your point drome. I think it's pretty cut and dry that the court feels it's a violation

palindrome California
12/07/12 9:35 am

It's a ban of any religious symbol that makes it seem like government puts one religion at a higher esteem than another.
In the case of the topic we're talking about, it's nativity scenes. But it could even be stars of David etc

palindrome California
12/07/12 9:25 am

Exactly. Haha I'm just sick and tired of people saying the separation of church and state is some "liberal atheist myth". It's a fundamental constitutional principal

palindrome California
12/07/12 9:19 am

Well, no duh brr. It isn't JUST nativity scenes. But that's the topic at hand.

Ishady- yeah. Christmas trees are pretty much totally secular and allowable. They showed no problem with Christmas trees

ishady 86451132020
12/07/12 4:58 am

However a tree would not( in my opinion) fall under that same category.

ishady 86451132020
12/07/12 4:56 am

Wouldn't a nativity scene being a symbol of the Christian religion, fall under the category of endorsing said religion?

ishady 86451132020
12/07/12 4:47 am

Irregardless of judicial opinion it goes against the whole establishment of religion by government amendment.
The founding fathers should have been more clear on that.

ishady 86451132020
12/07/12 4:43 am

I think their whole purpose is to force a specific religious opinion on a country that maintains many different views.
Cut and dried-it's a low self-esteem religion.
Why else would they insist it be displayed at public buildings?

12/07/12 4:40 am

Again, you've failed to distinguish between the principle and the incidental. That is a very important distinction. The prohibition is not against nativity scenes, it is against the government endorsing religion. In this case, incidentally it happened to be the presence of a nativity scene.

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:37 am

Just because there's a dissent doesn't mean it's worthless. Dissents often provide very good opinions

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:34 am

I have a question for Ishady, mrdru, earlybird... ANYONE reading this exchange and, particularly, the quote I put up right above this one:

Is this really that mysterious or vague? What is the ruling this court is giving here? It seems pretty cut and dry to me...

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:31 am

and strong impression that the local government tacitly endorses Christianity. The court concludes that the placement of the central religous symbol of the Christmas season at the Allegheny county courthouse has the UNCONSTITUTIONAL effect of conveying a govt endorsement of Christianity"

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:29 am

"The display of religious symbols (the crèche) in public areas of CORE GOVERNMENT buildings runs a special risk of making religion relevant, in reality or public perception, to status in the political community.... The presence of a NATIVITY SCENE in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:22 am

That's right... The crèches in public property were referred to as "obvious efforts to proselytize Christian creeds"

12/07/12 4:22 am

Just so were clear, are you still insisting that a nativity scene in a 'core government building' is automatically unconstitutional?
"Automatically" meaning these 2 details alone are sufficient for it to be found unconstitutional
1) it's a nativity scene
2) it's in a core government building.

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:21 am

of Christ. Thus, it would seem that justice Kennedy should find this display UNCONSTITUTIONAL according to a consistent application of his principle that govt may not place it's weight behind obvious efforts to proselytize Christian creeds specifically"

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:19 am

And to be worshipped as such, an inherently proselytizing message if ever there was one.In fact, the angel in the crèche display represents, according to Christian tradition, one of the original "proselytizers" of the Christian faith: the angel who appeared to the shepherds to tell them of the birth

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:17 am

Crèches deemed a method of proselytizing: "the eager proselytizer may seek to use the PUBLIC CRÈCHES for his own ends. The urge to use them to teach or taunt is ALWAYS PRESENT.... It should be obvious to all that the crèche on the grand staircase communicates the message the Jesus is the Messiah

12/07/12 4:15 am

2 possible explanations; seeking to distance oneself from what one has said in the past, seeking to avoid being held accountable for what one has said in the past.

12/07/12 4:13 am

Of course, I haven't figured out the exact rationale behind this behavior patterns yet. But it appears people use it when they realize they are incapable of defending something they have said.

12/07/12 4:12 am

You're exhibiting the same behavior Veritas did a few weeks back when he said the theory of evolution was central to chemistry and astronomy! When he realized he couldn't back this up, he kept making new posts instead of replying to the existing one.

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:08 am

"Here, in contrast [to Lynch v Donnelly], the crèche stands alone: it is the single element of display on the grand staircase"

(Again, remember how I said you couldn't have a nativity scene set up all by itself? It had to be diluted and watered down with candy canes or Santa's etc? Yeah)

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:06 am

"Under the court holding in Lynch, the effect of a crèche display turns on its setting. Here, unlike in Lynch, nothing in the context of the display detracts from the crèches religious message"

(Remember how I kept saying you had to water it down or go home? Yeah)

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:01 am

"history cannot legitimate practices like the crèche display that demonstrate the governments allegiance to a particular sect or creed"

palindrome California
12/07/12 4:00 am

SETTING DETRACTS FROM THAT MESSAGE. Although the govt may acknowledge Christmas AS A CULTURAL PHENOMENON, it may NOT observe it as a Christian holy day (ouch, that must hurt Brr) by suggesting people praise God for the birth of Jesus