Show of Hands

Still, playing brrs new game:
Justice Blackmun:
"When viewed in its overall context, the crèche display violated the establishment clause. The crèche angels words endorse a patently Christian message: Glory to God for the birth of Jesus Christ. Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, NOTHING IN THE CRÈCHES

In the majority opinion:
"We turn first to the county's crèche display. There is no doubt, of course, that the crèche itself is capable of communicating a religious message"

symbol. As I said then: to suggest, as the court does, that such a symbol is merely traditional, and therefore no different from Santa's house or reindeer is not only offensive to those for whom the crèche has profound significance but insulting to those who insist, for religious or personal reasons

"By the end o the opinion, the menorah has become a coequal symbol, w/ the Christmas tree, of "the winter-holiday season... Pittsburgh's secularization of an inherently religious symbol, aided and abetted here by Justice Blackmun's opinion, recalls the effort in Lynch to render the crèche a secular

Find the quote.

If this were a game, you lost long ago. Stop pretending like you've got an audience here, you do not.

The court holds that govt MUST remain neutral to religion (a position I've been repeating- but whatev). This includes endorsing a religion, as well as prohibiting displays that promote an explicit religious messages. The nativity scene falls right into this description as an explicit symbol of relig

Alright, here we go. Btw, for those of you who want a recap: now I'm being asked to provide proof that the crèche (nativity scene) is what is specifically being prohibited from these govt. sites.... Ok, let's play ball again. From Allegheny v ACLU:

Oh, so NOW you want a quote specifically addressing the crèche? It keeps going back and forth between quotes regarding the building, "particular physical settings", quotes about constitutional violations for nativity scenes, establishment clause etc. it's hard to keep up with your shifting demands.

Epic battle still raging. Palin vs brrrr. Who will be the first to concede? Stay tuned. ༄

And your first quote "structures on government property..." that's from the dissent, also known as the ones that got overruled and ignored.

Now you understand from where my impression that you actually haven't read any of these cases comes from. Why else would you quote the dissent?

The prohibition is not on crèches in government building itself, that has never been the principle, and that is why you never have and never will find the ruling you're looking for.

You're confusing the principle and the incidental. The prohibition is against government endorsing religion, that is the principle. If it so happens that a crèche must be removed from a government building, then the removal is merely incidental to the ruling, not the principle behind the ruling.

Shuffled up random quotes? Not one explicitly prohibits nativity scenes on 'core government buildings'. The more you post the more I get convinced that such a prohibition does not exist. For if it exists, a desperate secularist such as yourself MUST have found it by now.

tradition or by govt. fiat have been devoted to assembly and debate... [particulary] streets and parks which have been immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for public purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens..."

Or even more! :D
"The very fact that a sign is installed on public property, the dissent suggests, implies official approval of its message. WHILE THIS MAY BE THE CASE WHERE A GOVT. BUILDING AND ITS IMMEDIATE CURTILAGE ARE INVOLVED, it is not necessarily so with respect to those places which by long

TO OFFICIAL GOVT. BUILDINGS"

Even more:
"This factor is important bc, as Justice Souter makes clear, certain aspects of the cross display in this car arguably intimate govt. approval of respondents' religious message- particularly that the cross is an especially potent sectarian symbol which stood unattended in CLOSE PROXIMITY

Or:
"Lynch v Donnelly confirms, and in no way repudiates, THE LONGSTANDING CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT GOVT MAY NOT ENGAGE IN A PRACTICE THAT HAS THE EFFECT OF PROMOTING OR ENDORSING RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. The display of the crèche in the county courthouse has this unconstitutional effect."

Or this one:

"The panel majority determined that the crèche and the menorah must be understood as endorsing Christianity and Judaism. The court observed: "Each display was located at or in a public building devoted to CORE FUNCTIONS OF GOVT."

*sigh* why do I have to do ALL your work?

"there is a presumption that "structures in govt. property- and in particular, in front of buildings plainly identified w/the state- imply state approval of their message"

How are those congressional opening prayers holding up to this 'endorsement test', by the way?

Is it your opinion that if the government allows something to temporarily be located at a 'core government building' it necessarily means that the government is endorsing that thing?

Not a single word about "core government buildings" in that

Are you not able to recognize that you're spending virtually 100% of your time rationalizing. All that exists in that quote is that the government cannot endorse a particular religion.

I'll put up with their religious symbols if they can stop crying about people saying happy holidays.

Endorsement test: "asking "whether the symbolic union of church and state effected by the challenged govt. action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices"

Endorsement test: "asking "whether the symbolic union of church and state effected by the challenged govt. action is sufficiently likely to be perceived by adherents of the controlling denominations as an endorsement, and by the nonadherents as a disapproval, of their individual religious choices"

"The opinion does assume, as petitioners contend, that the government's use of religious symbols is unconstitutional if it effectively endorses sectarian religious belief."

SCOTUS

"The opinion does assume, as petitioners contend, that the government's use of religious symbols is unconstitutional if it effectively endorses sectarian religious belief."

That's from the court case YOU referenced. Now stfu

See, it's gone over your head. You're the one that was all excited about "I'm not the only one that thinks you're wrong"
I was merely pointing out the folly of making such a claim while being in the 20% minority. I'm not a democrat, unlike you I don't care about the majority opinion.

All it takes is a quote, and you haven't produced. The reason you have failed to do that thus far is probably because you cannot do it, because it does not exist.

The poll doesn't specify anything about core government places, it just says "public spaces", the "city hall etc" is only given as an example.

But even if it was referring to core government buildings, you still haven't shown exactly why that would be considered unconstitutional.

Lmao! Oh ok! Lol 60% of SoH users also thought Romney would be our president right about now. I'm not surprised

Next, you want to address this particular poll question. The cases I cited, as well as the one YOU referenced, BOTH agree that nativity scenes in courthouses and city halls- places of core govt function- are a violation.
Now I'm done. I'm not going to let you keep dodging and convoluting things

a reference from Allegheny. The court talks about public places that are devoted to core functions of government and differentiates them from public places like parks etch

If a better phrasing suits you, then we'll use "public places devoted to core govt. functions"-- doesn't make much difference

But let's spend some time keeping you honest. You said "we're talking about public spaces, you know, places of governance and official business. look up public space"

If not from thin air, where did this definition come from?

I really don't care about that claim because I don't want to deal with your fluff. It wouldn't bother me one bit if it were right or wrong, I haven't even read it twice to make sure I understand it.

I'm dealing with is this poll question, and try as you might, you cannot distract me from it

Mrdru brings up an interesting point. Explain to me what part of my claim-that nativity scenes are banned from being placed in public places like courthouses and city hall without clearly being labelled as secular- you disagree with

Apparently 80% of SOH voters think you're wrong.
You walked into that one.

1) I'm not using Wikipedia. Haha

2) apparently, I'm not the only one who thinks you're wrong.

3) mrdru is right. You haven't said ANYTHING different than what I'm basically saying. This is too funny. WOW

It would have been easier to graciously concede if you hadn't pretended to be such a superstar warrior for secularism, but you did.
It would have been easier if you didn't feign scholarship after reading Wikipedia, but you did.

Now, you are falling from such a height, and it is all your own doing.

Right? They're like two cats in heat

reaffirms that position: that religious scenes are allowed on public property so long as they're private and labeled as such (to preserve the secular nature of the state).
My Conclusion: you are both arguing about saying the same thing at this point

"a public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned to which the public have access by right or by invitation..." uslegal

So, while drome is factually correct, brr also raises a valid point. However, that isn't a point drome has really contested. My impression of his/her argument is that nativity scenes are allowed so long as they're secular in their nature and labeled as such. Brr presents evidence that basically

If I can squeeze in here without getting my head bitten off, I just want to say that open forums aren't typically considered to be courthouses or city halls so drome is correct in terms of the question addressed by SoH. But parks and city squares aren't equally restricted

You two both deserve an award for something.
Maybe most time and energy given to a single pole in the history of SoH?

I am utterly shocked by the immensity of your stupidity. You truly seem incapable of understanding basic government and constitutional principles. I just can't believe you. This is getting to be even worse than cowboy. You INSIST on something so wrong no matter WHAT!

OF COURSE any idiot can go to the park and preach the end of the world or stand on a sidewalk and shout at cars passing by. THAT'S CALLED FREE SPEECH.
We're talking about PUBLIC SPACES- you know, places of governance and official business. Look up 'PUBLIC SPACE'

Holy shit your stupid!
THE WHOLE ARGUMENT IS ABOUT COURTHOUSES AND CITY HALL! Yes, there IS a blanket ban on nativity scenes that (for the millionth fucking time) AREN'T SECULAR IN THEIR NATURE. The court case your dumb ass refers to 1)pertains to religion speech and 2) to ESTABLISHED PUBLIC FORUMS