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

12/06/12 7:58 pm

Especially like this nugget here "cuz it sounds like its from the dissent". Yeah, because you're genius who can tell if something is from the dissent or the majority opinion merely by reading a few lines of it.

12/06/12 7:55 pm

Remember, I'm not the o e that brought up allegheny or donnely or the lemon test, you did all of those.

Now you want to pretend like allegheny and this are apples and oranges and so I'm in the wrong somehow!!? All I ever cared about was this poll question, read it again if you want.

12/06/12 7:53 pm

Nativity scenes on public property. And now you've heard it from the mouth of Scalia.
Religious expression cannot violate the establishment cause if it's private and in a public forum. This precludes the existence of a blanket ban on nativity scenes on public property you've been insisting exists.

12/06/12 7:49 pm

Which part of "religious expression cannot violate the establishment clause if it is purely private and occurs in a traditional or public forum" do you not understand?

You were the one that brought up the courthouse, I never said anything about that. I just said there is no blanket prohibition on

palindrome California
12/06/12 7:45 pm

Separation of church and state forbids it. A pure nativity scene is unconstitutional in courthouses, city hall etc and are ONLY allowed on private property or places that are CLEARLY designated as public forums (squares, parks etc). Sorry brr. Know that hurts but cope.

palindrome California
12/06/12 7:42 pm

up in a park (NOT CITY HALL OR COURTHOUSE), pay for it yourself and maintain it YOURSELF and then put up a CLEAR DISCLAIMER next to your display that YOU put it up and that the city had no part in it, then that's perfectly legal. Knock yourself out! But can't even SUGGEST govt. supports your view

palindrome California
12/06/12 7:37 pm

No one here is denying that private groups and individuals can voice their opinions or otherwise express themselves in a lawful manner and in full compliance with city regulations in public areas. The nativity scene is treated slightly different than protest and speech... But if you want to put it

palindrome California
12/06/12 7:14 pm

-the display is ENTIRELY private. That's a HUGE distinction
-Again, this concerns public forums: City Halls and Courthouses are not public forums
-public forums are protected under free speech clauses

Again. Nice try, but this is apples and oranges.

palindrome California
12/06/12 7:11 pm

-Unlike nativity scenes, this is a cross that has greater political implications than religious ones.
- Unlike in Allegheny, the govt. in NO WAY endorses or associates itself with the display (as is the case when nativity scenes are put up in City Halls and Courthouses- the question at

palindrome California
12/06/12 7:08 pm

This is better than before but it's apples and oranges. In this thread, we're talking about religious displays. In this court case, they deal with religious expression. There's a difference. Nonetheless, this case deals with a cross being put up by the KKK on a public square. Here are some distinct

palindrome California
12/06/12 6:40 pm

Cuz it sounds like its from a dissent... Not a majority opinion. But I'm listening

12/06/12 2:48 pm

See Palindrome, you shouldn't act like you know everything, especially when all you know is from Wikipedia.
If every time you post, it's 70% bravado/insults and only about 5% substance; it will be incredibly embarrassing when you are shown to be wrong.
And now it has been shown so.

12/06/12 2:44 pm

"religious expression cannot violate the establishment clause where it
1) is purely private and
2) occurs in a traditional or designated public forum,
Publicly announced and open to all on equal terms"

What now?

12/06/12 2:11 pm

You feel the need to reply, but are thoroughly incapable of offering anything of substance. The fact that you cannot should tell you something.

You are wrong, deal with it.

mrdru Illinois
12/06/12 12:19 pm

As much as I hate to I have to side with drome on this one. He/she is right brr

palindrome California
12/06/12 11:30 am

You're out of your league. You've proved without a shadow of a doubt that you know NOTHING about the law.
You don't know how the SCOTUS works, you don't know how precedent works... You're either trolling or supremely ignorant. I can't tell, you're a conservative so it could be both. You're wrong

palindrome California
12/06/12 11:04 am

Uh huh.... Sure. This is like explaining chemistry to a 3rd grader

palindrome California
12/06/12 11:01 am

Supreme Court says they have the right to enjoy their religion at home and at church

Threeper301 Gilbert, AZ
12/06/12 9:36 am

And the person who's offended because their Freedom to Express Religion is being infringed??? What of them???

jmw7477 Indiana
12/06/12 8:23 am

Religious items need to be kept out of federal and state buildings. There are too many belief systems to represent them all.

12/06/12 2:48 am

Your protestations about me not knowing how the court works would have a bit more credibility if you
1)didn't inadvertently reveal your ignorance of precedent
2)didn't ask me for citation when the burden of proof was on you
3)offered something more substantive than "we all know it did" for case #3

palindrome California
12/06/12 2:05 am

.....You don't understand how the Supreme Court works..... Why have we even been arguing for the past few days when you don't even understand the topic...? What a waste of time. Why didn't I see the obvious signs?

Bravo. Bravo, sir. You've been trolling me hard. I feel silly for all this now.

12/06/12 12:01 am

Didn't read the whole thing, but the bits I read, yes. It does appear to deal strictly with schools. Unlike you, I do not see things that do not exist. As a matter of fact, that is what is commonly knows as delusional.

palindrome California
12/05/12 11:56 pm

Wait..... You read Brown v Board.... And now you think it only applies to schools...?!?

Holy SHÎT! You've GOT to be trolling me! Holy f***, I'm done! Wow. You're a fuckin dumbass and you've proved it! Have a good life!

12/05/12 11:15 pm

Indeed, it appears you have mangled a third case. From the bits of it I read, it applies strictly to school.

My God! you're getting desperate. Is there no limit to the amount of ridicule you'll heap upon yourself in the name of the atheist pipe dream?

palindrome California
12/05/12 11:08 pm

Haha I haven't mangled up any of these. You just don't like what they have to say. There's a difference there. Why don't you just google it? Haha maybe bc you did and you didn't like it either

To call you ridiculous is an understatement. This is beyond desperation. It's desperate, wishful hubris.

12/05/12 11:00 pm

No I have not. But since you have thus far mangled up at lease 2 supreme court rulings, I doubt you've gotten this third one correct.

palindrome California
12/05/12 10:47 pm

Brrr- have you ever read Brown v Board? Are you aware that, according to your logic, that ruling didn't outlaw segregation everywhere (even though we all know it did). Ah, we'll it didn't mention every single instance segregation wasn't allowed in. Guess we can keep segregation then ... Psh

12/05/12 9:25 pm

And? Still no explicit prohibition on nativity scenes on public property. You're finding yourself in the compromising position of having to make the assumption that the ruling for that particular scene at that particular location at that particular courthouse applies to all of public property.

palindrome California
12/05/12 9:04 pm

They mention several times the distinction between private property (where they said they had no issue regarding the 1st) and public land.

You just didn't read it. You don't know. This is like arguing with a child. A retarded child. Typical conservative

palindrome California
12/05/12 9:03 pm

Wait.... So you think they're against these scenes in courthouses, public schools and City Halls because.... It doesn't tickle them the right way? Of COURSE it's about public property. A CHILD could determine that! Wow!
But just so you know, that's why they didn't totally throw out Lynch... Because

12/05/12 7:44 pm

That was about the nativity scene in the courthouse, it didn't say anything about all public property.

And you're questioning my reading comprehension?

palindrome California
12/05/12 6:29 pm

"government adopt their religious message as their own, but this kind of government affiliation with particular religious messages is precisely what the Establishment Clause precludes."

Spells it all out pretty simply. If you lack comprehension skills than you really shouldn't have picked the fight

palindrome California
12/05/12 6:27 pm

"The display of a creche in a courthouse does not remove any burden on the free exercise of Christianity. Christians remain free to display creches in their homes and churches. To be sure, prohibiting the display of a creche in the courthouse deprives Christians of the satisfaction of seeing the..

palindrome California
12/05/12 6:25 pm

"Nor can the display of the creche be justified as an "accommodation" of religion. Government efforts to accommodate religion are permissible when they remove burdens on the free exercise of religion.... (Cont)...

palindrome California
12/05/12 6:23 pm

"Lynch v. Donnelly confirms, and in no way repudiates, the longstanding constitutional principle that government may not engage in a practice that has the effect of promoting or endorsing religious beliefs. The display of the creche in the county courthouse has this unconstitutional effect"

12/05/12 6:12 pm

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. It still remains, nativity scenes on public property, absent any other details, is not guaranteed to be found unconstitutional.

palindrome California
12/05/12 5:38 pm

where the burden of proof shifts from the person arguing the claim to the person with the counter-argument.

You've offered absolutely nothing bc you have nothing. Just your hopes and dreams. In the absence of a valid rebuttal, the claim stands.

palindrome California
12/05/12 5:36 pm

I've fulfilled the burden of proof. If you have a valid rebuttal, I haven't heard it. FYI, I have no burden of proof if you don't have a valid argument. You keep saying nativity scenes are not a violation... But you offered nothing but your word to make your disagreeing argument. There comes a point

palindrome California
12/05/12 5:32 pm

unless they're diluted through secular themes (Santa, reindeer, snowmen etc). I even linked you to a Christian rights website where a lawyer also advises those seeking to put up these displays as to the legality of them. I don't have to keep proving more to a monkey that hasn't even read the case

palindrome California
12/05/12 5:30 pm

They don't say you can't do this and this? They don't make blanket statements? I suppose that's why we still have segregation and prayer in school... Because the courts don't say they can't do that. LOL
Are you trolling me?? I've cited SEVERAL quotes where they say nativity scenes cannot be put up

12/05/12 3:43 pm

The burden of proof is on you.

Again, very poor form for someone who claims to be up to date with what's going on in the judiciary.

12/05/12 3:42 pm

Back what up? I can't back it up because they don't make pronouncements saying " you CAN do this and this and this". You're the one claiming that there is a Constitutional prohibition against nativity scenes on public property. You're the one that needs to do the citing.

palindrome California
12/05/12 2:50 pm

Again, back up your words with scholarly citation. If not, move on.

And I know the only reason you haven't after I've asked you 10+ times is b/c YOU'RE WRONG but you don't want to admit it. That's cool. I already know you're that type. I remember your posts before the election. It's the same here

palindrome California
12/05/12 2:47 pm


The court said its unconstitutional. When you have to fluff up your display with bells and whistles to make it legal, it means the original- THE NATIVITY SCENE- is illegal on public property. Court says no

12/05/12 2:05 pm

The prayers weren't meant to prove anything. Just letting you know that secularism is a thing that does not exist in the US government.

12/05/12 2:02 pm

Are unconstitutional without adding other conditions that made it so.

12/05/12 1:57 pm

You have no choice but to convince yourself that the case is all you need because that is all you have. This what happens when one sets his eyes on outcome X without first checking if there is a path to outcome X. There isn't, the court has never said nativity scenes on public property

palindrome California
12/05/12 10:02 am

Also, FYI, the opening prayers etc are not compulsory. Quorum is held AFTER the opening prayer. That's extremely important. It's only allowed because official activity hasn't commenced. Even in that example, separation is plainly evident if you look