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

palindrome California
12/05/12 10:00 am

This court case is all I need. It provides every constitutional angle I need to know about religion and the state. Virtually every major angle is addressed as scrutinized.
I know all about opening prayers etc, but that has no bearing on this. And it has no bearing on the court

12/05/12 8:28 am

They're clips from cspan, it just so happens that youtube's an easy place to find them.

12/05/12 1:27 am

I was using your quote, "so plainly" is a modifier. There's a difference between "this is government property" and "this is so plainly government property" there's more information in the second version, that's what's called nuance.

12/05/12 1:25 am

Prohibition on nativity scenes or other religious symbols on public property.

12/05/12 1:24 am

Here's something interesting to do. When you get some free time, go to YouTube and search for "congress opening prayer" and "senate opening prayer", and watch a few videos. I think you may begin to understand why the supreme court has never said anything that sounds remotely like a blanket

palindrome California
12/05/12 1:23 am

Uh huh, and you have proof of this nuance and trepidation... Where?
Oh, that's right, so far you haven't offered a single citation. Just your shmuck opinion and interpretation.

Cite something, ANYTHING, that proves your point. You haven't yet

12/05/12 1:11 am

So nuanced is because nativity scenes on public property are not unconstitutional. It is only unconstitutional under certain circumstances, hence the high levels of specificity and careful choice of words in the opinions.

12/05/12 1:07 am

The key term there is "so plainly". It doesn't say "because city hall is government property", it says because city hall is so plainly under government ownership.
The court isn't going to beat around the bush, they don't add unnecessary fluff to their rulings like you do. The reason the ruling is

palindrome California
12/04/12 6:45 pm

Allegheny v ACLU settles the matter: nativity scenes are unconstitutional. They have to be secular scenes that have other objects that dilute the Christian message in nativity scenes. But no, a traditional nativity scene is a violation. Do the Xmas wonderland or go home. Have a blast w/yourself

palindrome California
12/04/12 6:42 pm


There you go. Matter settled

palindrome California
12/04/12 6:42 pm

"Bc City Hall is so plainly under gov ownership and control, every display and activity in the building is implicitly marked with the stamp of gov approval. The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local gov tacitly endorses

12/04/12 1:52 pm

you can put the manger scene up on YOUR lawn. if you want the manger scene up at city hall then satanists (and all religions) should also be able to put their decorations up at city hall

BadWolf The Library
12/04/12 9:13 am

I still don't understand why the public place specifically has to be the location for Your manger scene.

dotails DotUrTsAndCrossUrEyes
12/04/12 7:44 am

Actually it's protected by the amendment unless they try to pass a law to force the staff to put it up which they don't

12/03/12 9:55 pm

I really got better things to than to read the entire case to try and find something that probably doesn't exist. Of course, if you've found something you're so sure provides a blanket ruling against nativity scenes in public spaces, you're free to quite it.

12/03/12 3:02 pm

Besides, we are not forcing you to fall on your knees, pray, and repent to God, or anything like that. A Christmas tree isn't even that religious, and a nativity scene is just little people to non-Christians. If you don't like these public displays just ignore them and let the rest of us...

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:40 pm

clause is by integrating nativity scenes into a grander, secular display.

In other words, the court found nativity scenes unconstitutional but found secular displays that integrated the scene as within the limits of the establishment clause.
Just read the damn case. This is getting old

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:37 pm

Previously, it had been understood that Lynch meant they could put up nativity scenes willy nilly. Allegheny challenges and argues that no, nativity scenes on their face are unconstitutional and their erection is a clear endorsement if religion. The only way to not have it violate the establishment

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:34 pm

In Allegheny, much of Lynch v Donnelly is challenged and/or tossed out with respect to nativity scenes. The court argues that nativity scenes are explicit Christian messages. The only part of Lynch that's still relevant is the part that outlines HOW nativity scenes can still be found constitutional

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:30 pm

Allegheny is the most relevant case regarding nativity scenes because it clearly defines how and where nativity scenes can be put up. It came right after Donnelly which had previously upheld nativity scenes but had been unclear regarding the constitutionality of nativity scenes specifically.

12/03/12 12:46 pm

In the meanwhile I find it more productive to try and figure out what caused you to say the thing about the allegheny case being the last one and hence the relevant one.

12/03/12 12:42 pm

There's no need to say anything. The supreme court has never issued a blanket statement saying nativity scenes /Christmas trees in public spaces are unconstitutional. No amount of logical gymnastics will change that.

palindrome California
12/03/12 12:00 pm

So in other words, this debate is over. You have nothing left to say except changing the subject

12/03/12 11:41 am

On the other hand, if you thought they were sufficiently similar, such that it would be relevant to say that allegheny is the 'final say' regardless of what donnely said(regarding the similar case), then you clearly had no understanding of precedent.

I'm just trying to figure this out.

12/03/12 11:38 am

I'm still not sure why you felt the need to say allegheny is the final say because it's the latest case.

If you thought that Donnely was sufficiently different from allegheny, then there's no need to say anything about allegheny being the latest one because they are fundamentally different cases

Think Lovin Life
12/03/12 9:23 am

Pdrome ... by your silly example sited you prove nothing. There is absolutely no difference between the nativity in the public square and the crucifix which is embedded in the "art" known as the "piss Christ". Both are simultaneously religious symbols and symbols of art. Both belong in public.

Think Lovin Life
12/03/12 9:17 am

I'm glad we can agree that the Christmas tree is not a religious symbol, and therefore should not be treated as such. It has as much place in the public square as any other cultural symbol.

palindrome California
12/03/12 8:49 am

Again, "every display and activity in the building is implicitly marked with the stamp of gov approval. The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local gov tacitly endorses"

d2acc11 Ohio
12/03/12 8:45 am

Yule trees no, nativity scenes yes.

palindrome California
12/03/12 8:44 am

1) In Allegheny, the justices go to great lengths to explain that Donnelly needs clarification
2) They clarify the limits of Donnelly and set new rules for the displays
3) You're changing the subject. Now you're claiming, "hurr durr previous cases take precedence". Cite which ones then.

12/03/12 1:34 am

For what reason did you say the allegheny case was the latest one and so any others are second to it? Please explain the rationale behind that statement. And keep in mind you have now claimed that you knew all along how precedent work.

12/03/12 1:32 am

The only obvious conclusion then is that the allegheny nativity scene was different enough from the Donnelly nativity scene that they ignored the Donnelly precedent. Again proving the point that the mere existence of a nativity scene on public property isn't unconstitutional.

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:31 am

the new precedent by making Donnelly relevant only to cases similar to Donnelly.
On this topic, Allegheny establishes itself as precedent.

You're wrong bro. That's the reason nativity scenes are being blocked and taken down.

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:28 am

Precedence works only when clear rules are outlined and subsequent cases on the topic follow the rules set out by the previous cases. Allegheny not only draws a different conclusion than Donnelly and other court cases upholding crèches as constitutional, Allegheny takes on Donnelly and makes ITSELF

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:25 am

I mean, that's the dumbest retort I've heard from someone trying to debate law. You don't even know how precedent works.
Precedent from previous cases, like Lynch v Donnelly, would only still be relevant if the damn court cases following UPHELD the same decision as before. Not when they don't

palindrome California
12/03/12 1:21 am

Uhh, unless the precedent is deemed invalid, too vague etc.
Newer court cases on the same topic, especially this one, that revoke the OLD ones take precedent. Or do you think Plessy v Ferguson is still precedent setting? Lol you're done. Admit it

12/03/12 1:00 am

US courts works on a precedent system, which means earlier decision are the more relevant ones.

How on earth could you possibly claim to be a well-informed observer of the judiciary and not know this?

palindrome California
12/03/12 12:16 am

Allegheny was the last case of this nature to be taken at the Supreme Court. Which means that's the last word. Any other previous cases are second to Allegheny. That's the final word

12/02/12 11:53 pm

Obviously not, as a nativity scene on public property has been found not unconstitutional at least once.

palindrome California
12/02/12 11:32 pm

Wrong again. Just jackassingly wrong again. I posted more opinion at the top of the feed.

palindrome California
12/02/12 11:30 pm

Again, does anyone else want to keep trying to spin the words of the SCOTUS majority to mean anything else than a prohibition of non-secular religious displays (Nativity scenes included) on gov property?
Bc they do a damn fine job of being excruciatingly clear

palindrome California
12/02/12 11:29 pm

B/c City Hall is so plainly under gov ownership and control, every display and activity in the building is implicitly marked with the stamp of gov approval. The presence of a nativity scene in the lobby, therefore, inevitably creates a clear and strong impression that the local gov tacitly endorses"

palindrome California
12/02/12 11:28 pm

"The display of religious symbols in public areas of core government buildings runs a special risk of "mak[ing] religion relevant, in reality or public perception, to status in the political community...

palindrome California
12/02/12 10:57 pm

In other words, the crèche in public/govt places is a violation.

Is that unclear for anyone else but brr?

palindrome California
12/02/12 10:57 pm

To be sure, prohibiting the display of a creche in the courthouse deprives Christians of the satisfaction of seeing the government adopt their religious message as their own, but this kind of govt. affiliation with particular religious messages is precisely what the Establishment Clause precludes"