Show of Hands

Brr-- this excerpt sums it up and shuts you down. Just drop it already. You can spin this to mean what you want.

"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...

Which is precisely what this poll asks.

I'm saying a nativity scene/Christmas tree on public property are not automatically unconstitutional. That is, if a case went to the supreme court and the only details present are
1) there is a nativity scene
2) it is on public property
The court will not have enough to find it unconstitutional.

Lol so you're basically saying nativity scenes are allowed so long as they're secular in nature. How is that not what I've been saying?
There's a nativity scene; and there's the PC nativity scene. The PC "holidays scene" is the only one allowed on public property

Not really. Only the ones that are deemed unconstitutional are taken down. Millions remain up, most go unchallenged.

I never insisted Romney would win, I always acknowledged that extreme stupidity and racism posed a very real threat to a Romney presidency.

... Right, THAT'S why crosses are being torn down, religious mottos taken down, nativity scenes removed.. Right. Because there constitutional. They're so constitutional, people want to take them down.

I don't know what I was expecting from the same idiot that INSISTED that Romney was winning

Ironically, the same reason Obamacare is going BACK to the SCOTUS to determine its constitutionality.

...and the person who's offended because you're violating their Constitutional Right to practice their religion? What of them?

Many of us do not have space to do that, or have an apartment .

there's a congressional prayer chapel, God actually exists, Obama prays for guidance... It is a very depressing world for God haters. One needs to be deluded to think secularism has prevailed.

"in God we trust" is the US motto, the democrats just put God back into the party platform, Arlington cemetery is full of crosses and other religious symbols, the supreme court has said "we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a supreme being",

Secularism does not prevail anywhere. The US is majority Christian, the world is majority religious, there are military chaplains hired by the US gov, there are chapels on military bases, the president is sworn in with a bible and a preacher, your money says "in God we trust",

I asked if the court will always find every instance of a nativity scene in a public place unconstitutional, you said yes. I implied nothing about the immaterial aspects of a nativity scene.
You were wrong.
Deal with it.

Obviously, the scholarly method eludes you. So just to the google way. Ask google if nativity scenes are legal in public areas. Guess what? You'll find they're not. Secularism prevails. Secular? Do you know what it means?

Oh my god. You STILL don't get it, do you? Jesus Christ it's like talking to a toilet bowl. No, they're not, the court says the nativity scene is unconstitutional to place in public areas. I can't tell if you're trolling or just seriously ignorant. You can't do it. It HAS to be secular

Like I said, there's no need to fluff it up with details irrelevant to this poll.

Simple fact is, you were wrong. Nativity scenes/Christmas trees in public spaces are not unconstitutional. Which is precisely what I've been telling you since yesterday.

Right. Lynch v Donnelly allowed nativity scenes so long as they're displayed in a secular fashion/as part of a larger secular theme. In other words, the nativity scene was part of a "Christmas season" display filled with items of a secular nature (Christmas trees, elves, Santa etc). Legal loophole

And how confident are you that the supreme court has never once ruled that a nativity scene in a public space is not unconstitutional? You must realize you're standing on very thin ice here, all it take is one case and you'll be wrong.

Lol ok. no fluff.
Yes. Nativity scenes in public areas/property are unconstitutional. Court says that.

Nobody cares about Christmas trees. Trees grow everywhere. A tree grows in Brooklyn

That is if it's a public establishment

They're just festive holiday decorations, except the nativity scene that's definitely a religious symbol and as much as I like the cute baby lambs with baby Jesus it is a violation of respect to a religious neutrality

What about the person offended because they're forced to remove it?????

Is it your claim that the supreme court will always find every instance of a Christmas tree/a nativity scene in public places unconstitutional? And since we are discussing this particular poll question, please do not try and fluff your response up with other details that are irrelevant to this poll.

Christmas trees I don't care about, but a nativity scene? I think that crosses the line. Having a nativity scene in a government building feels a whole lot like an establishment of religion.

SCOTUS cases nearly always give a variety of reasons. They're responsible for making the law of the land. They want to justify their decision as well as possible. They attack the issue and question from all angles and from all the legitimate perspectives and angles as possible.

It a Christmas tree/ nativity scene on public property is automatically unconstitutional, there would not be a need for all the various reasons given.

I do not know how it would rule. Obviously it would depend upon the situation. The mere existence of a Christmas tree/ nativity scene would not automatically be found unconstitutional. Hence the various explanations as to why they found the allegheny case unconstitutional.

This is from a "Christian rights" website regarding nativity scenes. I had a nice chuckle bc they basically have a lawyer tell you everything I'm telling you now and even have the court cases I've mentioned.

bit.ly/TuDQk2

If a public institution allowed the display of a non-secular nativity scene and that was taken to court, how do you think it would rule?

If you went to court to challenge what, exactly?

... So you're telling me that if this were to go to court, that the SCOTUS would not use the same logic as Allegheny bc..... ?? Why exactly? Their approach and their reasoning hasn't been challenged or overturned. So why exactly do you say that the reasoning and logic in Allegheny doesn't apply..?

They would apply here indicates that you erroneously thought they provided a blanket answer, which would be a misinterpretation.

No you didn't. The poll asks if Christmas trees or nativity scenes in public places violate the first amendment. The first 2 cases do not give a blanket answer, but a context specific answer. The only reason to bring up the cases here were if they gave a blanket answer. The fact that you thought

Nativity scenes by themselves on public property ARE a violation. If you place a nativity scene at city hall and its outside of a secular theme, you CAN get sued and it WILL get torn down.

Now, if you're going to continue arguing like a stubborn donkey, provide cases to back you up.

If this question had asked, "can/should the nativity scene be placed on public property in a secular setting where it cannot be legitimately interpreted to signal or show preference or favoritism for a particular religion?"-- THEN we can say it isn't a violation. But, as the question is asked

they're put on private property. Lemon sets the rules (which they were compelled to adopt after cases like Vitale). Allegheny tackles nativity scenes and prescribes HOW THEY MUST BECOME ACCEPTABLE for placement. The question asks, can nativity scenes be placed on public property? The answer NO

Lemon. Lemon relies in a great part on Vitale. These cases all demarcate the fine line govt must walk when allowing religious fixtures, symbols and objects on public property. Allegheny provides explicit context on THIS particular aspect: nativity scenes. Nativity scenes are strictly regulated

I have correctly interpreted them. Apparently, you don't seem to be able to follow the thread here these court cases and justices have lined out for you. In Allegheny, Lemon is referenced in EXACTLY the context I'm telling you. Vitale is also referenced. McCreary is the most modern reference to

Given your inability to correctly interpret the results of the first 2 cases you referenced, why must one trust your interpretation of the last 2?

Because I'm sick of listening you talk out of your ass about what YOU "think" it means without citing a SINGLE source

What does this mean? In plain terms, the nativity scene is unconstitutional UNLESS it is accompanied by non-secular items to dilute its religious message and NOT given a prominent position or placement that can be interpreted as favoritism.

Now, if you disagree. Cite something the COURT said

Brr- you seem to be having problems comprehending what you read. It's very clear in the conclusion:
"The display of the creche in this context, therefore, must be permanently enjoined."

Again, the context: a nativity scene all by itself, w/a religious message on it in a prominent position

I'm beginning to think you're just lonely and want someone to read you bedtime stories- the SCOTUS court cases.

PS- I guess you're not familiar with how the SC works. Engel and McCreary aren't about nativity scenes but they make clear comments and rules for conduct between religion and govt.

With this poll

They failed in the context you attempted to apply them. That is, they failed to conclusively say that Christmas trees and nativity scenes on public property are unconstitutional.

You need only observe how you quietly switched to prayer and the 10 commandments, which have precisely nothing to do

Unless they're displayed in a SECULAR way... You can't just throw Mary and the wise men up without covering your ass with candy canes, Santa's workshop etc..

I'm worried about you. Explain to me what YOU think this ruling means

Wait, how did the lemon test and allegheny fail? Explain that. They clearly said nativity scenes by themselves are unconstitutional... This is what's called blowing smoke up your own ass. Have you convinced yourself? Allegheny condemns religious objects and the nativity in particular on public prop

Not unconstitutional

This is what we call moving the goal post. The fact that you needed to abandon Christmas trees/nativity scenes and move onto other issues is a sign that you know there's no hope for the former.

Obviously the correct answer here is "no", nativity scenes and Christmas trees on public property are

We're talking about Christmas trees and nativity scenes here.
First you brought up the lemon test, that failed.
Then you brought up allegheny vs ACLU, that failed.
And now you've brought up 2 more than have nothing to do with Christmas trees and nativity scenes?