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
12/01/12 9:55 pm

Engel v Vitale

Religion doesn't belong in public places

12/01/12 8:37 pm

They said no to that particular case. Not "never on public property"

12/01/12 8:27 pm

In California last year the government stepped in on a bible study and told them they needed a permit to practice they're religion basically. And I heard someone say the words "There is no war on religion" on national television. HA I laugh -_-

palindrome California
12/01/12 8:24 pm

They've all said "no" unless you water it down. Which is my whole thesis here that govt cannot put up JUST a nativity scene or a cross etc. Nobody cares about Christmas trees haha

12/01/12 7:29 pm

All the question asks is if Christmas trees and nativity scenes can be placed on public property. No case you've referenced this far has said no.

palindrome California
12/01/12 7:09 pm

Or they can be joined by other religious symbols like menorahs etc...

You know, that multicultural diversity good stuff. No public property can be used to display religious symbols all by themselves: crosses, etc. keep it at home folks or water it down. Those are the rules plain and simple

palindrome California
12/01/12 7:05 pm

Brr - they can't be up by themselves. Congratulations, we've come full circle. If you want to put up a nativity scene, go ahead but it HAS to be secular in nature ie Christmas trees, maybe a Santa here or there.. Reindeers and other stuff otherwise it's an explicitly Christian display. Thank you :)

12/01/12 6:52 pm

And nowhere in there is a message that Christmas trees/nativity scenes may not be placed on public property.

Your increasing levels of desperation should indicate to you that you yourself are aware that the legal angle has failed you. Learn to take messages from yourself.

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:34 pm

5) the explicitly Christian nature of the nativity scene
6) the beautification of the site by the county
7) the sign of ownership by the local Christian organization

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:30 pm

Let me give you a quick law lesson. The reasons given in Allegheny:
1) the location in the "most beautiful" part of the courthouse
2)the message of the angel
3) the fact that other functions were held there with the nativity as a backdrop
4) the fact that no other symbols detracted from the msg of

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:28 pm

@ Brr- FURTHERMORE! FURTHERMORE they cite the LOCATION of the crèche as ANOTHER signal of govt approval.

Do you know what furthermore means?! It means there was MORE BEFORE THAT. Read ALL the reasons given. I quoted them. Hahaha
Just drop it already. You lose

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:22 pm

Do you all understand what "SETTLED LAW" means?

Look it up

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:21 pm

(Continued) Wallace v. Jaffee, 472 U. at 472 U. S. 52. [Footnote 39] It is settled law that no government official in this Nation may violate these fundamental constitutional rights regarding matters of conscience. Id. at 472 U. S. 49."

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:20 pm

"Perhaps in the early days of the Republic these words were understood to protect only the diversity within Christianity, but today they are recognized as guaranteeing religious liberty and equality to "the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism."

12/01/12 6:08 pm

"furthermore, the crèche sits on the grand staircase, the main and most beautiful part of the building that is the seat of the county government. No viewer could could reasonable think that it occupies THIS LOCATION without the support and approval of the government"

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:07 pm

It has chosen to celebrate Christmas in a way that has the effect of endorsing a patently Christian message"

Go away already

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:07 pm

Here's one more slap down for you Brr:

"In sum, Lynch teaches that govt may celebrate Christmas in some manner and form, but not in a way that endorses Christian doctrine. Here, Allegheny County has transgressed this line.

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:04 pm

The government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, but, under the First Amendment, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus."

Dude. Just stfu already and sit the hell down. Government can't endorse religion. Cope

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:03 pm

It would allow the celebration of the Eucharist inside a courthouse on Christmas Eve. While the county may have doubts about the constitutional status of celebrating the Eucharist inside the courthouse under the government's auspices, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 8-9, this Court does not.

palindrome California
12/01/12 6:02 pm

Here's a great excerpt:

"Finally, the county argues that it is sufficient to validate the display of the creche on the Grand Staircase that the display celebrates Christmas, and Christmas is a national holiday. This argument obviously proves too much.

palindrome California
12/01/12 5:59 pm

OR if other religious symbols are also represented and neither is placed in a prominent position that signals favoritism, ex: a large cross of Jesus Christ placed in the middle of a location and smaller symbols of Judaism, Islam etc stand behind it.

Stand down already. It's done. Read allegheny

palindrome California
12/01/12 5:56 pm

NO nativity scene. NO cross. No religious symbol that conveys a clearly religious message can be erected. In the case of nativity scenes, the ONLY way the court says they can be allowable is if they're setting is passive: example: a winter wonderland with Santa's workshop, reindeer, trees etc

palindrome California
12/01/12 5:54 pm

Brr, god you're dumb. You keep trying to spin, spin and spin. Look, it's clear. The "particular physical setting" the court refers to in Allegheny refers to crèches being BY THEMSELVES WITH NO OTHER SYMBOLS TO DETRACT FROM THEIR MESSAGE. In other words, nativity scenes can't be erected by themselves

12/01/12 5:29 pm

Rest assured, you are factually wrong. "this particular setting" wasn't referring to the public property.

12/01/12 5:22 pm

No, it meant a particular prominent location on the property. Read the opinion before parading the case around a victory for atheist.

The law isn't on your side.

palindrome California
12/01/12 4:53 pm

They do. And so long as other religions are also represented, you circumvent the 1st. It's all good. The problem is these huge displays of nativity scenes or crosses, prayers etc that advance one religion over another. Govt is neutral ground.

palindrome California
12/01/12 4:45 pm

enough to make it!

Lmao-- the particular physical setting... I mean, herp a derp that could mean anything

palindrome California
12/01/12 4:44 pm

Maybe... Just maybe! They meant the particular physical setting-- AS IN THE COURTHOUSE.

Hmm, that would explain why they go into a great deal of attention as to why the symbolism and history of the scene is important, and the message it conveys as opposed to the menorah, which was just abstract

palindrome California
12/01/12 4:41 pm

The particular physical setting-- lmao dumbass what are you implying that means? The floor? Did they put it up sideways?

The Supreme Court ruled in that case that the creché could not be put up backwards and to the side everyone!

FIAT2LUX On Planet Earth
12/01/12 4:33 pm

No, but prohibiting them would be. Quite frankly I'm surprised that no other religion seems to take advantage of this and set up their own stuff in public places.

12/01/12 3:46 pm

That is in fact the most the most likely explanation. However It is almost useless, as convincing an atheist that he is under the influence of the devil is hopeless. It is like trying to explain Beethoven to a deaf person.

12/01/12 3:01 pm

"thus, by permitting the display of the crèche in THIS PARTICULAR physical setting, the county sends an unmistakeable message that it supports and promotes the Christian praise to God.."

Atheists need not despair, there's always the "being legal does not make it right!" angle.

12/01/12 2:56 pm

Actually, it's not. The supreme court decided in that particular case that that particular display was unconstitutional. Not that every Christmas tree/nativity scene on public property is unconstitutional.

12/01/12 2:07 pm

What kind if question is this...get over yourselfs.

brinrawson Knoxville and DC
12/01/12 1:05 pm

I'm not Christian but I don't get offended by Christmas trees and such. My city, Knoxville, puts a HUGE Christmas tree, many smaller trees and tons of lights all over downtown. It's gorgeous and part of the season. No need for anyone to be offended by it.

palindrome California
12/01/12 1:01 pm

"It's against the constitution to repress religion in any way"

Ok Boeboe, cite that. Cite ONE instance where the court or the constitution said religion cannot be repressed in ANY way

12/01/12 10:11 am

Isnt this just like Alleghany vs. ACLU? The supreme court has dealt with cases just like this.

12/01/12 9:56 am

The only REAL reason to not want a nativity scene in a town hall, library, etc. is to repress religion because of a deep seeded resentment for Christianity. No other religion is contested like this and we claim to be a christian nation.

12/01/12 9:52 am

Our arguments aren't stupid. You're just refusing to accept the fact that it is against the constitution to repress religion in any way. We're not saying the government can only allow christian symbols. Anybody can put up something on public property if they ask permission.

EarlyBird Portland
12/01/12 9:17 am

Christmas trees are fine. Government should stay out of anything more.

flyberg Northern Kentucky
12/01/12 7:24 am

Christmas trees are pretty secularized and commercialized so I don't care. Nativity scenes are straight out.

sdbrev210 The Pursuit of Happiness
12/01/12 6:11 am

Founded, liberty, and the pursuit of separation of church and state. Yea, good one.

palindrome California
11/30/12 11:27 pm

I grew up in a very Christian home and I still very much believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ.

That being said, I put my bias away to answer the question TRUTHFULLY. And the truth is, as established by countless cases and spirit of the constitution, it IS a violation of the 1st amendment

palindrome California
11/30/12 11:25 pm

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter. We obviously don't see eye to eye.

Truth is, I'm not atheist. I believe in God. I AM wary of organized religion. But more than anything, I just love the constitution. I love the truth. It doesn't bother me to see a nativity scene.Like I said,I'm a believer