Show of Hands

Yeah, basically you guys have no good arguments anymore. Same illogical talking points I heard from The Five *yawn*

You don't need to put a nativity scene on public property. The state doesn't serve a purpose doing so.

This is why crosses etc are so easily challenged and defeated

Proof for that?

A cross or religious symbol is not congress establishing religious laws..

What you fail to understand is the progressives are trying to take private property rights.. So people will not even be able to put these things in their own private places..

They hate the name of Christ, just as the devil hates His name! There's power in His name!

They are like the segregationists, they weren't content going about their business, ignoring blacks. They wanted a system where they would never ever see a black person. Is it fear, hatred, or just pure irrationality? I do not know, but clearly there is more going on than a plain lack of belief.

The desperation with which atheists try to get rid of these things leads one to believe that they are not mere atheists, as they claim, but are in fact haters of Christianity.

Religion has a long and dark history and this is a free country which is represented by the nature of our govt. Keep our govt neutral in the dick measuring contest between religions. That's all. Neutral ground.

Just keep your religion off public grounds.That's all ppl want.Can't you respect that?No one is telling you not to celebrate in your neighborhood, your business, your house.Go NUTS.It makes people uneasy and uncomfortable and our govt sites have no business housing them.That's not too much to ask

I'm shocked by the number of idiots (yes, idiots) that compare the LACK OF RELIGIOUS beliefs to a religious belief... These people are obviously so stupid they can't even understand what the freaking worship! They don't even understand the nature and meaning of their religion. Amazing!

Never said the Christmas tree is a religious symbol.

Art and religion are two different things. For one, art gets taxed (as well as subsidized). Religion does not BECAUSE THE LAW AND HISTORY RECOGNIZES THE DIFFERENCE

One, it IS a religion. Religion isn't simply the belief in a god. Two, if people want to put hanukah things in a public area I have no problem with that. It's freedom of religion not stifle all signs of faith.

... phony ... not phones, thanks auto-correct.

Pdrome ... The Christmas tree is not a religious symbol.

Where is your outrage for the use of public funds to display the "piss Christ"? Don't give us that phones art vs religion nonsense!

By not supporting any religon the government would be supporting atheism, which some say is a religon...ahhhhhhhh what to do??!!?!?

No it isn't. The text of the constitution is freely available all over the Internet, you're welcome to look through it and quote where it says tax dollars may not be spent on Christmas trees/nativity scenes.

You are in the exact same position as Palindrome, all you need to do is find the quote.

Anarchy- dude. You're barkin up the wrong Christmas tree here. Doing it on PRIVATE prop. is A-OK. Do whatever you want. That's not a loss or defeat. Keep it off public property. That's all. It's not that hard. Feeling this compelling need to put your religion on blast as a trophy is overcompensating

You have every right to share, sure. Go to a corner and hand out fliers. Invite people to YOUR church. But city hall and the courthouse are PUBLIC PROPERTY and paid for by EVERYONE'S tax dollars. It can't be used as a platform to advance religion. Christmas trees are secular enough but not nativity

You should really look it up. And since I live here and you don't, I believe that I should know better than you since they STILL do it every year.

Putting up a Christmas tree isn't shoving religion in people's face. And what do you even mean by that? I don't think it's right to try and FORCE someone to convert to a certain religion but we have every right to share it with people.

Prohibiting religion on public property is not and has NEVER been considered unconstitutional.
YOU... Yes YOU have all the rights to practice whatever religion you want. But you don't have the freedom to take YOUR religion and shove it in everyone else's face.

I'm pretty sure that nowhere in the constitution does it say "there should be a separation of church and state." Just a simple fact. Freedom of religion is a totally different thing.

Merry Christmas!!!

Ummm...yes. And NOT allowing freedom of religion...is against the constitution....that's kinda my point.

Yes, the government is prohibited from spending money for religion. They would be pushing one religion above others. Against the law.

Ok anarchy sparkle, nvm on everything else I said. THIS is the dumbest thing I've heard

NO. Just because you're favorite pundit said so DOESN'T MAKE IT SO.

Not allowing murder ISN'T ALLOWING MURDER.
NOT forbidding speech, isn't forbidding speech.
Not allowing people to burn you at the stake isn't allowing people to burn you at the stake.

Where did you learn that? Wikipedia?

Well isn't FORBIDDING a Christmas tree on public property also against the first amendment? Just let then do what they want. If it offends you I'm sorry but I have my religion and you have yours. Put up what you want. We shouldn't stop that either.

I live in PA and I just studied that case in my American Politics class here at University of Pittsburgh. That case didn't, matter you know why? Because a much bigger nativity scene was put on private property in the town square. In reality, the courts lost (:

Why not? Because you don't want tax dollars to be spent on Christmas trees? There's no constitutional prohibition against spending money on Christmas trees. And I don't want tax dollars spent on welfare queens either, spending on welfare queens takes away from productive uses of tax dollars.

I'm not asking you that. I am asking you why you feel it necessary to display religion on public property. So far, you have yet to figure out there is a difference.

1) majority Christian does not matter, and that number is shrinking
2) tax money should not be used for religious purposes, even if Christians "pay that share" because it is still taking tax money way from nonchristains uses

Brr, I don't have a problem with Christmas trees. And I laugh so much because you're trying to... Idk, make sense of your nonsense.
I'm not wasting any more time on you. Review County of Allegheny v ACLU and study the Supreme Court ruling there. Then study a legal dictionary for statute

Can the government prohibit the free exercise of those religious expressions? The Constitution says no!

Mitwister ... Now you're just being willfully ignorant! Lets assume for a moment that the menorah, the nativity and the Christmas tree are all religious symbols (I don't believe the Christmas tree is). Lets also assume that the "Piss Christ" is a religious symbol for Atheists.

I don't quote Wikipedia for law. That's what I have primary sources for. Nice try bub. But county of allegheny v ACLU really just provides the coup de grace on all your ranting. Stick a fork in it-- you're argument is done

Your excessive hahahas/lols are a dead give away. People use laughter to feign confidence when none exists.

You could have ended it hours ago simply by quoting a specific statute that required Christmas trees on public property. You have thus far failed to do so. That option is still open to you.

Lmao brrr has been defeated an he's going full retard now talking about Wikipedia and denial and all this other irrelevant bs hahahaha this must be what you looked like election night and when ACA was ruled constitutional! LOL have a good life man hahahaha

This country's majority Christian, I'm sure all the nativity scenes and Christmas trees on public property are more than covered by willing taxpayers. The funding of welfare queens with the taxpayer dollar may not pass the same test.

Wow. Way to not answer any of my questions. So you think the government can't stop you from putting up a manger scene, so you want to? Why?

A lot of people are confused on this issue. It's not that we don't want to see nativity scenes anywhere. We just don't want them on public property, paid for by taxpayers. True conservatives should agree with this principle.

Is spending tax payers' money acceptable if Muslims wanted to build something from the Quran??? Right, didn't think so.

Says the guy that quoted Wikipedia and attributed it to the "~~supreme court"

Try as you might, a motion is not a statute, and a motion to your little city council for a Christmas tree, granted or not, will never be a statute.

Wow brr, just wow. You've been utterly destroyed. Just stop already. You can't even argue English. Aren't you an American?!

MOTION: noun

5. a proposal formally made to a deliberative assembly: to make a motion to adjourn.<-----------

6. an application made to a court or judge for an order, ruling, or the like.

7. a suggestion or proposal.

You were the one going on about SCOTUS this SCOTUS that, you're merely being engaged on your own terms now.

A statute is not "otherwise known as a motion". A motion is when people go to a judge and ask for his ruling on some matter, which he will issue based on existing law. His ruling won't become law either.
You're just attempting vocabulary gymnastics now.

Let me say it again so you understand, any ordinance, motion, declaration or law constitutes a statute. Any law passed or statute granted that advances religion is potentially unconstitutional. In the case of nativity scenes, as can be noted in County of Allegheny v ACLU, it is a NO GO

Before one starts putting up crosses and nativity scenes in city hall, courthouse etc, one must ASK FOR PERMISSION. In order for permission to be granted in our democracy, the city council puts it to a motion. OR, a STATUTE is already created to make this happen w/o a vote.
Do you understand??