Christmas Trees on government property are unconstitutional

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

A "what-if" scenerio - and one that likely will never come true. I imagine the school would lose.

Fair enough.

Expected to follow the rules and regulations of their parent company - the Federal Government. Think of them as "independently owned" franchises that must keep to company policy.

They own a franchise, yes.

Yikes. Local governments are not "franchises", nor is the federal government a "parent company". The federal government is an institution representing the common interests of all the states. I highly doubt that Mississippi and California share common interests on this issue.

The logic that they violate the rules set forth by the government of which they represent.

The federal government's rights are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim that they have the right to tell you how to build a school, or how to build a courthouse, and which monuments to what should be allowed.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

Cool. Then you and I agree.

I also think that if the government wants avoid having some ridiculous hodge-podge of displays on the city hall lawn, and doesn't want to deal with the public outcry when some satanist puts up his decorations, that it's fine for them to say they won't allow any religious displays at all. If the citizens prefer the hodge-podge and satanic ornaments, they can of course vote that government out of office.

know1

Byrnzie wrote:

If we take the population of the world as a whole, I'd say that 1% Christian is a fair estimate. Not many people pretend to be Christians at Christmas time, and those that do are irrelevant in their phoniness.

At worst, it's approaching 50%.

WMA

Why keep asking questions with flawed reasoning?

isn't that violating my religious freedom?

j/k lol ... I surrender, I leave it to you to explain it to the supreme court. I don't think they like to be asked questions though.

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Show up after hours and put up a nativity scene on your boss's property? I guess that depends on who your boss is.

And if your actual boss and the people who pay your salary are perfectly ok with that nativity scene?

farfromglorified

hippiemom wrote:

I also think that if the government wants avoid having some ridiculous hodge-podge of displays on the city hall lawn, and doesn't want to deal with the public outcry when some satanist puts up his decorations, that it's fine for them to say they won't allow any religious displays at all.

I think that's fine too.

If the citizens prefer the hodge-podge and satanic ornaments, they can of course vote that government out of office.

See, here's what I don't get. The citizens in most of these cases have voted in these people who put up nativity scenes or Ten Commandments or whatever. If the logic here is going to be based on a simple majority, it seems that what is happening now is representative of that, which makes me wonder why those here who constantly cite the "rule of the majority" would take any offense at all.

I don't know why this issue is such a big deal to so many. How hard is it to ignore a nativity scene or a red crescent or a menhorah? God forbid you're exposed to something that runs counter to your beliefs.

Those who understand my political persuasion must realize that the courthouse itself is something that completely runs counter to my beliefs. Am I questioning your right to build it? No. I'm simply questioning your right to make me build it and sanction it. If a Muslim is forced to build a nativity scene against his will, I have a problem with that. If a Catholic is forced to pay for a menorah against his will, I have a problem with that. But if people believe they have a right to simply squash the expressions of others, what right do they have to their own expressions?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Fair enough.



Yikes. Local governments are not "franchises", nor is the federal government a "parent company". The federal government is an institution representing the common interests of all the states. I highly doubt that Mississippi and California share common interests on this issue.



The federal government's rights are clearly enumerated in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution does it proclaim that they have the right to tell you how to build a school, or how to build a courthouse, and which monuments to what should be allowed.

Take a court case decided by both a local/state government and then the Supreme Court. Now tell me which one's the "boss."

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

And if your actual boss and the people who pay your salary are perfectly ok with that nativity scene?

Well, if it's a private company, I'm completely O.K. with a nativity scene. However, it's already been established where the government stands on these displays outside their own buildings.

callen

know1 wrote:

My point is, it's definitely a religious symbol - whether pagan or Christian, so why do we turn a blind eye to it when we raise such a stink about other symbols?

Never have...its symbol of the "Holidays" and giving.

Now a nativity scene...different. Now if it means we loose the tree in order to get to seperation of church and state.....bye bye Xmas tree.

redrock

Will need to ban any image or representation of Santa as well... after all, it is St. Nicholas......

Tree, Santa, etc.. may have religious origins but Christmas has become so commercialised, no one remembers those things! It's just pretty decoration and a place to put all your presents!

farfromglorified

RainDog wrote:

Take a court case decided by both a local/state government and then the Supreme Court. Now tell me which one's the "boss."

Has the Supreme Court stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution?

RainDog

farfromglorified wrote:

Has the Supreme Court stepped outside the bounds of the Constitution?

Not sure - I'm not an attorney or a judge - and you'd have to go over the thousands of cases that appeared before the Court to come up with an example of it. Of course, it would all be opinion anyway. In regards to the monument issue, however, I'd say no.

hippiemom

farfromglorified wrote:

See, here's what I don't get. The citizens in most of these cases have voted in these people who put up nativity scenes or Ten Commandments or whatever. If the logic here is going to be based on a simple majority, it seems that what is happening now is representative of that, which makes me wonder why those here who constantly cite the "rule of the majority" would take any offense at all.

It's not a matter of what the simple majority wants, if what the simple majority wants flies in the face of the constitution. Taxpayer funds should not be used to promote any one religion. That means no nativity scenes, no ten commandments statues, nothing. Now, if a private group wants to come and put their nativity scene on public square and the government wants to permit it, that's fine, but they have to do the same if the Hindus come along with displays of their own.

farfromglorified wrote:

I don't know why this issue is such a big deal to so many. How hard is it to ignore a nativity scene or a red crescent or a menhorah? God forbid you're exposed to something that runs counter to your beliefs.

I see things that run counter to my beliefs every single day and it doesn't bother me in the slightest. There are at least 6 churches within a 10-minute walk of my house, and while I sometimes wish they'd knock it off with the bells on Sunday morning when I'm trying to sleep, other than that I don't give them any thought at all.

farfromglorified wrote:

Those who understand my political persuasion must realize that the courthouse itself is something that completely runs counter to my beliefs. Am I questioning your right to build it? No. I'm simply questioning your right to make me build it and sanction it. If a Muslim is forced to build a nativity scene against his will, I have a problem with that. If a Catholic is forced to pay for a menorah against his will, I have a problem with that. But if people believe they have a right to simply squash the expressions of others, what right do they have to their own expressions?

I don't know about anyone else, but I don't want to squash anyone's expression. If the government wants to allow private religious groups to put displays on public land, that's fine with me as long as the same accomodation is given to all groups. What I absolutely don't want them doing is using public funds to pay for such displays, or for the labor involved in putting them up. I'd prefer that the government confine itself to matters of governance.

Cosmo

How about America quit focusing on bullshit like Christmas Trees or "Happy Holidays" as a greeting or Gays getting married and focus on the fact that we are in a fucking WAR in the Middle East?
Who gives a fuck about a goddamn dead pine tree covered with lights and Pagen ritual fertilitiy balls when we have young men and women getting killed or maimed in the name of Fear? I certainly don't... I think the lives of the people who serve to protect us are much more important than some bullshit socio-political religious/non-religiuos symbol.

Ahnimus

They can have their christmas tree, but I want a big model of the human genome.