Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a witty and intelligent retort! Exactly what I expected from someone who offers such intelligent commentary as you have.
And I'm not your friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sco
My german shepherd is as much of a lawyer as you are at this point.
Wow, again, what insightful commentary! So he has a bar card too?
And I never said I was a lawyer...I just said I know more about this topic than Liquid Reigns, whose sister is a lawyer, so obviously that must make him an expert on this matter.
SCOTUS rulings have pointed holdings, where they indicate exactly what the law is in a particular area...which they have done in this area.
And, aside from the actual holdings, dicta of the Court provides guidance for the law. While not binding law, any court that ignores it better have a good reason.
Glad to know you agree with me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
And I never said I was a lawyer...I just said I know more about this topic than Liquid Reigns, whose sister is a lawyer, so obviously that must make him an expert on this matter.
First I note your comprehension is poor, my wife is a lawyer, not my sister.
As for Alleghany: The Holy Name Society (a Roman Catholicconfraternity) placed the Creche with the authority of the city, thus making it a religious connotation and a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Do you see the difference between Lynch and Alleghany? Can you understand the Establishment Clause now?
First I note your comprehension is poor, my wife is a lawyer, not my sister.
And that makes you any more an expert...how? My father is a lawyer, my grandfather was a lawyer, and I have about 6 or 7 other lawyers in my family. Does that make me more of an expert than you?
I would say it's the fact that I have spent quite a lot of time studying these particular cases as it relates to the topic at hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
As for Alleghany: The Holy Name Society (a Roman Catholicconfraternity) placed the Creche with the authority of the city, thus making it a religious connotation and a violation of the Establishment Clause.
Do you see the difference between Lynch and Alleghany? Can you understand the Establishment Clause now?
That is an irrelevant distinction. Allow me to quote directly from the Supreme Court's holding, the binding law part:
"Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message. Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus."
The only reason the display was upheld in Lynch is because there were other holiday symbols which detracted from an overall endorsement of Christianity.
Here, in Texas, there is only a creche on government land. It is well-settled law that that constitutes an illegal endorsement of religion by the government.
Can you understand how Lynch and Allegheny apply under the Establishment Clause now? Probably not.
Or, in other words, the nice summarized Wikipedia article on it:
"The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental." In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the LatinVulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that "the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah ... simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society.""
And that makes you any more an expert...how? My father is a lawyer, my grandfather was a lawyer, and I have about 6 or 7 other lawyers in my family. Does that make me more of an expert than you?
I would say it's the fact that I have spent quite a lot of time studying these particular cases as it relates to the topic at hand.
I'm inclined to believe a lawyer (my wife) over a wannabe lawyer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
That is an irrelevant distinction. Allow me to quote directly from the Supreme Court's holding, the binding law part:
"Moreover, in contrast to Lynch, nothing in the creche's setting detracts from that message. Although the government may acknowledge Christmas as a cultural phenomenon, it may not observe it as a Christian holy day by suggesting that people praise God for the birth of Jesus."
The only reason the display was upheld in Lynch is because there were other holiday symbols which detracted from an overall endorsement of Christianity.
Irrelevant distinction? It is what separated the cases and distinguished from prior cases.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
Here, in Texas, there is only a creche on government land. It is well-settled law that that constitutes an illegal endorsement of religion by the government.
Only if a religious party placed it there with the approval of the Town, otherwise it will be pretty much like Lynch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
Can you understand how Lynch and Allegheny apply under the Establishment Clause now? Probably not.
Or, in other words, the nice summarized Wikipedia article on it:
"The inclusion of religious symbols in public holiday displays came before the Supreme Court in Lynch v. Donnelly (1984), and again in Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU (1989). In the former case, the Court upheld the public display of a crèche, ruling that any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental." In Allegheny County, however, the Court struck down a crèche display, which occupied a prominent position in the county courthouse and bore the words Gloria in Excelsis Deo, the words sung by the angels at the Nativity (Luke 2:14 in the LatinVulgate translation). At the same time, the Allegheny County Court upheld the display of a nearby menorah, which appeared along with a Christmas tree and a sign saluting liberty, reasoning that "the combined display of the tree, the sign, and the menorah ... simply recognizes that both Christmas and Hanukkah are part of the same winter-holiday season, which has attained a secular status in our society.""
So you refer to wiki as the authority on the matter. If you can't distinguish between Lynch and Alleghany, as even your wiki link does, who really has a problem with understanding here? To lay claim that you are absolute and that it is established law is ignorant at best.
I'm inclined to believe a lawyer (my wife) over a wannabe lawyer.
Good for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Irrelevant distinction? It is what separated the cases and distinguished from prior cases.
No, what separated them was that the creche in Lynch was surrounded by other holiday symbols and the one in Allegheny was simply a creche, alone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
Only if a religious party placed it there with the approval of the Town, otherwise it will be pretty much like Lynch.
Not even close. A creche alone is probably still impermissible even if erected by a private party. However, you get into issues of where it is placed and disclaimers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns
So you refer to wiki as the authority on the matter. If you can't distinguish between Lynch and Alleghany, as even your wiki link does, who really has a problem with understanding here? To lay claim that you are absolute and that it is established law is ignorant at best.
There you go, making up stuff again. I merely said it was a nice summation of the law.
And yes, the Wiki link did distinguish between the two cases....in exactly the manner I said it did...what surrounded the creche.
And again with the lies and making stuff up...please show me where I said anything about being the absolute authority.
To continue to argue that this is not a settled area of the law is simply astonishing to me.
Not even close. A creche alone is probably still impermissible even if erected by a private party. However, you get into issues of where it is placed and disclaimers.
So now it's "probably" impermissible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
To continue to argue that this is not a settled area of the law is simply astonishing to me.
You just admitted that it is "probably" impermissible.
You just admitted that it is "probably" impermissible.
Desperate much?
You brought up the distinction between private and publicly-erected creches. In Athens, I do believe it is one erected and maintained by the city. Therefore, the disctinction is irrelevant.
You brought up the distinction between private and publicly-erected creches. In Athens, I do believe it is one erected and maintained by the city. Therefore, the disctinction is irrelevant.
Henderson County doesn't own the nativity scene. It has been put up for more than a decade by volunteers from the Keep Athens Beautiful group.
Commissioners say they wouldn't object to other religious displays being put up on county property, but they've never been asked.
IF Keep Athens Beautiful is a religious group of any sort than I would agree it would need to come down, however since they are not, rather they are an environmental group, Lynch will hold in this case.
Distinctions are always relevant in court rulings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you can't distinguish between Lynch and Alleghany, as even your wiki link does, who really has a problem with understanding here? To lay claim that you are absolute and that it is established law is ignorant at best.
