Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-03-2013, 11:01 PM
 
Location: 53179
14,416 posts, read 22,400,283 times
Reputation: 14466

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Wow this "War on Christmas" goes all the way back to 1942 and when Andy Williams sang "Happy Holidays" in 1963. What Christmas warmongers he and Irving Berlin were...not one mention of the word Christmas in the entire song...
To be fare, sometimes when you write a song the wording and the flow of the words matters. I tried to sing that song just now using Christmas instead and it didn't sound as good.

 
Old 12-03-2013, 11:39 PM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,441,779 times
Reputation: 7467
Well it went back to "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" in many places. I think that is great. Schools are finding out they can sing religious songs as well.
 
Old 12-03-2013, 11:43 PM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,224,253 times
Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post
OK, yet another Orwellian twist ... what is this insinuated violation of the constitution you're referring to? Wait ... let me guess ... you're going to present this backward thinking idea that to protect religious freedom protected under the 1st Ammendment, all religious expression must be barred from public places? That it George?
No. You are the one whining that absolutely everything is under attack when, in reality, there are but a few instances that challenge the constitutionality of certain displays that may be seen as an endorsement of Christianity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post

While no effort is spared to remove the word "god" from the pledge of allegience, to the dollar bill ... as laws are sought to prohibit manger scenes and christmas trees ... as Santa Claus is in the crosshairs evey bit as much as the American family, and family values have been thusly targeted ... anything remotely connected with the concept of good values ... anything that hints of a moral message, is subject to attack.

The war between good and evil is still going strong.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pledge of allegience [sic] - Violation of First Amendment if used in public school - on any private land.
-----

Dollar bill - Some argue it's unconstitutional but it's been decided that the phrase is an "act of "ceremonial deism" and it, thus "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.

Seems that no laws have been passed to abolish this phrase even though "no effort is spared to remove" it. You are whining about nothing...

-----
Laws are sought to prohibit manger scenes and christmas trees - Violation of the First Amendment unless other religions can be equally represented. Interpretation of constitutionality is highly contingent on the pertinent circumstances.

There are two principal Supreme Court decisions concerning the display of religious symbols as holiday displays on public grounds. The Court in both cases has stated that determining the constitutionality of such displays involves a fact intensive examination. “Each government practice must be judged in its unique circumstances to determine whether it constitutes an endorsement or disapproval of religion.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 695 (1984)(O'Connor, J. concurring). Generally, courts will look at the particular physical setting of the holiday displays and evaluate the message the government practice communicates. If the display's context viewed by a reasonable observer tends to send the message that the government endorses religion, then the display violates the Establishment Clause.

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984):

In Lynch v. Donnelly, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the inclusion of a crèche in a municipality's Christmas display was a violation of the Establishment Clause. This case involved the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which owned a crèche and included it as part of an overall, elaborate Christmas display on the grounds of a park owned by a non-profit. The city's display included a depiction of Santa, reindeer, a Christmas tree, carolers, cut out figurines, and candy-stripes poles, in addition to the nativity scene.

In a 5-4 ruling which has spawned much discord, the Supreme Court held Pawtucket's annual Christmas display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the display passed constitutional muster under the Lemon test. The Court reasoned, “the display is sponsored by the City to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of the Holiday.” 465 U.S. at 681. The Court determined these to be legitimate secular purposes. The Court also determined the crèche included in the overall display did not impermissibly advance religion. “. . .[D]isplay of the crèche is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion than the Congressional and Executive recognition of the origins of the Holiday itself as 'Christ's Mass,' or the exhibition of literally hundreds of religious paintings in governmentally supported museums.” Id. at 683. Finally, the majority of the Court found no excessive government entanglement with religion because of minimal costs associated with the assembly and dismantling of the crèche each year. The Court further stated that “[T]here is no evidence of contact with church authorities concerning the content or design of the exhibit prior to or since Pawtucket's purchase of the crèche. No expenditures for maintenance of the crèche have been necessary. . .” Id. at 684.

Notably, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, in which she discussed the “endorsement test.” Government endorsement or disapproval of religion is unconstitutional. She stated, “[e]ndorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Id. at 688.

Justice Brennan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens. He rejected the majority's conclusion that the city's display passed the Lemon test. He stated, “[n]othing in the history of such practices or the setting in which the City's crèche is presented obscures or diminishes the plain fact that Pawtucket's action amounts to an impermissible governmental endorsement of a particular faith.” Id. at 695. He argued the display had no purpose other than to 'Keep Christ in Christmas,' and had the effect of publicly recognizing the beliefs embodied in the crèche. He continued, “[i]n the absence of any other religious symbols or of any neutral disclaimer, the inescapable effect of the crèche will be to remind the average observer of the religious roots of the celebrations he is witnessing and to call to mind the scriptural message that the nativity symbolizes.” Id. at 713.

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989):

In Allegheny v. ACLU, the Supreme Court considered whether two recurring holiday displays on government property were constitutional. The first display at issue consisted solely of a crèche, which was prominently displayed on the “Grand Staircase” of the Allegheny County Courthouse. The second display, located outside the City-County building, included a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a sign, which read, “During this holiday season, the City of Pittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom.”

After analyzing each display separately, the majority of the Court held the display of the crèche unconstitutional while the menorah displayed with the Christmas tree and sign was held constitutional. The Court used the endorsement test laid out by Justice O'Connor in Lynch as the relevant analysis to determine the constitutionality of both displays. The Court stated,

“ Lynch v. Donnelly, confirms, and in no way repudiates, the longstanding constitutional principle that government may not engage in a practice that has the effect of promoting or endorsing religious beliefs. The display of the crèche in the county courthouse has this unconstitutional effect.” Id. at 621.

With regard to the first display, the Court determined, 5-4, that the crèche display was unconstitutional because the crèche stood alone and was the single element of the display. Furthermore, it was located on the main and “most beautiful part” of the government building. The Court stated,

“No viewer could reasonably think that it occupies this location without the support and approval of the government. Thus, by permitting the 'display of the crèche in this particular setting,' Lynch,(O'Connor, J., concurring), the county sends an unmistakable message that is supports and promotes the Christian praise to God that is the creche's religious message.” Id. at 599-600.

The Court also rejected the notion that the accompanying sign notifying observers that the nativity was owned by a Roman Catholic organization sufficiently removed the perception that the government endorsed the religious message conveyed by the nativity scene.

In contrast, the Court held, 6-3, the display of the menorah constitutional. The Court reiterated that the constitutionality of the display must be assessed in the particular setting of the display, which in this case, included the accompanying Christmas tree and sign saluting liberty. The Court found the Christmas tree, which it viewed as a secular symbol, was the predominant feature of the holiday display. The Court also reasoned that the accompanying sign saluting liberty diminished the possibility that a reasonable observer would view the display as government endorsement of either Christianity or Judaism. Viewing the display in this context, the majority of the Court determined that there was no inference of dual endorsement of religion through this display. The Court stated the “city's overall display must be understood as conveying the city's secular recognition of different traditions for celebrating the winter-holiday season.” Id. 620


And again, nothing but whining from you. In a select few cases, these displays have been found to violate the establishment clause - but these cases are individually assessed rather than butchered under a broad and sweeping generalization.

So, overall, when religious Christian displays are found to be unconstitutional, you whine that your religion is under attack. You don't whine, however, when these cases are NOT addressed properly and your Constitution is kept under attack. What a fine American you make...
-----

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuyNTexas View Post

.. as Santa Claus is in the crosshairs evey bit as much as the American family, and family values have been thusly targeted ... anything remotely connected with the concept of good values ... anything that hints of a moral message, is subject to attack.
This last bit is just nonsense.

- How is Santa in the crosshairs? I see Santa absolutely everywhere and nobody walks around with a protest sign and I have yet to hear of a law suit trying to ban Santa.

- How are American families in the crosshairs? By whom? I have an American family and I haven't noticed anyone passing laws that make our lives miserable or that try to drive a wedge between us.

- How are "family values" in the crosshairs? What are "family values?" Who is attacking them? Again, my family has not experienced any such attacks. Perhaps you could point out what we need to pay attention to? Are we getting subliminal messages to get a divorce? Is someone trying to get us to join the Swinger scene?

- How is "anything connected to the concept of good values" under attack? By whom? Nobody has, yet, forced me to steal, lie, defraud, injure, hurt, cheat, or treat anyone like he or she is beneath me. I don't even speed. Is there some secret legal program that is going to get me to do those things? I picked up my elderly neighbors from the airport tonight and I am pet-sitting my other neighbors' animals while they are on a six week vacation. I mow their lawns, water their house plants, and blow their driveways. Was I not supposed to do so?

- How is "anything that hints of a moral message" under attack? By whom? Maybe I missed it, but the books I read to my daughter are full of "moral" messages: Don't steal, help others, be nice, be grateful, don't lie. The same appears to be true for the shows she watches. You must be living in some weird part of the country where this stuff is under attack. Out here in reality, being a good person seems to be rather valued and most definitely not under attack. Perhaps if you stopped watching reality TV, you'd realize that not everyone in the US is a selfish a-hole looking to make a quick buck by stepping all over their fellow human beings while selling their grandmother.

- Whose morals are we talking about anyway? Morals are highly subjective! Are we going by Amish standards? Orthodox Jewish standards? Plymouth Brethren standards? Your standards? Mine? Are hemlines above the knee immoral? Do women need to cover their hair?

In other words, nothing but hot air and emotional fear-mongering. Fox News would be proud of you. They couldn't do this any better than you. It would be just as vapid.
 
Old 12-04-2013, 12:32 AM
 
Location: California
37,069 posts, read 42,032,683 times
Reputation: 34880
Nobody anywhere is offended by "happy holidays". And if they claim to be they are lying. If they insist I'll punch them in the nose.
 
Old 12-04-2013, 12:32 AM
 
27,625 posts, read 21,048,932 times
Reputation: 11092
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuselage View Post
No. You are the one whining that absolutely everything is under attack when, in reality, there are but a few instances that challenge the constitutionality of certain displays that may be seen as an endorsement of Christianity.




"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pledge of allegience [sic] - Violation of First Amendment if used in public school - on any private land.
-----

Dollar bill - Some argue it's unconstitutional but it's been decided that the phrase is an "act of "ceremonial deism" and it, thus "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.

Seems that no laws have been passed to abolish this phrase even though "no effort is spared to remove" it. You are whining about nothing...

-----
Laws are sought to prohibit manger scenes and christmas trees - Violation of the First Amendment unless other religions can be equally represented. Interpretation of constitutionality is highly contingent on the pertinent circumstances.

There are two principal Supreme Court decisions concerning the display of religious symbols as holiday displays on public grounds. The Court in both cases has stated that determining the constitutionality of such displays involves a fact intensive examination. “Each government practice must be judged in its unique circumstances to determine whether it constitutes an endorsement or disapproval of religion.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 695 (1984)(O'Connor, J. concurring). Generally, courts will look at the particular physical setting of the holiday displays and evaluate the message the government practice communicates. If the display's context viewed by a reasonable observer tends to send the message that the government endorses religion, then the display violates the Establishment Clause.

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984):

In Lynch v. Donnelly, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the inclusion of a crèche in a municipality's Christmas display was a violation of the Establishment Clause. This case involved the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which owned a crèche and included it as part of an overall, elaborate Christmas display on the grounds of a park owned by a non-profit. The city's display included a depiction of Santa, reindeer, a Christmas tree, carolers, cut out figurines, and candy-stripes poles, in addition to the nativity scene.

In a 5-4 ruling which has spawned much discord, the Supreme Court held Pawtucket's annual Christmas display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the display passed constitutional muster under the Lemon test. The Court reasoned, “the display is sponsored by the City to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of the Holiday.” 465 U.S. at 681. The Court determined these to be legitimate secular purposes. The Court also determined the crèche included in the overall display did not impermissibly advance religion. “. . .[D]isplay of the crèche is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion than the Congressional and Executive recognition of the origins of the Holiday itself as 'Christ's Mass,' or the exhibition of literally hundreds of religious paintings in governmentally supported museums.” Id. at 683. Finally, the majority of the Court found no excessive government entanglement with religion because of minimal costs associated with the assembly and dismantling of the crèche each year. The Court further stated that “[T]here is no evidence of contact with church authorities concerning the content or design of the exhibit prior to or since Pawtucket's purchase of the crèche. No expenditures for maintenance of the crèche have been necessary. . .” Id. at 684.

Notably, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, in which she discussed the “endorsement test.” Government endorsement or disapproval of religion is unconstitutional. She stated, “[e]ndorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Id. at 688.

Justice Brennan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens. He rejected the majority's conclusion that the city's display passed the Lemon test. He stated, “[n]othing in the history of such practices or the setting in which the City's crèche is presented obscures or diminishes the plain fact that Pawtucket's action amounts to an impermissible governmental endorsement of a particular faith.” Id. at 695. He argued the display had no purpose other than to 'Keep Christ in Christmas,' and had the effect of publicly recognizing the beliefs embodied in the crèche. He continued, “[i]n the absence of any other religious symbols or of any neutral disclaimer, the inescapable effect of the crèche will be to remind the average observer of the religious roots of the celebrations he is witnessing and to call to mind the scriptural message that the nativity symbolizes.” Id. at 713.

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989):

In Allegheny v. ACLU, the Supreme Court considered whether two recurring holiday displays on government property were constitutional. The first display at issue consisted solely of a crèche, which was prominently displayed on the “Grand Staircase” of the Allegheny County Courthouse. The second display, located outside the City-County building, included a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a sign, which read, “During this holiday season, the City of Pittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom.”

After analyzing each display separately, the majority of the Court held the display of the crèche unconstitutional while the menorah displayed with the Christmas tree and sign was held constitutional. The Court used the endorsement test laid out by Justice O'Connor in Lynch as the relevant analysis to determine the constitutionality of both displays. The Court stated,

“ Lynch v. Donnelly, confirms, and in no way repudiates, the longstanding constitutional principle that government may not engage in a practice that has the effect of promoting or endorsing religious beliefs. The display of the crèche in the county courthouse has this unconstitutional effect.” Id. at 621.

With regard to the first display, the Court determined, 5-4, that the crèche display was unconstitutional because the crèche stood alone and was the single element of the display. Furthermore, it was located on the main and “most beautiful part” of the government building. The Court stated,

“No viewer could reasonably think that it occupies this location without the support and approval of the government. Thus, by permitting the 'display of the crèche in this particular setting,' Lynch,(O'Connor, J., concurring), the county sends an unmistakable message that is supports and promotes the Christian praise to God that is the creche's religious message.” Id. at 599-600.

The Court also rejected the notion that the accompanying sign notifying observers that the nativity was owned by a Roman Catholic organization sufficiently removed the perception that the government endorsed the religious message conveyed by the nativity scene.

In contrast, the Court held, 6-3, the display of the menorah constitutional. The Court reiterated that the constitutionality of the display must be assessed in the particular setting of the display, which in this case, included the accompanying Christmas tree and sign saluting liberty. The Court found the Christmas tree, which it viewed as a secular symbol, was the predominant feature of the holiday display. The Court also reasoned that the accompanying sign saluting liberty diminished the possibility that a reasonable observer would view the display as government endorsement of either Christianity or Judaism. Viewing the display in this context, the majority of the Court determined that there was no inference of dual endorsement of religion through this display. The Court stated the “city's overall display must be understood as conveying the city's secular recognition of different traditions for celebrating the winter-holiday season.” Id. 620


And again, nothing but whining from you. In a select few cases, these displays have been found to violate the establishment clause - but these cases are individually assessed rather than butchered under a broad and sweeping generalization.

So, overall, when religious Christian displays are found to be unconstitutional, you whine that your religion is under attack. You don't whine, however, when these cases are NOT addressed properly and your Constitution is kept under attack. What a fine American you make...
-----



This last bit is just nonsense.

- How is Santa in the crosshairs? I see Santa absolutely everywhere and nobody walks around with a protest sign and I have yet to hear of a law suit trying to ban Santa.

- How are American families in the crosshairs? By whom? I have an American family and I haven't noticed anyone passing laws that make our lives miserable or that try to drive a wedge between us.

- How are "family values" in the crosshairs? What are "family values?" Who is attacking them? Again, my family has not experienced any such attacks. Perhaps you could point out what we need to pay attention to? Are we getting subliminal messages to get a divorce? Is someone trying to get us to join the Swinger scene?

- How is "anything connected to the concept of good values" under attack? By whom? Nobody has, yet, forced me to steal, lie, defraud, injure, hurt, cheat, or treat anyone like he or she is beneath me. I don't even speed. Is there some secret legal program that is going to get me to do those things? I picked up my elderly neighbors from the airport tonight and I am pet-sitting my other neighbors' animals while they are on a six week vacation. I mow their lawns, water their house plants, and blow their driveways. Was I not supposed to do so?

- How is "anything that hints of a moral message" under attack? By whom? Maybe I missed it, but the books I read to my daughter are full of "moral" messages: Don't steal, help others, be nice, be grateful, don't lie. The same appears to be true for the shows she watches. You must be living in some weird part of the country where this stuff is under attack. Out here in reality, being a good person seems to be rather valued and most definitely not under attack. Perhaps if you stopped watching reality TV, you'd realize that not everyone in the US is a selfish a-hole looking to make a quick buck by stepping all over their fellow human beings while selling their grandmother.

- Whose morals are we talking about anyway? Morals are highly subjective! Are we going by Amish standards? Orthodox Jewish standards? Plymouth Brethren standards? Your standards? Mine? Are hemlines above the knee immoral? Do women need to cover their hair?

In other words, nothing but hot air and emotional fear-mongering. Fox News would be proud of you. They couldn't do this any better than you. It would be just as vapid.
Cannot take anyone on the right seriously about this fabricated war on x-mas mumbo jumbo. They're even bashing the Pope for not supporting the commercialism of Christmas and instead, his advocating for good will and fairness towards the poor.
 
Old 12-04-2013, 12:35 AM
 
Location: California
37,069 posts, read 42,032,683 times
Reputation: 34880
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144 View Post
Well it went back to "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays" in many places. I think that is great. Schools are finding out they can sing religious songs as well.
What are you talking about "went back"? Various greeting are inter-changable from year to year, day to day, and minute by minute. By everyone. Everywhere. If you are trying to keep score here's a hint...you already lost.
 
Old 12-04-2013, 12:41 AM
 
1,519 posts, read 1,224,253 times
Reputation: 898
Quote:
Originally Posted by sickofnyc View Post
Cannot take anyone on the right seriously about this fabricated war on x-mas mumbo jumbo. They're even bashing the Pope for not supporting the commercialism of Christmas and instead, his advocating for good will and fairness towards the poor.
Well, of course you can't. I haven't seen anyone run around and attack anything Christmas. I really have no idea who these freaks are who engage in verbal exchanges and act all offended because somebody used the "wrong" greeting. I have a feeling that it's the same people who usually run around and vociferously complain about the negative effect of political correctness (You know, PC sucks if you hate a group and suddenly can't openly express your hat; but it's just awesome if it protects you from being marginalized). These people sure don't live where I reside. I hope it stays that way.

I must also not be keeping abreast of the latest legislation that bans anything from Santa to families to Christmas trees. Heck, mine is 9 ft. tall (size DOES matter) and I am going to the annual Christmas tree lighting on Saturday - right at City Hall. Naturally, it's an underground event - all done under cover of night so as not to alert the authorities. For all I know, it could turn into a bloody battle...

And don't get me started on that Pope. The Pope is only infallible when i agree with him. How dare he argue for Christian principles? Must be some Latin Christian principles. Those just run counter to our "Christian" principles here in the US. Doesn't he know that the almighty Dollar reigns supreme? What a weirdo. He's probably just upset that they didn't have any Black Friday door busters down at the Vatican Walmart.

Last edited by Fuselage; 12-04-2013 at 12:53 AM..
 
Old 12-04-2013, 01:04 AM
 
23,654 posts, read 17,441,779 times
Reputation: 7467
Bill O'Reilly: Talking Points Memo - Bill O'Reilly: The war on Christmas centralizes.


Interesting video.
 
Old 12-04-2013, 03:56 AM
 
Location: Buckeye, AZ
38,936 posts, read 23,771,256 times
Reputation: 14125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ponderosa View Post
There is no harm or social faux pas in wishing someone who is not a Christian a Merry Christmas. Christmas has a clear secular aspect to it whether the devout want it to or not. How many non-Irish celebrate St. Patrick's Day? In the southwest, we celebrate a Mexican revolutionary holiday (I think, see most of us don't even know what it is about) on May 5. One does not have to be Mexican, or Irish, or Christian to have a Merry Whatever.
Me, I don't care of one's race or religion (or lack of one.) However don't go and try to convert me (this hits for you Jehovah's Witnesses.

What I do see is an attack on what Christmas it's really about. The last Christmas special I saw with Jesus featured was South Park. That's right South Park. Most want to do holiday ones but cover up the real reason for it, the Lord's birth. I love Christmas and know it's about Christ. I love watching Christmas specials but besides South Park and Peanuts, I cannot name any non-Faith based Christmas special to actually talk about the real reason for Christmas
 
Old 12-04-2013, 08:16 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,345,034 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuselage View Post
No. You are the one whining that absolutely everything is under attack when, in reality, there are but a few instances that challenge the constitutionality of certain displays that may be seen as an endorsement of Christianity.




"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Pledge of allegience [sic] - Violation of First Amendment if used in public school - on any private land.
-----

Dollar bill - Some argue it's unconstitutional but it's been decided that the phrase is an "act of "ceremonial deism" and it, thus "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content.

Seems that no laws have been passed to abolish this phrase even though "no effort is spared to remove" it. You are whining about nothing...

-----
Laws are sought to prohibit manger scenes and christmas trees - Violation of the First Amendment unless other religions can be equally represented. Interpretation of constitutionality is highly contingent on the pertinent circumstances.

There are two principal Supreme Court decisions concerning the display of religious symbols as holiday displays on public grounds. The Court in both cases has stated that determining the constitutionality of such displays involves a fact intensive examination. “Each government practice must be judged in its unique circumstances to determine whether it constitutes an endorsement or disapproval of religion.” Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 695 (1984)(O'Connor, J. concurring). Generally, courts will look at the particular physical setting of the holiday displays and evaluate the message the government practice communicates. If the display's context viewed by a reasonable observer tends to send the message that the government endorses religion, then the display violates the Establishment Clause.

Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984):

In Lynch v. Donnelly, the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether the inclusion of a crèche in a municipality's Christmas display was a violation of the Establishment Clause. This case involved the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, which owned a crèche and included it as part of an overall, elaborate Christmas display on the grounds of a park owned by a non-profit. The city's display included a depiction of Santa, reindeer, a Christmas tree, carolers, cut out figurines, and candy-stripes poles, in addition to the nativity scene.

In a 5-4 ruling which has spawned much discord, the Supreme Court held Pawtucket's annual Christmas display did not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court found that the display passed constitutional muster under the Lemon test. The Court reasoned, “the display is sponsored by the City to celebrate the Holiday and to depict the origins of the Holiday.” 465 U.S. at 681. The Court determined these to be legitimate secular purposes. The Court also determined the crèche included in the overall display did not impermissibly advance religion. “. . .[D]isplay of the crèche is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion than the Congressional and Executive recognition of the origins of the Holiday itself as 'Christ's Mass,' or the exhibition of literally hundreds of religious paintings in governmentally supported museums.” Id. at 683. Finally, the majority of the Court found no excessive government entanglement with religion because of minimal costs associated with the assembly and dismantling of the crèche each year. The Court further stated that “[T]here is no evidence of contact with church authorities concerning the content or design of the exhibit prior to or since Pawtucket's purchase of the crèche. No expenditures for maintenance of the crèche have been necessary. . .” Id. at 684.

Notably, Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion, in which she discussed the “endorsement test.” Government endorsement or disapproval of religion is unconstitutional. She stated, “[e]ndorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Id. at 688.

Justice Brennan wrote the dissent, joined by Justices Marshall, Blackmun and Stevens. He rejected the majority's conclusion that the city's display passed the Lemon test. He stated, “[n]othing in the history of such practices or the setting in which the City's crèche is presented obscures or diminishes the plain fact that Pawtucket's action amounts to an impermissible governmental endorsement of a particular faith.” Id. at 695. He argued the display had no purpose other than to 'Keep Christ in Christmas,' and had the effect of publicly recognizing the beliefs embodied in the crèche. He continued, “[i]n the absence of any other religious symbols or of any neutral disclaimer, the inescapable effect of the crèche will be to remind the average observer of the religious roots of the celebrations he is witnessing and to call to mind the scriptural message that the nativity symbolizes.” Id. at 713.

County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573 (1989):

In Allegheny v. ACLU, the Supreme Court considered whether two recurring holiday displays on government property were constitutional. The first display at issue consisted solely of a crèche, which was prominently displayed on the “Grand Staircase” of the Allegheny County Courthouse. The second display, located outside the City-County building, included a menorah, a Christmas tree, and a sign, which read, “During this holiday season, the City of Pittsburgh salutes liberty. Let these festive lights remind us that we are the keepers of the flame of liberty and our legacy of freedom.”

After analyzing each display separately, the majority of the Court held the display of the crèche unconstitutional while the menorah displayed with the Christmas tree and sign was held constitutional. The Court used the endorsement test laid out by Justice O'Connor in Lynch as the relevant analysis to determine the constitutionality of both displays. The Court stated,

“ Lynch v. Donnelly, confirms, and in no way repudiates, the longstanding constitutional principle that government may not engage in a practice that has the effect of promoting or endorsing religious beliefs. The display of the crèche in the county courthouse has this unconstitutional effect.” Id. at 621.

With regard to the first display, the Court determined, 5-4, that the crèche display was unconstitutional because the crèche stood alone and was the single element of the display. Furthermore, it was located on the main and “most beautiful part” of the government building. The Court stated,

“No viewer could reasonably think that it occupies this location without the support and approval of the government. Thus, by permitting the 'display of the crèche in this particular setting,' Lynch,(O'Connor, J., concurring), the county sends an unmistakable message that is supports and promotes the Christian praise to God that is the creche's religious message.” Id. at 599-600.

The Court also rejected the notion that the accompanying sign notifying observers that the nativity was owned by a Roman Catholic organization sufficiently removed the perception that the government endorsed the religious message conveyed by the nativity scene.

In contrast, the Court held, 6-3, the display of the menorah constitutional. The Court reiterated that the constitutionality of the display must be assessed in the particular setting of the display, which in this case, included the accompanying Christmas tree and sign saluting liberty. The Court found the Christmas tree, which it viewed as a secular symbol, was the predominant feature of the holiday display. The Court also reasoned that the accompanying sign saluting liberty diminished the possibility that a reasonable observer would view the display as government endorsement of either Christianity or Judaism. Viewing the display in this context, the majority of the Court determined that there was no inference of dual endorsement of religion through this display. The Court stated the “city's overall display must be understood as conveying the city's secular recognition of different traditions for celebrating the winter-holiday season.” Id. 620


And again, nothing but whining from you. In a select few cases, these displays have been found to violate the establishment clause - but these cases are individually assessed rather than butchered under a broad and sweeping generalization.

So, overall, when religious Christian displays are found to be unconstitutional, you whine that your religion is under attack. You don't whine, however, when these cases are NOT addressed properly and your Constitution is kept under attack. What a fine American you make...
-----



This last bit is just nonsense.

- How is Santa in the crosshairs? I see Santa absolutely everywhere and nobody walks around with a protest sign and I have yet to hear of a law suit trying to ban Santa.

- How are American families in the crosshairs? By whom? I have an American family and I haven't noticed anyone passing laws that make our lives miserable or that try to drive a wedge between us.

- How are "family values" in the crosshairs? What are "family values?" Who is attacking them? Again, my family has not experienced any such attacks. Perhaps you could point out what we need to pay attention to? Are we getting subliminal messages to get a divorce? Is someone trying to get us to join the Swinger scene?

- How is "anything connected to the concept of good values" under attack? By whom? Nobody has, yet, forced me to steal, lie, defraud, injure, hurt, cheat, or treat anyone like he or she is beneath me. I don't even speed. Is there some secret legal program that is going to get me to do those things? I picked up my elderly neighbors from the airport tonight and I am pet-sitting my other neighbors' animals while they are on a six week vacation. I mow their lawns, water their house plants, and blow their driveways. Was I not supposed to do so?

- How is "anything that hints of a moral message" under attack? By whom? Maybe I missed it, but the books I read to my daughter are full of "moral" messages: Don't steal, help others, be nice, be grateful, don't lie. The same appears to be true for the shows she watches. You must be living in some weird part of the country where this stuff is under attack. Out here in reality, being a good person seems to be rather valued and most definitely not under attack. Perhaps if you stopped watching reality TV, you'd realize that not everyone in the US is a selfish a-hole looking to make a quick buck by stepping all over their fellow human beings while selling their grandmother.

- Whose morals are we talking about anyway? Morals are highly subjective! Are we going by Amish standards? Orthodox Jewish standards? Plymouth Brethren standards? Your standards? Mine? Are hemlines above the knee immoral? Do women need to cover their hair?

In other words, nothing but hot air and emotional fear-mongering. Fox News would be proud of you. They couldn't do this any better than you. It would be just as vapid.
Well, well, well. Such entertaining reading! Here is a more readable story about Denver's nativity display and its legal troubles, which the Colorado Supreme Court did rule "legal" back in 1986, after seven years of wrangling.
Lots of Stories Behind Holiday Display | CPR

Here's some more of the above that you posted, for your reading enjoyment.
Conrad v. City and County of Denver :: 1986 :: Colorado Supreme Court Decisions :: Colorado Case Law :: US Case Law :: US Law :: Justia
CITIZENS CONCERNED, ETC. v. CITY & CTY. OF DENVER | Leagle.com
https://ffrf.org/legacy/fttoday/2001/aug01/denver.html
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...,d.aWM(Supreme Court)
A creche course in why the Nativity gets to stay on the steps of Denver's City Hall - - News - Denver - Westword

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 12-04-2013 at 08:31 AM..
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top