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.
The Texas Attorney General has offered to defend a Texas county under attack by a group of Wisconsin atheists who are demanding that a Nativity located on the lawn of the Henderson County courthouse be torn down.
“Our message to the atheists is don’t mess with Texas and our Nativity scenes or the Ten Commandments,” Attorney General Greg Abbott told Fox News & Commentary. “I want the Freedom From Religion Foundation to know that our office has a history of defending religious displays in this state.”
Kudos to an east Texas town for refusing to bow to an atheist group from Wisconsin.
One person complains (who is not even a verified citizen of the town) and the town should take down the nativity manger which has been a part of the local Christmas holiday for decades?
Who's kidding who?
If every organization appeased every single complaint by one individual nothing would be sold, nothing would be aired on the radio, nothing shown on TV, no movies and there would be darn few jobs in America.
Kudos to an east Texas town for refusing to bow to an atheist group from Wisconsin.
One person complains (who is not even a verified citizen of the town) and the town should take down the nativity manger which has been a part of the local Christmas holiday for decades?
Who's kidding who?
If every organization appeased every single complaint by one individual nothing would be sold, nothing would be aired on the radio, nothing shown on TV, no movies and there would be darn few jobs in America.
And when the Wisconsin group files suit, the judge will order the town to take it down, since it clearly violates the established law.
the AG is in direct contravention to long-settled law regarding these things.
Long-settled law? There's a Test for that! It's called the Lemon Test.
Quote:
Originally Posted by getmeoutofhere
And when the Wisconsin group files suit, the judge will order the town to take it down, since it clearly violates the established law.
Awfully big claim without reading your own links.
Lynch vs Donnelly: The Supreme Court reversed previous rulings in a vote of 5-4, ruling that the display was not an effort to advocate a particular religious message and had "legitimate secular purposes."
I see that a number of people from Oregon and Washington State are all up in arms about what happens in a state that doesn't affect them.
Why don't you worry about things that concern you such as... the out of control meth problem in your states, people with terrible fashion sense, seasonal affective disorder, overcaffeinated manic depressed people, overly high suicide rates, and a high number of passive aggressive douchbags
If you don't like how Texas treats athiests, don't go there... simple
Long-settled law? There's a Test for that! It's called the Lemon Test.
Awfully big claim without reading your own links.
Lynch vs Donnelly: The Supreme Court reversed previous rulings in a vote of 5-4, ruling that the display was not an effort to advocate a particular religious message and had "legitimate secular purposes."
I've read the actual cases. First, the Lemon Test is used only sporadically and most people, including Justices, seem to wish it would just go away. More important is O'Connor's Endorsement Test, possibly Kennedy's Coercion test.
Second, try actually reading something about the cases before you spout off on something you know nothing about.
In Lynch, the Court held that because there were other secular displays to go along with the creche, it was not a government endorsement of religion. Here, they just have the creche with nothing else on government land. That, according to Lynch, is not OK, which was re-affirmed in Allegheny, in which there was nothing else to detract from the creche.
So yes, it's in direct contravention to clearly settled law.
I've read the actual cases. First, the Lemon Test is used only sporadically and most people, including Justices, seem to wish it would just go away. More important is O'Connor's Endorsement Test, possibly Kennedy's Coercion test.
Second, try actually reading something about the cases before you spout off on something you know nothing about.
In Lynch, the Court held that because there were other secular displays to go along with the creche, it was not a government endorsement of religion. Here, they just have the creche with nothing else on government land. That, according to Lynch, is not OK, which was re-affirmed in Allegheny, in which there was nothing else to detract from the creche.
So yes, it's in direct contravention to clearly settled law.
It's far from settled. The difference that you are overlooking is, the only way this is unconstitutional is if OTHERS are denied their right to display THEIR stuff. Is this what happened in Texas? Was any other group denied permission to have their display?
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.
It's called the Lemon Test. 
