Nativity Scene Controversy in Central Texas

[Ceannairceach]

Incidentally, there is something delicisously ironic about leftists appealing to the Constitution.

How so? Liberals and Leftists are just as bound to follow and uphold the Constitution as any rightest or conservative.

[Vestr-Norig]

It is tragic that some atheist who do not live there, try to remove an ancient tradition, which the locals have done for quite a time, while replacing it with a clearly blasphemous and offensive propaganda poster, promoting their disbelief, while mocking religious belief.

Ancient tradition? If I recall correctly, putting up a nativity scene in front of a courthouse in Texas isn't ancient, by fact of Christians not being in Texas long enough for the "tradition" to be considered "ancient".

It's an ancient Christian tradition that has been preformed for houndred of years, that the local community there still practices. It would be foolish to ban this now, after all these years.

[Occupied Deutschland]

I Agree with the underlined, but lets not forget the important qualifier here.
"After ______ group requested they be allowed to put up a display and were denied (in this case, atheists) it violates the Constitution."

I don't think anyone can argue that people having religious displays on public ground is unConstitutional. The government stepping in and only allowing one religion to do it, however, is.

I'd be happy to argue it.

From the perspective of it being unConstitutional or from the perspective that it was "wrong".
Because only the former really matters.

I'd be interested to hear though.

[Ceannairceach]

Ancient tradition? If I recall correctly, putting up a nativity scene in front of a courthouse in Texas isn't ancient, by fact of Christians not being in Texas long enough for the "tradition" to be considered "ancient".

It's an ancient Christian tradition that has been preformed for houndred of years, that the local community there still practices. It would be foolish to ban this now, after all these years.

It is not, however, an ancient Texan tradition to put a nativity scene in front of a courthouse, which is the real issue, not nativity scenes in general. Private citizens are free to put up nativity scenes on private property, but not on government property.

[Inky Noodles]

The whole nation does not have to change just so it does not disagree with you...

Let them be...
And quit walking around and trying to fire at people for practicing their culture.
Unless it's inhumane, back off.

[Ceannairceach]

The whole nation does not have to change just so it does not disagree with you...

Let them be...
And quit walking around and trying to fire at people for practicing their culture.
Unless it's inhumane, back off.

It would have to change to meet national law, however.

[Vestr-Norig]

It's an ancient Christian tradition that has been preformed for houndred of years, that the local community there still practices. It would be foolish to ban this now, after all these years.

It is not, however, an ancient Texan tradition to put a nativity scene in front of a courthouse, which is the real issue, not nativity scenes in general. Private citizens are free to put up nativity scenes on private property, but not on government property.

Well, its still stupid.The local inhabitans want it there, and it is undemocratical to deny their right to do so.

[The Island]

I'd be happy to argue it.

From the perspective of it being unConstitutional or from the perspective that it was "wrong".
Because only the former really matters.

I'd be interested to hear though.

From the perspective of it being unconstitutional.

It could be argued on two grounds. First, the Constitution does not require a separation or exclusion of religion. It prohibits the establishment of religion. It could be quite easily argued that simply displaying a nativity scene does nothing to establish Chrisitianity as a state religiion.

Second, and more effective (IMHO), there is nothing even remotely religious about a nativity scene. It does not display any religious creed (unlike the Ten Commandments) and any biblical scholar worth his/her salt will quickly point out that a nativity scene doesn't accurately portray the biblical story of Christ's birth. It is in fact, only a mythologized version of the birth of (I think few would argue) an important historical figure. If you care to quibble over the historicity of Christ's birth (whether he actually existed or not), I will grant you his non-existence which only strengthens my arguement of the mythological (not religous) nature of the nativity scene.

[Ceannairceach]

It is not, however, an ancient Texan tradition to put a nativity scene in front of a courthouse, which is the real issue, not nativity scenes in general. Private citizens are free to put up nativity scenes on private property, but not on government property.

Well, its still stupid.The local inhabitans want it there, and it is undemocratical to deny their right to do so.

They do not, actually, have the right to sidestep the Constitution on the matter of separation of church and state. What they are doing is violating the Constitution and, therefore, is illegal.

[Occupied Deutschland]

From the perspective of it being unConstitutional or from the perspective that it was "wrong".
Because only the former really matters.

I'd be interested to hear though.

From the perspective of it being unconstitutional.

It could be argued on two grounds. First, the Constitution does not require a separation or exclusion of religion. It prohibits the establishment of religion. It could be quite easily argued that simply displaying a nativity scene does nothing to establish Chrisitianity as a state religiion.

Second, and more effective (IMHO), there is nothing even remotely religious about a nativity scene. It does not display any religious creed and any biblical scholar worth his/her salt will quickly point out that a nativity scene doesn't accurately portray the biblical story of Christ's birth. It is in fact, only a mythologized version of the birth of (I think few would argue) an important historical figure. If you care to quibble over the historicity of Christ's birth (whether he actually existed or not), I will grant you his non-existence which only strengthens my arguement of the mythological (not religous) nature of the nativity scene.

Oh okay, I think I got confused there. We agree with each other

[Inky Noodles]

The whole nation does not have to change just so it does not disagree with you...

Let them be...
And quit walking around and trying to fire at people for practicing their culture.
Unless it's inhumane, back off.

It would have to change to meet national law, however.

It only is showing why Christmas was celebrated in the first place.

All the opposing group is doing is just trying to get rid of every little bit of religion in the country.
Is it also against the law that the Declaration of Independence recognizes a God?

[Hittanryan]

It could be argued on two grounds. First, the Constitution does not require a separation or exclusion of religion. It prohibits the establishment of religion. It could be quite easily argued that simply displaying a nativity scene does nothing to establish Chrisitianity as a state religiion.

Actually the First Amendment says the government is forbidden from "respecting an establishment of religion." As in, endorsing one religion over another.

The historical accuracy of the nativity scene is irrelevant, it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday.

[Ceannairceach]

It would have to change to meet national law, however.

It only is showing why Christmas was celebrated in the first place.

All the opposing group is doing is just trying to get rid of every little bit of religion in the country.
Is it also against the law that the Declaration of Independence recognizes a God?

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, and thus is not really bound by it, nor is it a United States legal document defining our nation today. Its a nice sentimental thing, and that is all.

Point? They can show why Christmas was allegedly first celebrated on private property if they really want; Displaying a Christian scene and only a Christian scene on government property is violating the separation of church and state.

[Occupied Deutschland]

It could be argued on two grounds. First, the Constitution does not require a separation or exclusion of religion. It prohibits the establishment of religion. It could be quite easily argued that simply displaying a nativity scene does nothing to establish Chrisitianity as a state religiion.

Actually the First Amendment says the government is forbidden from "respecting an establishment of religion." As in, endorsing one religion over another.

The historical accuracy of the nativity scene is irrelevant, it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday.

The full quote you want is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" I'm pretty sure allowing religious displays on public grounds is not a law respecting religion (though when it crosses into them ONLY allowing one religion to set-up a display on public ground, it does).

[The Island]

It only is showing why Christmas was celebrated in the first place.

All the opposing group is doing is just trying to get rid of every little bit of religion in the country.
Is it also against the law that the Declaration of Independence recognizes a God?

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, and thus is not really bound by it, nor is it a United States legal document defining our nation today. Its a nice sentimental thing, and that is all.

Point? They can show why Christmas was allegedly first celebrated on private property if they really want; Displaying a Christian scene and only a Christian scene on government property is violating the separation of church and state.

Let me say it again, there is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

[The Island]

It could be argued on two grounds. First, the Constitution does not require a separation or exclusion of religion. It prohibits the establishment of religion. It could be quite easily argued that simply displaying a nativity scene does nothing to establish Chrisitianity as a state religiion.

Actually the First Amendment says the government is forbidden from "respecting an establishment of religion." As in, endorsing one religion over another.

The historical accuracy of the nativity scene is irrelevant, it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday.

You are misinterpreting the word respecting:

respecting [rɪˈspɛktɪŋ]
prep
concerning; regarding

Congress may make no law "concerning" an establishment of religion.

[Ceannairceach]

Let me say it again, there is no such thing as a separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

The part that says "make no law respecting an establishment of religion" certainly points to it, as supported by Jefferson, and the Treaty of Tripoli supports it for Christianity at the least.

[Hittanryan]

It would have to change to meet national law, however.

It only is showing why Christmas was celebrated in the first place.

All the opposing group is doing is just trying to get rid of every little bit of religion in the country.
Is it also against the law that the Declaration of Independence recognizes a God?

The Declaration of Independence was not bound by the Constitution, as the Constitution had not been written yet. Besides, it was little more than a letter, not the document establishing the structure of the United States government.

The idea of a "wall of separation" between church and state goes back to the very earliest years in US history. Even though religion arguably had a bigger role in society back then, the Founding Fathers recognized that having true freedom of religion depended on having an unbiased government. Considering how tainted our political dialogue is with pointless, religion-based distraction issues like abortion and gay rights, I'd say a lesser role of religion in policy would make the US closer to the Constitutional ideal, not less.

[Neutraligon]

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

We are not clear. While everyone seems to be take for granted that a Nativity scene somehow violates the Constitution, I am not familiar with a single Supreme Court case that has ever decided the issue. Could someone please give the case name that has settled this? BTW, don't bother giving me cases about the Ten Commandments, it's a completly separate issue.

Incidentally, there is something delicisously ironic about leftists appealing to the Constitution.

Many of the people who are stating this do not believe they are separate issues, the government is supporting a religion or multiple religions which goes against the constitutions first amendment. I fail to see how being "leftist" and appealing to the Constitution is ironic.

[Inky Noodles]

It only is showing why Christmas was celebrated in the first place.

All the opposing group is doing is just trying to get rid of every little bit of religion in the country.
Is it also against the law that the Declaration of Independence recognizes a God?

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, and thus is not really bound by it, nor is it a United States legal document defining our nation today. Its a nice sentimental thing, and that is all.

Point? They can show why Christmas was allegedly first celebrated on private property if they really want; Displaying a Christian scene and only a Christian scene on government property is violating the separation of church and state.

How?
How big of a deal is it?
It's across the street from a flipping Taco Bell!

Just because it is on government property, does not mean the government endorses it.
Atheism is practically it's own religion of sorts its self. I'm not saying it really is though.
(Except, as you know, they don't believe in God or God's!)
They believe that no sort of super natural being or beings exist that control the universe.
Since they do not praise any sort of thing like the ones above... they praise the theory of a natural event that made out of the dark oblivion, the universe. And Christians praise the theory a God created the universe.
So the government, not recognizing a Christian event, is siding with Atheism, which is the same as siding with religion or a certain belief.

[The Island]

We are not clear. While everyone seems to be take for granted that a Nativity scene somehow violates the Constitution, I am not familiar with a single Supreme Court case that has ever decided the issue. Could someone please give the case name that has settled this? BTW, don't bother giving me cases about the Ten Commandments, it's a completly separate issue.

Incidentally, there is something delicisously ironic about leftists appealing to the Constitution.

Many of the people who are stating this do not believe they are separate issues, the government is supporting a religion or multiple religions which goes against the constitutions first amendment. I fail to see how being "leftist" and appealing to the Constitution is ironic.

It is ironic because they tend to do an end run around the Constitution whenever it suits their purposes. The right typically does not.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting for someone to tell when the Supreme Court declared nativity scenes on public land to be unconstitutional. Until such time as someone shows me that, I think it would be more intellectually honest to say that "I" (as in the current poster) believe it to be unconstitutional, instead of this constant refrain of "it is unconstitutional. It is not unconstitutional until the SC says so.

[Genivaria]

Speaking as an atheist. I really don't give a damn.

[Ceannairceach]

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, and thus is not really bound by it, nor is it a United States legal document defining our nation today. Its a nice sentimental thing, and that is all.

Point? They can show why Christmas was allegedly first celebrated on private property if they really want; Displaying a Christian scene and only a Christian scene on government property is violating the separation of church and state.

How?
How big of a deal is it?
It's across the street from a flipping Taco Bell!

Just because it is on government property, does not mean the government endorses it.
Atheism is practically it's own religion of sorts its self. I'm not saying it really is though.
(Except, as you know, they don't believe in God or God's!)
They believe that no sort of super natural being or beings exist that control the universe.
Since they do not praise any sort of thing like the ones above... they praise the theory of a natural event that made out of the dark oblivion, the universe. And Christians praise the theory a God created the universe.
So the government, not recognizing a Christian event, is siding with Atheism, which is the same as siding with religion or a certain belief.

How what?
It is, indeed, a very big deal because it violates the constitution, the highest law of the land.
And? If Taco Bell, for example, wanted to display it, they could. But a government building cannot solely display a Christian scene and no others.

Yes, it does, when no other displays are put up.
No, it isn't. Not even close.
And?
That (the idea that god made the universe) isn't a theory, that's a poor guess without any proof.
No, it isn't, as secularism =/= atheism.

[Neutraligon]

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, and thus is not really bound by it, nor is it a United States legal document defining our nation today. Its a nice sentimental thing, and that is all.

Point? They can show why Christmas was allegedly first celebrated on private property if they really want; Displaying a Christian scene and only a Christian scene on government property is violating the separation of church and state.

How?
How big of a deal is it?
It's across the street from a flipping Taco Bell!

Just because it is on government property, does not mean the government endorses it.
Atheism is practically it's own religion of sorts its self. I'm not saying it really is though.
(Except, as you know, they don't believe in God or God's!)
They believe that no sort of super natural being or beings exist that control the universe.
Since they do not praise any sort of thing like the ones above... they praise the theory of a natural event that made out of the dark oblivion, the universe. And Christians praise the theory a God created the universe.
So the government, not recognizing a Christian event, is siding with Atheism, which is the same as siding with religion or a certain belief.

No they are not, by making no statement whatsoever, they are neither supporting nor opposing the belief that there is no god. If however they place a Christian scene on not public but government owned property then they some people view this as government endorsing religion.

[Hittanryan]

Actually the First Amendment says the government is forbidden from "respecting an establishment of religion." As in, endorsing one religion over another.

The historical accuracy of the nativity scene is irrelevant, it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday.

You are misinterpreting the word respecting:

respecting [rɪˈspɛktɪŋ]
prep
concerning; regarding

Congress may make no law "concerning" an establishment of religion.

I fail to see how that makes any difference. In either sense of the word, the government may not endorse, condemn, or support a religion.

You, in turn, are misinterpreting the word "establishment." It is not the verb "establishment," which means to form or create, as you are trying to argue. It is the noun "establishment," as in an organization or body. That means, to use your definition of "respecting," the government can do nothing concerning (respecting) a religious body (an establishment of religion).