Nativity Scene Controversy in Central Texas

[Ceannairceach]

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.

Bullshit, considering "running around the constitution" is illegal. Sources, if you would be so kind.

[Salandriagado]

Well, yeah, it is illegal. What did they expect? Seriously, just find somewhere that isn't government property, it's not that hard.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Please show one example where the "leftists" have run around the Constitution.

[The Island]

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).

It does not say "do nothing." It says it can make no laws. It is a curb on Congress's legislative authority and says nothing about a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn.

Additionally, in a previous post, it was said "it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday." Christmas is hardly an exclusively Christian holiday. It is a federal holiday. Now if you wanted to make a case for a violation of the 1st amendment, designation Christmas and Easter as holidays would be a much better target.

[The Island]

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

Please show one example where the "leftists" have run around the Constitution.

The EPA's institution of cap and trade after Congress refused to pass it. An end run around the checks and balances set up in the Constitution.

The commitmment of forces to battle in Libya without notifying Congress. Same thing.

That's two!

[Desperate Measures]

I can only fry I'm a pretty bad cook unless the person I'm cooking for doesn't know how to cook. I'm usually better than that person.

Oh, a really easy way to cook (some) fish is to wrap it in aluminum foil with some slices of lemon and dill, then pop it on the BBQ.

I don't know how long it stays there and this seems to be best done with salmon, but I'm aware that people cook fish this way and seem to like it. I haven't eaten this though since I don't eat meat... I've just witnessed it done.

I'll have to try that but without the lemon --- unless the lemon is necessary?

[Salandriagado]

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).

It does not say "do nothing." It says it can make no laws. It is a curb on Congress's legislative authority and says nothing about a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn.

Additionally, in a previous post, it was said "it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday." Christmas is hardly an exclusively Christian holiday. It is a federal holiday. Now if you wanted to make a case for a violation of the 1st amendment, designation Christmas and Easter as holidays would be a much better target.

The nativity scene is an exclusively Christian holiday. I also oppose any kind of compulsory holidays.

Please show one example where the "leftists" have run around the Constitution.

The EPA's institution of cap and trade after Congress refused to pass it. An end run around the checks and balances set up in the Constitution.

The commitmment of forces to battle in Libya without notifying Congress. Same thing.

That's two!

And I'm sure you can quote the passages of the constitution that ban both of those.

[The Island]

And I'm sure you can quote the passages of the constitution that ban both of those.

I can. Are you asking me to?

[Salandriagado]

And I'm sure you can quote the passages of the constitution that ban both of those.

I can. Are you asking me to?

I would have thought that somewhat obvious.

[Neutraligon]

It does not say "do nothing." It says it can make no laws. It is a curb on Congress's legislative authority and says nothing about a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn.

Additionally, in a previous post, it was said "it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday." Christmas is hardly an exclusively Christian holiday. It is a federal holiday. Now if you wanted to make a case for a violation of the 1st amendment, designation Christmas and Easter as holidays would be a much better target.

The nativity scene is an exclusively Christian holiday. I also oppose any kind of compulsory holidays.

The EPA's institution of cap and trade after Congress refused to pass it. An end run around the checks and balances set up in the Constitution.

The commitmment of forces to battle in Libya without notifying Congress. Same thing.

That's two!

And I'm sure you can quote the passages of the constitution that ban both of those.

My mom worked for the Federal government and she did not always take Christmas off, it is not a compulsory holiday. The holiday recognizes that a large portion of federal employees, as well as those in private practice, would take the day off.

[Salandriagado]

The nativity scene is an exclusively Christian holiday. I also oppose any kind of compulsory holidays.





And I'm sure you can quote the passages of the constitution that ban both of those.

My mom worked for the Federal government and she did not always take Christmas off, it is not a compulsory holiday. The holiday recognizes that a large portion of federal employees, as well as those in private practice, would take the day off.

They are compulsory for an awful lot of federal employees. Which is frankly ridiculous, unless you're going to give every single festival someone cares to name off for everyone. Which causes some issues with having no days left.

[The Island]

The nativity scene is an exclusively Christian holiday. I also oppose any kind of compulsory holidays.





And I'm sure you can quote the passages of the constitution that ban both of those.

My mom worked for the Federal government and she did not always take Christmas off, it is not a compulsory holiday. The holiday recognizes that a large portion of federal employees, as well as those in private practice, would take the day off.

Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday).
Monday, January 2* New Year's Day
Monday, January 16 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Monday, February 20** Washington's Birthday
Monday, May 28 Memorial Day
Wednesday, July 4 Independence Day
Monday, September 3 Labor Day
Monday, October 8 Columbus Day
Monday, November 12*** Veterans Day
Thursday, November 22 Thanksgiving Day
Tuesday, December 25 Christmas Day

[Hittanryan]

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).

It does not say "do nothing." It says it can make no laws. It is a curb on Congress's legislative authority and says nothing about a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn.

Additionally, in a previous post, it was said "it still represents an exclusively Christian holiday." Christmas is hardly an exclusively Christian holiday. It is a federal holiday. Now if you wanted to make a case for a violation of the 1st amendment, designation Christmas and Easter as holidays would be a much better target.

There are two general interpretations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. People have argued (and continue to argue) for much longer than we have over which is correct, and we're certainly not going to come to any consensus on an Internet forum. My interpretation is considered just as legitimate as yours. Look here in the first paragraph:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm ... _Amendment

As to your second argument, I agree, Christmas can be considered a secular, federal holiday. Which is exactly the point: Christmas has plenty of other symbols, like anything related to Santa Claus. They didn't have to pick a nativity scene specifically.

[Neutraligon]

My mom worked for the Federal government and she did not always take Christmas off, it is not a compulsory holiday. The holiday recognizes that a large portion of federal employees, as well as those in private practice, would take the day off.

Federal law (5 U.S.C. 6103) establishes the following public holidays for Federal employees. Please note that most Federal employees work on a Monday through Friday schedule. For these employees, when a holiday falls on a nonworkday -- Saturday or Sunday -- the holiday usually is observed on Monday (if the holiday falls on Sunday) or Friday (if the holiday falls on Saturday).
Monday, January 2* New Year's Day
Monday, January 16 Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.
Monday, February 20** Washington's Birthday
Monday, May 28 Memorial Day
Wednesday, July 4 Independence Day
Monday, September 3 Labor Day
Monday, October 8 Columbus Day
Monday, November 12*** Veterans Day
Thursday, November 22 Thanksgiving Day
Tuesday, December 25 Christmas Day

Your point, the federal holiday is observed, not required to be observed.
Salandriagado if that is true then I agree it is ridiculous. Why not add a few more days of leave a year and allow people to tkae off whichever holiday they wish to take off?

[Corrica]

Honestly,How hard is it to just leave the thing be and just move on? Nobody's complained about it before this, and it seems like it Patato for patato.

[Ceannairceach]

Honestly,How hard is it to just leave the thing be and just move on? Nobody's complained about it before this, and it seems like it Patato for patato.

Simply because no one has acted before does not mean the current state of things is wrong.

[Desperate Measures]

Honestly,How hard is it to just leave the thing be and just move on? Nobody's complained about it before this, and it seems like it Patato for patato.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UxJrQl3m3QQ ???

[The Island]

I can. Are you asking me to?

I would have thought that somewhat obvious.

Well, let's start with Libya. Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section eight), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. This resolution has been violated twice, by Bill Clinton in Bosnia and Barack Obama in Libya. This is a clear usurpation of Congress's authority "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" in Article I, section 8.

In regards to the issue of agency regulation in place of congressional authorization, I will, in the interest of time, simply refer back to that same clause, Article I, section 8. Congress has passed no law authorizing the EPA to issue such sweeping regulation. Ultimately, it will be up to the SC to decide whether cap and trade regulations violated the scope of the EPA's congressional mandate.

[Neutraligon]

Honestly,How hard is it to just leave the thing be and just move on? Nobody's complained about it before this, and it seems like it Patato for patato.

People have complained about this before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_s ... of_America

Also please note there have been Supreme Court decisions on this.

Also there are entire threads debating both the legality of the War Powers resolution.
"All presidents since 1973 have declared their belief that the act is unconstitutional. "

In addition the president is allowed by Constitution to send
May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[8] President Obama, however, notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[9] since the US leadership was transferred to NATO,[10] and since US involvement is somewhat limited

Based on these there are significant controversy on whether these acts are unconstitutional. In addition since when did the War Powers resolution become part of the constitution

[The Island]

Honestly,How hard is it to just leave the thing be and just move on? Nobody's complained about it before this, and it seems like it Patato for patato.

People have complained about this before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_s ... of_America

Also please note there have been Supreme Court decisions on this.

Such as?

[Hittanryan]

I would have thought that somewhat obvious.

Well, let's start with Libya. Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section eight), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. This resolution has been violated twice, by Bill Clinton in Bosnia and Barack Obama in Libya. This is a clear usurpation of Congress's authority "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" in Article I, section 8.

You left out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by Bush II. And the Gulf War by Bush I. And the invasion of Grenada and the deployment of marines to Lebanon by Reagan. And every conflict the US has been in since WWII. Your bias is showing, might want to put something on that.

[Neutraligon]

People have complained about this before.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativity_s ... of_America

Also please note there have been Supreme Court decisions on this.

Such as?

"In 1985, the United States Supreme Court ruled in ACLU v. Scarsdale, New York that nativity scenes on public lands violate separation of church and state statutes unless they comply with "The Reindeer Rule"—a regulation calling for equal opportunity for non-religious symbols, such as reindeer.[48]"

Supreme Court Cases

Three major cases have been heard by the Supreme Court concerning holiday and religious displays, the first in 1984 (Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 1984), the second in 1989 (Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)) , and the third in 1995 (Capitol Square Review Board v. Pinette, 515 U.S. 753 (1995)). Once decided, the court has been disinclined to deal with the minutia of decision making, and has turned down appeals as recently as 1998 concerning lower court rulings on the topic (i.e. Elewski v. Syracuse, N.Y., 123 F.3d 51(2d Cir.1998)(cert. denied 118 S.Ct.1186).

http://www.uri.edu/personal/hbak9412/Reldis.htm

[The Island]

Well, let's start with Libya. Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to declare war, raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section eight), and has "Power … to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", while the President is commander-in-chief of the military (Article II, Section 2). The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. This resolution has been violated twice, by Bill Clinton in Bosnia and Barack Obama in Libya. This is a clear usurpation of Congress's authority "to make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution … all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof" in Article I, section 8.

You left out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by Bush II. And the Gulf War by Bush I. And the invasion of Grenada and the deployment of marines to Lebanon by Reagan. And every conflict the US has been in since WWII. Your bias is showing, might want to put something on that.

If you want to leave the realm of fact and conduct personal attacks, please do so elsewhere. Korea and Vietnam were both prior to the War Powers Act, but were both actions sanctioned by the UN and governed by our treaty with the UN. Grenada, the two Iraq wars and the war in Afgahnistan were all approved by Congress in adherence to the War Powers Act (and the latter 3 were also UN resolutions). The marines in Lebanon were not engaged in combat operations but were guarding the U.S. Embassy and blown up in their barracks. If you have some facts at your disposal to counter my arguments, I would love to hear them.

[Desperate Measures]

A CHRISTMAS SERMON. 1891

The good part of Christmas is not always Christian -- it is generally Pagan; that is to say, human, natural.

Christianity did not come with tidings of great joy, but with a message of eternal grief. It came with the threat of everlasting torture on its lips. It meant war on earth and perdition hereafter.

It taught some good things -- the beauty of love and kindness in man. But as a torch-bearer, as a bringer of joy, it has been a failure. It has given infinite consequences to the acts of finite beings, crushing the soul with a responsibility too great for mortals to bear. It has filled the future with fear and flame, and made God the keeper of an eternal penitentiary, destined to be the home of nearly all the sons of men. Not satisfied with that, it has deprived God of the pardoning power.

And yet it may have done some good by borrowing from the Pagan world the old festival called Christmas.

Long before Christ was born the Sun-God triumphed over the powers of Darkness. About the time that we call Christmas the days begin perceptibly to lengthen. Our barbarian ancestors were worshipers of the sun, and they celebrated his victory over the hosts of night. Such a festival was natural and beautiful. The most natural of all religions is the worship of the sun. Christianity adopted this festival. It borrowed from the Pagans the best it has.

I believe in Christmas and in every day that has been set apart for joy. We in America have too much work and not enough play. We are too much like the English.

I think it was Heinrich Heine who said that he thought a blaspheming Frenchman was a more pleasing object to God than a praying Englishman. We take our joys too sadly. I am in favor of all the good free days -- the more the better.

Christmas is a good day to forgive and forget -- a good day to throw away prejudices and hatreds -- a good day to fill your heart and your house, and the hearts and houses of others, with sunshine.

Robert G. Ingersoll.

[Ceannairceach]

You left out the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan started by Bush II. And the Gulf War by Bush I. And the invasion of Grenada and the deployment of marines to Lebanon by Reagan. And every conflict the US has been in since WWII. Your bias is showing, might want to put something on that.

If you want to leave the realm of fact and conduct personal attacks, please do so elsewhere. Korea and Vietnam were both prior to the War Powers Act, but were both actions sanctioned by the UN and governed by our treaty with the UN. Grenada, the two Iraq wars and the war in Afgahnistan were all approved by Congress in adherence to the War Powers Act (and the latter 3 were also UN resolutions). The marines in Lebanon were not engaged in combat operations but were guarding the U.S. Embassy and blown up in their barracks. If you have some facts at your disposal to counter my arguments, I would love to hear them.

Wait, wasn't the no-fly-zone over Libya a UN-sanctioned action, and thus, governed by our treaty with the UN?