Nativity Scene Controversy in Central Texas

[The Island]

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?

Since 1973, even action under UN Resolutions must be in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.

[Aesthetica]

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]"

It's mentioned in the link he provided...

[Hittanryan]

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.

None of those actions were clear-cut, if you want to go look up the controversy surrounding them, feel free. Even with the War Powers Act, these kinds of military actions, whether they are authorized by a Democrat or Republican president, are at odds with what is supposed to be Congress' ability to declare war.

This has very little to do with the OP, however. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have things to do.

[Ceannairceach]

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

Since 1973, even action under UN Resolutions must be in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.

Ah, I see.

I still fail to see how the President's actions shine poorly on the constitutionality of all liberals.

[Farnhamia]

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

Since 1973, even action under UN Resolutions must be in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.

If you want to debate the War Powers Act and whether or not President Obama violated it, feel free to open a new thread. You've been shown the Supreme Court decisions on nativity scenes. Stop changing the subject.

[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.

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

When Congress passed it as a law. For a President to ignore it is ti usurp Congressional authority under Article I, Section 8.

Again, it is not unconstituional until the SC says it is. Laws have a presumption of constitutionality until overturned.

[The Island]

Since 1973, even action under UN Resolutions must be in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.

Ah, I see.

I still fail to see how the President's actions shine poorly on the constitutionality of all liberals.

I was simply asked to cite an example when someone of the left political persuasion did an end run around the Constitution. I make no effort to make broader implications. The President is simply the most visible member of any political persuasion.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Hundreds of years? Athens, Texas, was incorporated in 1902. So, no.

[Flameswroth]

Wow, so now confirmation that all it would take are some wreaths on the courthouse doors, lights around the trim and a Santa being pulled by eight tiny reindeer (nine if you add Talos...erm, Rudolph. Curse you Skyrim!) and everything would be honky dory.

Why the fuck haven't they done this? It's easy as all get out, contributes to the appeal of the courthouse grounds, I mean...whyyyyyy?!

[Neutraligon]

Wow, so now confirmation that all it would take are some wreaths on the courthouse doors, lights around the trim and a Santa being pulled by eight tiny reindeer (nine if you add Talos...erm, Rudolph. Curse you Skyrim!) and everything would be honky dory.

Why the fuck haven't they done this? It's easy as all get out, contributes to the appeal of the courthouse grounds, I mean...whyyyyyy?!

No idea.

[Ceannairceach]

Ah, I see.

I still fail to see how the President's actions shine poorly on the constitutionality of all liberals.

I was simply asked to cite an example when someone of the left political persuasion did an end run around the Constitution. I make no effort to make broader implications. The President is simply the most visible member of any political persuasion.

You also stated that rightists did not do so.

But this is pointless. You're moving the posts.

[The Island]

Since 1973, even action under UN Resolutions must be in accordance with the War Powers Resolution.

If you want to debate the War Powers Act and whether or not President Obama violated it, feel free to open a new thread. You've been shown the Supreme Court decisions on nativity scenes. Stop changing the subject.

I am not changing the subject. If you will read the threads, I'm directly answering specific questions from each person. I apologize if I've fallen a bit behind, but my views are being attacked by approximately 5 different people at once.

As to the Supreme Court cases, the most recent was 1989 (the 1995 Pinette case was about a cross). The court upheld the constitutionality of a Menorah but not a creche. If you read the decision, you will find the problem was not the creche itself, but the prominent location of it. The controlling case is still the 1983 Donelley case, that provides the creche is constitutional if it passes the Lemon test.

[Neutraligon]

If you want to debate the War Powers Act and whether or not President Obama violated it, feel free to open a new thread. You've been shown the Supreme Court decisions on nativity scenes. Stop changing the subject.

I am not changing the subject. If you will read the threads, I'm directly answering specific questions from each person. I apologize if I've fallen a bit behind, but my views are being attacked by approximately 5 different people at once.

As to the Supreme Court cases, the most recent was 1989 (the 1995 Pinette case was about a cross). The court upheld the constitutionality of a Menorah but not a creche. If you read the decision, you will find the problem was not the creche itself, but the prominent location of it. The controlling case is still the 1983 Donelley case, that provides the creche is constitutional if it passes the Lemon test.

Indeed it is the most recent, however as the 3 Supreme court cases I mentioned do not contradict each other the other two hold as well. What is being debated here is whether displaying the nativity scene passes the lemon test. Many are stating that it does not, many say they don't care, and many say it does.

"In concern for context, the secular aspects of Christmas and its role as a national holiday, not a religious holy day, must be emphasized in a display of religious symbols if it is not be considered a violation of the establishment clause. "

[The Island]

I am not changing the subject. If you will read the threads, I'm directly answering specific questions from each person. I apologize if I've fallen a bit behind, but my views are being attacked by approximately 5 different people at once.

As to the Supreme Court cases, the most recent was 1989 (the 1995 Pinette case was about a cross). The court upheld the constitutionality of a Menorah but not a creche. If you read the decision, you will find the problem was not the creche itself, but the prominent location of it. The controlling case is still the 1983 Donelley case, that provides the creche is constitutional if it passes the Lemon test.

Indeed it is the most recent, however as the 3 Supreme court cases I mentioned do not contradict each other the other two hold as well. What is being debated here is whether displaying the nativity scene passes the lemon test. Many are stating that it does not, many say they don't care, and many say it does.

And finally we agree

Let me expand, my contention all along was not that it was constitutional, but that it was not clearly unconstitutional. It would take a court ruling on it to decide with certainty.

[Our New World Oceania]

And here comes the federal government's new name for Jesus- December-man.

[Neutraligon]

Indeed it is the most recent, however as the 3 Supreme court cases I mentioned do not contradict each other the other two hold as well. What is being debated here is whether displaying the nativity scene passes the lemon test. Many are stating that it does not, many say they don't care, and many say it does.

And finally we agree

Let me expand, my contention all along was not that it was constitutional, but that it was not clearly unconstitutional. It would take a court ruling on it to decide with certainty.

Yes we agree, now, do you think this passes the lemon test or not? Unfortunately it does not seem as if the Supreme Court Will make a ruling as "All recent appeals to the Supreme Court level have been denied. "

[Katganistan]

CHRISTMAS NATIVITY LEGALITY IN TEXAS IS THE TOPIC, PEOPLE.

Thank you.

[Dyakovo]

NVM

[Dyakovo]

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.

Yes it does.

[Dyakovo]

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 is not a legal document. The constitution, on the other hand, is...

[Dyakovo]

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.

You can say it all you like. You'll be wrong, but you can still say it.

[The Godly Nations]

For God's sake, it is just a symbol, it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to religion, free speech, and all that, why bother with it? Every Christmas, it is always the same thing, people who want to show off how some Christian they are by baiting religious minorities into feeding into their persecution complex, and some religious minorities taking the bait and go a step further than necessary, leading to a whole meaningless debate at the end of the year, before we completely forget all about until December comes around again.

[Dyakovo]

For God's sake, it is just a symbol, it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to religion, free speech, and all that, why bother with it? Every Christmas, it is always the same thing, people who want to show off how some Christian they are by baiting religious minorities into feeding into their persecution complex, and some religious minorities taking the bait and go a step further than necessary, leading to a whole meaningless debate at the end of the year, before we completely forget all about until December comes around again.

Because it is unconstitutional.

[The Godly Nations]

For God's sake, it is just a symbol, it doesn't infringe on anyone's right to religion, free speech, and all that, why bother with it? Every Christmas, it is always the same thing, people who want to show off how some Christian they are by baiting religious minorities into feeding into their persecution complex, and some religious minorities taking the bait and go a step further than necessary, leading to a whole meaningless debate at the end of the year, before we completely forget all about until December comes around again.

Because it is unconstitutional.

We have Christmas trees everywhere, no one would think that that is a promotion of Heathen values. It is just an image, it does not promote any specific religion over another, it just says 'We, the judges of this court, are Christian, and we have this here Nativity Scene to show the birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, Trolololol'. We can either ignore it, and let the whole thing die down and celebrate this day, regardless of religion, and all symbols associated with this day, religious or not in nature, or we can go through another year of pointless debating and feed into these fundamentalist's persecution complex and encourage them to do the exact same fucking thing next year.

[Ferkas]

Sounds like the Supreme Court may already have dealt with this, circa 1984, Lynch v. Donnelly.

Challenged the same thing, nativity scene on public property. To copy paste from wikipedia..."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.""


Edit: Upon further review, it might all really be about location. County of Allegheny v. ACLU (1989).