Nativity Scene Controversy in Central Texas

[The Godly Nations]

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.""

My point, we should just ignore them, and this 'controversy' will die down.

[Tmutarakhan]

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?!

Because the only point of the display is to emphasize that Christians, and only Christians, own the courthouse and the law.

[Dyakovo]

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.

The red contradicts the blue...

[New Rogernomics]

Americans! *puts on internationally recognized disdain for silly Americans*

I have an American mother, so... *faints*

[Ethel mermania]

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.""

My point, we should just ignore them, and this 'controversy' will die down.

I do not like my tax dollars spent to promote jesus. He is a lovely guy, and would love to have supper with him, but i would rather have the 1 dollar and 17 cents back that is my portion of paying for the damm thing.

You want to do it on your house, or church, god bless you, I will even take my kids to oooo and awww at your display but promoting a religious event is not an appropriate use of tax payer dollars.

[Rotovia-]

See, this is normally not an issue here in Australia. The main reason is that while Christmas is a religious holiday, displays on public land are limited to Christmas trees and Santa, arguably the most benign and secular elements. Leave Jesus for private land, holidays more generally for public land, and can we all just sit around an enjoy getting drunk off our tits with the ones we love?

[The Godly Nations]

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.

The red contradicts the blue...

It doesn't promote a religion, it states that the people here are not only part of a religion, they also want to raise pointless heckles for the trolling value.

[The Godly Nations]

My point, we should just ignore them, and this 'controversy' will die down.

I do not like my tax dollars spent to promote jesus. He is a lovely guy, and would love to have supper with him, but i would rather have the 1 dollar and 17 cents back that is my portion of paying for the damm thing.

You want to do it on your house, or church, god bless you, I will even take my kids to oooo and awww at your display but promoting a religious event is not an appropriate use of tax payer dollars.

They will stop spending money on this uselessness if we stop feeding their persecution complex, which encourages them to do it again next year, and the year after that, so on so forth.

[Tmutarakhan]

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).

That was part of the multi-year Creche Litigation Saga in Pittsburgh, that culminated (as I described in an earlier post) with the creche surrounded by every cliched holiday ornament under the sun. The Supreme Court ruling was confusing, particularly in the context of all the various rulings from other courts.

[Norstal]

The red contradicts the blue...

It doesn't promote a religion, it states that the people here are not only part of a religion, they also want to raise pointless heckles for the trolling value.

So they put it in front a courthouse, why?

[The Godly Nations]

See, this is normally not an issue here in Australia. The main reason is that while Christmas is a religious holiday, displays on public land are limited to Christmas trees and Santa, arguably the most benign and secular elements. Leave Jesus for private land, holidays more generally for public land, and can we all just sit around an enjoy getting drunk off our tits with the ones we love?

In America, we have a group of People who just positively enjoy using Religion as an excuse to feed their natural need for persecution, they are called 'Fundamentalists'- the reason why I think we should leave them alone is because they will stop making an issue over it, and then go back to their usual method of extracting heckles, making absurd, stupid, and wildly bigoted statements.

[Norstal]

See, this is normally not an issue here in Australia. The main reason is that while Christmas is a religious holiday, displays on public land are limited to Christmas trees and Santa, arguably the most benign and secular elements. Leave Jesus for private land, holidays more generally for public land, and can we all just sit around an enjoy getting drunk off our tits with the ones we love?

In America, we have a group of People who just positively enjoy using Religion as an excuse to feed their natural need for persecution, they are called 'Fundamentalists'- the reason why I think we should leave them alone is because they will stop making an issue over it, and then go back to their usual method of extracting heckles, making absurd, stupid, and wildly bigoted statements.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

It didn't work before, it won't work now.

[Rotovia-]

See, this is normally not an issue here in Australia. The main reason is that while Christmas is a religious holiday, displays on public land are limited to Christmas trees and Santa, arguably the most benign and secular elements. Leave Jesus for private land, holidays more generally for public land, and can we all just sit around an enjoy getting drunk off our tits with the ones we love?

In America, we have a group of People who just positively enjoy using Religion as an excuse to feed their natural need for persecution, they are called 'Fundamentalists'- the reason why I think we should leave them alone is because they will stop making an issue over it, and then go back to their usual method of extracting heckles, making absurd, stupid, and wildly bigoted statements.

Personally, my major issues with Christmas displays is that they are overwhelming garish, secular issues aside. That said, I personally am not going to front a picket line to take down a Nativity Scene, but what would solve everyone's problem would be if they (the Court authorities) just erected a holiday display such as a Christmas tree.

[Ethel mermania]

I do not like my tax dollars spent to promote jesus. He is a lovely guy, and would love to have supper with him, but i would rather have the 1 dollar and 17 cents back that is my portion of paying for the damm thing.

You want to do it on your house, or church, god bless you, I will even take my kids to oooo and awww at your display but promoting a religious event is not an appropriate use of tax payer dollars.

They will stop spending money on this uselessness if we stop feeding their persecution complex, which encourages them to do it again next year, and the year after that, so on so forth.

I disagree, they will put up the display whether we want them to or not. Remember it is the baby jesus we are talking about. The only saving would be in the legal costs not spent defending the displays

[The Godly Nations]

It doesn't promote a religion, it states that the people here are not only part of a religion, they also want to raise pointless heckles for the trolling value.

So they put it in front a courthouse, why?

Pointless Heckles. That's why. They want to be persecuted, and if we play into them, they will do it again and again, until we will never hear the end of it. If we just let the Jesus-folk stick up a little statue of some chick and her kid, and ignore them, they will eventually stop because they will realise that no body fucking cares, and turn their attention to other heckle raising activities.

[The Godly Nations]

They will stop spending money on this uselessness if we stop feeding their persecution complex, which encourages them to do it again next year, and the year after that, so on so forth.

I disagree, they will put up the display whether we want them to or not. Remember it is the baby jesus we are talking about. The only saving would be in the legal costs not spent defending the displays

That is the point- they put it up because we don't want them, when they realise that they aren't being persecuted for that any more, they'll chuck ol' Jesus into the closet, and go back to being racist halfwits.

[Dyakovo]

So they put it in front a courthouse, why?

Pointless Heckles. That's why. They want to be persecuted, and if we play into them, they will do it again and again, until we will never hear the end of it. If we just let the Jesus-folk stick up a little statue of some chick and her kid, and ignore them, they will eventually stop because they will realise that no body fucking cares, and turn their attention to other heckle raising activities.

And if we don't "play into them", our rights get eroded.

[Norstal]

So they put it in front a courthouse, why?

Pointless Heckles. That's why. They want to be persecuted, and if we play into them, they will do it again and again, until we will never hear the end of it. If we just let the Jesus-folk stick up a little statue of some chick and her kid, and ignore them, they will eventually stop because they will realise that no body fucking cares, and turn their attention to other heckle raising activities.

We got rid of DADT and Obama is working on removing DOMA. Shows that our fight for a secular America is winning, so why stop there?

[Four-sided Triangles]

They will stop spending money on this uselessness if we stop feeding their persecution complex, which encourages them to do it again next year, and the year after that, so on so forth.

A persecution complex doesn't need any feeding. They'll find persecution even if they have to manufacture it like they do now.

[Hittanryan]

So they put it in front a courthouse, why?

Pointless Heckles. That's why. They want to be persecuted, and if we play into them, they will do it again and again, until we will never hear the end of it. If we just let the Jesus-folk stick up a little statue of some chick and her kid, and ignore them, they will eventually stop because they will realise that no body fucking cares, and turn their attention to other heckle raising activities.

Or we could just, you know, point out the fact they are not being persecuted, and would likely be doing the persecuting if given the opportunity. Fundamentalists from every religion are the ones trying to cram their narrowly-defined "morals" down everyone's throat, while claiming everyone who doesn't toe the line will suffer eternal torment. Instead of ignoring them and hoping the problem goes away, why not call them out on their hypocrisy?

[The Godly Nations]

They will stop spending money on this uselessness if we stop feeding their persecution complex, which encourages them to do it again next year, and the year after that, so on so forth.

A persecution complex doesn't need any feeding. They'll find persecution even if they have to manufacture it like they do now.

This is manufacturing persecution.

[Four-sided Triangles]

This is manufacturing persecution.

And they'll do it even if we provide them no catalyst. That's my point. There's no point in making any decision on the basis of getting them to shut up about being persecuted. Ain't gonna happen.

[Hittanryan]

They will stop spending money on this uselessness if we stop feeding their persecution complex, which encourages them to do it again next year, and the year after that, so on so forth.

A persecution complex doesn't need any feeding. They'll find persecution even if they have to manufacture it like they do now.

Definitely. If you give into their demands, it will only get worse. The next step is "our religion is being suppressed by the presence of other religious symbols." They'll use their manufactured persecution, in effect, to persecute others.

[The Godly Nations]

Pointless Heckles. That's why. They want to be persecuted, and if we play into them, they will do it again and again, until we will never hear the end of it. If we just let the Jesus-folk stick up a little statue of some chick and her kid, and ignore them, they will eventually stop because they will realise that no body fucking cares, and turn their attention to other heckle raising activities.

We got rid of DADT and Obama is working on removing DOMA. Shows that our fight for a secular America is winning, so why stop there?

This isn't prevent people of different sexual orientation or religious background from doing anything, it is just the work of some loons who want people to start something up so we can end the year with the usual bullshit, and it is just an statuette, a statuette of religious significance, but just a statuette all the same. Now, if the judge makes ruling based upon their religious conviction, then we have something there, we can send them packing away, and give them their figurines to play with as they look for another job, but, as it is, it doesn't interfere with my right to religion, nor yours.

[The Godly Nations]

In America, we have a group of People who just positively enjoy using Religion as an excuse to feed their natural need for persecution, they are called 'Fundamentalists'- the reason why I think we should leave them alone is because they will stop making an issue over it, and then go back to their usual method of extracting heckles, making absurd, stupid, and wildly bigoted statements.

First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

It didn't work before, it won't work now.

They aren't out to repress yet, it doesn't affect anyone's right, as far as I know, and it is just a giant waste of money to raise heckles- when they cross the border and make comments like: "He's guilty cuz he's a godless atheist", or allow their religious conviction to influence their ruling, then we can send them packing, but, as of now, they aren't persecuting anyone yet, they are trying to get people to persecute them so they can say something along the lines of "They are attacking Jesus now".