Finally..a decent lawsuit [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

View Full Version : Finally..a decent lawsuit

Watchman

12-10-2002, 07:12 PM

Check this out...

BRAVE NEW SCHOOLS
Ban on Christmas
leads to court fight
Education halls get decked with legal action for alleged discrimination against Christians

<a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29942" target="_blank">web page</a>

Its about time this suit was filed. This politically correct crap of having any symbol but a christian symbol has got to go.

CinaC

12-10-2002, 07:49 PM

You may have missed this, but this was posted in NickG's thread. It is Unconstitutional for any religious symbol, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Satanic, etc., to be in a public place.

Watchman

12-10-2002, 07:58 PM

Crazy, I think you would be very unhappy here then.

Everywhere you turn there are "religous" symbols all over the place.

I guess that most Americans are being "unconstitutional"eh ?

In fact, even in the town square is a "living nativity" put on by the Babtists every night.

I guess you heatherns must cring at the thought of it and say "BAH HUMBUG " hmm ? :p

CinaC

12-10-2002, 08:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Everywhere you turn there are "religous" symbols all over the place.<hr /></blockquote>I could give six flying *****s about what is in privately or corporately owned establishments. It is is perfectly legal for a company to tell its employees not to carry a firearm, and it is perfectly legal for Toys "R" Us to put up a Christmas Tree or a banner that says "Praise Allah". HOWEVER, if the government were to do any of that, it would be Unconstitutional.

Watchman

12-10-2002, 09:41 PM

six flying *****s ?

Must be a revolver man eh ? :D

Why stop at religious symbols ?
Today while I was at work, the classical rock station I listen too started playing "religious" music.On "public"airwaves! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

They played Silent Night, DrummerBoy, He Came Upon a Midnight Clear and several other songs that you've probably known since you were a kid.

Since it is unconstitutional for the government to "sanction" a religion by letting people put religious symbols on "public" property, it must to be illegal to play religious songs on public airways. Yet people do it.

Would you deny me the pleasure of listening to music too ?

retired

12-10-2002, 10:09 PM

Watchman,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
six flying *****s ?

Must be a revolver man eh ? :D

Why stop at religious symbols ?
Today while I was at work, the classical rock station I listen too started playing "religious" music.On "public"airwaves! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

They played Silent Night, DrummerBoy, He Came Upon a Midnight Clear and several other songs that you've probably known since you were a kid.

Since it is unconstitutional for the government to "sanction" a religion by letting people put religious symbols on "public" property, it must to be illegal to play religious songs on public airways. Yet people do it.

Would you deny me the pleasure of listening to music too ?<hr /></blockquote>I know of no SC ruling that has found airing religious music by a private radio station unconstitutional.

Watchman

12-10-2002, 10:27 PM

I know of no SC ruling that has found airing religious music by a private radio station unconstitutional.

Shhhhh........

keep quite about it or it'll be next !!!

But really, whats the difference ? The airwaves are "federal", therefore they are regulated by the FCC.

And if "government"employes want a tree in a government office, whats the gripe ? Why should their freedon be curtailed just because they are government employees ?

What about Christmas celebrations on naval vessels ? Army bases ? Airforce bases ? Marine bases ? All government property.

How many Christmas trees are in the Whitehouse even as we speak ?

Spiderman

12-10-2002, 11:43 PM

Interestingly, the "Christmas" tree actually has Babylonian origins. Based on that, you'd think the pagans would be accepting of it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

209

12-10-2002, 11:52 PM

The problem is the rather liberal minded people in charge of most of our school systems have decided that teaching your children about other religions is educational in nature. But allowing Christian displays is promoting a religion. Diversity is great, as long as it's their idea of diversity.

retired

12-11-2002, 12:01 AM

209,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by 209:
The problem is the rather liberal minded people in charge of most of our school systems have decided that teaching your children about other religions is educational in nature. But allowing Christian displays is promoting a religion. Diversity is great, as long as it's their idea of diversity.<hr /></blockquote>Schools may teach about any religion is an historical concept, and was ruled constitutional by the SC. I doubt that any atheist would disagree with that. I know I don't, and I am an atheist.

Allowing any religious display, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc, is promoting, sponsoring, or endorsing religion, something the schools don't need to be involved with. :)

CinaC

12-11-2002, 12:11 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Based on that, you'd think the pagans would be accepting of it<hr /></blockquote>Unless they are pagans who believe strongly in the seperation of church and state.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Today while I was at work, the classical rock station I listen too started playing "religious" music.On "public"airwaves!

They played Silent Night, DrummerBoy, He Came Upon a Midnight Clear and several other songs that you've probably known since you were a kid.

Since it is unconstitutional for the government to "sanction" a religion by letting people put religious symbols on "public" property, it must to be illegal to play religious songs on public airways. Yet people do it. <hr /></blockquote>You're making a dubious suggestion that because the government enforces law in aspects relating to a non-government corporation, that that corporation suddenly has become a government body. If you walk into 7-11 and shoot the clerk, you can't protest being charged with a murder because the shooting didn't occur on government property. In effect, you're trying to make the case that the jurisdiction of the police extends only to government property, and that thusly the entire physical nation located within the borders of the United States belongs to the government.

Given that this article has already been posted to the other religion-themed thread we have going in this very forum, and since this is rapidly on its way to turn into the same debate, I'd like to suggest that this thread be closed, before we have fifty threads rehashing the same arguements.

[ 12-11-2002, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

DaveInTx

12-11-2002, 01:25 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by retired:
Allowing any religious display, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc, is promoting, sponsoring, or endorsing religion, something the schools don't need to be involved with. :) <hr /></blockquote>I respectfully disagree. Allowing is doing nothing more than "allowing"--it is not endorsing, promoting, nor sponsoring--and as long as all religions are offered equal access I see nothing wrong with it. (Whether a religion decides to use their allowed access is another matter and does not enter into it.) In the public schools I went to in Detroit (1940s and 1950s), Christians were in the minority (most students in my part of town were Jewish) and we freely put up displays pertaining to all the major events in both religions; we used them as starting points for our discussions on the various religions. I don't think we had any Taoist or Buddhists, but I'm sure that if there had been, and they wanted to put up displays about their religions, they would have been allowed to. I think we'd even have allowed atheists to put up a blank display.

MHO
DaveInTx
Texan By Choice, not Accident

Underdog

12-11-2002, 02:56 AM

Part of the confusion in these cases stems from the fact that there are two different religion clauses within the First Amendment. The establishment clause prevents government from doing anything to further religion. The free exercise clause prevents government from interfering in the free exercise of religion by private parties. There is sometimes tension between the two different clauses.

Deputy757

12-13-2002, 05:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
You may have missed this, but this was posted in NickG's thread. It is Unconstitutional for any religious symbol, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Satanic, etc., to be in a public place.<hr /></blockquote>I guess that's why the Ten Commandments are on the walls of the Supreme Court.

Underdog

12-13-2002, 05:44 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757:
"I guess that's why the Ten Commandments are on the walls of the Supreme Court."

The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered other courts to remove religious symbols on more than one occassion. I don't know think that anybody has ever directly challenged the supreme court on the issue. However, the justices must be aware of the issue as it has been raised in writing many times.

Deputy757

12-14-2002, 06:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Underdog:
 The establishment clause prevents government from doing anything to further religion.<hr /></blockquote>Not from furthering religion, but from establishing a state religion. There is a big difference between the two and that is what I think is so often misconstrued.

Watchman

12-14-2002, 11:00 AM

Allowing any religious display, Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc, is promoting, sponsoring, or endorsing religion, something the schools don't need to be involved with.

I disagree. I disagrre wholehearedtly.Keeping people in the dark about other religions is not the wat to promote harmony and understanding.

Deputy757 wrote:
Not from furthering religion, but from establishing a state religion. There is a big difference between the two and that is what I think is so often misconstrued.

That I agree with.Putting a nativity display on the town square does not egual an endorsment by the "government" any more than letting someone put a a campaign sign on public property.

Allowing any religious symbols to be displayed on public property is a far cry from "sponsering" a religion. What it is is simply a reflection of the people and how they beleive.

The majority of people in this country beleive in a God.
For the minority to bitch, raise cain ,whine, moan and groan about religious symbols being displayed on "public property" and making enough noise to have them removed is simply WRONG. Its no big deal to disagree with something. Its another to force their views on people that dont agree with them.

In most cases where traditional things such as crosses or nativity scenes have been removed after being there every Christmas for years, the people are saddened and outraged.Most do not agree with these "decisions" that are being handed down but the "squeaking wheel gets the oil" as a result all over the country a small percentage of people are making things happen that most do not agree with.

Even on this board,if one reads the comments they could come to the conclusion that out of over 3000+ registered members on this board, less than a dozen (if that)think that all religious references should be removed from public view.
Those few people that do not reconize anything but themselves are the ones cry constantly about their "feelings" being "hurt" no matter that the customs of this country have been basically the same for several hundred years. They dont care what anybody else thinks and think that they are the only ones that have a clue about the constitution and the government.

And heres the killer. Those enlightened people that are atheist,or agnostic(is that better Crazy?) are the ones here that appear to scream the loudest about others "forcing" their views on them.
Why is it those that have no religion,scream and throw tantrums when other people display theirs?
Its the ultimate form of hypocracy and I really get tired of listening to this crap everytime I read a paper, turn on the news channel or even log on to a forum. This form of "tolerance" is going to kill this country and evidently its working quite well.

Have we got to the point that we cant even "display"religious symbols on government property at all ?

Are the "bahhummbugs" winning ?

I personally find it ironic that those bahhumbugs still participate in a "religious custom" by exchanging presents, sending cards, decorating their homes with things that originated from Christmas a long time ago. They scream about it how terrible it is to allow the Christmas spirit to be displayed publicly while reaching out to accept gifts.

Perhaps we ought to put it to the vote and end it once and for all.

Those for freedom of expression on "public property or "government property"...and
Those that are against any form of expression at all.

Anyone care to predict the results ?

I will now sit back and read the comments of how little I know,how sorry I am and how intolerant I am because I simply expressed my opinoin.
Its raining outside anyway, I have nothing better to do... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

CinaC

12-14-2002, 11:05 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And heres the killer. Those enlightened people that are atheist,or agnostic(is that better Crazy?) are the ones here that appear to scream the loudest about others "forcing" their views on them.
Why is it those that have no religion,scream and throw tantrums when other people display theirs?<hr /></blockquote>Again, Watchman, you either don't read, or do read and don't comprehend, my posts. I don't care if you've got a Christmas Tree, a nativity, or a big statue of Allah in your front yard. My objection to displays of religious symbols ends where public government property ends.

Your house is not, to the best of my knowledge, public government property. The shopping mall is not, to the best of my knowledge, public government property. Churches, mosques, and synagogues are not, to the best of my knowledge, public government property.

Again, you're making a dubious suggestion that because the government enforces law in aspects relating to a non-government corporation, that that corporation suddenly has become a government body. If you walk into 7-11 and shoot the clerk, you can't protest being charged with a murder because the shooting didn't occur on government property. In effect, you're trying to make the case that the jurisdiction of the police extends only to government property, and that thusly the entire physical nation located within the borders of the United States belongs to the government.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The majority of people in this country beleive in a God.
For the minority to bitch, raise cain ,whine, moan and groan about religious symbols being displayed on "public property" and making enough noise to have them removed is simply WRONG. Its no big deal to disagree with something. Its another to force their views on people that dont agree with them.<hr /></blockquote>Watchman, instead of argueing pro- or con- on this with a Constitutional arguement, you are once again making a "majority rules" arguement. The majority does not get to overrule the Constitution, no matter how much your high and vaulted private-school education may have brainwashed you into thinking that they do.

retired

12-14-2002, 01:37 PM

Watchman,

Okay, I'll say it, you are intolerant! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> :p :p :p

Watchman

12-14-2002, 02:48 PM

Ok Retired...

Ill admit it. I am intolerant of Buls*it !

You got me there... :D

Watchman

12-14-2002, 03:00 PM

Crazy in a Frenzy,

Nowhere did I say that you ever had a gripe with private property. It is apparent to me that you either don't read, or do read and don't comprehend, my posts. :p

To make sure that you understand, a school, courthouse or town square is public property. Every military installation is government property. Care to guess how many "religious" displays are on government property ? I've been on bases that even had prayer before they eat! I planted of few of my friends that had "government sponsered" chaplains pray over their caskets.

When I was a kid, I played one of the three wise men in the third grade in a public school. Last week I attended a high school choir "Cristmas" concert and 5 of the 6 songs were "religious".Actually they were Christian <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> and would beleive nobody bitched about it ? I think you are out of touch with reality. There is more to life than what you see, so dont let this subject consume you.
Merry Christmas! Better hurry up and do your Christmas shopping. Its getting kind of crowded already. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

retired

12-14-2002, 03:02 PM

Watchman,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Ok Retired...

Ill admit it. I am intolerant of Buls*it !

You got me there... :D <hr /></blockquote>And Merry XMAS to you also! :p :p :p

CinaC

12-14-2002, 03:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Nowhere did I say that you ever had a gripe with private property<hr /></blockquote>No, you made the allegation that religious symbols offended me. They don't. Unless they're on public government property.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Care to guess how many "religious" displays are on government property ? I've been on bases that even had prayer before they eat! I planted of few of my friends that had "government sponsered" chaplains pray over their caskets.<hr /></blockquote>The government has no right to interfere with a person's religious beliefs. The government can not tell incoming soldiers that they must forsake their religion for the time they wear the uniform. And provided the government goes to reasonable lengths to accomodate those of various religions, simply praying on government property does not, to my eyes, constitute a violation. On the other hand, if some hot-shot lieutenant ordered a Wiccan soldier not to pray, but allowed others to pray, this would be religious discrimination.

Watchman

12-14-2002, 03:42 PM

And Merry XMAS to you also!

:D :D :D :D

Underdog

12-14-2002, 11:18 PM

Originally posted by Deputy757:
"Not from furthering religion, but from establishing a state religion. There is a big difference between the two and that is what I think is so often misconstrued."

Deputy,

We have a constitutional form of government. Under our constitution, the U.S. Supreme Court is given the ultimate authority for interpreting the constitution. The Supreme Court has said that the first amendment prohibits government from doing anything to further religion. Thus, the establishment clause of the first amendment does prohibit government from doing anything to further religion. Government doesn't even have to further a specific religion, simply favoring religion over non-religion is enough to violate the constitution.

Actually, the subject is a little more complex than that. The Supreme Court has used two tests to decide establishment clause cases. These tests are the Lemon Test and the Endorsement Test.

Under the Lemon Test, the court looks to see three things: First, does government have a secular purpose? Second, the principle or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion. Third, the government action must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion. If the government's action violates any single prong of the Lemon Test, then the action is unconstitutional. Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602.

Under the endorsement test, the court asks if a reasonable person would conclude that government was endorsing religion. If the answer is yes, the action is unconstitutional. Lynch v. Donnelly 465 U.S. 668 (See Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion).

There are also other relevant factors. Free speech concerns are a major one in this area. For example, if the government property is a traditional public forumn that is open to all forms of speech, then government probably can't prohibit the posting of a religious symbol or message.

Without going into more depth or getting more technical than this, I am politely suggesting that you are mistaken in this area.

[ 12-14-2002, 11:21 PM: Message edited by: Underdog ]

Deputy757

12-15-2002, 07:14 AM

Underdog, I would say that you are VERY politely stating that I'm mistaken in this area! :)
And though I'm aware of these things that you point out, it still doesn't mean that the court is correct. Yes, it's what we must abide by since, as you pointed out correctly, they are the final authority on the interpretation of the Constitution. But courts make mistakes and on occasion, reverse themselves. Also, many times the court is split on these decisions so what is now "the law of the land" is only such by one vote.
I think C in a J made one good point. I think that if the town hall was suddenly adorned with Muslim script giving praise to Allah and all his goodness, many people would reconsider their views on this subject. That being said, I still don't see the harm in allowing religious matter to be displayed. It's a huge leap from two angels on the lawn of the town hall to forcing someone to become Christian/Catholic or any other faith. I know that some will scream "slippery slope", but the word reasonable was used in this thread and I think that's what we've got to be.
As for SCOTUS, they are pretty smug telling the rest of us that we can't display these things when they've got the Ten Commandments on the wall, "In God We Trust" on our money, and public service (like the President/V.President etc.) oaths ending in "So help me God".

Deputy757

12-15-2002, 07:29 AM

And one more thing... :)
Thanks for pointing out the Lynch case. It's actually a case where SCOTUS allows a governmental display of a religious scene. The item, a nativity scene, among other things, was sponsered by a city, though placed on private property.
The court actually said...
<blockquote>quote:<hr />The concept of a "wall" of separation between church and state is a useful metaphor but is not an accurate description of the practical aspects of the relationship that in fact exists. The Constitution does not require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. Anything less would require the "callous indifference" that was never intended by the Establishment Clause.
This Court's interpretation of the Establishment Clause comports with the contemporaneous understanding of the Framers' intent. That neither the draftsmen of the Constitution, who were Members of the First Congress, nor the First Congress itself, saw any establishment problem in employing Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the Congress is a striking example of the accommodation of religious beliefs intended by the Framers.
Our history is pervaded by official acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life, and equally pervasive is evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression and hostility toward none. <hr /></blockquote>

[ 12-15-2002, 07:30 AM: Message edited by: Deputy757 ]

Underdog

12-15-2002, 10:45 PM

In the Lemon case, I believe that they allowed the activity. In many other cases, the court has applied the test developed in Lemon v. Kurtzman and held that the government's action is unconstitutional. I would go so far as to say that the courts have struck down such things the vast majority of the time.

Chief Wiggum

12-16-2002, 03:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
six flying *****s ?

Must be a revolver man eh ? :D

Why stop at religious symbols ?
Today while I was at work, the classical rock station I listen too started playing "religious" music.On "public"airwaves! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

They played Silent Night, DrummerBoy, He Came Upon a Midnight Clear and several other songs that you've probably known since you were a kid.

Since it is unconstitutional for the government to "sanction" a religion by letting people put religious symbols on "public" property, it must to be illegal to play religious songs on public airways. Yet people do it.

Would you deny me the pleasure of listening to music too ?<hr /></blockquote>I'm sure that the radio station is privately owned not govt. owned.

Chief Wiggum

12-16-2002, 04:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Crazy in a Frenzy,

Nowhere did I say that you ever had a gripe with private property. It is apparent to me that you either don't read, or do read and don't comprehend, my posts. :p

To make sure that you understand, a school, courthouse or town square is public property. Every military installation is government property. Care to guess how many "religious" displays are on government property ? I've been on bases that even had prayer before they eat! I planted of few of my friends that had "government sponsered" chaplains pray over their caskets.

When I was a kid, I played one of the three wise men in the third grade in a public school. Last week I attended a high school choir "Cristmas" concert and 5 of the 6 songs were "religious".Actually they were Christian <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" /> and would beleive nobody bitched about it ? I think you are out of touch with reality. There is more to life than what you see, so dont let this subject consume you.
Merry Christmas! Better hurry up and do your Christmas shopping. Its getting kind of crowded already. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" /> <hr /></blockquote>Just because nobody bitched about it doesn't make it legal. I've seen people shot dead on the street that nobody cared about or "bitched" about. How much you wanna bet that the shooter will still get locked up if caught?

Watchman

12-16-2002, 07:04 PM

Just because nobody bitched about it doesn't make it legal.

Just because some liberals get their pantys in a wad dosent make it illegal ethier.

If you have any age to you, you might remember that its only been in the last 10-15 years that anyone ever had a gripe with it. Its this new age of political correctness and sensitivity training BS that gets people with no religion upset about the other 98 percent of humanity that "expresses" theirs a few times a year.

I've seen people shot dead on the street that nobody cared about or "bitched" about. How much you wanna bet that the shooter will still get locked up if caught?
Totally irrevelant to this discussion.

Chief Wiggum

12-17-2002, 08:45 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:


Just because some liberals get their pantys in a wad dosent make it illegal ethier.

If you have any age to you, you might remember that its only been in the last 10-15 years that anyone ever had a gripe with it. Its this new age of political correctness and sensitivity training BS that gets people with no religion upset about the other 98 percent of humanity that "expresses" theirs a few times a year.

I've seen people shot dead on the street that nobody cared about or "bitched" about. How much you wanna bet that the shooter will still get locked up if caught?
Totally irrevelant to this discussion.<hr /></blockquote>Fact is that the requirement of the seperation of church and state exists. I do remember when nobody bitched about this sort of thing (I miss those times). I'm simply stating that by your logic, if nobody complains about somthing that is unconstitutional or illegal it is OK. Your logic is faulted. :rolleyes: As for your statement that my example is irrevelant, it simply illustrates my point that just because nobody cares that an illegal/unconstitutional activity occurred doesn't then make it right/legal/whatever. I think that's pretty relevant. Then again I ususally tend to agree with myself.

I personally couldn't care less what types of decorations are on what public building. As long as all religions have an equal oportunity to decorate. They don't have to use the opportunity, but they should have it.

[ 12-17-2002, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: Chief Wiggum ]

Watchman

12-17-2002, 09:17 PM

Fact is that the requirement of the seperation of church and state exists.

Perhaps ,but not in the context that most people think it is. It simply means that the government will not have an official religion or "sponsor" one. Allowing decorations on public building is hardly "sponsering" on the contrary, it is simply allowing feedom by allowing what the people wish to do.

Your logic is faulted.
Not really because I dont think that way.

I personally couldn't care less what types of decorations are on what public building. As long as all religions have an equal oportunity to decorate. They don't have to use the opportunity, but they should have it.

I can live with that. Can you tell me ANY religion that has ever been prohibited from doing just that ?

retired

12-17-2002, 09:24 PM

Watchman,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Fact is that the requirement of the seperation of church and state exists.

Perhaps ,but not in the context that most people think it is. It simply means that the government will not have an official religion or "sponsor" one. Allowing decorations on public building is hardly "sponsering" on the contrary, it is simply allowing feedom by allowing what the people wish to do.

Your logic is faulted.
Not really because I dont think that way.

I personally couldn't care less what types of decorations are on what public building. As long as all religions have an equal oportunity to decorate. They don't have to use the opportunity, but they should have it.

Can you tell me ANY religion that has ever been prohibited from doing just that ?<hr /></blockquote>The majority of the time it isn't individual religions constructing the religious displays, it is the government, and that's not allowed! :p

Chief Wiggum

12-17-2002, 10:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
Fact is that the requirement of the seperation of church and state exists.

Perhaps ,but not in the context that most people think it is. It simply means that the government will not have an official religion or "sponsor" one. Allowing decorations on public building is hardly "sponsering" on the contrary, it is simply allowing feedom by allowing what the people wish to do.

]

Your logic is faulted.
Not really because I dont think that way.

I personally couldn't care less what types of decorations are on what public building. As long as all religions have an equal oportunity to decorate. They don't have to use the opportunity, but they should have it.

I can live with that. Can you tell me ANY religion that has ever been prohibited from doing just that ?<hr /></blockquote>[i]I disagree. I do see it as sponsering if the decorations are paid for by the govt. and put up by govt. employees on govt. time. I guess if employees brought their own decorations and put them up on their own time it would be fine.[/i

I've never heard any specific examples of religions being excluded. I'd be willing to bet that it has happened. As long as all are equal it's cool with me.

Now that I think about it I'm not really sure why I got involved in this discussion in the first place. Of all the issues we face as a country this issue (Christmas decor on public buildings) is about as important as declairing an official national fruit. I compare it to this: I see people turn without using signals all the time but I don't pull them over. Is it illegal? Yes. But I've got better things to do. I guess people are always going to get serious when religion is involved.

[ 12-17-2002, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Chief Wiggum ]

Underdog

12-17-2002, 10:56 PM

Those who believe that religion cases are a recent trend should consider Reynolds v. United States (1879), Davis v. Beason (1890), Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), Gitlow v. Newyork (1925), United States v. Schwimmer (1929), United States v. Macintosh (1931), Cantwell v. Conncticut (1940), Everson v. Board of Education (1947), etc., etc., etc.

The fact is that the Bill of Rights (including the religion clauses of the First Amendment) was not made applicable to the states until the Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the Civil War (in 1868, I believe). Even then, courts did not consider the Bill of Rights to be applicable to the states until the 1930s. Since most religion cases are litigated against individual states rather than the federal government, the vast bulk of religion cases have been litigated since the 1930s.

Watchman

12-17-2002, 11:22 PM

Yep.

Its only been in this age of instant information that someone groaning about anything can be heard instantly around the world in just a few days. Back then we didnt have political correct BS perpetuating everything in society ethier. A politician could stand in Congress and speak his mind without fear of losing his job for offending some minority group.

People werent so "sensitive" then. People had morals and and mental toughness and an education that makes "education" today look silly. You had to know how to read and do arithemetic and explain science and if you screwed up you got your butt paddled..twice, once at school and once at home for getting paddled at school. There was no such thing as a "social promotion", if you didnt make the grade you flunked and tried it again.

Now somebody can make a joke or a comment that 2 percent of the people in this country find "offensive" and lose his job and his fortune over it. At one time religion was thought to be a vital part of raising a family, most people decorated their homes ,shops and even the town square and nobody got upset over it.Back then, most people had to work for a living just to eat.Now we have 3rd and 4th generation welfare recipeints with nothing better to do than figure out a way to get more money from the government.

Compare the number of "religious"lawsuits then with the number of lawsuits today and try to figure out just what the heck has changed.

[ 12-17-2002, 11:24 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]