Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this
13 Dec 2011, 7:15 pm
HerrGrimm wrote:
Let him speak for himself. He didn't mention the case at all when he carpet-bombed the thread with Supreme Court references.
I am familiar with Allegheny v. ACLU, the Nativity scene that was ruled on had nothing which detracted from its individual religious message, like in Lynch v. Donnelly. I only mentioned supreme court precedents that were specifically relevant. You should also note that the Hanukkah Menorah in Allegheny v. ACLU was ruled constitutional because it was part of a display with secular images.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Proximity matters apparently. Just because you have the secular symbols does not mean anything if they are not close enough to make an overall display.
The Courthouse lawn would be the display, the Nativity is there, the Santa in his sleigh with reindeer is easily bigger than the nativity scene; the snowmen and presents are also rather large. So I don't think Allegheny v. ACLU would be applicable, rather Lynch v. Donnelly would be the more relevant case. Further, I would actually like this to go to the supreme court, the Robert's Court has been making some pretty reasonable decisions with regards to the First Amendment; like the Mojave Cross case. The court balance has shifted quite substantially since the end of the Rehnquist era.
Inuyasha wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read this all isn't this issue. What Atheists are up in arms over is that the nativity scene, specifically is even allowed there at all, and the fact they can't put up their stuff right on top of the nativity scene to mock Christians specifically, which shows how the Atheist group is just trying to mock and offend people.
I agree, there are good reasons to think they don't particularly care about constitutionality.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
13 Dec 2011, 7:24 pm
I'm afraid I was rather messy with my references. The three justices mentioned were not the only ones who gave an opinion against having the nativity. On the Cornell website there are also 2 other sources for this case: Justice Blackmun's opinion and a syllabus.
Also, the first reference I showed was only Justice O'Connor's opinion, which would explain the 'I' part when I referenced the three judges.
Blackmun's opinion included a sign promoting Christianity on the creche:
Justice Blackmun wrote:
Under the Court's holding in Lynch, the effect of a creche display turns on its setting. Here, unlike in Lynch, nothing in the context of the display detracts from the creche's religious message. The Lynch display comprised a series of figures and objects, each group of which had its own focal point. Santa's house and his reindeer were objects of attention separate from the creche, and had their specific visual story to tell. Similarly, whatever a "talking" wishing well may be, it obviously was a center of attention separate from the creche. Here, in contrast, the creche stands alone: it is the single element of the display on the Grand Staircase. [n48] [p599]
Justice Blackmun wrote:
The fact that the creche bears a sign disclosing its ownership by a Roman Catholic organization does not alter this conclusion. On the contrary, the sign simply demonstrates that the government is endorsing the religious message of that organization, rather than communicating a message of its own. But the Establishment Clause does not limit only the religious content of the government's own communications. It also prohibits the government's support and promotion of religious communications by religious organizations. See, e.g., Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) (government support of the distribution of religious messages by religious organizations violates the Establishment Clause). Indeed, the very concept of "endorsement" conveys [p601] the sense of promoting someone else's message. Thus, by prohibiting government endorsement of religion, the Establishment Clause prohibits precisely what occurred here: the government's lending its support to the communication of a religious organization's religious message.
Justice Blackmun wrote:
For this reason, the claim that prohibiting government from celebrating Christmas as a religious holiday discriminates against Christians in favor of nonadherents must fail. Celebrating Christmas as a religious, as opposed to a secular, holiday, necessarily entails professing, proclaiming, or believing that Jesus of Nazareth, born in a manger in Bethlehem, is the Christ, the Messiah. If the government celebrates Christmas as a religious holiday (for example, by issuing an official proclamation saying: "We rejoice in the glory of Christ's birth!"), it means that the government really is declaring Jesus to be the Messiah, a specifically Christian belief. In contrast, confining the government's own celebration of Christmas to the holiday's secular aspects does not favor the religious beliefs of non-Christians over those of Christians. Rather, it simply permits the government to acknowledge the holiday without expressing an allegiance to [p612] Christian beliefs, an allegiance that would truly favor Christians over non-Christians. To be sure, some Christians may wish to see the government proclaim its allegiance to Christianity in a religious celebration of Christmas, but the Constitution does not permit the gratification of that desire, which would contradict the "‘the logic of secular liberty'" it is the purpose of the Establishment Clause to protect. See Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. at 244, quoting B. Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution 265 (1967).
Justice Blackmun wrote:
Lynch v. Donnelly confirms, and in no way repudiates, the longstanding constitutional principle that government may not engage in a practice that has the effect of promoting or endorsing religious beliefs. The display of the creche in the county courthouse has this unconstitutional effect. The display of the menorah in front of the City-County Building, however, does not have this effect, given its "particular physical setting."
So, looking further at these sources, it was a rather messy case in total. I still stand by the previous post I had where I do not know the outline of the display, so I cannot make a judgment on whether it is constitutional or not, and the FFRF sign appears rather iffy when I think about it declaring there are no Gods (I don't think you really need it to proclaim a secular Christmas). While saying there are no Gods is in no way a religious belief, I think it is reasonable to say that if you have a sign saying there are no Gods then something might be wrong with that. So maybe neither side is completely (?) correct on this matter given the Allegheny decision. I really would prefer both the FFRF sign and the creche not being there if I had to make a choice now, although if you have one, you must have the other, in my opinion, since they would be next to each other (which woud satisfy the "physical setting" part). I still stand by my statement about letting people express despite it being "offensive" as well.
I just need to give ALL sources for review, not just one. My apologies.
13 Dec 2011, 7:28 pm
91 wrote:
I am familiar with Allegheny v. ACLU, the Nativity scene that was ruled on had nothing which detracted from its individual religious message, like in Lynch v. Donnelly. I only mentioned supreme court precedents that were specifically relevant. You should also note that the Hanukkah Menorah in Allegheny v. ACLU was ruled constitutional because it was part of a display with secular images.
Right. I read the case (hence why I posted about it). You just ignored the proximity part and how close it actually was. It seems rather important and relevant, myself. You did address it below, however:
91 wrote:
The Courthouse lawn would be the display, the Nativity is there, the Santa in his sleigh with reindeer is easily bigger than the nativity scene; the snowmen and presents are also rather large. So I don't think Allegheny v. ACLU would be applicable, rather Lynch v. Donnelly would be the more relevant case. Further, I would actually like this to go to the supreme court, the Robert's Court has been making some pretty reasonable decisions with regards to the First Amendment; like the Mojave Cross case. The court balance has shifted quite substantially since the end of the Rehnquist era.
Look at the video again, it looks like it is the only thing in the area. You have the layout? In fact, does anyone have a layout? It would be good to know before you make a decision how large the lawn actually is and where things are placed. I mean, if they weren't close enough it would be unconstitutional, right? Which would mean you know how close they are to each other and the actual layout.
91 wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
Apparently, from what I've read this all isn't this issue. What Atheists are up in arms over is that the nativity scene, specifically is even allowed there at all, and the fact they can't put up their stuff right on top of the nativity scene to mock Christians specifically, which shows how the Atheist group is just trying to mock and offend people.
I agree, there are good reasons to think they don't particularly care about constitutionality.
My question about offensive expressions is good for you as well.
EDIT #3: EDIT #1 was "I mean, if...each other and the actual layout." EDIT #2 was "It seems rather important and relevant, myself."
Last edited by HerrGrimm on 13 Dec 2011, 7:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
13 Dec 2011, 9:09 pm
HerrGrimm wrote:
and the FFRF sign appears rather iffy when I think about it declaring there are no Gods
I agree, the FFRF don't really seem to care about constitutionality, they just want to get their message out. Dan Barker, from the organization said he wanted to put up 'an Anti-Christian message'(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKvA-9abh2E about 3:10 into the video). Surely the idea that this is not an insult, aimed specifically at Christians (note the lack of complaint about the Menorah) is forgone, the apologists for this group should really give it up.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/atheist ... s-sleeves/
HerrGrimm wrote:
Justice Blackmun
To be perfectly honest, I am rather glad he is no longer on the court; that is not to say that his opinion can be ignored, they certainly still carry weight. My personal opinion, and that is, personal. Is that I have no problem if other religious festivals want to have themselves singled out during their holidays. President Obama had a Ramadan dinner recently, I don't have a problem with that, so long as on Christmas, or Bastille Day or some other major holiday the government is also free to do something. I don't see it as an endorsement when taken as a whole. Justice Blackmun would have us believe that in each individual case, the constitutionality much be tested individually. That view certainly would have benefits for case law but would most likely result in many cases being decided in favor of the 'no message' option; which I think will result in the US slowing building a 'no religion' position into it's legal system, not just a 'no endorsement of religion' position. I look quite favorably at the development of the concept of 'government speech' under the new Robert's Supreme Court and hope that a wider view will be taken over time.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Look at the video again, it looks like it is the only thing in the area. You have the layout?
No, but I have been following it on the various new channels. The nativity stands at one point on the law, the path has a santa sleigh running next to it and the snowman and multifaith images seem to be between the two. A person driving into the court would most likely see it as a more or less contiguous line of displays ending on the street corner. Working against the city is the fact that the lawn seems pretty huge, the displays can appear to be separate. The city seems to have gone to some length to ensure that the display would most likely meet the standard set in Lynch v. Donnelly.
HerrGrimm wrote:
I mean, if they weren't close enough it would be unconstitutional, right?
Justice Blackmun wrote:
Under the Court's holding in Lynch, the effect of a creche display turns on its setting. Here, unlike in Lynch, nothing in the context of the display detracts from the creche's religious message. The Lynch display comprised a series of figures and objects, each group of which had its own focal point. Santa's house and his reindeer were objects of attention separate from the creche, and had their specific visual story to tell. Similarly, whatever a "talking" wishing well may be, it obviously was a center of attention separate from the creche. Here, in contrast, the creche stands alone: it is the single element of the display on the Grand Staircase. [n48] [p599]
Justice Blackmun is pointing out here that the display can have individual focal points; remember the Lynch display was ruled constitutional. The Courthouse has a nativity, that stands on the street but has a series of other images over the lawn. Proximity certainly does count for something, but in the Lynch display, the points of interest were also quite diverse. So I think this would work in favor of the Texas display. In the Allegheny case the nativity was inside on the staircase while the Menorah was outside in the same area as other secular images. If the Texas display was indoors and Santa was outside, then I would agree with you, but the two are on the same lawn. There are images that detract from the religious image present, even though they have different focal points.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
13 Dec 2011, 10:01 pm
Well, I guess I am going to hold judgment until I find an actual map/layout of the place instead of someone seeing a small area on a television screen in Australia. I'll look for that when I can.
91 wrote:
I agree, the FFRF don't really seem to care about constitutionality, they just want to get their message out.
That is not what I said. In fact, my response to your assertion is alternatively framing the challenge I gave Inuyasha (which he has not answered) and really anyone else if they want to answer. I'll repeat it:
HerrGrimm wrote:
Explain how a sign being offensive and insulting (if that) violates your rights in America. I am dead serious. Name a couple cases where "it is offensive and insulting" is a legitimate reason to suppress someone expressing themselves in this country. The Westboro Baptist Church can still protest. It did not happen in Skokie, where the Supreme Court ruled that brandishing a swastika is their right to do. In fact, the Nazis decided to march in Skokie as retaliation for not being able to march in Chicago, so you would think that would be worse. You're allowed to desecrate the flag, and you're allowed to not stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem, which would probably be "offensive" to most Americans. Because it is "offensive and insulting" does not mean they cannot express themselves. There is no argument that secular symbols are allowed, right? That includes the ones you don't like.
That is your argument. Your argument is the sign should not be shown because you find it offensive, and Inuyasha finds it inflammatory. Your Supreme Court decisions show whether or not the creche should stand, not the option of showing the FFRF sign. I said very explicitly that if you were going to allow the creche to allow the sign, or the alternate option is to do neither. I never once said this was a plan to get their message out. I hope you just did not use the wrong sentence structure.
91 wrote:
Robert's Court has been making some pretty reasonable decisions with regards to the First Amendment
Including the Westboro Baptist case? That was Roberts's court there. In fact, what does Inuyasha think about that case, too? If he actually chooses to answer one of my questions for once, which I remind people they are not obliged to do. I'll only say it once and I'm done.
13 Dec 2011, 10:20 pm
HerrGrimm wrote:
Well, I guess I am going to hold judgment until I find an actual map/layout of the place
You do that. I will go with the Courthouse's Attorney. If someone wants to claim that x is unconstitutional the burden of proof is on them. I am fine with the footage, precedent, the statement from the County Judge and the Court Attorney.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Your argument is the sign should not be shown because you find it offensive, and Inuyasha finds it inflammatory.
Sorry, but this borders on a strawman. My argument was that the city was under no obligation to display the sign (I also went into more detail on the previous pages). Please note, I said, anti-Christian not 'offensive', they are not the same thing I am not arguing that it should be banned because it is offensive. Further, the banner is an explicit endorsement of an anti-Christian message. The endorsement test has a legal opposite in which the government cannot disapprove of religion, the nativity sits within a seasonal display and can be interpreted to be a part of it. The atheist banner is just a blatant dis-endorsement placard. I am open minded as to whether it would fail the test, I think it probably would though. My primary points are that the city does not have to show the banner and that the display does not violate the First Amendment.
HerrGrimm wrote:
Including the Westboro Baptist case? That was Roberts's court there.
Free speech does include a freedom to insult, I would argue that someone, such cases, ought not to exercise that freedom but that is another question. I note again, I have not said the banner should be banned because it is offensive, rather that the city has no obligation to display it.
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
13 Dec 2011, 11:11 pm
91 wrote:
Free speech does include a freedom to insult, I would argue that someone, such cases, ought not to exercise that freedom but that is another question. I note again, I have not said the banner should be banned because it is offensive, rather that the city has no obligation to display it.
I agree that free speech does not guarantee a right to an audience.
However, I'm pretty sure the atheists in question would be satisfied if the christian displays were removed from government property.
13 Dec 2011, 11:16 pm
blauSamstag wrote:
91 wrote:
Free speech does include a freedom to insult, I would argue that someone, such cases, ought not to exercise that freedom but that is another question. I note again, I have not said the banner should be banned because it is offensive, rather that the city has no obligation to display it.
I agree that free speech does not guarantee a right to an audience.
However, I'm pretty sure the atheists in question would be satisfied if the christian displays were removed from government property.
However that is simply going after one religion and is rather discriminatory because there is nothing on the Christian nativity scene bashing Judaism, Islam, or anyone else.
13 Dec 2011, 11:41 pm
Inuyasha wrote:
However that is simply going after one religion
BS
Actual original FFRF letter wrote:
“We request that, as the Henderson County Commissioners, you take immediate action to ensure that no religious displays are on city or county property.
"No religious" is clear. It does not say "No Christian"
Quote:
and is rather discriminatory because there is nothing on the Christian nativity scene bashing Judaism, Islam, or anyone else.
Besides of the part that claims that baby Jesus is god and therefore Judaism, Islam and everyone else are wrong. Bonus points because it also bashes Jehova witnesses and their anti-christmas belief.
_________________
.
13 Dec 2011, 11:45 pm
Vexcalibur wrote:
Inuyasha wrote:
However that is simply going after one religion
BS
Quote:
and is rather discriminatory because there is nothing on the Christian nativity scene bashing Judaism, Islam, or anyone else.
Besides of the part that claims that baby Jesus is god and therefore Judaism, Islam and everyone else are wrong. Bonus points because it also bashes Jehova witnesses and their anti-christmas belief.Except for the fact that there was no actually text on the nativity scene making that claim.
How about the atheists go make the same lawsuits to Muslim religious symbols and then let's see what happens...
13 Dec 2011, 11:51 pm
Vexcalibur wrote:
"No religious" is clear. It does not say "No Christian"
I have a hard time thinking that by your reckoning that this is not an anti-Christian or anti-religious message. Dan Barker, from the FFRF said he that it is 'an Anti-Christian message' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKvA-9abh2E about 3:10 into the video).
_________________
Life is real ! Life is earnest!
And the grave is not its goal ;
Dust thou art, to dust returnest,
Was not spoken of the soul.
Last edited by 91 on 13 Dec 2011, 11:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
13 Dec 2011, 11:52 pm
91 wrote:
I have a hard time thinking that by your reckoning that this is not an anti-Christian or anti-religious message.
I am unsurprised by your inability to understand the written word. In fact, it surprises me more that you are literate at all.
My post was clearly about Inuyasha's claim that the FFRF's letter (because it was just that, a letter, not a lawsuit or a threat or anything) targetted Christian symbols solely. Whilst the bit I quoted clearly asks for the removal of any religious symbol. In other words: No, it is not part of a conspiracy that focus exclusively on Christians. It is like you say "anti-religious" (Or rather against government endorsement of religions).
---
Oh yes, there was no text. But there was an angel blessing the baby. Clear indication of divinity.
Also, I have noticed that there is a lot of BS surrounding your reporting of the facts here. Actually, rather than BS an urge to blend different cases together into a single case.
Let us focus on the specific case for Henderson county:
http://www.malakoffnews.net/2011/12/06/ ... -nativity/
Inuyasha has constantly and ad nauseum said that there are other religious symbols in the scene but the article actually does not say that.
Quote:
Gaylor said that everyone has to have access to the public forum, which would require the county to have a permitting process in place. That way, someone with a different religious belief would have equal access to the Courthouse Square.
Gaylor said the FFRF would be sending open records requests to the county regarding permitting for the Christmas display.
Carol Morton of the Light Up Athens Committee Tuesday confirmed there is no permitting process. “We always have permission, but have never had a permit,” she said.
In other words, in the case of Hendenson County, there actually is only a Christian nativity scene.
Gaylor said the FFRF would be sending open records requests to the county regarding permitting for the Christmas display.
Carol Morton of the Light Up Athens Committee Tuesday confirmed there is no permitting process. “We always have permission, but have never had a permit,” she said.
The submitted Atheist "banner" / Group shot is for the case from Ellwood.
We have been victims to Fox News style reporting from Inuyasha.
_________________
.
13 Dec 2011, 11:56 pm
@ Vexcalibur
I'm sure if a Jewish group that lived in that community wanted to put up Jewish symbols, they would have been more than willing to accomodate that.
Furthermore, I never said that the banner was the incident occurring in Texas, you jumped to a conclusion.
I was talking about two different situations to show a pattern. The case in Texas involves throwing the Flying Spagetti Monster in with the Nativity scene.
The other incident is an attempt to put a banner right over or on the nativity scene.
Sorry if you couldn't figure out the fact I was referring to more than one incident, I think 91 actually knew I was talking about more than one incident in this thread.
14 Dec 2011, 12:02 am
Inuyasha wrote:
@ Vexcalibur
I'm sure if a Jewish group that lived in that community wanted to put up Jewish symbols, they would have been more than willing to accomodate that.
I am sure that since you have no evidence for that, you are once again talking out of your ass.I'm sure if a Jewish group that lived in that community wanted to put up Jewish symbols, they would have been more than willing to accomodate that.
Quote:
Furthermore, I never said that the banner was the incident occurring in Texas, you jumped to a conclusion.
Oh hell yes, cause a confusion by pumping off topic cases to the discussion and then blame the people that got confused.
Quote:
I was talking about two different situations to show a pattern.
You mean poison the well.Quote:
The case in Texas involves throwing the Flying Spagetti Monster in with the Nativity scene.
And what's exactly the grounds for not allowing it? The FSM involves no text. It is a religion with plenty of adepts. The founder of the church is against being anti-Christian and also against the FFRF anti-nativity scenes actions.
Quote:
The other incident is an attempt to put a banner right over or on the nativity scene.
You keep being a dishonest weasel and a shame for the race of frozen vegetables. It is not a banner, it is a group shot with text in the lower part.
Quote:
yadda yadda more than one incident in this thread
But how convenient. You left that out whenever you mentioned how religious symbols from other religions where admitted. All this time you forgot to mention that in the original OP. The Christian nativity scene is the sole display. Every time you said that the FFRF were unjoustly focusing only on Christian the nativity scene, you forgot this bit of information, that in that one county it was really the only scene. And in the angry anti-Christmas letter from the FFRF they were completely right. As 91 has posted multiple times, Supreme Court does not allow the Christian nativity scene to be the only display.
This thread is a festival of Inuyasha prickiness, intolerance against atheists and downward dishonest reporting. My god, in a way it is beautiful.
_________________
.
