Freedom Of/from Religion

[add]

Season greetings
Is a Chrismas tree or a nativity display on Main street a protected practice of religion?

[CatherineM]

It should be under the Constitution, but in many places it is not.

[AccountDeleted]

It might be considered so under the First Amendment? Sort of like why billboards are allowed and other displays?? Not specifically freedom of religion, but perhaps freedom of speech?

[Basilisa Marie]

It depends on how the local courts rule on the First Amendment. Most of the time it gets controversial when City Hall puts it out, because then it seems like a branch of the state is favoring one religion over another. Granted, I think that's a bit ridiculous, but it ultimately depends on how the courts interpret the first amendment.

[BG45]

In theory, yes. In practice, the ACLU will sue faster than you can bat an eye.

[add]

the Boston Globe
[size=3]December 10, 2011[/size]


[b][size=6]Holiday tree’: Sincere, but wrong-headed[/size][/b]
[size=3]An evergreen strung with lights, adorned with hanging bulbs, and strewn with tinsel knows no other name but Christmas tree. Rhode Island Governor Lincoln Chafee strains credulity in calling it a “holiday tree,’’ in order to avoid offending Jews, Muslims, atheists, and other constituents who aren’t celebrating Christmas.[/size]
[size=3]But while Chafee’s renaming of the Christmas tree defies logic, the sentiments behind his stance are sincere and well-intentioned. He hardly deserves the contempt of the radio commentators and certain Christian groups who claim to be deeply offended. It’s difficult to indulge their sense of injury, amid the glorious pageants of Christmas lights on almost every block, carols ringing through malls, lights in church steeples, and specials on TV. Americans can’t be accused of downplaying Christmas. Revelers need not look far for signs of the season. [/size]
[size=3]Those inclined to feel upset about Chafee’s “holiday tree’’ should remember that the Christmas spirit is expressed through generosity, forgiveness, and good cheer - including toward those who are not celebrating, and their sometimes overly vigorous defenders. [/size]

[MithLuin]

If a shop puts it up, it's fine. Ditto for an individual decorating their own house/yard (assuming no other rules are being broken). If the city puts it up, then of course tax dollars are being used to supply the decorations. I don't know of any instance where the ACLU (or anyone else) went after a municipality for putting up lights or trees, but a Nativity set is sometimes challenged as being an overt sign of gov't endorsing religion, blah blah blah.

[add]

[img]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d160/wisper3/polticalxmas.jpg[/img]

[Jesus_lol]

well, IMO its a thing government should probably keep out of. it kinda falls outside the boundaries of "governing" , but it happens anyways. It would be fair though if every religious and nonreligious holiday was decorated for and celebrated.

[quia_pulvis]

[img]http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51xQJbH0gbL._SL500_AA300_.jpg[/img]
[url="http://www.amazon.com/Generic-Winter-Holiday-Countdown-Calendar/dp/B001MY8U1Y"]http://www.amazon.com/Generic-Winter-Holiday-Countdown-Calendar/dp/B001MY8U1Y[/url]

As long as its not the government that is putting it up and allows fair opportunity to all residence to put up what they so choose it should be clear with the first amendment. With all the customs of greenery and lights coming from the christian faith and people think of Christmas (not Hanukkah or Kwanzaa) I am surprised ACLU doesnt jump at the local governments putting up those decorations.

I am happy to say where I work, they encourage us to say Merry Christmas and not happy holidays to our customers.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i think the SCourt ruled on a nativity scene, so it might be an answered question already, as to whether it'd be allowed. i think they said it was not permissible for the city to allow it.
i think it was a case that was ruled joinltly with the 'bong hits for jesus' case, where they said that that wasn't protected speech from students at a parade.

[quote][size=3]
[i]County of Allegheny v. ACLU[/i][url="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0_bGnpYuDTIJ:www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section%3Dsports_and_entertainment_law_section%26template%3D/cm/contentdisplay.cfm%26contentid%3D72296+bong+hits+for+jesus+nativity+scene+first+amen#_ftn27"][27] produced the “endorsement test,” which charges the government with unconstitutionally endorsing religion when the state “conveys or attempts to convey that a religion or a particular religious belief is favored or preferred over another religious belief or disbelief.”[/url][url="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0_bGnpYuDTIJ:www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section%3Dsports_and_entertainment_law_section%26template%3D/cm/contentdisplay.cfm%26contentid%3D72296+bong+hits+for+jesus+nativity+scene+first+amen#_ftn28"][28] The Supreme Court’s ruling was in response to a city sponsored [b]Nativity[/b] [b]scene[/b] prominently placed in front of a county courthouse, with no depictions of Santa Clause or other decorations present in the same area.[/url][url="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0_bGnpYuDTIJ:www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section%3Dsports_and_entertainment_law_section%26template%3D/cm/contentdisplay.cfm%26contentid%3D72296+bong+hits+for+jesus+nativity+scene+first+amen#_ftn29"][29] The Court found that this prominent placement “sen[t] an unmistakable message that [the county] supports and promotes the Christian praise to God that is the [[b]nativity[/b] scene’s] religious message.”[/url]<a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0_bGnpYuDTIJ:www.wisbar.org/am/template.cfm?section%3Dsports_and_entertainment_law_section%26template%3D/cm/contentdisplay.cfm%26contentid%3D72296+bong+hits+for+jesus+nativity+scene+first+amen#_ftn30">[30][/size]
[/quote]

Edited December 14, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[DMcB]

My concern is with the amount of taxpayer money that is spent on displays. That said, I am bothered by the ACLU types that file lawsuits against government for displaying religious (read: Christian) themes. My gut instinct tells me that many within the ACLU and other likeminded groups would have NO problem rewriting the Declaration of Independence and Constitution in order to remove all references to The Almighty. (insert sad face)

[Jesus_lol]

With the exception of the 2nd amendment, the ACLU does a pretty good job of "policing" constitutional stuff from what ive heard.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1323644075' post='2349335']
well, IMO its a thing government should probably keep out of. it kinda falls outside the boundaries of "governing" , but it happens anyways.
[/quote]
Whatever your opinion may be, constitutionally, the federal government has no power to interfere with main street creche sets and such.

Let's read what the establishment clause of the first amendment actually says: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

As city hall creche sets do not involve Congress making any sort of law, they are certainly not prohibited by the first amendment. An "establishment of religion" means a tax-funded national Church (such as the Church of England). Main street creche displays are decoration; they do not prohibit any one from practicing or not practicing any religion or force anyone to convert, nor do they give money to a specific church or denomination.

The entire Bill of Rights of the Constitution places restrictions on the power of Congress and the federal government, rather than granting the federal government power to interfere where it has no business doing so.

Whether and how local government property, such as city halls and courthouses, decorates for Christmas or other holidays is a decision to be made by the people and local city, county, or state governments, not by federal courts.

Per the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."


Of course, I am fully aware that this sanity flies in the face of current liberal orthodoxy, which thinks it is the job of federal judges to rush in and intervene every time some atheist or member of another politically-correct "victim" group feels slighted.

[quote]It would be fair though if every religious and nonreligious holiday was decorated for and celebrated.[/quote]
Yeah, every courthouse must have decorations for Kwanzaa, Festivus every Ba'hai holiday, Church of Scientology event, National Atheist Day, Wiccan feast, feast of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and any Satanic unholy days. Otherwise, we'll sue!!

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1323881731' post='2351196']
With the exception of the 2nd amendment, the ACLU does a pretty good job of "policing" constitutional stuff from what ive heard.
[/quote]
Unfortunately, their view of the Constitution, particularly the first amendment, is seriously skewed.