Are Nativity Displays Constitutional?

Although the First Amendment forbids the government from establishing religion, once again this holiday season, cities and counties across the country will be displaying nativity scenes to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ on government property. The Supreme Court has held that stand-alone religious holiday displays violate the Establishment Clause. That much is clear. HOWEVER ...

[Hedonist]

“What is crucial is that a government practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion.” ~ Justice O’Connor

[Givemeliberty]

On private property have 100 of them who cares?

On public property if you are going to have a nativity scene you must also allow a pagan and every other religion to place their bizarre tribute beside it.

[MrDesoto1]

On Freethought Radio a couple weeks ago they discussed the recent judicial decision to stop the Santa Monica Palisades Park xmas displays on that public property. The guest was asked if those churches had been erecting these huge life sized displays on their own property. The answer was NO!

Why do they need to force this Visual Pollution onto others from taxpayers' public property, but won't use their own tax-free property for their religious propaganda?

[KittenKoder]

I don't care. Myths are for entertainment purposes anyway, so, let them entertain us.

[Sneaky Pete]

Of course they're constitutional. Why is this even a debate? If you non-believing loons want to promote your whacky agenda, do it in a country wasn't founded on Christianity. This one was. Our founders believed in God and built the constitution around it, so all of you gay-theists out there, STFU, and have a merry Christmas!

[polymath257]

Yes, nativity displays are constitutional: on private property. But on *government* property, they are an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion.

[Buck Crick]

polymath257 wrote:

Yes, nativity displays are constitutional: on private property. But on *government* property, they are an unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion.

Oh? Point out the constitutional provision they violate.

Please, take your time.

While you're at it, point out the section, amendment, or clause that is violated by government "endorsement of a particular religion".

Take your time there, too.

[Buck Crick]

Hedonist wrote:

“What is crucial is that a government practice not have the effect of communicating a message of government endorsement or disapproval of religion.”~ Justice O’Connor

O'Connor is wrong.

There is no constitutional prohibition of endorsement or disapproval of a particular religion.

If there were, having a federal holiday for Christmas would violate the Constitution. And taxpayer funds for the National Endowment for the Arts would do likewise. And closing federal offices on Sunday,...and on and on.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees neutrality on how states and localities choose to handle religion. That's it - nothing more. That was before Supreme Court Justices stopped giving a shit about the Constitution.

[-Skeptic-]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh? Point out the constitutional provision they violate.
Please, take your time.
While you're at it, point out the section, amendment, or clause that is violated by government "endorsement of a particular religion".
Take your time there, too.

Can't you shut your creationist trap for even just a second? not even on xmas day?

What the f*ck is wrong with you lying creationist f*cks?

[-Skeptic-]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
O'Connor is wrong.
There is no constitutional prohibition of endorsement or disapproval of a particular religion.
If there were, having a federal holiday for Christmas would violate the Constitution. And taxpayer funds for the National Endowment for the Arts would do likewise. And closing federal offices on Sunday,...and on and on.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees neutrality on how states and localities choose to handle religion. That's it - nothing more. That was before Supreme Court Justices stopped giving a shit about the Constitution.

The earth isn't 6000 years old, nobody belives your worthles cult

[KittenKoder]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
O'Connor is wrong.
There is no constitutional prohibition of endorsement or disapproval of a particular religion.
If there were, having a federal holiday for Christmas would violate the Constitution. And taxpayer funds for the National Endowment for the Arts would do likewise. And closing federal offices on Sunday,...and on and on.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees neutrality on how states and localities choose to handle religion. That's it - nothing more. That was before Supreme Court Justices stopped giving a shit about the Constitution.

Oh goody, so the government can choose to be all WBC and make all laws based on that, outlawing all other religions. Great, when do we begin?