PA Town Removes 57-Year-Old Nativity Scene From Gov't Building: 'Highly Disrespectful'

It is sad that one cannot understand that this is as it should be according to our Constitutional principles. We are protected by separation of church and state. It was a government building, therefore a nativity scene does not belong there.

Hey, I think we should leave it there.

And we should ban all pork products from government buildings for the Jews and Muslims, put up statues of Buddha and Shiva, maybe nail a live chicken to the door for the Voodoo folks....

Can't those that Are not Christian ... just let them be?

Can't those that are Christians learn what the @!$%# separation of Church and State means?

That is what is sad.

But as Dennis says - my friend's religion believes in displaying the bloody entrails of lizards and snake carcasses for several days during their holy days. You OK with that Jim44? Gonna make extra large larger than life size displays of lizard guts resplendent with blood dripping and put them up on the courthouse square. Make sure you bring your kids.

But since it "Separation of Church and State" is a relatively new concept in our nations history only discovered by activist Judges in 1947...

Wow. just wow.

Yep, don't you just love how some people can "re-write" principles for their own purposes?

Okay in the spirit of Kwanzaa I am going be overly generous and pretend this madness is worthy of debate.

But since it "Separation of Church and State" is a relatively new concept in our nations history only discovered by activist Judges in 1947... Some of us still have a problem with the way it is interpreted today.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802
So yeah I guess separation is new discovery relatively when compared to the age of the Earth, even the wrong age you believe. Of course Thomas Jefferson wasn't the only one that thought separating church and state was a good idea Jesus thought they should be separate too.

And some of us believe a town made up of taxpayers should have a say over what is displayed on THEIR PROPERTY!

I was unaware that only Christians paid taxes. Even if that were true the constitution is the supreme law of the land, we can't ignore the provisions because they are inconvenient or unpopular.

Interesting religion there RAC and if the practice had been on going in this town for 57 years with the blessing of the majority of the towns people...

And I am sure you could get a majority of people to vote that Jesus Christ is their state's official savior and that law would be wildly unconstitutional no matter how many people voted for it.

ITS NONE OF MY BUSINESS!

exactly so why did you seed this article if you already understood your opinion on the matter was meaningless?

Since we "modern era" politically savvy folks are so hung up on SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE", shall we also remove all the depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandment tablets from the rear portals, pediments or doors of the supreme court buildings; shall we remove all religious references and statues from ALL federally owned buildings including the Adams prayer mantle in the white house; shall we deface the carving of Lincoln's inaugural speech where he made several references to God? Shall we make it a crime to carry any currency on our persons that bear the statement "In God We Trust"?

Shall we who have read and understand the Ten Commandments ignore the fact that the laws of this land were based on the six commandments that pertain specifically to mankind's relationship to each other? Whether or not we believe that God established these commandments as credit was given to Him in the scriptures, we owe Him that honor or keeping the plan and vision before the people as it's a good plan.

Shall we who have read and understand the Ten Commandments ignore the fact that the laws of this land were based on the six commandments that pertain specifically to mankind's relationship to each other?

I'm sorry but the "Christian Nation" garbage isn't going to fly. Our laws are not based on the 10 commandments. Those six you point to are in every social contract a society is impossible with out them, they are so important ancient Hebrews felt it important to write them into the founding document of their religion.

Since we "modern era" politically savvy folks are so hung up on SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE", shall we also remove all the depictions of Moses and the 10 Commandment tablets from the rear portals, pediments or doors of the supreme court buildings; shall we remove all religious references and statues from ALL federally owned buildings including the Adams prayer mantle in the white house; shall we deface the carving of Lincoln's inaugural speech where he made several references to God? Shall we make it a crime to carry any currency on our persons that bear the statement "In God We Trust"?

Yes, some yes - leave the Adams speech - it was a speech, no - don't deface it it was a speech, no- just quit putting the @!$%# on there to begin with.

Shall we who have read and understand the Ten Commandments ignore the fact that the laws of this land were based on the six commandments that pertain specifically to mankind's relationship to each other? Whether or not we believe that God established these commandments as credit was given to Him in the scriptures, we owe Him that honor or keeping the plan and vision before the people as it's a good plan.

The laws of this land were based upon English Common law as well as several elements from the Enlightenment. It was in no way based upon Christianity as has been stated by several founders. Read the Treaty of Tripoli as an example.

As long as you are willing to give credit and honor to all of the other religions and creeds in equal measure, fine. Somehow I don't think you will want the bloody entrails of lizards and chickens being prominately displayed in our public buildings though.

I'm not sure why you have a problem understanding that the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state in not a tradition, and it has been around long than 57 years.

Judicial interpretations have clarified principles throughout our history. Calling it something other than what it is does not make it true.

Have you demonstrated this to be a religion yet? I think I asked you about this in #1.4 did I not?

You never heard of VooDoo? Religion of many US citizens. You being obtuse on purpose or just a learning disability. It was mentioned several posts back.

Just sayin.

Is this lizard religion at least as old as the 57 year tradition this seed is about? If so ...Hey lets talk! , If not...my guess is your putting up a strawman that you know has no valid status, but you get to slam a Christian religious practice!

I am wondering - what does the age have to do with anything?

Alternately - what value is there in merely doing something for a while?

But as Dennis says - my friend's religion believes in displaying the bloody entrails of lizards and snake carcasses for several days during their holy days. You OK with that Jim44? Gonna make extra large larger than life size displays of lizard guts resplendent with blood dripping and put them up on the courthouse square. Make sure you bring your kids.

While I agree that EVERY religion should have equal access to the public square and the taxpayers support in order to truly avoid establishment (and I don't give a flying @!$%# how long it's been around--if there's one thing I know about people 57, 150, or 2000 years ago, it's that they probably knew less than I do), I wonder if you mightn't go further by actually arguing for the right of this display to exist, rather than using this as a point to argue against the nativity scene.

I don't believe that the historical Christ was necessarily any more than a composite; I certainly don't believe that this person/composite was the son of any deity of the savior of mankind (any more than the rest of us are, anyway; I believe he/they might have been [a] bodhisattva[s], but then, it's an article of MY faith that we're ALL bodhisattvas). Given that, though, I don't really object to a nativity scene. My only objection is if the government directly or indirectly subsidizes such a display without the exact same support/endorsement being offered to anyone else who would think to take advantage of it, whether they worship Krishna, Allah, Lucifer, Elvis, or me. :)

The citizens can express themselves on their own property or a Church's property.

I'm sure you were outraged at the opposition to the Community Center (the rightwing calls it a "mosque") in the vicinity of Ground Zero on private land, right? If you were with the opposition to it, you are a big old hypocrite.

Allowing the display is not a support/endorsement of it... It is merely providing a space for citizens to express themselves!

I would qualify that just a little--Allowing the display is not a support/endorsement of it provided that the same allowance is extended to practitioners of any other faith. If they, in turn, make no use of this allowance, there's not really ground for complaint on anyone's part.

I'm not concerned with what mythologies people use to inspire their own good behavior. I may fault Christian theology for its epistemic potholes, or Christian morality for its weird obsession with consensual sexual behaviors, but at the end of the day, as long as I'm not obligated to succumb to your silliest moral concerns, I don't really care if you find moral edification in the birth, crucifixion, and resurrection of Mickey Mouse. And if you go further an give me the day of the cartoon mouse's birthday (whether or not he was likely born on that day) off from work so I can cook a big meal and get drunk with my friends, well, then, put up your scene of Mickey-in-the-manger, and a very Merry Mickey-Mouse-mas to ya!

Oh, and while we're at it, Happy New Year!

You know that is about the best reply I have seen... Allowing the display is not a support/endorsement of it... It is merely providing a space for citizens to express themselves!

Thus Tolerance....

The issue in County of Allegheny v. ALCU that the article references was that the nativity scene at their county courthouse was alone, and the message given the setting was a promotion of religion. In a connected case that included a Menorah amongst other things, the Menorah was allowed to stay due to the proximity to other Holiday displays where none of them were given prominence.

The solitary nature, even if you 'allow' others to opt in and use space, plays the wrong message.

This whole argument about all religions being allowed on the courthouse square does not account for those that have NO religions - nada, zilch, zip. By allowing all religions you are endorsing religion which is promoting religion in general. Sorry. Doesn't fly.

This whole argument about all religions being allowed on the courthouse square does not account for those that have NO religions...

An eastern Pennsylvania county has determined that adding a snow man and snowflake to their courthouse lawn display satisfies that argument:

http://www.timesleader.com/news/A_holiday_from_controversy_11-25-2010.html

According to a resolution recently adopted by commissioners, the display must now include a menorah, Santa Claus, snowman, snowflake, Christmas tree with a Kwanzaa symbol ornament and a sign that reads, “Luzerne County celebrates its cultural heritage this holiday season.”

Hmmmm - so turning a creche into a secular display is OK with the Christians? Having Santy standing among the wise men along with a snowman pretty much does make it a non-Christian display I guess. (Would still like t see the lizard entrails in there to see just how far the Xtians are willing to go though.)

But my point stands. If the interpretation here is that it is now a secular display, it is not a display of a lot of different religions. Looks like they just mushed a bunch of stuff together making it a non-religious display.

The person also removed the objection which removes the case. Wonder what would have happened if he had not removed his objection?

Thanks, Jim44--same to you. I suspect the young man in the article was treated so poorly by the community because he was a student at the Catholic college across the street from the courthouse when he filed the complaint through the ACLU. The irony is that the local Christians celebrated what they consider a victory in keeping the creche on the courthouse lawn with caroling by candlelight this year in front of the creche (which is at one of the busiest intersections in the city)...reminding me of the Carl Jung quote. "What you resist persists."

Nativity scenes, snake entrails, statues to Odin, whatever, none of those things bother me in the least. Well the snake entrails might if it was close to a restaurant or something, maybe.

What bothers me is paying for any of it in any way via my taxes, even reseeding the grass in the spring after it has been flattened by a display is too much.

It isn't like property is so scarce in the US that you have to use public property. Want to display a nativity scene, snake entrails, beat drums and shout at Odin to allow you passage to Valhalla? Fine, just do it on private property and in the case of the shouting, not after 10 pm please.

I agree. Taxes also pay the salaries of county employees who must dismantle, store and otherwise maintain all of these religious and secular displays for all seasons.

Jim44 -

They believe in nothing and that is what is on display ...Nothing

There is a distinct difference in believing in nothing and not believing in thing we ought not to - such as supernatural fairy tales. You appear not to make that distinction.

It violates the constitution.

Jim44 -

No Jack... I believe in this nation you have the right to believe in something or nothing

...and I never said otherwise. I only noted that you do not appear to make the distinction between "believing in nothing" and "not believing in things we ought not to".

Why can't I believe in a as you put it "supernatural fairy tales" it doesn't harm you what I believe!

Please show me where I stated such a thing.

Any why do you feel that you have the right to tell me what ... not believing in thing we ought not to.

I never did. If you can do so, please show me where I stated such a thing.

you really feel that you should be able to tell another citizen what they can believe in?

I never did. If you can do so, please show me where I stated such a thing.

To Jim

Most Atheists, and most non Christian Theists such as myself do not really care what an individual Theists believes in. It is not the belief itself that is the problem it is how a belief is applied to people outside of that belief structure that is the problem.

A individual Christians belief for the most part is unimportant to anyone out side of that individuals belief. It is only when a Christian attempts to apply their individual beliefs to those outside of their belief system that a problem occurs.

Jim44 -

This has been explained thoroughly in this particular thread. Several people have explained it upstream.

Asking the same thing over and over doesn't change the answer.

the city did not put up or maintain this display
the group did.
So no city workers , paid for by taxes were used. If it needed reseeding, The Gathering, reseeds in public parks every year.

St Patricks Day
The Eruvs
(purely religious , not traditionalism, but purely religious--so this should be your first target-but that will never happen--they will get a waiver for the Eruvs well before the 98% left get a waiver for a holy family scene which is very much tradtion more than religion for most people)
etc etc are much more "religious"--this is a freaking tradition, like groundhog day for most people. they like it. it is pretty, it makes people happy, so what?

And FYI I am not a Christian, or a right winger. As a matter of fact I don't give a @!$%# about where they build a mosque, I fought for the rights of the unitarians to build a day care that would have jews and OMG blacks in it in a white neighborhood in the 60s, marched for women's reproductive rights, civil rights, anti war, anti SOA, my daughter marched against that westboro nutcase, I don't believe in the virgin birth,but I don't believe in the Macabees story, creationism, or any of it either.

I am not against any of it. I just don't "believe" any of it.

But all you who want it stopped? Why?

I have not seen one post, and I read the constitution as well on this, that shows why there can't be a nativity scene on a public piece of land at a holiday. If it has to be cleaned up after, yes , those who put it there should be responsible, just like anyone who desecrated public property should have to restore it down to the grass. They should be allowed to cut down trees for it either (duh) but to say it is unconstitutioal is lunacy-I see no proof of that at all.

should NOT be allowed to cut down trees was the duh I was speaking about.

Thank you for your spot-on obervations, Winter.

Congress shall not ..that's what it says, the courts can interrupt it any way they wish.. but you and I can read the damn words...Can we not?

The only thing I read from this, Jim, is that you wish to ignore the authority of the courts, claiming that your brand of religious bigotry should be legal, since our founding fathers legislated such from the Federal government, but didn't care if the individual state governments were mirror-images of the Westboro Baptist Church.

That's pathetic.

Regards

Oh, please--"spot-on observations"? What a load of crap. Not surprised that you endorse this particular load, though.

Pretending that people who don't welcome the impermissable use of public property to favor a religious group/further a religious agenda want to "stop" Christians from believing in whatever version of their mythology they want to is just delusional--unless you know it is crap. Then it is just a big lie.

If you really believe that it's fine for Christians to keep trying to sneak their religious trappings on to and into government (the people's) land and buildings, I hope you at least have the integrity to NOT be one of those bewailing the scary Muslims who want everyone to put up with their religious agenda.

You don't surprise me either. Read my posts before you waste my time.

I've read and commented on a couple of your posts--I'm probably through wasting my time on them. And you don't need to read my comments. I like fantasy as much as the next person as long as it is treated as fantasy and written entertainingly, but I don't try to call it reality.

patient1
did you mean me? If you did. I don't give a crap if they put a mosque on top of st patrick's cathedral. I just like the decorations, they make me feel good in a lower case christian way, I like the tradition, it seems to bring joy to people , I don't see the eruvs hurting anyone either, but I do wonder why it is always the Christian decorations that get all the attention. Now since 9/11 Muslims too. What the heck, I see what you mean though. Many in our town who bit** the loudest about the Christian stuff push the hardest for their own religious stuff. So I say lets have all the celebrations. But they seem to only want theirs. That is not fair.

As for the buildings and money that have had the religious stuff on it forever, so what, really it is just a freaking building. Many have gargoyles or other pagan stuff on them. I don't give a flying ... To me it is not a Constitutional issue worth time being spent on it by the government at this moment. We have really pressing stuff to figure out as a country. I am not a right winger, I am not a left winger and I am not a centrist. I am an eccentric I guess.

#1.42 was addressed to Nightbreeeze, Wintersnows, but yes, I was referring to your post in #1.40. Thank you for responding.

I also enjoy all the winter holidays trappings and I'm old enough to consider them a happy tradition, but that doesn't mean that I am willing to throw the Constitution out the window and say it doesn't matter...

...or that I can mistake Christians being told they don't get to exhibit what appears to be government-approved religious symbols on government property for some nefarious or mean-spirited attempt to make them stop believing (that was just silly), preventing them from practicing their religion (I've read the Bible pretty thoroughly, and there is no religious requirement of Christians to pretend their religion is government-approved OR to advertise it--the opposite in the words of Jesus, as a matter of fact) or singling them out for religious persecution (that might not have been you.)

As for "it is always the Christian decorations that get all the attention" I haven't heard anything about Christian decorations being challenged in court when they aren't trying to place them as the only symbols on public property. Have you? I've heard about the mythical "War on Christmas" which is described as making it illegal to say "Merry Christmas" and not allowing stores to take any notice of Christmas at all--I haven't been arrested for saying Merry Christmas (and I'm not even Christian!) AND there were Christmas sales and Christmas decorations galore all over the stores I go to.

As for the "it is just a freaking building" school of thought as to why the Constitution doesn't matter, I'm not buying it. Not if it is a government building. And even if it doesn't matter to you. There are probably any number of Constitutional issues that I've never given a thought--but that doesn't invalidate them.

As a pagan, I will point out that gargoyles are no part of my tradition or religious practice, although I think they are cool. Also, your screen name :)

Yaawwnnnn.....

As for "it is always the Christian decorations that get all the attention" I haven't heard anything about Christian decorations being challenged in court when they aren't trying to place them as the only symbols on public property. Have you? I've heard about the mythical "War on Christmas" which is described as making it illegal to say "Merry Christmas"

Patient1:
First let me wish you a merry yule or winter solstice and thank you for your civil response. Well appreciated. Lots of people assume since I don't want them to stop all the Christmas stuff and don't see any of it as a Constitutional issue, that I am some crazy right wing westboro type. One of my daughters actually went to a counter demonstration against the westboro people. She is a dancer and many of her friends are gay men. So she was right out there with them in solidarity. So I don't think I am right wing.

I am pro choice, pro universal health care insurance, pro paying a fair amount of tax to get it for everyone, I am pro equal rights for all Americans. I think we need a greener energy policy, I am the wife of a veteran and we are both lifetime members of Veterans for peace, I am anti war, pro disability services, and service for the poor and unabled, I think for the sake of them American underclass and unskilled formerly middle class that we do need to limit all immigration until unemployment comes down, and I think every one deserves equal consideration.

Now, to you question about have I seen this type of discrimination? Sadly, yes I have. Our school district which used to be rural has now been filled with refugees (not literally) from NYC. Since then we have had a total ban on Merry Christmas in the schools. Happy Holidays was the only thing allowed. But we did have the Song of the Maccabees and Lattkes and dreidels as well as menoras in the school. The songs at the holiday concerts for years now have not included any traditional Christian Songs, despite the fact that it is a Christian Holiday and despite the fact that many traditional Jewish Songs and skits were put on. This was done at the insistence of a small group of Jewish Families. The holiday schedule for the year includes minor Jewish holidays , but not good Friday which had always been included. The calendar fight was also lead by a small group and backed up by the UU group. I don't really understand this as it seems to be a double standard.

At the time of the writing of the constitution the signers were mainly deists and atheists. They were trying to prevent the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion that would force people to pay for and participate in a religion that they did not support. At this time many states did have state religions and they saw no problem with that. They just did not want the Establishment part on a federal level. I can see that. That is a good thing about America. I think if they saw the way it is being used now they would be rolling over in their graves and as for the argument about why continue a wrong? I don't see the wrong. I am happy with the celebration by members of pagan to presbyterians to Muslims to Jews to Buddhists to Atheists to the 12 tribes to native American religions on any public property as long as it is respectful open to all groups and is cleaned up after.

There is no where in the Constitution that would prohibit such a thing. They can make the decorations for every holiday but the Christian Holidays in our schools under the diversity heading. I don't think it is fair for people of christian background who like Christmas traditions but who might not be religious to be discriminated against. Many Jews and Muslims are not religious either, but enjoy the holiday traditions.

As for the gargoyles, there are some from Greek Mythology as well as more Celtic in origin on some buildings that are government buildings, and on the money. I don't care at all. I just want people who live in a country that has traditionally been celebrants of Christian Holiday traditions in schools, on town squares etc to be allowed to continue. I don't see it as a violation of separation of church and state, and I don't see it as a threat to the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion. I would also be against it if I did.

I see it now as someone (sorry don't remember who) saying that maybe it was revenge against the Bible Bangers. Maybe so in some cases. Many Catholics I know call themselves "recovering Catholics". I was Catholic for 25 years give or take after being raised Unitarian / Agnostic, but secularly Christian by my parents. They saw Jesus as a party mythological, part real human man who had an idea about how to achieve paradise on earth by basically following the golden rule. They sang carols, and decorated and read the Luke version of the Christmas Story on Christmas, but made it clear that they thought of Jesus as an exceptions , but fully human, man.

So I have in fact read the Constitution on this and the history of the context surrounding it and the reasons for this particular piece of it.

My problem is I see a basically shoot the majority in the foot , and bend over backwards PC being pushed by a small group of people that negatively impacts and commercializes the only (in my opinion) good parts of Christmas that a Nativity scene would portray as a custom and tradition of family and love, and peace, good tidings and joy. So that is how I feel about it. If it has to go it is a shame, but then it should all go. Not just the Christian stuff. I think it all enriches us all and that would be a sad day.

I voted for your response as a gesture of appreciation since I didn't have time to respond yesterday, Wintersnows, despite my disagreement. And I very much appreciate your openness about who you are in your effort to have your view understood for what it is. That makes it harder to respond, because I really don't want to offend you.

The situation you describe sounds very much like the mythical "War on Christmas" I hear about every year from people who claim to be prevented from saying "Merry Christmas"--which they say all the time--and who claim that the stores are prevented from any hint of Christmas in their marketing--while shopping at the same stores I do which are ornamented and Santa'd and Nativity'd as they have always been in the quest to sell more Christmas presents. The fact that some stores choose to be less exclusionary than to ONLY present and display overtly religious decorations to their satisfaction is not proof of some conspiracy or war--it is a marketing decision. I don't think it is either excessively PC or "bending over backwards" to try not to alienate the other customers by catering exclusively to the Christian religious--who did, after all, deliberately place their holy day in close proximity to ours--and I also don't see what Biblical justification the whiners have for demanding that marketers ONLY market to them. I don't expect my letter carrier or my town square to endorse my religion, and I haven't found any scriptural basis for Christians to demand that. They are just whining. And lying.

One of them accidentally forwarded me a mass email last year crying over the humble, beautiful and historical Nativity scene that had been displayed (apparently from time immemorial) on the median of a (named) main street in a neighboring town until ONE person threatened suit--and now nobody has seen the beautiful Christmas symbol in TWENTY YEARS. I say accidentally, because I have relatives who have lived two blocks away from the display for 25 years, and we enjoy it every year. Except that the "humble, beautiful" Nativity is really 3 blocks of huge, inartistically rendered scenes from the Biblical Life of Christ and I avoid the death scene. When the "threat" came, the town fathers invited a Star of David, and a Kwanzaa kinara as well as some Santa, reindeer and Frosty displays to decorate the edges and make it permissibly not exclusive. I'd heard whining from the self-described martyred Christians who are outraged each year that they don't have the exclusive use of 3 blocks of a main street for their display, but I didn't realize they were also propagating the lie that the "humble" display had been disappeared. The one who accidently forwarded the email to me had seen my pictures of the display the year before. And the original email was dated 7 years before I got it...and signed by one of my relatives neighbors.

The situation you are describing is also unconstitutional, which is my basic sticking point. I am skeptical of your story on that ground. If your school district has indeed made such a series of boneheaded decisions, they can and should be reversed. Even the ACLU has taken similar cases and the courts have been (relatively) clear--Christian trappings can't be singled out for EXCLUSION any more than they can be singled out for exclusive display on or in public property. It's pretty basic.

If a majority of unconstitutionally exclude people would rather whine about it than take care of it, that doesn't make them persecuted, it makes them whiners.

And it doesn't make those of us who care enough about Constitutional issues to argue for them a small group of objectionable people who are too PC and who negatively impact the "good parts" of Christmas. As for commercializing it, I'm not the one who claims to be aggrieved that commercial outlets don't cater only to Christians in Winter--or, as some of them do, that insisting on only their greeting is inclusive of everyone shopping in Winter.

p.s. Regarding your comment:

They were trying to prevent the ESTABLISHMENT of a state religion that would force people to pay for and participate in a religion that they did not support. At this time many states did have state religions and they saw no problem with that. They just did not want the Establishment part on a federal level.

I've seen that before, but I think it is a rather airbrushed view of our beginnings, suitable perhaps for an elementary school textbook, but ultimately deceptive. While Deists (and atheists) could reasonably be wary of the establishment of a state religion, the Founders were trying to craft a Constitution that even those states which had, indeed, established a state religion would ratify. They would not do that if the Federal government was not prohibited from interfering in their ESTABLISHED STATE RELIGION.

The promised Establishment Clause reassured the balky states that they could ratify the Constitution with no fear--that their established state religion was safe from Federal interference. It did not signal disapproval of or distaste for an established state religion at all.

No offense taken at all Patient1, as a matter of fact I basically agree with what you have said. I don't care at all what they do in stores, or the war on Christmas kind of thing, I just disagree that it is a violation of the interpretation of the separation clause and the establishment clause as I and many others read them.

So to sum up, the stores can do what they want, marketing is always kind of creepy and manipulative by its very nature, buyer beware and all of that.

The schools, many rural schools near enough to cities like NY to be impacted by 911 and other reasons that people when they have kids sometimes choose to leave cities more and more, and because rural areas are much cheaper than suburbs, have had an influx of people from cities who really were more strident that the residents of many small towns , The result of this in these small towns was parents who once they moved to small towns decided that they really don't like them the way they are. It isn't just Christmas decorations and such. They don't think the playground structures for instance are safe enough for their kids, they want a better gifted and talented program for their kids, (all of whom are apparently more gifted and talented than the previous residents) they want the school remodeled , they want to ban certain other groups from moving into town, all sorts of stuff, they want an end to hunting season, they want no clothes lines in the yards, they want a law about how long your grass can be and if it can have dandelions or not--I am sure you are getting the drift here.

They come . They look at these quaint little towns like ours, say that they have "fallen in love" with the town and then proceed to do all they can to change its character. Ok, so this has happened a lot in towns around here. There are no private schools to send their kids too, so they are stuck with us locals.

Most of the locals are at least secularly christian. They were used to having the Christmas cookie bake sale, the christmas decorations, the Christmas Parade, etc etc. Whether it is constitutional or not, ( I think it is , you don't, that is cool) What I was trying to say was that this was how life was. Then people, usually wealthier and more sophisticated people come in and are much more vocal on things like the school calendar ( a big sticking point) People who for years have gone to visit Grandma for Easter Sunday, now do not get Good Friday or Easter Monday off anymore as the calendar now gets different holidays off because the new people (many of whom are more educated, professionals and many doctors and lawyers) have gone in and demanded that these other holidays be off instead (despite the numbers-and yes I understand about respecting minorities) but it really kind of blindsided the locals. Then when the locals tried to say anything about it they were hit with lawsuits and threats of lawsuits in towns where most people make very little money and no one , and no school district can afford to take any chances. So you end up, with the holiday skits and songs being about the song of the Maccabees and dreidels and lattkes, with absolutely no mention of anything Christian (Except Grandma got run over by a reindeer) Which people end up resenting. There were a few places that tried to say if you have the maccabees you can have the nativity or Silent Night, but they lost. It was said that the other concerts were in the name of multiculturalism (which I have been accused of hating, being antisemitic and being a liar). But I have no problem with any other culture being allowed to be represented beyond the mainstream. As I have said, bring on the Pagans, the Muslims, the Jews, the Zoroastrians, the Scientologists, the 12 Tribes ( although it was the same people who were against the Christian stuff that also went to court to try and stop the 12 Tribes from having their center next to the Temple) but I think that if it is really unconstitutional that then things such as Eruvs which are way more spiritually and religiously based, and much more forcible have to be considered.

They are really not a gray area as has been suggested by another viner. I was called an antisemite rant maker over that one.

My point was it should be one way or the other. Personally I favor all religious holidays being celebrated in public , From St Patrick, to Santeria. Let them all fly their freak flags if they want. I am of first nation origin, but really do like being exposed to all comers on a spiritual and religious front. BUT if it is illegal for one, then it is not a gray area for another. Fair is fair . So I say all or nothing. If all religious stuff is banned from public property by the contstitution, then BAN all of it not just some of it.

I would like to see it stand, and I agree with tour argument, and did also say atheists along with deists. I understand the manuvers in the Establishment clause and the thought behind it. But I am saying that I don't think in terms of local custom it is a big deal. I just don't . I don't think that we need to worry about a parade in China Town or a Hindi Festival in the City. I find it all fascinating and enriching- but ban one on public property and they damn well better ban them all.

I don't really flip out that easily on this stuff. I find it oddly disappointing but that is about it. A personal melancholy and nostalgia really. But when that other person comes after me like a ton of bricks and accuses me of being a LIAR , calling me flat out a liar, about Links he or she didn't even read, and then accuses me of making an antisemitic rant about the Constitutionality of Eruvs, as if of course I must be an antisemite if I bring up Eruvs and examples of religious articles in the separation of church and state and I am from NY, so I must be an antisemite if I am not Jewish and bring up the comparison of an eruv, citing Palo Alto, Westhampton, washington Dc and NYC. I was actually asked to answer yes or no as to if it were possible for a non-jewish person could live within an Eruvim and not be aware or it -as if that made it different--I am not kidding. And obviously this person was out to attack me because I had defended Sukkoth Huts on public property more than once already. I don't see the harm in any of it. I was trying only for comparison. And look what I got(not from you)

So if I was jumpy after that please forgive me.I am a tolerant person who likes the festivities of all faiths.

Yup. Not a Conservative. I am prochoice, pro universal healthcare Insurance, pro public schools and public support of the arts, I am pretty sure that makes me not capital C Conservative. I also am pro environment, anti gas drilling and hydro-fracking. My husband and I belong to veterans for peace as lifetime members, I am for women's rights and equal pay for equal work. Wouldn't that qualify me as NOT conservative?

I just don't like to be bullied. I am not anti hunting or fishing or a vegan. I am anti assault weapons, but not anti gun, I believe in trigger locks and herbal and homeopathic medicines plus vaccinations and regular medicine. I am for a moratorium on immigration until employments get better. I am hoping that we can become a more humane country , but with some common sense and respect for traditions. So what am I? I don't know anymore. I used to think I was a leftist, but now I think I am an eccentric paradox. But I hate anyone being bullied. I feel like people who like Christmas are being bullied by a double standard because many "educated" people dislike Christianity.Some for good reason some not so good reasons.

I am a mutt I guess. my husband and I like to figure stuff out for ourselves. He was a medic in the USAF and I was a veterinary tech for NAF/USAF and then for the ARMY Veterinary Services. But we are definitely not Conservative. I am in my 60s and my husband still has his long gray pony tail, but we have friends who are of all political bents. One couple we went out to dinner with last night, the wife is of Lebanese Maronite background and an artsy left wing teacher, and her husband is a Libertarian Conservative who hunts all the meat he eats and is totally RIght Wing. We all seem to have a lot in common and get along really well. So, I guess it depends on your attitude towards other people. If you can respect the differences or not. You seem like a reasonable fellow to me. So its all good. I am sure politically I am closer to those who have been attacking me, but I won't put up with people being bullied and I don't like PC for the sake of meanness of the use of something as important as the Constitution to be used as a wedge to divide and bully those who you disagree with. It just feels wrong to me, so let them call me names. I don't really care.

why thank you gentleman Jim.
I don't understand it either, I guess that is what bothers me. it seems like such bullying behavior. I hope more people would follow your example and let people enjoy things that don't hurt others. I think maybe they don't witness enough of things that really do hurt people, to understand that live and let live is the way to go.

Lucky for them eh? Well, still it doesn't give them the right to be bullies.

I have a few causes that I really have strong opinions on, but I have friends on the vine who I disagree with even on these hot topics of mine. It gets heated but not mean. Sometimes I find myself getting mean, then I try to step back.

take care.

To all you brilliant progressive constitutional scholars...Separation of church and State does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. So try a different line of argument. You'll appear less stupid and hateful.

Justin Smith - It's fortunate that you haven't interpreted everything that Jefferson wrote in his personal letters as constitutional law. I heard he wrote his grandmother telling her how fond he was of Haggis.

And beside, haven't you ever heard of the doctrine of "Too Friggin' Bad?" It applies in cases where, for example you, as a whining bitching minority, are highly offended by a Nativity scene, or the Mount Soledad Cross - and the other 90% of the population is not.

I think it's in a letter somewhere.

Tango! It's always a pleasure to see your myopic rhetoric crop up in a conversation. :-)

To all you brilliant progressive constitutional scholars...

Yeah, and I'm still waiting for you to reveal your qualifications, i.e., why your opinion has more credibility than a Supreme Court precedent.

Separation of church and State does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

Reynolds v. US (1878) says otherwise.

So try a different line of argument.

Don't bet on it. You haven't successfully rebutted this one, apart from saying you could care less what the SCotUS has to say. How brilliant is that?

You'll appear less stupid and hateful.

Hehehehehe, you're funny.

Regards

No offense taken at all Patient1, as a matter of fact I basically agree with what you have said.

Well, thank you, Wintersnows, but that would have been more comforting if it was a little bit accurate. It seems that you didn't take offense--as I had hoped you would not--but because I wasn't clear in what I was posting. We do not basically agree at all. Fortunately, we do agree on the outcome, which the seeder did not post or refer to--the Council got complaints and Hartley got enough nasty email to give her concerns for her safety, and the Council decided they could cover their (legal) butts by decorating around the edges with secular lawn crap--the courts have allowed religious lawn crap as part of a holiday decorating scheme on public property, as Jim had mentioned several times, including "predicting" that going forward, municipalities and townships would surely do what the Borough had in fact, already done. So, MORE holiday, not less-- that, we agree on :)

But my pointing out of the constant lying (to me directly as well as in print) by Christians about the mythical "attacks on their faith" by anybody who tells them they can't do whatever the hell they want on public property or have whatever the hell they want rule the marketing decisions of businesses was not to establish a basis of some agreement with you, it was to point out WHY I'm skeptical of your claim--which I've heard over and over and over by people who are standing right there proving it isn't true--that "only Christians" or "only Christianity" gets discriminated against these days or for years or whatever. There are CASES where it was claimed and it was bull@!$%# and there are cases where the court found impermissible exclusions and it was rectified, but I've heard it repeatedly from--as I used as an example--people who were right that very minute engaging in the behavior they insisted they couldn't engage in because it was now "AGAINST THE LAW!!!" And did it all the time. With others. Openly and notoriously.

It was a big lie, and yet they were whining about the horrible persecution of them because they are Christians, because "atheists hate Christians" and because the law unfairly singles them out.

I hope that was clear enough. Your story sounds exactly the same. So, while I know this kind of thing has happened--I've read cases--the majority of them find the same thing I have, personally. It's bull@!$%#. By people who are clueless about the law, sometimes, more often, by people who are just lying. I'm sorry, but you've demonstrated rather conclusively that your grasp of the law is either non-existent (despite your obvious belief that you know something) or you are simply--like the militant Christians I've dealt with--bound and determined that what you want is RIGHT and therefore the law doesn't prevent it. Despite plenty of case law to the contrary. Which, even though you don't like it, is ALSO the law of the land.

Since you repeatedly say that there is nothing that prevents what you and the Nativity lovers want on public land, when there so clearly is--it's practically explained in words of one syllable--and since you keep posting something to the effect that "The Constitution doesn't say anywhere that we can't have Nativity scenes on government property" as if the Constitution spells out @!$%# like that on any such subject like this--which you should actually know if you had read it--I'll assume you just don't know as much as you think you do, and since everyone has been explaining it to you with documentation, I'll assume you don't feel motivated to take a look at it, since it tosses your position out the (legal) window. I prefer that to assuming that you are determined to lie about something that isn't even about your own faith. Although our personal sense of right and wrong doesn't always require religious underpinnings.

But it really doesn't change anything--Constitutional protections don't go away because you don't care for them, and the importance of any constitutional protections isn't determined by your liking for the outcome. It isn't all about you. Even though you are bound by it, too.

I hope to make myself more clear, since I apparently misled earlier, but having seen your back and forth with Proud Pagan, and with the seeder--who argues the "persecuted Christian" crap I've heard enough of--this is enough for me. I thought your posts looked just like anti-Semitic rants long before he or she pointed it out and was surprised nobody had mentioned it, and your response looked unreasoning, practically hysterical to me. I think the observation really hurt you, and I'm sorry for that. But I'm not interested in walking on eggshells so I don't post something that sets you off like that--when you post here, other people get to respond, even if you don't agree with someone else's opinion of what you wrote. You are very likely not to agree. Just like the people who care about established Constitutional protections don't agree with your repeated insistence that relying on this one makes us simply mean, PC, hateful, ridiculous, etc. I'm satisfied that you have no interest in learning more than you think you know, and happy to agree to disagree.

I don't know when your New Year is, but consider yourself wished a peaceful and prosperous one, either retroactively or going forward. Take care.

Patient1;
i am sorry that you feel that way. I believe in being fair. I am not anti-anyone except for bigots, I don't feel that my argument was anything other than that. I tried first to use the st patrick's day parade which has excluded gays and lesbians with impunity for years. But was told that was different. So I moved on to Eruvim as there are many well known cases on that, some ongoing right now, so they are current, but the st patricks example is equally viable for comparison of somethings being arbitrarily allowed because of fear of power. I am sorry that you felt I made an antisemitic rant. How would you bring up the example of Eruvim without sounding antisemitic? Is anything Jewish that is religious in public being compared as "Unconstitutional" if the creche stuff is being antisemitic. Is argument by Jewish groups demanding their holidays and religious crap off limits , but the Christian stuff on limits. If so you proved my point, If not please enlighten me on how it could have been phrased so as not to be antisemitic? Is it ok only to "rant" about what the Christians want? How they want to get it? Please enlighten me. And the Constitutional basis for all of this is not a long read, so yes even a moron like me could read it.

You demonstrate my point, Wintersnows. I've probably called someone--somewhere, sometime--a moron, but that wasn't here.

And if you "believe in being fair" that kind of precludes the name-calling you've done here when you "report" Proud Pagan for calling you a name.

As well as describing a case where a menorah as part of a larger, secular holiday display on government property was found permissible but a creche standing alone was not as "a menorah yes, a creche no".

The anti-Semitic appearance of your rant--not a single post--was probably due to the apparent fixation on Jewish symbols--particularly including ones that nobody might even notice, which would pretty much negate any danger that it would appear to be a government endorsement of the religion, even if you thought there was any such danger--and the increasing vitriol when nobody agreed with you about the egregiousness of your Jewish examples. Your over-the-top "wait til Daddy comes home cos I TOLD on you!" to Proud Pagan when he pointed out that it was an anti-Semitic rant didn't help. I'm glad to hear your aren't an anti-Semite, but all we have to go on here is our words. (I'm generally called "condescending" and "patronizing" here, which I've never been called in real life. At least not that I know of. Our bare words don't always represent us as we see ourselves.)

And maybe your continued insistence that if the Christians don't get to display their religious symbols they way they want to (which is exclusively--because otherwise they do get to) then NOBODY (THE JEWS) gets to. Which happens to be the law. Nobody gets what appears to be a government endorsement by display of their symbols exclusively on public property. Nobody here has argued against that. The only people here who have argued against the law at all are the ones who DO think NOBODY should get to--but unlike you, they recognize that it is the law that holiday displays can include some religious symbolism as long as one religion isn't singled out as if government is endorsing it.

As for the Christians being stamped out and not allowed to celebrate, you are conflating like the seeder. THIS article was about a Christian religious symbol which was the sole display on government property..which was moved a few feet away to private property--oh, the horror. The Borough Council watered down the religious exclusivity by including some secular symbols and presto...permissible holiday display. Unless you are agreeing that the Christians REQUIRE that only their religious symbols be permitted, or they can't celebrate--what exactly led you to label anyone who agrees that Christians are subject to the same law as the rest of us as mean-spirited, too PC, etc.?

Nobody is stopping the Jews from demanding what they want--just like the Christians--but more importantly, NOBODY is stopping anyone who thinks that Jewish symbols and beliefs are being impermissibly (exclusively) displayed or endorsed by any level of of government from taking action on that. According to you, action is being taken in court. I'm not impressed by the claim that the majority is so downtrodden that they can't mount an effective case against an actual violation of Constitutional law. Every hated (or even just dissed) minority (or even majority--like women) have had to do just that when they were being denied their constitutional protections. Again--Christians are different and entitled to better...how?

uh Patient1-go back to the beginning of your rant. I called myself a "moron" not anyone else.

so yes even a moron like me could read it

I am not only within my rights to report pp for calling me an antisemitic ranter and a liar, but I am obligated by the COH TO Report such stuff. SO i guess you are off base on me calling PP a moron and about comparing it to me reporting pp for what he said. Tyler can sort it out as I said.

As for the rest, you obviously didn't read all the links, in one there was an evergreen tree next to the menorah that had a sign on it salute to liberty. There were other decorations around the nativity scene as well. In the case of the NYC schools there was not anything other than the menorah at Hannukah and the crescent at Ramadan and no Christian symbols were allowed.

The first amendment is clear that they are ALL allowed. And I think that I have every right to use Jewish examples because the are the ones that are in the reported cases and because they are the ones that are most prevalent where I live. Maybe pp is the one who got his nerves in a knot BECAUSE the comparisons are to Jewish symbols if we are allowing ourselves to level guesses here. Maybe he thinks it is ok if they are Jewish , and nerved up that they might be stopped. How would I know? To blame that on me because I used the examples available, the atheists and the ACLU and the Eruvs AND the Catholics on the St Patricks day parade and to make that sound as if I am antisemitic--is a pretty big stretch and sounds alot like the stuff Norman FInkelstein is so disgusted with.

And I don't think Mr. Finkelstein hates himself or Jews. The most vocal cases are the ones with the Menorahs and the ones with the ACLU and the atheists. So what would you have me use in comparison if any reference to Jewish symbols makes me an anti semite. Thor? Shiva? Not much around for case law.

As for the whole thing that most people don't notice them about Eruvs? Are you kidding? Are you saying if no one sees you break the law, it is ok?

No , I called neither you nor PP any names despite much provocation by him or her, and I did what I am supposed to do, I reported it so Tyler can put it right rather than engage in name calling back. If you read the user agreement and the CoH you will see that is exactly what it says to do. Period. There is none of this stuff that says to increase the inflammatory rhetoric by calling me a big baby tattle tale running to big daddy. I acted in an adult way and did not respond to the increasing escalation or rhetoric against me in kind. I asked for an easy explanation the a moron LIKE me could understand .. So please at least read the post if not the links before you go into attack mode--it must be embarrassing to get something as obvious as that wrong.

And FYI I could never feel condescended to or patronized by you, so no worries.

I guess agreeing to disagree doesn't appeal to you.

Attack mode? Kinda whiny coming from the one who posted:

It is just a pissy way to act that is all it is

This is a pissy, mean spirited thing. To pretend it is all about the COnstitution is Ludicrous

No, clearly YOU can't or won't show ANY shred of evidence to defend your mean-spirited views.

It makes you sound like a kindergarden kid caught with a hand in the cookie jar.

the whole thing is PC gone mad and has zero to do with the Constitution in any way that it was intended.

This is really cheap and cheesy and makes people much Less tolerant of the requests from minority religions or ethnicities for their traditions to be honored because frankly the Christians have been singled out for abuse on this kind of stuff.

I have no @!$%#ing agenda. I just am trying to restore a little sanity to people who go berserk, (no exaggeration-to the level of those westboro maggots) trying to use the constitution to squash a christmas decoration.

Me thinks that a bunch of PC maniacs have run amok.

this does not violate the law under any but a total stretched psycho reading of it

You can't read, is more like it. You can't read or spell yet wax intellectual "as it"

None of that is more "respectful" than pointing out that your rant was anti-Semitic. If you want to stretch "name-calling" to labeling your rant that way you are going to have to own up to your own "name-calling." (Not that I think you will.)

As for

There is none of this stuff that says to increase the inflammatory rhetoric by calling me a big baby tattle tale running to big daddy.

...that is funny. I didn't call you a big baby tattle tale running to big daddy, but I do think that

I am really sick of being called names by you and I really anticipate Tyler's response to this . This is over the top.

Your idea that I don't know what context means, sounds like a bit of back-peddling, that Tyler isn't going to buy no matter how hard you try and sell it. You can't just call me a Liar, really flat out call me a liar and accuse me of antisemitic rantings with no basis. We will see. I can't wait.

...after you were so mightily offended--among lots of other posting directly to Proud Pagan...could easily be described as deliberately inflammatory.

I acted in an adult way and did not respond to the increasing escalation or rhetoric against me in kind.

I must have missed that post. Sorry.

I'll try it again: I don't agree with you, the reasons have been pointed out by many others and some by me, and I see no point in responding to the same thing over and over again. Particularly when you go off like that. You've made it clear that you really, really don't like disagreement with your flawed reasoning and faux Constitutional expertise--maybe you should take your own advice:

get on your big girl pants and show a little tolerance.

I don't agree with you either. I was responding to PP's nasty remarks to me for most of your points above. I tired being nice, I tried being reasonable, then I tried speaking in the same spirit as pp. that you got drawn in by speaking for him or her is regrettable but that was how it played out. I don't really have a problem with much of anything you said to me. Did I really say that big girl pants thing? I hate that expression and I don't know who I said it to , especially since I don't know your gender or pp's gender. wow. I really do hate that expression. Apologies to whomever I said it to and to the universe. ick.

I must have been pissed. i did get pissed very much after being accused of being antisemitic. If that doesn't piss someone off, there would in my opinion be something wrong with them. After that, a liar. So after that, I really am not that sure of what I said. I agree that it is useless to argue and see your reasoning as flawed as you see mine as flawed. I really don't have that much of a problem with you, maybe you do with me.

I don't respond well to being called antisemitic or a liar.

I also don't find anything I said (the "moron" was as i am sure you now see about myself) as being on the same level as LIAR or antisemitic.

If someone accused you of those two things I would expect you to respond as offended, or if you were not offended i would then wonder why. If i were really an antisemite, why would be offended by being called one? As for the lying, that is speculation that could be applied to anyone, but violates the coh. If I responded more stridently after being called an antisemite and a Liar, it may show a weakened self-control but nothing more earth shattering.

Wintersnows, I tried addressing you--and YOU dragged your pissing contest with Proud Pagan into it. I understand that things can get heated, but you were lighting your share of the matches--I posted some of them back to you--the first ones were before the anti-Semitic nature of your rant was noted (except by me.) The COH requires RESPECT for other Viners--it doesn't limit it to a prohibition on name-calling. What you posted was no more respectful. Not that I think that is a big deal, but you were the one who was talking about reporting violations because it was such a big deal. Personally, I think it is sometimes too difficult to "show respect" for someone whose opinion you have no respect for, and if someone is acting like a jackass it should be pointed out. The community can collapse anything that shocks the conscience. I'm learning to disengage once I realize I got no respect for another poster (or when there is no point--I'm not suggesting I don't respect you) but I'm sure I could be reprimanded more than once (and I'm trying to do better even though I don't agree with the policy.)

As has been explained--and you understood it at the point you stopped calling it that even though you are calling it that again--the reference was to your anti-Semitic RANT. Nobody called you antisemitic. If you want to get technical, what I saw was "good as a liar" which was based on the fact that Proud Pagan didn't appreciate something untrue that you said about him--which he specified and which you later said wasn't about him. That could have been a nice cooling down point if it was just a misunderstanding. But no.

Obviously I am doomed not to live up to your expectations--I've been called a lot of things that I'm not. Humans are fallible and they can get it wrong. No, they don't bother me much. (I hate it when someone calls me something bad and TRUE. Totally hate it. In a Buddhist tradition I am fond of, you are supposed to thank those people--hate it.) Why would I be offended by something if they were just wrong about it? ~pphhtt~

I did appreciate you clearing up the "moron" comment, and I forgot to thank you for that. I said "clueless about the law" and when you suggested it was easy (which it isn't, at all--I work with law so I'll go with my own judgment, here) "even for a moron like me" I thought you were escalating what I had written and had decided that I had called you that. The kind of thing I am glad to be wrong about :)

If I responded more stridently after being called an antisemite and a Liar, it may show a weakened self-control but nothing more earth shattering.

If? Don't sell yourself short--you were practically spitting long before that. Not earth-shattering at all, but if you really think that stuff wasn't responding in kind (which you posted earlier that you didn't do) and now is JUST responding in kind...well, we can agree to disagree again. :) Take care.

If i was spitting before, I didn't mean to be and didn't mean it as personal and I apologize. I will never be a buddhist and I admit I do get offended, but was not offended before the antisemitic thing and liar thing, ( I think the one your are talking about was the second Liar comment , but I could be wrong) The funny thing about this was that I really wasn't that serious about it in the beginning. I didn't understand the whole thing, It did seem like a pissing match. The reason I brought up what had happened in our school wasn't to trash anyone I was trying , unsucessfully and apparently in a harsh manner, to explain how misunderstandings happen when cultures clash. I didn't mean Jewish and Christian , I meant really any cultures, and in particular rural and urban. But I guess I was a poor communicator on that one too.

There is another seed I have been on where I did feel as if I was spitting fire. It was about something personal that means very much to me, and I felt that the person has been bullying me and others for a long time. So I was aware of being on the thin edge of that wedge. Here , to be honest, I didn't know it until the antisemitic stuff and the liar stuff. I felt that it was odd for me to be told I was making antisemitic rants when the case law on this is about religions, and in NYS the case law was specifically ( westhampton Eruvs, NYC Eruvs and the Menorah and the Crescent) I added the st Patrick's day parade as really my own version of Lemon. (reindeer rule) as gays and lesbians have been excluded from that on the basis of it being a religious parade of the Catholic Church. But I wasn't really invested in any of it except from a casual point of view.

I have been reading a lot of Norman Finkelstein in the past few years and felt like this was an example of not being able to have anything Jewish even be up for discussion AFTER I was told what I was saying was antisemitic. Because if I was using the examples in the law, and in my school district, and was told I was lying, that this never happened and that to say it did was being antisemitic , I didn't know how to respond to that. I could prove the NYC and Westhampton cases, which I did, but how do I prove what happened in a small town school? I couldn't. So calling my saying that antisemitic, it follows that if I said something antisemitic and was lying about it happening that I must be an antisemite, See what I mean? If I made it up? I would have to be an antisemite, because it was an example of where Jewish traditions were allowed and Christian traditions were not. ( I don't even care, which I did say if they have them all, I also despite what PP said about me and you can check, did indeed reference the constitutional issues, and say that I felt that the first amendment allowed for all religious stuff on public property. I never said that this view won in all cases, in fact I said the opposite. So, I guess politics and religion were not allowed at many dinner tables for a reason. But I didn't mean to be spitting in the beginning and if I was it was unintentional and I apologize. After the antisemite and liar things, yes I was steamed.

Winterstorms, I really meant that I was finished and that there was no point in continuing. Obviously I was mistaken. No matter how much I don't agree with what we've already gone over, I am in total AWE of your ability to share your heart even under these circumstances. Thank you.

I also meant it when I posted that I thought you were really hurt by the "rant" and "good as a liar" responses, and that I was sorry about that. The fact that I pretty much agreed with Proud Pagan (forgive me, I am uncomfortable with the initials) did not change that--I'm in favor of less hurt.

I'm not going to go around again about your contentions, but I wonder if you might feel better if you went back and read your own posts--you might see what was perceived as anti-Semitic in your posts, and perhaps it wasn't about lying or anything else that was hurtful to you. I thought I saw a clear misunderstanding on at least one important point between you and other posters, and I think I see in your last post that you've conflated (as we do when we are steamed or even just excited) other's transgressions against you with my own. My memory isn't the best, but I don't remember anyone but me suggesting skepticism about your small town school story--and I did disclose that I've heard it before repeatedly when it was a big lie. I recognize my bias and that in this case I was not there to see it myself. After a couple of your posts to me I was over the idea that you were anything but sincere, even though I doubted your account of the way it is, in exactly the way I can't buy your insistence that all religious stuff on public property is in line with the First, and only Christians are prevented from exercising that "right." It's a matter of perception, to me, not a lie.

And I've had my own failures with communication, even on this thread--I'll try to keep my little glass house safe by not throwing stones about that ;)

You've humbled me, Winterstorms--in keeping with some Buddhist precepts I only aspire to, I thank you for that. Take care.

peace to you Patient1. I am truly sorry that it came to what it did and I have learned a lot about how what I said was heard by you and others. I can agree to disagree on just about anything. You are right, I was hurt and over reacted and was seen to be angry and strident before when I didn't mean to be which certainly might have set others off.

I thank you for sticking it out with me here, that really was nice of you, when I was backed into a bad place, you really helped me to see how I was being perceived. I thank you for that as well. I will try and be more careful in the future, You really have proven yourself to be a person who tries to follow their convictions and I admire that. You take care too.

I'm going to take this opportunity to share one thing that really pisses ME off.

I added the st Patrick's day parade as really my own version of Lemon. (reindeer rule) as gays and lesbians have been excluded from that on the basis of it being a religious parade of the Catholic Church. But I wasn't really invested in any of it except from a casual point of view.

I choose this only because it's a perfect example of the problem of misinformation. Having been directly involved in the legal aspect of this, some many years ago, I have knowledge which is apparently not widely known or understood.

In Boston, the St. Patrick's Day parade is not, and has never been, a religious event, nor has it ever been sponsored, directed, or controlled by the Catholic church. It has always been about Irish pride (due to fierce prejudice against the Irish, beginning in the 18th century) and Irish solidarity. Into the 20th century, it was continued as a matter of tradition, and a celebration of cultural heritage. I can't speak to parades in other cities/states, for lack of direct knowledge, but as far as I know, the conditions are similar.

The South Boston Allied War Veterans Council (who ARE the directors of the parade) have never excluded anyone purely on the basis of gender identity. But it gets complicated. The group of Irish gays, lesbians, and bisexuals who came together in the early 90's to form themselves into a group (calling themselves GLIB), did so with the clear and specific intent of becoming a part of the St. Patrick's Day parade. The directors of the parade were less than enthusiastic at that time, and only because Boston was having significant problems with violence being perpetuated against gays. They did not believe it was worth risking the health and well-being of the families and children who attended the parade each year.

After much discussion and heated debate (and not all were pleased with the result), it was decided that GLIB should not be a part of the parade. Not long afterward, it became abundantly clear that GLIB was far less interested in expressing Irish pride, and MORE interested in using the parade to promote their political message. That pretty much sealed it for them right there, as the parade directors had no interest in adding GLIB's politics to the theme and purpose of the existing parade.

Now,

Do you see the difference between fact and rumor? Do you understand why misinformation is insulting and infuriating?

Regards

I like how they claim St. Patdrinks Day is religious in nature and Drinko de Mayo are serious holidays in the US. No offence to those that take them seriously, but most people use them as a excuse to get falling down drunk.

Proud Pagan:
Not so. The Parades are put on by a Catholic organization. The Ancient Order of Hibernians. Who are Catholic by mission statement. They have refused to allow gays because they are a Catholic organization and don't want to march with Irish gays and lesbians-Catholic or not under a banner (like all the other groups have).

Boston, as you mentioned sadly has had problems with gay bashing and racial problems before that which were infamous.

The whole country has had these sorts of problems . I am thankful for the suffragettes like Alice Paul, the civil rights activists like Rosa Parks, MLK, and many others and those like JFK who broke barriers for those to come. I am thankful , for those unnamed at Selma and for James Meredith and others at Montgomery, For those lynched and shot and murdered in the fight for equality iwho marched despite danger and despite their being assaulted by in many cases our own American police forces being supported for years by illegal "laws", that would eventually fall.

We are a nation that is dedicated to the protection of personal freedoms, not limited to but including life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The bare minimum is to not discriminate

against

others because of who they are using public funds paid for by ALL of us , and to practice tolerance.

Even the Irish president has refused to March in the Parade as well as many local government officials because of the discrimination. It is a religious event in the same way that many other holidays are religious events. It isn't the only religious holiday where excess alcohol is involved. This is not an excuse to discriminate on the basis of religious belief. The Parades in Ireland include G and L marchers and in Queens NYC , there is another parade of tolerance that allows them. The parade in NYC includes Mass at St Patrick's Cathedral. Every appellate court said that they had to allow every one to march. That these parades were on public property and cost millions of public dollars to put on. The supreme court in another disturbing bashing of the constitution allows it. We also must remember that this same court did not allow women the vote until an embarrassing 1920 and did not end separate by equal until an ( obscenely late) 1954 decision.

The Ancient Order of Hibernians (AOH), has as its motto, the spread of Christianity, it is an Irish Catholic fraternal organization. Members must be Catholic
 MISSION STATEMENT
HONOR SAINT PATRICK, THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS,
IRISH HERITAGE AND CULTURE. 

St Patrick's Day Parade, Inc. is a Non Profit
Organization 501(c)3
http://nyc-st-patrick-day-parade.org/default.aspx

This is what the head of the AOH (the organizing director had to say)

"People have rights. If we let the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organisation in, is it the Irish Prostitute Association next?"

The parade in New York is one of the largest St. Patrick's Day events in the world.

In 2006 more than 150,000 marchers took part in the procession and around 2 million spectators watched on from the streets.

SICK.

this was what the Order of Ancient Hibernians had to say about the why. It was not to protect them from violence, just as was said about giving the vote to women and integrating schools. Shame on those who would participate.

This is a religious belief that homosexuality is a sin. The Catholic Church (despite its despicable problems with child rape) has a bigoted opinion against gays and lesbians. The AOH has in its charter and motto, (you all can look this stuff up, it is all over the world that there have been protests against the NYC and Boston Parades excluding gays and lesbians) There is no law in NYC or Boston that allows discrimination against gays and lesbians at a public event as evidenced by the refusal of so many government officials to participate with Rep Quinn actually choosing to March in Dublin as an openly gay person, after being invited to do so. It may be a celebration in Ireland of being Irish, but here they freely admit they don't want them because it is a Catholic Parade. Great, so then the Catholic Church should have to pay for the whole thing .

As for NYC the big one. With huge costs to the city, yet city tax payers are allowed to be excluded because the Catholic Organization that puts it on won't allow them.

n a city of parades, this is the daddy. New York's spinal cord, 5th Avenue, hosts the largest street parade in the city every St Patrick's Day as thousands of Americans of Irish descent march in celebration of their faith and heritage.

I ask people. In America does this seem correct? Do you buy the argument that it is for their own protection. or that people could be banned because their being there might cause trouble. Boston had that same problem with black and white as late as the 80s. Women still couldn't vote when my mother was born. They had to march in Selma and Montgomery for their rights. Separate but equal wasn't struck down until my life time. 1954-I remember it well.

The stereotype of Irish being heavy drinkers is something that the parade really frowns on and was partially responsible for the hard time Irish Americans were subjected to when trying to assimilate into the rich American culture.

n a city of parades, this is the daddy. New York's spinal cord, 5th Avenue, hosts the largest street parade in the city every St Patrick's Day as thousands of Americans of Irish descent march in celebration of their faith and heritage.

n a city of parades, this is the daddy. New York's spinal cord, 5th Avenue, hosts the largest street parade in the city every St Patrick's Day as thousands of Americans of Irish descent march in celebration of their faith and heritage. In closing this is from the official site of the NYC parade:

There can be NO denying that it is Roman Catholic. Period.

The St. Patrick's Day Parade on Fifth Avenue is a New York City's tradition. The Parade marched for the first time 249 years ago, on March 17, 1762 - fourteen Years before the Declaration of Independence. The parade is held to honor the Patron Saint of Ireland and the Archdiocese of New York and celebrates Irish Faith and heritage. The Parade is reviewed by His Eminence Cardinal Edward Eagan and the Archbishop of New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan in the same manner as the Archbishop of New York did in the early days of the Parade at the Old St. Patrick's Cathedral in Lower Manhattan. The St. Patrick's Day Parade remains true to its roots as a true marchers Parade by not allowing floats, automobiles and other commercial aspects in the Parade.The Parade is held every March 17th except when March 17th falls on a Sunday; it is celebrated the day before, Saturday the 16th, because of religious observances. The Parade has been organized by volunteers since its inception 249 years ago and continues today with volunteers from the community and AOH under the Chairmanship of John Dunleavy ensuring that it retains its traditional values and connection to its past and the church.

http://nyc-st-patrick-day-parade.org/default.aspx

Not so.

Oh great goddess, here we go again!

The Parades are put on by a Catholic organization...

You see this is something I deal with on a far-too-regular basis. Rampant misinformation.

"The Parades" is not specific. It implies *all* parades. I've already proved that false in that the Boston parade is owned and operated by a veteran's organization.

The NYC parade is not owned and operated by the AOH, it is run by a committee of community volunteers, and financed through charitable donations from various sponsors. Just in case, I contacted the committee directly earlier today (thank you for providing the link which had their phone number). The gentleman with whom I spoke confirmed this, clearly and specifically. I even pointed out to him that a Wikipedia article claimed that they were, and he confirmed that Wikipedia is wrong.

The bare minimum is to not discriminate against others because of who they are using public funds paid for by ALL of us...

Patently false. I've also confirmed that all monies spent on the parade are through private donations.

"People have rights. If we let the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organisation in, is it the Irish Prostitute Association next?"

Here's link to the interview from which this quote supposedly came: An Exclusive Interview With John Dunleavy. please show me where he said that. If not here, then please show me the interview wherein he said it.

And on and on it goes. So-called reputable information coming from blogs, op-eds, and Wikipedia. @!$%#ing brilliant.

That having been said; whether or not the church/state separation applies to the parades is certainly arguable, but the bottom line is always going to hinge on whether or not an individual or group can prove, in a court of law, quantifiable damage or falsifiable discrimination. The LGBT groups cannot avoid the fact that, to their detriment, their participation involves a political statement, whether it is intended or not.

Regards

Proud pagan:
baloney

It was in the news, commented on by the mayor and other government officials, anyone else, look up the NYC St Patrick's Day parade, the, AOH and gay and lesbian, and don't take it from me. You will easily be able to see for yourselves, that this guys/gals rant is the one full of baloney and bad info. Even their own site, says what I said. (The AOH) So, If you really want to know who has the right info check for yourselves. It is really easy, the NYC site for St Patrick's Day parade (both the lead one and the alternative one in Queens, NY (yes it was so bad the had to have a tolerance one in QUeens)

http://www.aoh.com/

Welcome to the AOH National Website!
The Ancient Order of Hibernians is a Catholic, Irish American Fraternal Organization founded in New York City 4 May,1836

.

Another reputable source--and as for Mr Dunleavy--see for yourselves
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/mar/18/usa.gayrights

If an Israeli group wants to march in New York, do you allow neo-Nazis into their parade? If African-Americans are marching in Harlem, do they have to let the Ku Klux Klan into their parade?" march chairman John Dunleavy said in a newspaper interview, reigniting an argument that has marred every St Patrick's Day in New York for the past 15 years.

Crowds of up to 2 million were expected to gather to watch the city's 244th parade. But the celebrations were clouded by Mr Dunleavy's remarks to the Irish Times. The chairman of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, defending his organisation's longstanding exclusion of gay marchers, claimed that allowing the Irish Lesbian and Gay Organisation (Ilgo) to participate would set a precedent. "If we let the Ilgo in, is it the Irish Prostitute Association next?" he asked.

"Welcome to pure, unadulterated homophobia: it's not pretty, is it?" Alan van Capelle, director of the Empire State Pride Agenda, a campaign group, told the New York Daily News. "It's shocking that Mr Dunleavy hates gay people so much. What have we ever done to him?"

http://nyc-st-patrick-day-parade.org/default.aspx

WELCOME TO THE OFFICIAL WEB SITE OF NEW YORK CITY SAINT PATRICK'S DAY PARADE
"On the streets of New York since 1762, the oldest, biggest & best in the world"

HONOR SAINT PATRICK, THE FAITH OF OUR FATHERS,

Roman Catholic, yet American tax payers are excluded according to its own leader.

Chairmanship of John Dunleavy ensuring that it retains its traditional values and connection to its past and the church

this is on their own site.

The St. Patrick's Day Parade on Fifth Avenue is a New York City's tradition. The Parade marched for the first time 249 years ago, on March 17, 1762 - fourteen Years before the Declaration of Independence. The parade is held to honor the Patron Saint of Ireland and the Archdiocese of New York and celebrates Irish Faith and heritage

All on reputable sites and news sources or from the AOH, and NYS St Patrick's Day Parade Org themselves. Check it out for yourselves. Don't , please don't just take my word for it. Check and recheck this Dunleavy and co. If you think tax dollars should go for this and not for other religions, that is up to you to decide for yourselves. If your answer is that people like it and not everyone who goes is Catholic, yes that is true but the same can be said for the much cheaper nativity scenes that people want down. So believe Proud Pagan if you want, but at least check out the information for yourselves--it is easy to find on real websites that are not prejudiced.

Proud pagan:
baloney

::facepalm::

It was in the news, commented on by the mayor and other government officials...

Did I mention that I spoke directly to a member of the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee?

anyone else, look up the NYC St Patrick's Day parade, the, AOH and gay and lesbian, and don't take it from me. You will easily be able to see for yourselves, that this guys/gals rant is the one full of baloney and bad info.

Did I mention that I spoke directly to a member of the NYC St. Patrick's Day Parade Committee?

Even their own site, says what I said. (The AOH)

No, it doesn't. I read through the enitre site, page-by-page, and did not find one mention of the NYC parade being organized or operated by the AOH.

Regards

Hmm...well, it was nice while it lasted. Thanks, Wintersnows and Proud Pagan for sharing.

The Boston story (your part of it, Pagan, and what I've seen of some of the decisions and especially oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court case) were very interesting, although I haven't had time to look deeply. From a very quick scan it appears that the state courts--up to the state supreme court--accepted a public accomodations argument which allowed the courts to apply a law forbidding discrimination on account of sexual orientation to SBAWVC's refusal to include GLIB in the parade--GLIB got a court order requiring South Boston Allied War Veterans Council to let them in. The state supreme court affirmed. The U.S. Supreme Court decision included this assessment of the lower courts consideration and findings:

The court found that the Council had no written criteria and employed no particular procedures for admission, voted on new applications in batches, had occasionally admitted groups who simply showed up at the parade without having submitted an application, and did "not generally inquire into the specific messages or views of each applicant." App. to Pet. for Cert. B8-B9. The court consequently rejected the Council's contention that the parade was "private" (in the sense of being exclusive), holding instead that "the lack of genuine selectivity in choosing participants and sponsors demonstrates that the Parade is a public event."

..."Given the [Council's] lack of selectivity in choosing participants and failure to circumscribe the marchers' message," the court found it "impossible to discern any specific expressive purpose entitling the Parade to protection under the First Amendment." Id., at B25. It concluded that the parade is "not an exercise of [the Council's] constitutionally protected right of expressive association," but instead "an open recreational event that is subject to the public accommodations law."

But I haven't seen anything suggesting that the vet group ever denied that part of their demanded free expression--was an expression of religious (when specified, Catholic) faith as well as Irish Pride and that was why they rejected the GLIB message in their parade--not the participants because of their sexual orientation (impermissible) but their message, which they did not want to include in their message (a First Amendment issue that the state courts denied was implicated.) That was noted in the Supreme Court decision, and stated explicitly by the SBAVWC attorney in oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The court rejected the Council's assertion that the exclusion of "groups with sexual themes merely formalized [the fact] that the Parade expresses traditional religious and social values,"

That was from the decision and this is a little of what Darling said:

The Veterans Council clearly stated what the expressive purpose of their parades were. They announced during trian and prior to their application, filing their application itself, that they wished to celebrate their traditional religious and social values.

My clients define the scope and content of the parade. They vote to include and exclude people and groups with messages that they approve of in their parade that are consistent with the overall theme, a celebration of the patron saint of the Archdiocese of Boston, St. Patrick.

Chief Justice Rehnquist: Is the Roman Catholic religion a part of your message?

Mr. Darling: It certainly is, Mr. Chief Justice. The Ancient Order of Hibernians have been an integral part of the veterans parade for many years. They declined to participate in the parade because of the forced inclusion of the respondent in the '92 and 1993 parades.

I'm looking forward to reading the decisions (not blogs/rumours) when I have more time. The legal argument on both sides is what is interesting to me.

As well as the conflicting arguments here--I think there is always going to be conflict when you start from two different venues (Boston v. NYC parades) and maybe even more when one party has personal knowledge of one of them. Personal experience is not "proof" of anything to those of us who were not there, but who doesn't feel loyalty to their own experience? The vets group consistently argued that their protected expression included a religious message, and their argument against including GLIB was that the state cannot force their expression to include a message they don't want to express or deny them their expression--that it impermissibly infringes their First Amendment rights. (I haven't seen any suggestion that SBAWVC argued that it wanted to protect a vulnerable audience from potential civil unrest, but I haven't read it all.) It seems the Supreme Court agreed.

I don't think it is very common for this Supreme Court to rule unanimously, as they did here, and with nary a concurring in part or dissenting opinion anywhere. That makes oral arguments and the decision even more interesting. Mr. Darling indicated he had represented the vets for 3-1/2 years in the controversy, and I think I saw some suggestion that there was no, or very little compensation for his time and expertise. All of these issues stir up a lot of emotion and conviction and loyalty.

Here are links to the oral arguments and decision that I quoted, above. (I hope.)

http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_749/argument/

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-749.ZO.html

cogent interesting links patient1.

I think I backed up with substantiated sources what I said. Much I what I posted was quotes directly from the sources I cited. Everything of contention was cited. I did say that the supreme court allowed them in not include GLIB and that I had a problem with that , The actual problem I have with that is that if we are going to be a nation that will not use public lands or funds for privately or publicly funded displays of religious support, THEN it would in my mind be unfair to include the cost of public funding from taxpayers who were not able to march in a parade for religious reason as themselves. This seems unreasonable to me.

The second reason is that when I first brought up (as you say they are different parades, but the generic idea of A St Patrick's Day parade, where with the exception of the tolerance parade on St Patrick's day that there have been a myriad of problems in many cities (although I was speaking of the largest one in the US and probably the most famous one, even including Dublin) over the inclusion/exclusion of GLIB. I did this just because I didn't want my only example to be Jewish or Muslim--both of which have their own very low flashpoints.

Please understand that my beginning point in this was that I thought all types of religious trappings for lack of a better word--SHOULD be allowed on the basis that it didn't seem to be worthy of Constitutional examination because people seem to like it (like the St Patrick's Parade, the Ramadan Crescent displays, The Christmas Carols and Nativity Scenes and the Hannukah Menorahs) This was my starting point, When challenged, I do live in NY where most of the controversy has has to do with Jewish/Christian clash of cultures (until 911 added to the mix, but really on substantial issues the main clashes in schools etc in rural NY are Jewish/Christin-especially those involving court cases, where the only other big one I can think of was Jewish/Muslim over the teaching or Arabic Language and culture in a NYC public school was the focus) So since I was being seen as picking on the Jews I put in other examples that IF we were going to go after secular/religious combinations of things that were exclusionary to some and on public land and in the case of the Parade a taxpayer supported (not totally I know-and it does bring in revenue--but that should not be the litmus test for legality anyway-falling along the lines of if I steal something and nobody knows it, and if I sell it and give some of the money back in taxes argument doesn't fly)

. So I tried to show that i" got i" t that there were cases where the supreme court court ( ruled against how I saw it) and upheld what I saw as a blurring if not direct violation of the separation/endorsement in the Menorah case ( Lemon not withstanding-pointing out that Lemon was for the most part no longer seen as necessary or as good argument) I feel the same about the exclusion of G&L in any city's St Patrick's Day Parade as long as they are saying that it because it goes against the Religious Nature of the Parade, and that the Parade is dedicated to the Church and Catholic Faith and St Patrick as a Catholic Saint (personally as I said I don't care) I just want it to be applied equally to all religious stuff (which if I think about it , to me Jesus as a result of virgin Birth, rising from the dead after being crucified for my sins, or Thor and Freya, or Moses and Mohammed, are ALL just myths and teaching storied in the same was as a Sami White Stag, or a Native American Turtle) I am not religious and it is all just myth to me--

My problem is that some are allowed ( endorsed) and some not which would seem to me to violate the law the way the supreme court in NOW interpreting it.

This is really my only point. I have no problems with Christians (except the westboro type who ...well I will just say I think they are criminals and thugs) Catholic Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans of all of the many types) Shinto, Confusions, Scientologists (don't like their deal much but don't care), Mega Church Baptists, (not much I like about them either-but that is their deal I don't care).

I only care that whatever the supreme court decides that it be fair for all Myths.

The only "opinions" I have expressed and not backed up are that I think they are all myths and bring some kind of satisfaction to their adherents and that I don't care if they put up lights, babies, candles, moons, people with numerous appendages, green faces, wings, I don't care, but I have no way to PROVE , nor do I feel a need to prove that it is all just mythology.

I started out trying to say (Apparently in the wrong manner and not coherently ) just that . Basically, who cares? All the adherents of every myth seem to like their crap, so why take away the blanket?

I have now changed my mind, because I see that it has become a discrimination question. Whose myth gets the power? So, that makes it different for me. I am going to read the oral arguments you posed, I tried to post the Cornell link before, maybe it didn't post, but early on I tried to, So I am going to them again, with more attention to detail.

I do not think any of the links I posted in the last posts were blogs, and I have also posted sited of the parties involved, they NYC official site and a newspaper article from a regular newspaper, So my sources are not someone;s blog or accounts of my personal friendship with anyone from the head of Vinotok, to the head of the NYC st Patrick;s Day Parade. All my postings are from cited, non blog sources. I don't have friends in high places and as I said the principal of my kids elementary school has long since retired. There are probably some newspaper articles about the struggle over the school calendar, and the Kiryas Joel School district court cases are easy to find, but because they are about a Jewish controversy over this question I am afraid to bring them up.

The vets group consistently argued that their protected expression included a religious message...

A point on which I disagreed, but was in an extreme minority, though not for the reason you might think.

Here's the thing; arguing before the SCotUS is nothing like two people having having an argument. You can't say "this" is wrong because of "that" and "that" and "that" etc. You choose a single argument, narrowly defined, and support it, broadly, with Federal Law, State General Laws, and previously established court decisions. Needless to say, there can be a great deal of debate over which makes the most persuasive argument. But don't think for a minute that the "best argument" is based strictly in law. Enter Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist.

Now try to understand, there are lawyers who track the voting record of Supreme Court Justice's with all the same dedication and accuracy of a sports gambler tracking an athlete's performance. It was well-know, at that time, and in certain circles, that CJ Rehnquist routinely rejected First Amendment claims (about 80% of cases), unless it involved the free expression of Christian values. Add to that; Scalia usually voted with Rehnquist, and Thomas frequently votes with Scalia.

And thus, the deck was stacked.

But don't misunderstand, I am fully aware that the committee had its concerns with preserving certain religious ideals and traditions within the parade. Realistically, however, if you had asked the individual members to rate the relative importance of the ideals presented; culture, religion, history, etc., you would get a range of answers, and most agreed all were equally important. Bottom line; The St. Patrick's Day Parade is not about religion, per se', but at the same time, it's nonsensical to deny certain religious under-pinnings.

...and their argument against including GLIB was that the state cannot force their expression to include a message they don't want to express or deny them their expression--that it impermissibly infringes their First Amendment rights.

Ideally, that is correct.

(I haven't seen any suggestion that SBAWVC argued that it wanted to protect a vulnerable audience from potential civil unrest, but I haven't read it all.)

I don't think that was ever brought up in the court proceedings. It was a legitimate concern at one time, but when the State courts compelled GLIB's participation, and both parades completed without difficulty, it would have been somewhat pointless to bring it up.

All of these issues stir up a lot of emotion and conviction and loyalty.

I could not agree more.

As I said before, certain LGBT groups cannot avoid the perception that their participation involves a political statement, whether by choice or not. I think this is most unfortunate. But at the same time, I find it ironic that such a perception should be arbitrarily considered biased, but it's perfectly acceptable (?) to say that the participation of the AOH must signify a religious motive.

Kind regards

The actual problem I have with that is that if we are going to be a nation that will not use public lands or funds...

Completely ignoring that parades are privately funded.

...for privately or publicly funded displays of religious support, THEN it would in my mind be unfair to include the cost of public funding from taxpayers who were not able to march in a parade for religious reason as themselves. This seems unreasonable to me.

GLIB was never denied the right to march in a parade. They were denied the right to join someone else's parade. There is a difference.

I do live in NY where most of the controversy has has to do with Jewish/Christian clash of cultures...

Some perspective here; living in New York is all good and well, but you're also four hours from NYC. The demographic is different and pertinent.

...and in the case of the Parade a taxpayer supported (not totally I know-and it does bring in revenue--...

No, it is not partially funded by taxes. It is 100% funded by private donations.

...but that should not be the litmus test for legality anyway-falling along the lines of if I steal something and nobody knows it, and if I sell it and give some of the money back in taxes argument doesn't fly)

False logic; if something is stolen, there is someone who knows; the person who previously owned that which is now missing.

This is not a game of logic, it is Federal jurisprudence, i.e., a rule of the Federal Court: You may not claim a violation of constitutional rights unless you can show having sustained quantifiable damage. It is called having Standing. Read it.

( Lemon not withstanding-pointing out that Lemon was for the most part no longer seen as necessary or as good argument)

Bull@!$%#! The Lemon Test is a court precedent. It does not change, or decrease in value, until overturned by a subsequent case, which has not happened.

My problem is that some are allowed ( endorsed) and some not which would seem to me to violate the law the way the supreme court in NOW interpreting it.

Completely false. GLIB has the exact same right to put on a parade, as does the organizers of the St. Patrick's Day parade. No more, no less.

Regards

Proud Pagan:
You can take this comment of mine anyway you want. The fact is that I have zero interest in entering into a pissing contest with you, You seem bent on distorting or to be fair legitimately misunderstanding what I say,(which considering your repeated telling me how inferior my intellect is, seems unlikely) I see nothing constructive coming out of trying to converse with you.

Unlike Patient1 you never seem to post any links to contradict what I say, yet you make disparaging remarks about my personal lack of intellect and my childish interpretation of the material I present, and then expect me to accept as proof of your superior intellect and understanding that you have someone's personal email, or you are friends with them or have talked with them on the phone. This kind of name dropping isn't that impressive to me for my own reasons. I have found proximity to things doesn't always transfer much.

This is going nowhere.

I am not saying that you don't or didn't have personal contact with these people. I don't care that much. It is not relevant to the discussion. I did not start this pissing match because I like pissing matches and saying degrading things about people I am talking to . If I did start it in your opinion, I apologize that something I said was taken like that by you through my careless use of a phrase or your reaction, in any case I find it unfortunate and unproductive.

I have seen from your posts to others (many of whom I also disagree with that you do prefer a flip sort of communication, that I for myself find unproductive) I was attempting to show my sincerely held understanding and feeling about the topic , and you made it clear that my intellect was sub-par, that my references were bigoted in their motivation, and showed no interest in doing any real discussion with me that was supported by cites.

You didn't like my first sites, so I got other ones that you still dismissed , despite being recognized my most as legitimate.You seem to forget about things you said in the beginning , especially in regard to the parade. I feel like you have no interest in reaching any kind of understanding, but are more interesting in flaunting what you see as intellectual superiority or superior education. I will concede freely that you are probably much better educated formally than I am, and that your intellect may be well formed, but I will not concede that this is what leads to understanding and advancement of ideas and concepts .

As a truly educated person, one should be able to make their points easily to someone who they see as , what did you call my level, "grade school" and be able to do that quite simply without attacking the inferior intellect. Since you see me as your inferior, it is too bad that you can't find at least one or two links to information like patient1 has, that show clearly, without name dropping or patronizing or what was the other thing conscending, that really do show his or her point of view as supported by the links.

So, I don't need to be beaten up by you anymore with no hope for a learning experience. So regards to yourself. I am putting you on ignore. Have a nice day.

So regards to yourself. I am putting you on ignore.

I'm crushed.

Regards

Members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, who run the nation's biggest St. Patrick's Day celebration, say they may invite whomever they please.

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/station/community/WATCH-LIVE-The-St-Patricks--Day-Parade-2010-87701527.html

So this is HARDLY my own personal, stupid, grade school opinion. IT IS A FACT. I posted this before, but obviously it wasn't necessary to read anything I linked, because I wasn't in the inner circles, and neither were the Newspapers of NYC. I have seen no retractions of this have you? So I guess the person who said I was a liar, was wrong on this account.

blockquote>.

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/23/all_nyc_parades_to_be_cut_restricte.ph

parades have always been expensive to cities , even when they claim to be "paid for". For NYC since 911 this is especially tru. NYS has some of the highest taxes in the country, I was told that since I only live in NYS I shouldn't be concerned, Well we still pay NYS taxes, and our business is based in NYC and we pay unbelievable taxes. SO I guess I do have a say. Not only that I was the one who wanted all, and was willing to cover costs for all. No more. Now , funny but the Catholic St Parade is the only one that wasn't shortened to save 3.1 million as are the other parades. The Irish-Catholic Police Commission was the grand marshall. Surprise surprise, fairness personified? Constitution upheld. How many Catholics are on there now? THe ScotUS?

http://gothamist.com/2010/02/23/all_nyc_parades_to_be_cut_restricte.php

corrected link for #1,82

Let's review:

You offered to stop talking, and I accepted...

and yet you continued...

I advised you to stop talking...

and yet you continued...

you offered to put me on ignore...

and look, you're still talking.

Quick question; you put your hand in a monkey cage, and you get bitten. Sure, you can claim it's the monkey's fault for being bad. But then put your other hand in the cage, and you get bitten, whose fault is it now?

All NYC Parades To Be Cut, Restricted, Rained On

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me?!?

1) This is not a parade expense, this is an optional city expense. A police detail is not *required* to hold a parade. The city, if it chose, could pass the expense on to the parade organizers, who could then use, instead, volunteers or hire private security. But for economical, political, administrative, or whatever reasons, the city of New York chooses to use their own police force.

2) It is a universal expense. It applies to all parades, or it applies to none. From the link YOU supplied: "The Gay Pride March, the Puerto Rican Day and the West Indian Day parades ... the Thanksgiving Day parade..."

Now, how can you begin to claim that taxpayer money is being used to support religion when the expense of police affects all parades equally, regardless of a religious element? Are you even trying to apply common sense, or are you just Googling websites all day until you find one that you THINK supports you defective claims?

...funny but the Catholic St Parade is the only one that wasn't shortened to save 3.1 million as are the other parades.

Did you stop to consider the possibility that the police volunteered, thus, no wage, thus, no expense?

By the way, I found this here (http://gothamistllc.com/mediakit/):

• Gothamist LLC owns and operates the most popular network of city blogs on the Internet today.

A blog. @!$%#ing brilliant.

Members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, who run the nation's biggest St. Patrick's Day celebration, say they may invite whomever they please.

Again, are you @!$%#ing kidding me? You want to play games of semantics? Bet me! Dare me! Say the word right now, and I'll find a eighth-grade student who knows the difference between "The organization, who runs a parade" and "members of an organization, who run a parade."

Newsflash: There are members of the parade committee who belong to the Society of Friendly Sons of Saint Patrick. Maybe it's the SFSSP who runs the parade! I think one committee member is a member of the Emerald Society; does that mean the Emerald Society runs the parade?!?

Now, go ahead and claim I'm twisting the meaning. I dare you. I'll cut-and-past the grammar lesson which explains that a preposition modifies a noun, not a verb.

The fact is that I have zero interest in entering into a pissing contest with you,

Bull@!$%#, I think you have a bruised ego which prevents you from admitting when you're wrong.

You seem bent on distorting or to be fair legitimately misunderstanding what I say.

The only thing I understand is that you have not provided a single shred of empirical evidence which categorically states that the parade is organized and operated by the AOH, and YOU have disregarded or ignored this web page: http://nyc-st-patrick-day-parade.org/aboutus.aspx , which categorically states that the parade is organized and operated by community volunteers, yes, some of who are members of the AOH.

I see nothing constructive coming out of trying to converse with you.

I saw that days ago.

...you never seem to post any links to contradict what I say

Do you want to stand on this statement, or shall I start listing the numbers of posts where I supplied a link. After all, the latter could be construed as me calling you a liar.

...yet you make disparaging remarks about my personal lack of intellect and my childish interpretation of the material I present...

You've earned each and every one.

...and then expect me to accept as proof of your superior intellect and understanding that you have someone's personal email...

It's on her Facebook page. Holy @!$%#, you couldn't have figured that one out yourself?

... or have talked with them on the phone.

Newsflash: The phone number is supplied on the web page that YOU referenced (718-231-4400). You don't have to take my word for it, anyone on Newsvine can call that number.

I have seen from your posts to others (many of whom I also disagree with that you do prefer a flip sort of communication, that I for myself find unproductive)

Did you say "flip?" How quaint. But don't mince words or split hairs for my benefit. I'm an arrogant @!$%#, and I bloody well know it. And I also don't report people speaking frankly. As far as being productive, my experience has been a little different. I've spent literally months, and hundreds of posts, shooting down one bad argument after another. It helps keep the boards clear of bull@!$%#, which typically runs rampant around here. It also gives me warm fuzzies.

I was attempting to show my sincerely held understanding and feeling about the topic ,

Your feelings and opinions are you own, and I've not once disputed your right to keep them, accuracy notwithstanding.

...and you made it clear that my intellect was sub-par,

NO! That your arguments and understanding of law were sub par. And worse.

...that my references were bigoted in their motivation,

One reference was bigoted. Pay better attention.

...and showed no interest in doing any real discussion with me that was supported by cites.

Not one reference you've supplied supports your argument. You've supported nothing.

...despite being recognized my most as legitimate.

Most what?!? Check out that little box in the lower right corner of your posts. Almost all of yours are arrows, which means not one person voted-up the comment.

So tell me, exactly who is recognizing your references as legitimate?

As a truly educated person, one should be able to make their points easily to someone who they see as , what did you call my level, "grade school" and be able to do that quite simply without attacking the inferior intellect.

Why should I? This isn't some kindergarten class or old-woman's tea-party. This is a debate forum. You get what you get. Be thankful we're not in an open, unmoderated forum. I've had friends who read my posts here, and commend me on my restraint.

that really do show his or her point of view as supported by the links.

I did. You ignored it. You presented information that was vague, biased, inconclusive, and/or intellectually dishonest. And yet, you continue. It could not be more clear that you know you're wrong, but unwilling to admit it. Keep this going much longer, and you really will begin to appear desperate.

Take your own advice. Put me on ignore, and give it up.

Regards

When the town is in violation of the Constitution, yes, one person should be bring out conformity to the law.

how does nativity scene decoration violate the constitution anymore than the st patricks day parade on public property?

So in your world .... an entire community, must succumb to the desire of one individual?

To hell with what the people that live there want, to hell with what has been historically the towns choice!

One person...should be able to change an entire towns desires? They can not carryout their wish's because ONE PERSON... disagrees with an entire community!

You are ignoring the interaction of this situation with THE CONSTITUTION.

Say one person wanted to vote - but an entire community didn't want them to. Should the wishes of the community prevail against a person's right to vote? That seems to be what you're saying because you aren't addressing the 800lb. elephant in the room.

how does nativity scene decoration violate the constitution anymore than the st patricks day parade on public property?

Because allowing groups to hold a parade doesn't show any real active support of any religious message the groups may be holding as they parade.

Supporting a nativity scene (a true religious display) on government property during a religion's holiday season shows support by that office to that religious belief?

Hrm.

When it comes to religion, you are the one who wants to ignore the Constitution.

Your airs of victimhood are boring and predictable. Get off the cross, I need the wood.

BTW, it was a large group of out of staters that poured money into Prop. 8. Didn't you say above that people shouldn't worry about what is happening outside of their own community? More rightwing hypocrisy, I guess. Can't you guys maintain consistency on any issue?

The 800lb elephant is the reason for the outrage... and it had nothing to do with the constitution...

So, you want the 800lb. elephant to be that it is a religious display (which I admitted to already, actually)...

... but you (again) don't want to address how governmental support of a religious display interacts with the Constitution... right...

You seem to want it both ways, depending on what you want!

I really do hope you aren't trying to accuse me personally of hypocrisy without basis or support.

It reminds me of the battles on going in California... When the people vote against same sex marriage its unconstitutional ... no matter what the people wanted...

Yet when they vote for legalizing pot ... The people have spoken.... To hell with the federal government and its laws...

Without getting into an argument that has nothing whatsoever to do with the article at hand, I should point out that there is NOTHING in the Constitution granting the federal government the right to regulate recreational substances; one could as easily make an argument that the DEA is, itself, an unconstitutional federal agency, and that regulation of narcotics should be a states rights issue.

The town square belongs to everyone, but that everyone must follow the laws and Constitution.

Why are they so weak in their faith that they NEED the Nativity scene right there? Why do they have to shove their religion down everyone else's throat?

Doesn't the First Amendment say ..or prohibit the free exercise thereof: could not one argue that denying the people of this town to use their town square to display this scene is prohibiting them from the free exercise of their religious beliefs...

Sure. Of course, I've also pointed out, in other threads, that the "free exercise" and "establishment" clauses could be interpreted in such a way that denying recognition of marriages performed by those religious entities who sanction gay unions--Quakers, Episcopalians, Nichiren Buddhists--could be considered a violation; I would also submit that forbidding Native American tribes from using peyote or Rastafarians from using marijuana for religious purposes is similarly in violation. Indeed, I would submit that all manner of essentially victimless behavior that could be considered part of the religious rites of many long-established sects (and some less established, since I grant our ancestors no spiritual prescience that I do not also imagine I possess) are proscribed in direct violation of that very amendment.

Why are they so weak in their faith that they NEED the Nativity scene right there? Why do they have to shove their religion down everyone else's throat?

Well, now . . . I'm not convinced that having it there is "shov[ing] their religion down everyone else's throat[.]" I think that, to avoid conflict, placing those displays on private property is civically wiser, but that's not the same as saying that it's legally necessary. If the land is available to all, I don't think we can object if use is made of it. To put it another way, if the public cannot make use of public land, then on what basis is it "public?" Is there such a thing as an ideologically neutral use of public land?

That one person's side of the issue is supported by the Constitution, a document you seem to not comprehend.

Thankfully we don't live in a country where the tyranny of the majority rules.

The Nativity scene can be moved and displayed elsewhere without the use of anyone's tax dollars.

Sorry you don't like the Constitution, I'd suggest you move to a theocracy, perhaps Iran would suit you well? Or Saudi Arabia?

So does it also belong to the people of the town? Those that wanted the display? Or only to the one person that did not? ...why should the desire of ONE PERSON be able to be shoved down the throats of an entire town! And cause them to abandon a tradition that has harmed no one for 57 years?

What's interesting here is that you seem to be finding for "freedom to" over "freedom from"--in this case, the freedom to place a religious display on public land over the freedom from offense at that religious display. Very well--I agree. But then, for the most part, I've always rather conspicuously found for "freedom to" over "freedom from," and would hold that such a philosophical stance should also apply to drug use, pornography, deviations from the sexual norm, etc.

What I wonder, given some of the stances you seem to take (and I can only infer, rather broadly, from some of what I've read), is whether you are as consistent in your application of this principle.

TheJonesGirl,

Please see the link below to update your understanding of what the courts have ruled. I suspect that you will be surprised.

http://atheism.about.com/library/decisions/indexes/bldec_HolidayIndex.htm

Good links, Lee. Thanks.

You are welcome.

Religion should be a private thing. If one puts it out there, they run the risk of complaints and needing to find somewhere else for their display. Sorry, but I have no sadness for this group.

I am thinking this is a bit different than a nativity scene... Is it not?

Why? I'm not sure I see the distinction.

Just as I suspected, Jim is only for the open display and rights of Christians.

Such hypocrisy! Guess your words about tolerance above were just so much BS?

Because if Jim were for all religions having the right to be open, he'd have zero problem with the Community Center near Ground Zero, as it is the right of the people to use the land that is theirs.

The nativity scene would be gone on dec 26th the Center will be there forever...

So a better comparison, then, would be the construction of a Christian church. Would you consider opposition to the building of a church on privately purchased land (which was the case in NY), then, more appropriate than opposition to the nativity scene?

And I think it distasteful for public land to be used for a religious display. That shows no respect for those of other faiths or no faith who are also taxpayers.

Have we not gone from use of public property to use of personal property?

I only note the distinction because the community center was to be built on property owned by those doing the building; if anything, it makes that expression more clearly within the bounds of constitutionally protected free exercise.

Do I think is is distasteful and should not happen out of respect for what happened there. Yes!

I can respect that stance, though I can't agree with it. In my view, the difference between thousands of Americans and, say, thousands of Indonesians dying is nil. And while I see a certain utility, as a human, in placing greater emphasis on human life, I see no intrinsic or philosophical difference between thousands of humans dying and the millions of bacteria that die when I take antibiotics. I certainly have compassion for the living who now mourn . . . up to a point. Nine years after the fact, I'm certainly not interested in paying any special honor to the land where it occurred (let alone a privately owned lot blocks away from the actual site of the attack).

I also don't think a Nazi museum across the street from a concentration camp would also be just as distasteful!

Except that the attacks were not carried out by Islam per se; rather, they were carried out by a loosely affiliated group of radicals. It CERTAINLY wasn't carried out by Sufis (essentially the Islamic equivalent of Quakers), who were the group behind the communitiy center.

A better example would be, say, a Shinto temple near Pearl Harbor . . . and, in fact, there is one.

Except that the attacks were not carried out by Islam per se; rather, they were carried out by a loosely affiliated group of radicals

.
Exactly. Being upset about the Community Center is like demanding that all Catholic Churches be 200 meters from parks and schools, because some priests molest kids.

Though there have been more victims of sex abuse by Catholic officials and excusing/hiding of those officials than victims of Islamic terrorists.

Discussing him is really not the point, any more than the character of the Christian who put up the nativity display is the point. Your position, at least, is clear, but if we continue to ride the (to me) fairly clear comparability of the two matters, then you'd have to concede that even if one has a right to put a nativity scene on public property, it may not be wise to do so . . . and if someone takes offense, the potential constitutionality of that placement might be called into question.

One may disagree with the finding of the court--I certainly do--but for better or for worse, they're the designated arbiters for such concerns.

It doesn't matter if it was a tradition of George Washington, carried on to today. If it is on public land, the public gets a say and it may need to be moved to a more appropriate location.

Many things that are traditions are found to be wrong or outmoded and then done away with or done differently. Just because this is a tradition associated with a faith you endorse, you think it should be beyond criticism. Sorry, but that's not how it works.

Jim,

I appreciate your sentiments. I happen to share the nostalgic longing for the days when such displays were uncontested. I think that my feelings are in part due to a longing for a return to what seemed to be a simpler, kinder and more tolerant time. Forty years ago, I was growing up in a town with a large Catholic population and a large Jewish population. We all got along great and each year we all put up our decorations of choice with nativity scenes, menorahs and christmas lights in all public buildings. In those days it was simple. There was a common sense that was applied when dealing with freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. However, as our nation has become more diversified, so have the opinions of its citizens.

I agree with you - it's sad. I would much rather we all had enough respect for each other's beliefs that we were tolerant enough to allow the display of something as harmless as a nativity scene, Kwaanza candles, menorahs, etc. and also have enough concern for each other as human beings that if another's display cost a little bit of taxpayer's money we'd be glad to help out. But such times are past. People are wary of the government as they never have been in the past. People seem also to be less concerned with assisting others in their communities than they have in the past; they are much more egocentric.

But you need to remember the most important thing of all. No matter what your religious beliefs, Christmas should be a time when we take time to help out those less fortunate than ourselves, when we take the extra time to be nicer to each other and when we foster the spirit of good will towards all people. These are messages and values that all people can value and ultimately mean so very much more than the statues in the manger.

I think that my feelings are in part due to a longing for a return to what seemed to be a simpler, kinder and more tolerant time. Forty years ago, I was growing up in a town with a large Catholic population and a large Jewish population. We all got along great and each year we all put up our decorations of choice with nativity scenes, menorahs and christmas lights in all public buildings. In those days it was simple. There was a common sense that was applied when dealing with freedom of religion and the separation of church and state.

As a formerly Catholic, current non-Christian who still celebrates Christmas, a pantheist who respects the social role of religious impulse and ritual, I can relate to that . . . to a certain degree. The problem is, in that "simpler time," gays were all but required to remain closeted for fear not only of moral disapproval, but job or housing loss, even physical violence (the perpetrators of which frequently went unpunished), Jews were subjected to mistrust, and normal developmental phases like, say, teenage masturbation were treated as vices. I think there's a way to have the kindness and tolerance without "ditching" the rights of Christians to engage in their celebrations publicly, but I think it's important to understand that the mistrust some have of public religious display comes from genuine injustices committed in many of these somewhat falsely idealized communities of yore. They may have seemed idyllic to a middle-class, white Christian, but everything always looks calmer from the center . . . especially when no one questions its placement.

That said, I think that those who object--as I do--to Christianity's retrograde sexual mores and tendency toward moral hegemony are barking up the wrong tree when they train their sights on the symbols (and other expressions) of faith. In the end, we will need to convince Christians that socio-moral progressivism represents growth, that freedom of religion necessarily includes freedom of irreligion, that to truly achieve a "spirit of good will towards all people," people of whom any one of us may not approve must be allowed to participate.

I grew up in a small town and there was a church or bar on every corner... But during the holidays ... Everyone respected each other, not like today!

I grew up in a small town, and regardless of the time of year, getting beaten to a pulp for being liberal, interested in the arts, and/or, dog forbid, a little feminine was de rigeur. Perhaps you're just a good deal older than I am.

Luckily, I learned martial arts pretty early in my adolescence, and thus survived long enough to leave. The real funny part is, I'm not even gay . . . but like my wife, I now feel most at home among gay friends, our experiences growing up having been all too similar.

I find it hard to understand why people find something as simple as a nativity scene offensive . . .

Agreed, generally, because I don't take any offense. But as I say above, right or wrong, Christianity has become associated with the pointed intolerance of a good many Christians (which is not to suggest that they represent the majority).

I should be tolerant of gays rights, pro choice and so many other things... and yet they are not tolerant of my religious beliefs and I am the one that's wrong.

I'm happy to be tolerant of your religious beliefs . . . but tell me, are you holding up that end of the bargain? That is to say, regardless of your beliefs about homosexuality or abortion--to which you're welcome to hold yourself and your family--do you allow that your feelings on the matter have no special right to be codified in law?

I too miss the days when we cared for the wants of for friends and even those that believed different than us!

What makes you so certain that "we" don't still care for the wants of those who believe differently than "us?" When practicing Nichiren Buddhism, my chanting of gongyo ends with a sancho for "Peace throughout the world, and the happiness of all humanity."

People believe they have a right not to be offended!

And yet you yourself below say that the Community Center should not be built because it is offensive. You seem to have issue with gay people, too.

So-called Christians are often quite fast at calling out offenses and demanding their ways and morals reign supreme. Look at the calls to defund public art displays because they don't like the subject. Why should they get to dictate what is displayed? If they don't like it, they should just move along, after all, a work of art can't really hurt a person.

The idea that 40, 50, 60 years ago was some golden age is nostalgia, not reality, unless you were a young, white straight male. Anyone and everyone else had to know their "place" or face open scorn or worse.

Leave It to Beaver is not a documentary.

The idea that 40, 50, 60 years ago was some golden age is nostalgia, not reality, unless you were a young, white straight male. Anyone and everyone else had to know their "place" or face open scorn or worse.

That's sad that your experiences were so rigid and intolerant. I was lucky. I grew up in New York and we were much more liberal and accepting than most other places in the country. There was no more social stratification than there is today. But there was a lot more daily interaction between members of the community. "Leave it To Beaver is not a documentary", eh? Sad that you feel so much.... anger. You have my sympathies. Good luck. I think you're going to need it.

Jim,

I'm glad you enjoyed the post. Merry Christmas to you also!

That's sad that your experiences were so rigid and intolerant. "Leave it To Beaver is not a documentary", eh? Sad that you feel so much.... anger. You have my sympathies. Good luck. I think you're going to need it

.
Why do righties assume anyone not in lockstep with their rigid ideology is "angry?"

Just because you had it good then doesn't mean that others did...and what is your race and gender?

Having the right to do something does not always make it the right thing to do!

That makes your stand in this issue more puzzling, as per the Constitution they DON'T have the right to the creche on public land, yet you want it to remain and those opposed to shut it and just let it be. Such hypocrisy!
You have my sympathies as you don't seem based in reality.

TheJonesGirl

Why do righties assume anyone not in lockstep with their rigid ideology is "angry?"

I'm not a 'righty'. (If you bothered to look at my page, you'd see I lean to the left on a great many issues. Too much trouble for you apparently, but it does make it soooo much easier for you to lash out irrationally, doesn't it?)

I looked at your posts; the comments on this seed don't seem in keeping with your usual tenor. You are usually pretty polite and civilized from what I read. I can only assume that this particular topic touches on some sore points with you...

As for my perception of your anger.... pleeeeaaaaasse! Every single comment you make on this seed is condescending and angry. You can't even refrain from being insulting when people here tried to treat you with respect and dignity. You have been insulting to everyone you dealt with here. Trust me lady - everyone who reads this seed sees your anger issues - you wear them on your sleeve.

Again, you have my sympathies for your problems, which seem to be deeply ingrained to the point where you aren't able (or willing) to recognize their existence. Good luck. As I said before, you're going to need it I think!

Probably a spammer, Jim44, don't sweat it. They just wipe out all of their posts as a policy. The babble-name is kind of a clue.

well if that is true you better start pulling down a lot of buildings that have all sorts of stuff on them that the government uses, not to mention the prayers they use in congress and he like, And I suppose you want the words one nation under god removed and in god we trust removed and all of that god crap removed.

In case you haven't noticed we are in a depression, two foreign wars , korea on the edge and about to have the little health care reform we got removed, we have huge unemployment and huge illegal and legal immigration despite the numbers, a near civil war spilling in on our southern border and people are worried about a freaking nativity scene. J****s C****t.

Jim. you and I agree on this and I have to say we are probably as far apart politically as people can get. I don't think many have read the constitution, and those who have seem to be almost on purpose missing the point. Separation of church and state was supposed to protect people from persecution for their religious differences, not separate people from tradition, custom or belief. This is such a stretch they make , and most seem to use it only when it serves their own purposes. I see no one has even tried to take on the Eruvs. This is just anti Christian PC crap that most on here have been spouting. Anti Christianity that isn't highbrow, but tradition based. Left wing hooey. And I suppose I am fairly left wing on most stuff. What we have in common Jim is age. I am old too.

The Supreme Court Building ..... Sculpture of Moses carrying the Ten Commandments... Gone!

Key feature of that - Moses with the Commandments is depicted alongside various other depictions of law throughout history.

If the very people that founded this country and wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights didn't understand this concept of Separation of Church and State... how can we!

With our brains.

Separation of church and state was supposed to protect people from persecution for their religious differences, not separate people from tradition, custom or belief.

Where are people separating people from belief? Or choice in custom?

Anti Christianity that isn't highbrow, but tradition based.

For tradition to be valuable, it needs to have value beyond mere 'tradition.'

the US has had Christmas decorations up for generations on government property. They Christmas Tree lightings and Easter Celebrations at the white house. That is a custom and a tradition. They do have value. People like them, that is the value. They represent a custom that people like, that gives them continuity of well wishes and hope. Not everyone, so what? Not everyone likes anything. What do you mean it has to have value? It has value to those it has value to , and not to those who don't. So why do those who don't value it piss on it? Meanness.

No, I didn't. People are just losing their minds I think. I don't know why it gets people all so fried out. I was brought up by Unitarian parents. My mother's father was a University of Chicago, Theologian (Baptist Minister) who converted to socialism and I myself converted first to Episcopal at age nine and then to Catholic when I married. I now am old and have done the opposite of getting more religious, I am now A-religious. But I do resent it a lot when people bash Christianity out of plain old meanness. I love the traditions and it makes me mad that we have to get every tradition BUT, including no tradition, shoved down our throats and never get one peep about the tradition that most Americans ascribe to. Why do they care if they don't believe it. I don't believe it and I don't care. I do believe in prayer, not any particular prayer, I would say focused energy, but I believe in it. So I like it when people pray for me in whatever religion or version they like. I just think live and let live on this works better. I see no one has had a word to say on the constitutionality of Eruvs. Not surprising really, but telling, And to say St Patrick;s day parade doesn't exclude Americans is also a flat out uniformed statement as they have disincluded Americans for years now . Not religious> My Potatutie it isn't. That is their reason for excluding people.

We , you and I probably disagree on a whole lot, but this stuff is just coming out of a really mean, snotty place and it makes me sick. I wish that for once at Christmas in a public school we could have a true carol instead of Grandma got runover by a reindeer, while we sit through the Macabees , Ramadan, and other stuff no problem. That is just unfair and silly.

There is nastiness on both sides of the argument.

I haven't seem the nastiness on all sides, as there are more than two, but I will take your word for it stone, but I have seen year after year of this Christmas bashing and I for one am tired of it. I don't believe for one second that it has anything t do with the Constitution.

They Christmas Tree lightings and Easter Celebrations at the white house.

Actually, for me, Christmas Trees and Easter Egg Hunts aren't terribly objectionable. Probably because they aren't overtly religious in nature.

That is a custom and a tradition. They do have value. People like them, that is the value.

"People like them" is just the value of tradition. I said they need to have value 'beyond' that of merely a tradition.

Not everyone, so what? Not everyone likes anything.

But, you see, we're a nation of religious freedom.

Public (as in funded) support of a particular religion forces everyone, including people not of that religion, to support that religion. Even if that support ends up being indirect, you are forcing people to take part in a religion they don't share. That infringes on their freedom.

What do you mean it has to have value? It has value to those it has value to , and not to those who don't. So why do those who don't value it piss on it? Meanness.

Why should those who don't be forced to take part in something you find valueable?

Why can't religion and expression stay in your realm of private rights?

Every President has called for Days of Prayer since Washington! But now a Judge has ruled it unconstitutional!

I notice you aren't arguing that it is Constitutional - you're just arguing that 'people have done it for a while.'

Your kidding right?

Not really - your comment was rather shallow. You expressed surprise at the judge's decision, but really didn't present anything but disbelief.

And then your followup decision didn't try to argue that the day was constitutional.

So I'll come forth and ask - why would a national day of prayer be constitutional?

thelopes:

where in the Constitution does it say that you can't have traditional christmas or other holiday decorations on public property. how many times do we have to say it that it wasn't paid for by taxes. It was paid for by the group who did it and we agree they should be responsible to repair any blade of grass harmed.

Nativity scenes are way less obtrusive and religious than Eruvs. The Nativity scene is the equivalent to me of having the god Mars on a post office. He represents speed, the Nativity scene to many is just a story about angels , and family and hope. But the Eruvs. What about the Eruvs. They have zero purpose other than religious, and ARE already and forever on public property and they are up 24/7 , 365.

Easter and Christmas and Nativity Scenes of one sort or another are a part of a ton of religious mythology. Yes, I like that too. I like having Mars on the post office for instance. I like having the Greek or Norse Gods, I like the Sukkoth huts in the parks. I don't have a problem with the St Patrick's Day parades except for their discrimination and exclusion of Catholic and non Catholic Irish Gay and Lesbians, BECAUSE they say it is a "Catholic Saint's" parade.

As for the constitution. Where does it say this is prohibited , and if it was why did they keep doing it the same people who wrote it and allowed it if they thought it was unconstitutional. I don't see it. Scalia is now saying that women have no right of protection under the Constitution either. Doesn't make that so either.

A national day of prayer. I don't care. I don't see how it impinges on me any more than any of the other crap people like to celebrate.

where in the Constitution does it say that you can't have traditional christmas or other holiday decorations on public property. how many times do we have to say it that it wasn't paid for by taxes. It was paid for by the group who did it and we agree they should be responsible to repair any blade of grass harmed.

So - are they responsible to pay for the upkeep of the space being used at all? Are they paying any sort of rent or lease at all for the land being used for personal religious purposes?

If not, the land is owned by the public - and use for private religious purposes forces me and every other person to indirectly support the message provided.

Alternatively - a private group can use privately acquired land - rented, owned, whatever - for their use. Why should they have the use of communal space?

They have zero purpose other than religious, and ARE already and forever on public property and they are up 24/7 , 365.

Do you have any sort of example of this?

As for the constitution. Where does it say this is prohibited , and if it was why did they keep doing it the same people who wrote it and allowed it if they thought it was unconstitutional. I don't see it.

I'm sorry you chose to ignore the statement I made:

Public (as in funded) support of a particular religion forces everyone, including people not of that religion, to support that religion. Even if that support ends up being indirect, you are forcing people to take part in a religion they don't share. That infringes on their freedom.

Nowhere did I say anything was literally or specifically in the constitution.

The argument is that the constitution supports a right for the people to have religious freedom.

This freedom is completely negated in instances of specific religious support as it forces individuals to support and take part in religious actions outside of their choice.

Are not the people of the town that pay the taxes that pays for this property not the PUBLIC...

The people of the town... are 'the public' of that town.

Here - a lesson. When looking at the federal government, the relevant public is the American people. When looking at the state government of Nevada, the relevant public is the people of Nevada. When looking at Chicago, the relevant public is the people of Chicago.

However, Constitutional matters apply to all levels of government, all levels of public.

You seem to thing that denying the citizens of the use of their own property is prohibiting them from the free exercise of their religious freedoms on their own PROPERTY!

Is is not 'their' property, it is 'public property.' It is owned by the local government.

Separation is a two way street... The public has every right to the use of THEIR Property

Actually - they don't. Courthouse space is 'public property' but lots of people can be prohibited from using it. Streets are 'public property' but you don't have the right to do whatever you want with it. Even public gatherings on public land can be regulated via permits.

IMO its on very thin ice!

Is that the entirety of your argument against it?

She writes 66 pages of legalese, references to precedence, and opinion ... and it warrants nothing more than "Weak!"? Seriously?

Excellent point then why should one person, deny the wishes of the entire tax paying community.

The idea of 'rights' is pretty much setup to avoid tyranny of the majority. (and I would love to see your support for 'entire taxpaying community' - do you really think there's a 100% agreement on it?)

And you seem to forget, that the SCOTUS has deemed this type of Nativity scene CONSTITUTIONAL..

So why do you insist on violating the Constitutional rights of all the people in this town!

What case are you referring to?

And I can't understand people that feel they need to deny people of their rights to the use of their property ( the towns people are the tax payers)

So... you support the actions of individuals to use public property for the purpose of showing intentional governmental support of particular religions?

and the free constitutional exercise of their religious beliefs and the practice of their traditions.

Freedom of religious expression doesn't mean "Anywhere, Everywhere, and using whatever you want."

Forcing this town to forfeit their rights by one person FORCING their beliefs on the entire town, through threat of a costly law suit.

The beliefs of one person that ... the government should stay out of religion, that religion is a private thing, a private right?

The belief that every person should be able to believe as they want in their own lives without being forced to support someone else's religious tradition?

Have you read the case law cited in this seed?

Actually, no, I don't have time to read every single item in a seed. You also seem not to have completely read your links.

#12.1 listed 4 cases and you can get tons that contradict your position

Case 1 - There is the significant difference between a public park and a borough building. Also, was the space in the borough building the nativity was displayed in "publicly announced and open to all on equal terms" ? (the announcement and openness was handled in other cases with a sign, or other religious imagery)

Case 2 - It was part of a greater display.

Case 3 - They struck down the nativity scene.

but in the final analysis the Court ruled that while the creche was unconstitutional, the menorah display was not.

Case 4 - Included a sign - "a sign stating that the display was part of the broader celebration of diversity."

None of these conditions are present in the Seeded situation.

yet you refuse to accept what the SCOTUS and Court of Appeals has decided against you position numerous times...

You seem to not have read the specifics.

Your done ... The Courts have SPOKEN !

I am never done. :)

Duelling Jefferson quotes at ten paces:

Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -.Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

And of course, the big gun:

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

My point was and still is ...if you read back you will see that , the town, had they knew what I knew and you now know this could have allowed then to keep their Nativity scene.

Odd, earlier you said you said:

And you seem to forget, that the SCOTUS has deemed this type of Nativity scene CONSTITUTIONAL.

But none of those cases support that.

All of your cases are involving different types of religious displays and nativity scenes.

In fact, the one that was 'that type' was struck down in case 3. Solo nativity scene? Struck down.

Struck.

Down.

The nativity scene would have to be presented differently. I.E. a different layout.

"This type" isn't constitutional.

FREE EXERCISE THEREOF........

Free exercise thereof isn't the catchall you seem to believe it to be.

It isn't universal, it isn't all encompassing. You're repeatedly ignoring the actual opinions presented in the cases you link to, and the specifics of the findings. Nowhere do they mention anything having to do with an individual's religious freedom being under consideration... because it has nothing to do with individual religious freedoms.

What Part of We can Have A Nativity Scene on the village square anytime we want to...Do you not now understand?

Soooo, it is within my Constitutional right to freedom of speech to put a sign next to the nativity saying "You know this is a myth, right?"

Isn't it?

Regards

Jim44, I'm still waiting for you to answer the above question.

Well, if you can.

Regards

Would placing such a sign, although you have every right to do so help your cause?

This is your view, the first or primary concern which comes to mind? Does this imply the purpose of a Nativity is to "...help your cause?"

Would doing so promote community acceptance and tolerance of you or your group...?

Intent and motivation can be funny things; they're not always what you think they are. Such a display need not be to encourage acceptance, it can simply be to establish that which you believe, in contrast with the beliefs of others. Earlier in this thread, it was mentioned that an Atheist would have nothing to "display" alongside a nativity. This hypothetical struck me as one possibility of such.

OR was your intent just to piss people off...?

If the truth hurts people, that's not my fault. But as I said, intent and motivation are funny things. Regardless of what one claims for intent, an outsider may claim otherwise.

Can you YES and I would defend your right to do so...

It will be interesting to see, if you are ever put into that exact position, if your actions will match your claims. But as you say, "my opinion ... I'll keep that to myself because its none of my damn business."

Regards

I wouldn't care if you put up such a sign, (you know this is a myth.....) because one person's myth is another person's faith , is another person's delusion and so on and so on.

I think what bothers me is the unfair way that just because they are the majority that Christian decorations/symbols get the most flack. I mean I can understand it to an extent when it is affirmative action, that you need to have examples and critical mass to change discrimination, but I don't see many faiths (except Christian and Islam and the hari Krishnas and Scientologists) who are really recruiting . So religious faith (or unfaith or different faith ) really is a choice people make . So if most people here choose to like Christmas decoration in December, I don't see why we need affirmative action , so to speak against them. I like most decorations, I am cool with protests (except of the Westboro nature where they are truly cruel and harmful on purpose) and I don't see why people who don't like them
care. When are kids were little we took them to the Christmas parade just like we went when we were kids. People like rituals. It was fun. I (not my family) went to midnight mass starting in HS because I liked it. It felt good, it felt like a mystery, I felt love in it. So I went. We took our kids to midnight mass. One of our kids is badly handicapped , she loved the nativity scene , it made sense to her. I would love our grand children to be able to have the feeling of festivity that goes along with Christmas. I don't care if they also attend Vinotok (one of our daughters is a pagan who always attends Vinotok) but she still likes Christmas . So I guess I don't see it as an either or. I also don't see it as an issue worth invoking the Constitution about until they MAKE us participate. I mean we are not made to participate. We just watch what others are doing. It is not an endorsement, it is a decoration and symbol of THEIR faith, They pay for it ,put it up, put it away, and clean up the space. Mark wants it off the money and all that. Who cares if it is on the money? I am more interested in having more of the money go to more of the people in support of job creation and health insurance than about what is on the freaking stuff. It after all IS only money and has no intrinsic worth, while love and care and dignity all have worth well beyond some crap on a piece of paper.

I think what bothers me is the unfair way that just because they are the majority that Christian decorations/symbols get the most flack.

This is commonly referred to as a strawman argument. Remember what I said about "intent" being a funny thing? You can claim it's "...because they are the majority," even despite evidence to the contrary.

I mean I can understand it to an extent when it is affirmative action, that you need to have examples and critical mass to change discrimination, but I don't see many faiths (except Christian and Islam and the hari Krishnas and Scientologists) who are really recruiting .

Pagans and Wiccans cannot 'recruit,' it opposes the tenets of our beliefs. This is also not germain to the topic at hand.

So if most people here choose to like Christmas decoration in December, I don't see why we need affirmative action , so to speak against them.

Despite uneducated claims to the contrary, this has nothing to do with "liking" or "disliking" Christmas decorations. It has already been clarified a number of times; no government entity may promote, support, or endorse a religious expression or activity without the risk of infringing on the church-state separation expressed in the U.S. Constitution. No more, no less.

When are kids were little we took them to the Christmas parade just like we went when we were kids. People like rituals. It was fun. I (not my family) went to midnight mass starting in HS because I liked it. It felt good, it felt like a mystery, I felt love in it. So I went. We took our kids to midnight mass. One of our kids is badly handicapped , she loved the nativity scene , it made sense to her.

I'm happy you found a place that is your spiritual home. Now, can we get back to the discussion...?

I would love our grand children to be able to have the feeling of festivity that goes along with Christmas. I don't care if they also attend Vinotok (one of our daughters is a pagan who always attends Vinotok) but she still likes Christmas . So I guess I don't see it as an either or.

Just to clarify, Vinotok is basically a harvest festival, not a religious gathering.

I also don't see it as an issue worth invoking the Constitution about until they MAKE us participate. I mean we are not made to participate. We just watch what others are doing.

There is no such thing as just a little, acceptable amount of discrimination. One compromise or exception will lead to another, history proves it is inevitable. Either the government, as a whole, remains perfectly neutral in matters or religion, or they don't. Being just a little bit one-sided is no more realistic that being just a little bit pregnant.

It is not an endorsement, it is a decoration and symbol of THEIR faith.

• "Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community." -- SCJ Sandra O'Connor, Lynch V. Donnelly (1984)

It IS an endorsement.

They pay for it ,put it up, put it away, and clean up the space.

And placed on land that I (potentially) paid for, and continue to pay for maintaining.

Mark wants it off the money and all that.

So do I.

Who cares if it is on the money?

I do.

I am more interested in having more of the money go to more of the people in support of job creation and health insurance than about what is on the freaking stuff.

Unrelated issues.

It after all IS only money and has no intrinsic worth,

Unrelated issue.

...while love and care and dignity all have worth well beyond some crap on a piece of paper.

I see no love, care, or dignity in telling me that I MUST submit to expressions of a religion to which I do not belong, simply because I'm in a minority, and demanding that my tax dollars must be used, in any way, to support it.

Regards

I don't think you understood a thing I said, but that is ok too.

Ok where is the establishment of a state religion in this?
What do you feel about Eruvs?

Ok where is the establishment of a state religion in this?

It has already been explained to you, by me as well as others, ad nauseum. There is nothing impressive about being obtuse.

What do you feel about Eruvs?

Eruvs fall into a gray area where church-state separation in concerned. As long as they are constructed within reasonable parameters, there are no Constitutional issues.

Regards

Eruvs fall into a gray area where church-state separation in concerned. As long as they are constructed within reasonable parameters, there are no Constitutional issues.

This is totally false and bull@!$%#. Eruvs are much more invasive, force participation and are constructed on public property and government property all the time. They are never removed and are totally religious in nature. there is nothing about them that is not in total violation of the Constitution if a Nativity Scene is. Eruvs are way worse on that front. If Nativity scenes are not allowed then Eruvs should all be removed immediately from every freaking city where they are constructed. If paid for nativity scenes are not allowed then my home should not be forced to be nailed within an eruv that is on public property. That isn't obtuse, but it is something else. Double standard and borderline bigoted to support Eruvs while condemning a less invasive thing like a creche.

see this is the real truth. it isn't about the constitutionality at all is it? otherwise the Eruvs would be toast. And Vinotok is a religious event for some pagans as well, maybe not your branch but for others it is, unless you are the definer of what is religious or not. My daughter sees it as religious for her brand of paganism.

(Vinotok) is the Eastern European version of Beltane that celebrated the Slovenian Goddess of Death. Hey whatever floats your boat.

Prove how Eruvs are a freaking gray area. that is a joke. They are purely religious and myth and custom based and don't pass your Sandra Day O Connor sniff test by a @!$%#ing long shot. So demand they come down and see how far you get. ha ha ha, You will see how innocuous the creche folks are when you demand an end to Eruvs.

This is totally false and bull@!$%#.

Really? By all means, provide an actual example.

Eruvs are much more invasive, force participation and are constructed on public property and government property all the time. They are never removed and are totally religious in nature. there is nothing about them that is not in total violation of the Constitution...

By all means, provide an actual example.

Eruvs are way worse on that front. If Nativity scenes are not allowed then Eruvs should all be removed immediately from every freaking city where they are constructed. If paid for nativity scenes are not allowed then my home should not be forced to be nailed within an eruv that is on public property.

By all means, provide an actual example.

That isn't obtuse, but it is something else.

What it is, at the moment, is an anti-semitic rant. If you would care to provide specific and credible information on where such an illegal eruv exists, and precisely whose rights are being infringed, hopefully by direction to a court document on which the injured party has recorded their claim, you might graduate your rant to an actual argument. In the absence of that, you're just spouting a personal opinion.

Double standard and borderline bigoted to support Eruvs while condemning a less invasive thing like a creche.

And you are as good as a liar. I never voiced my support, I stated an opinion in which I do not actively oppose them. If you can't tell the difference, go get an education, and come back when you're better qualified to debate with me.

see this is the real truth. it isn't about the constitutionality at all is it? otherwise the Eruvs would be toast.

Your strawman argument is dreadfully obvious.

And Vinotok is a religious event for some pagans as well, maybe not your branch but for others it is, unless you are the definer of what is religious or not.

I'm quite familiar with Vinotok, and it is no more a religious event than a Renaissance Faire. I do not need to be a "definer" of what is religious. I can get you Marcie Telander's email address, and you can ask her yourself. It is she who founded Vinotok some 25 years ago.

My daughter sees it as religious for her brand of paganism.

Which is all well and fine, she is entitled. Nonetheless, the woman who created and maintains the celebration calls it a community event, not a religious event.

Regards

(Vinotok) is the Eastern European version of Beltane that celebrated the Slovenian Goddess of Death. Hey whatever floats your boat.

Oh? Beltane is typically celebrated May 1st. Vinotok is held in September, much closer to the Pagan holiday of Mabon. Your daughter has quite the unique path of Pagansim, I must study it one day.

Regards

I did provide examples. if you didn't read them, don't call me names.

As for Vinotok, the" god-mother" in CB did not create it. She just brought it to CB and expanded on it much like the wiccans did and the Asatru did. So don't get so holy on me. How dare you call me an antisemite. I should report you to Tyler for it. You can trash all the Christian Traditions and religious trappings on govt property and call it unconstitutional but if I point out flagrant violations by another religion I am an antisemite. Bull @!$%#.

The people of westhampton and the people of palo alto and many other places must all be antisemites too. As well as the University of Maryland. All of whom I linked. If you didn't read the information. I can't help. You.

My daughter has been a resident of CB for 6 years and I was there on and off from 1970 on , so, I think I am quite familiar with Vinotok and also with the roots in Lithuanian Goddess Worship. So are you also saying, based on the same principles that Asatru and Wicca are not religions?

Prove how Eruvs are a freaking gray area. that is a joke. They are purely religious and myth and custom based and don't pass your Sandra Day O Connor sniff test by a @!$%#ing long shot. So demand they come down and see how far you get. ha ha ha, You will see how innocuous the creche folks are when you demand an end to Eruvs.

Please refer to my previous post concerning anti-semitic rants.

Though I must admit, I'm tickled to see I've touched a nerve. :-)

Regards

oh you think accusing someone of making an antisemitic rant is funny? I just noticed you also called me a liar. Another violation of the coh. i am reporting it to tyler and red wolf.

In case you didn't read it before here it is again. To accuse me of being a liar, uneducated and making an antisemitc rant you better be able to do some fast explaining.

http://www.law.umaryland.edu/academics/journals/rrgc/issues/RRGC_9_093_Susman.pdf

I did provide examples. if you didn't read them, don't call me names.

Read again: "...specific and credible information on where such an illegal eruv exists" List names, date, places, etc.

As for Vinotok, the" god-mother" in CB did not create it. She just brought it to CB and expanded on it much like the wiccans did and the Asatru did.

Do you have a source to prove that, or are you still just talking?

So don't get so holy on me. How dare you call me an antisemite. I should report you to Tyler for it.

I did not call you anti-semite, I called your post an anti-semitic rant. I attacked the argument, not the person, and that is well-within limits of the CoH.

You can trash all the Christian Traditions and religious trappings on govt property and call it unconstitutional but if I point out flagrant violations by another religion I am an antisemite. Bull @!$%#.

More strawman arguments? You're really stretching here, aren't you? And those "flagrant violations" are nothing if not supported by falsifiable evidence.

The people of westhampton and the people of palo alto and many other places must all be antisemites too. As well as the University of Maryland. All of whom I linked. If you didn't read the information. I can't help. You.

What links? At least direct me to the proper thread and post, I'm not searching all your posts for the past however-many-days to find it.

My daughter has been a resident of CB for 6 years and I was there on and off from 1970 on , so, I think I am quite familiar with Vinotok and also with the roots in Lithuanian Goddess Worship.

All good and well. Rather than Mabon, I should have suggested Dagotuves? And be as familiar as you wish, Lithuanian Pagansim is reasonably well-documented. If you have a holiday, season, or religious celebration called Vinotok, it still makes your path rather unique.

So are you also saying, based on the same principles that Asatru and Wicca are not religions?

These are religions which are well-documented and well-known. I can certainly provide a wealth of information, even from just my personal library, to support that assertion. Or are you just throwing out yet-another strawman?

Regards

People who accuse me of antisemitic ranting for daring to compare eruvs with christian religious articles, in my attempt at parity, and then call me a liar, and don't find the University of Maryland as well as the towns of Palo Alto, Westhampton, to name a few, as well as Washington DC, and an explanation of the establishment clause as put out by a well established authority (susman) are not worth my time. I admit I may have had the wrong name for the pagan fall holiday, but that doesn't change the fact that Wicca is also a neo pagan religion as is Asatru. It doesn't phase me what the name is. The principal of Lithuanian Paganism and the death goddess, (no I don't have her name at my ready) but I have read up on it before when my daughter first went to CB, and heard the tapes from it as well for years, so if Wiccans and Asatru and other neopagan religions were formed from combinations of other lost religions, so can other forms of paganism be practiced in ways that don't fit your definition of "real"pagans for christ sake.

All pagan means is a person holding beliefs that are not one of the main stream religious beliefs. that is a pretty loose religion, so I don't think you are the king of the pagans.

Maybe you can skim the thin edge of the wedge with the tired semantic trick of saying I made an antisemitic rant, but I don't think so. But even if you can on that , calling me a "liar" is a coh violation offense. I have reported it. Since it is Saturday you may luck out, but I am going to re report on Monday and I do not stand for being called a liar.

As for your strawman accusations, what ? Did you just learn that word today? You are not even correct in the usage anyway, so maybe you need to go back to school.

the links you don't have time to look for while accusing me of unsubstantiated antisemitic rants are in 14.19 if you didn't read them , that is on you not me.

and I meant Samhain , it just came to me. I guess I am not that up on my pagan holiday calendar names. My own heritage is actually first nation, I have discovered in the past few years, so I have been way more interested in learning my own language and customs. So I am not a Christian or an antisemitic ranter. Calling what I said an antisemitic rant , when it wasn't implies that I had a reason for making an antisemitc rant other than showing factual evidence about the eruvs and the constitutional arguments that have been taken to court and in some cases LOST and in other cases , smudged a fudged at best. For you to call that antisemitic rant implies motive on my part. Explain what you meant by that? If I made an antisemtic rant in a constitutional argument against eruvs? what is the motive and what then is the motive of a constitutional argument against a creche? Otherwise you really called me an antisemite.

as well as 21.19

oh you think accusing someone of making an antisemitic rant is funny?

No, I was entirely serious.

I just noticed you also called me a liar. Another violation of the coh. i am reporting it to tyler and red wolf.

By all means.

In case you didn't read it before here it is again.

Thank you, finally, for the link. Ms. Susman's analysis is interesting, but not fully persuasive. At first glance, it seems there's more government entanglement with the production of kosher foods than eruvs.

To accuse me of being a liar, uneducated and making an antisemitc rant you better be able to do some fast explaining.

Okay, try this: You claiming I support eruvs is a lie. You not knowing the difference between supported and unopposed is uneducated. And constant berating of a Jewish tradition without providing real-world examples or documentation to prove someone somewhere has incurred damages as a result (ready for this?) comes off sounding like an anti-semitic rant.

Like it or not, that's all the explanation I'm willing to offer.

Regards

People who accuse me of antisemitic ranting for daring to compare eruvs with christian religious articles, in my attempt at parity, and then call me a liar, and don't find the University of Maryland as well as the towns of Palo Alto, Westhampton, to name a few, as well as Washington DC, and an explanation of the establishment clause as put out by a well established authority (susman) are not worth my time.

Run-on sentances much? I could care less if I'm "worth your time," whatever you post will be examined and criticized accordingly.

Susman is NOT the authority on the Establishment Clause, OR for that matter, the Lemon Test or the Endorsement Test. She is a person with an opinion, which happens to be unsupported by the SCotUS.

I admit I may have had the wrong name for the pagan fall holiday, but that doesn't change the fact that Wicca is also a neo pagan religion as is Asatru.

Which isn't even significant to this conversation. I know my religion very well, I've been practicing and studying for over thirty years. I don't claim to be the authority on anything, but I'm certainly better versed than most.

...so if Wiccans and Asatru and other neopagan religions were formed from combinations of other lost religions, so can other forms of paganism be practiced in ways that don't fit your definition of "real"pagans for christ sake.

Yet again, you're off on a rant (go ahead, report me). I have never questioned, nor would I question, the legitimacy of your daughter's path. I said it was unique, and I believe I am more than qualified to judge what paths are relatively unique when compared to the mainstream.

Regards