Since when is it okay to have a creche on public property?

ridski said:

yahooyahoo said:

We do have an Easter Egg Hunt in Memorial Park.

 Bloody pagans.

Too near the train station. Please don’t get Blood on the Tracks.

(Curse that page break.)

we’ve reached a point where people whose ancestors came here for religious freedom are upset about religious symbols on public property. This is all covered by the First Amendment which allows for freedom of speech and expression, among other things. What an interesting time we live in. No tolerance anywhere but everybody thinks they’re right. Go figure!  Luckily the First Amendment doesn’t address feelings. 

mtierney said:

 At this time of year, it was mean-spirited and targeted to denigrate a Christian Holy Day. The crèche was the problem — not a secular ode to Dickens. 

Guy waited until 3 days AFTER Christmas to start the thread.  When, in your mind, would be an appropriate time to discuss this issue?

To answer my own question, I am guessing the "proper" time to discuss the issue of religious displays on public property would be 30 seconds after the Satanists erected their display on the lawn of the Town Hall.

here’s some factual info. Case law from the 80s. 

https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/737/lynch-v-donnelly

Lemme know if any of you are gonna try to overturn the First Amendment. I want to watch. 

Lovesagoodsale said:
here’s some factual info. Case law from the 80s. 


https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/737/lynch-v-donnelly


Lemme know if any of you are gonna try to overturn the First Amendment. I want to watch. 

 I don't think anyone is talking about lawsuits.  The idea is that the display could just be moved to private property.

that would be a violation of the First Amendment rights of the parties who placed it there. Nice idea tho. 

shutting down freedom of expression has very serious implications. We’re seeing it play out in real life. When you don’t allow freedom of speech and expression, it doesn’t actually explains rights. 

typo: I meant to type it doesn’t expand rights. 

Lovesagoodsale:

I don't know what your'e looking at or reading but this simplistic idea that you have an unqualified right to plop your religious symbols down on public property just ain't the law.   You think you can erect a big crucifix on the public green and just leave it there indefinitely?

Lovesagoodsale said:
that would be a violation of the First Amendment rights of the parties who placed it there. Nice idea tho. 

 What’s the precedent that says a municipal government can’t tell all comers that it won’t allow their religious displays on public property? 

Lovesagoodsale said:
we’ve reached a point where people whose ancestors came here for religious freedom are upset about religious symbols on public property. 

 Some people's ancestors came here from places where they were persecuted for not being of the Christian Religion. In those countries Christianity was the official State Religion and may have been supported by public money.

How should they react to the expenditure of public money or the use of public resources to promote Christianity in America?

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/789/

bub said:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/789/

“The mere fact that government property can be used as a vehicle for communication -- such as the use of lampposts as signposts -- does not mean that the Constitution requires such use to be permitted.”

Thanks, bub. That’s along the lines of what I thought.

first of all, I don’t know if the town spent any money to erect or retain the crèche. What I do know is my grandfather is one of those Jews who came here for religious freedom. He left just before the Cossacks conscripted him into the army to fight the Bolsheviks. He didn’t want to be a Bolshevik and the Jews were never allowed to leave the army once conscripted. As such, I like to uphold everyone’s rights, not only those that pertain to me. 

Shutting down conversation or expression is the exact opposite of freedom. If something hurts your feelings, find a way to make yourself whole without shutting anybody’s rights down. 

Lovesagoodsale said:
Shutting down conversation or expression is the exact opposite of freedom. If something hurts your feelings, find a way to make yourself whole without shutting anybody’s rights down. 

So, who gets to decide what religious displays may or may not be erected on public property?  What if the religious display makes a one part of the community feel uncomfortable?  In the age of Trump there are all sorts of White Nationalists groups burrowing into our nation's civic fabric.  What if one of those groups wanted to put their Christmas display up in one of our public parks?

LOST said:

Lovesagoodsale said:
we’ve reached a point where people whose ancestors came here for religious freedom are upset about religious symbols on public property. 

 Some people's ancestors came here from places where they were persecuted for not being of the Christian Religion. In those countries Christianity was the official State Religion and may have been supported by public money.
How should they react to the expenditure of public money or the use of public resources to promote Christianity in America?

 I don’t think the maplewood display “promotes” Christianity, any more than menorahs in public places in SOMA promote Judaism. There were no town officials handing out Christianity literature at dickens village, at least that I saw. 

Lovesagoodsale said:



Shutting down conversation or expression is the exact opposite of freedom. If something hurts your feelings, find a way to make yourself whole without shutting anybody’s rights down. 

 It appears to me that we are having a conversation. 

Smedley said:

 I don’t think the maplewood display “promotes” Christianity, any more than menorahs in public places in SOMA promote Judaism. There were no town officials handing out Christianity literature at dickens village, at least that I saw. 

 That is your opinion to which you are entitled. Others disagree. 

This thread is no different than any other on MOL. 

Smedley said:

LOST said:

Lovesagoodsale said:
we’ve reached a point where people whose ancestors came here for religious freedom are upset about religious symbols on public property. 

 Some people's ancestors came here from places where they were persecuted for not being of the Christian Religion. In those countries Christianity was the official State Religion and may have been supported by public money.
How should they react to the expenditure of public money or the use of public resources to promote Christianity in America?

 I don’t think the maplewood display “promotes” Christianity, any more than menorahs in public places in SOMA promote Judaism. There were no town officials handing out Christianity literature at dickens village, at least that I saw. 

 I am equally opposed to menorahs on public property.  If you don't think a nativity scene containing Jesus promotes Christianity, I am hard pressed to think what might.

Lovesagoodsale said:
first of all, I don’t know if the town spent any money to erect or retain the crèche. What I do know is my grandfather is one of those Jews who came here for religious freedom. He left just before the Cossacks conscripted him into the army to fight the Bolsheviks. He didn’t want to be a Bolshevik and the Jews were never allowed to leave the army once conscripted. As such, I like to uphold everyone’s rights, not only those that pertain to me. 


Shutting down conversation or expression is the exact opposite of freedom. If something hurts your feelings, find a way to make yourself whole without shutting anybody’s rights down. 

 I have the same family history - several ancestor were conscripted into the Czar's army or the Polish army.  My grandfather saw brutal combat in the little known Russo Polish War after WW1.  He wasn't particularly religious and decided it was time to leave after two Poles tried to throw him off of a bridge.  Survival not worship was the issue.

I don't think anyone on his boat to the U.S. was dreaming about a level of religious liberty that allowed you to put your menorah in front of the post office or town hall.  Being left alone was and is good enough.

Your getting the concept of religous freedom backwards.  Your using the word "freedom" but what you really mean is mandatory government assistance in helping you get your message out.  The government does not owe you a plot of land to erect your sign anymore than it owes you free ink and paper to get your political pamphlet out.  It's still America.  You have to find your own way using your own resources to get your message out.  You're on your own.

just wondering, Guy and Lost, do you also oppose tax-exempt status for churches and synagogues? That’s a lot of public funds going to subsidize/ promote religious organizations. 

Lovesagoodsale said:
shutting down freedom of expression has very serious implications. We’re seeing it play out in real life. When you don’t allow freedom of speech and expression, it doesn’t actually explains rights. 

 wow, this is so incorrect.

Smedley said:
just wondering, Guy and Lost, do you also oppose tax-exempt status for churches and synagogues? That’s a lot of public funds going to subsidize/ promote religious organizations. 

 ya didn't ask me, but yes, I oppose it. Why should they get such preferential treatment?

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:
just wondering, Guy and Lost, do you also oppose tax-exempt status for churches and synagogues? That’s a lot of public funds going to subsidize/ promote religious organizations. 

 ya didn't ask me, but yes, I oppose it. Why should they get such preferential treatment?

 It's not an absolute yes or no for me.  For example, Scientology's tax exempt status is a travesty.  Not because it has kooky sci fi beliefs but because it is in significant part a heavy handed money making pyramid scheme.  Then there's the multimillionaire televangelist scammers.  

bub said:

drummerboy said:

Smedley said:
just wondering, Guy and Lost, do you also oppose tax-exempt status for churches and synagogues? That’s a lot of public funds going to subsidize/ promote religious organizations. 

 ya didn't ask me, but yes, I oppose it. Why should they get such preferential treatment?

 It's not an absolute yes or no for me.  For example, Scientology's tax exempt status is a travesty.  Not because it has kooky sci fi beliefs but because it is in significant part a heavy handed money making pyramid scheme.  Then there's the multimillionaire televangelist scammers.  

 I wasn't even thinking about the obvious scammers...

Each Boxing Day brings with it, for me, acute feelings of ancestral persecution.  So acute, in fact, that I can’t even bring myself to watch Love, Actually, the inimitable H*u*gh Grant, nothwithstanding. 

‘Course, it could just be because it sucks.

the town can try to outlaw things that make you uncomfortable. It might be fine or the town could be sued for violating somebody’s rights. Who gets to decide?  Nobody. That’s why speech and expression are protected. If something makes one feel uncomfortable, that is valid and in modern life, unavoidable. Learn to work past these feelings and continue to function without violating anybody’s rights. It’s pretty easy to do. I encourage everyone to learn about what the First Amendment actually protects. The minute you start to decide which form of expression is acceptable and which isn’t (barring speech or acts that encourage violence and the like) where do you draw the line?  Who does the deciding?  

If the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to put a display up near the crèche, I’m all for it. The same as any other group!  The more the merrier. 

Smedley said:
just wondering, Guy and Lost, do you also oppose tax-exempt status for churches and synagogues? That’s a lot of public funds going to subsidize/ promote religious organizations. 

 That's a very different issue. The purpose of that is to preserve separation of Church and State. If the Government could tax religious institutions then it could exercise control over them.