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

Lovesagoodsale said:
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. 

You are completely missing the point. It's not a question of the Town outlawing something. It's a question of the Town promoting something. 

Perhaps we should ask who put the creche there and who paid for it, and if anyone is free to do the same as to any other symbol or structure.

I passed some ladies sitting on a public bench who handed me a religious pamphlet. I believe they were Jehovah's Witnesses. So long as anyone has the right to sit on the bench and give out any pamphlet they want I have absolutely no problem with it.

Lovesagoodsale said:

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. 

 So, how about the Aryan Nation?  You good with that too?

Lovesagoodsale said:

I encourage everyone to learn about what the First Amendment actually protects. 

 Back atcha, LAGS.

As I recall the ACLU went to bat in favor of the Pope being allowed to say Mass in Central Park. Their position was that as long as the City allowed others to have public gatherings there they could not prevent the Pope and the Catholic Church from doing likewise.

So I guess the answer to the question posed by the thread title is that it is OK if no taxpayer money is used and anyone is allowed to do the same thing.

I'm looking to have a pagan ceremony in Ricalton Square.  I'm thinking of using that chess table that no one uses.  I hope everyone is cool with that.

LOST 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. 

 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. 

 That is an argument (opinion) supporting tax-exempt status of religious institutions.

The ‘against’ argument is pretty much the opposite — i.e. such tax-exempt status violates the separation of church and state.

Personally I believe tax-exempt status serves a purpose. I also think it’s okay to have menorahs on Springfield ave and in ricalton square, and a creche in dickens village. To me it seems inconsistent to take issue with religious displays on public grounds but be okay with subsidizing religious organizations with public funds.

yahooyahoo said:
I'm looking to have a pagan ceremony in Ricalton Square.  I'm thinking of using that chess table that no one uses.  I hope everyone is cool with that.

 Just keep your clothes on please.

bub said:

yahooyahoo said:
I'm looking to have a pagan ceremony in Ricalton Square.  I'm thinking of using that chess table that no one uses.  I hope everyone is cool with that.

 Just keep your clothes on please.

 Keeping my clothes on implies that my clothes were on in the first place.

DaveSchmidt said:

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.

 Trying to come up with a good riff on this, I got all tangled up and so blew my chances.

I can’t help it if you’re unlucky.

Sometimes, when I’m in the tunnel between the station and the village, I pine for the homeland and get a little depressed.

LOST said:
As I recall the ACLU went to bat in favor of the Pope being allowed to say Mass in Central Park. Their position was that as long as the City allowed others to have public gatherings there they could not prevent the Pope and the Catholic Church from doing likewise.
So I guess the answer to the question posed by the thread title is that it is OK if no taxpayer money is used and anyone is allowed to do the same thing.

 The courts have long distinguished between transitory gatherings and parades and structures.  The Pope case doesn't answer the OP's question.  There's also a practical issue that you have to take into account.  What if 1000 people want to put up religious or political structures in a tiny little village green space?  Or two people are vying for the same patch of ground?  These things necessarily entangles government in First Amendment expression.  When you use your own property, rent a billboard, start a blog, run a TV commercial, mail pamphlets, ring doorbells, these issues don't come up.   If every little town in America passed a content neutral ordinance that the village green will be structure free - something they are allowed to do - the Christmas message and Christmas imagery would still be ubiquitous in our culture. It will not have been censored.         

Klinker said:
I am all for public nativity scenes as long as they include the Caganer that is traditional in Southern Europe.

 I just received my first Caganer this year as a Christmas present from my husband.  I can't believe I never knew about this before this year.