Is it appropriate to allow a nativity scene on public property?

[quaoar]

[okieinpain]

1. I really don't see what the big deal is about the nativity scenes.

but others should be allowed to show their religions also.

[Liberal Veteran]

2. More importantly...is there any REASON to do so?

Are there not enough churches, private businesses, and homes capable of putting up a nativity scene?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. That's an excellent point

Fucking Republicans want to privatize everything EXCEPT religion.

[BrainRants]

8. Ding Ding Ding! Great answer! n/t

[MadHound]

4. Sorry but no.

If it is put on public property, using public resources to either house it, or pay for the upkeep, no. Doesn't matter what religious denomination it is, no.

Violation of the seperation of church and state clause of the Constitution. Doesn't matter if the display is about the majority religion in this country, or a minority one.

Our founding fathers made this plain, clear and simple, no public support of any religion in any way shape or form. If you want to put up a nativity, put it on the church lawn or your front lawn, but not public property.

[quaoar]

12. Not exactly true

"Our founding fathers made this plain, clear and simple, no public support of any religion in any way shape or form."

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

The Founders intended foremost to avoid the establishment of a state religion, as was the case in Europe. Since then various government activities or expenditures have been struck down because they were deemed to favor one religion or another. But government funding of religious organizations that serve the public at large, such as a fath-based food bank, and do not impose religious requirements to access services, are not unconstitutional.

[MadHound]

17. Actually the jury is still out on faith based funding

There is a large brou-haha going on about Bush's funding of faith based charities, and there is going to be a court case soon enough to find out whether or not they cross the church/state line.

And there has been much legal precedence set, not only for the church/state seperation vis-a-vis the Constitution, and in addition whether it was Constitutional for Christmas trees to be on public property, maintained with public funds. Christmas trees and navtivity scenes have lost virtually every time.

[wuushew]

19. Well Jefferson's opinion on the matter was quite clear

To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen:

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which are so good to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

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 the 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.



(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

[Yuugal]

5. I've never had a religious symbol attack me for my beliefs

but lots of fundies have. I say the symbols are fine in public places but the fundies have to go.

[demnan]

6. I think it should be discouraged

unlike a Christmas tree which is a pretty neutral symbol, the nativity scene is a religious tradition, but it also depends on the area. In areas where there is a lot of religious diversity I think it shouldn't be allowed, but I wouldn't press the matter as an atheist in a small southern town. Too many other matters are more important, like the teaching of evolution in schools.

[Walt Starr]

7. There is plenty of precedence that public property can be used by members

of the public! That said, the only way it can be done legally is for the government to not put forth any expenditure for the display and any display by any member of the public must be welcomed!

This is the proverbial can of wroms, though, because in order to comply with allowing a private party to display the christian Nativity on public propery, the government must allow atheists to put up a banner proclaiming all religions to be lies right next to the nativity scene.

Also, a Satanic display must also be allowed should a member of the public choose to place one.

All religions must be treated equally in this respect, so Pagans must be allowed to have a graphic depiction of the God and Goddess in full coitus displayed in the open for the entire month of April as well!

If the Satanic and Pagan displays are not allowed for any reason whatsoever, the christian display must also be prohibited.

[quaoar]

13. If that is the case

Is the government also required to give atheists and Satan worshippers equal time on the back of a $20 bill next to In God We Trust?

[NuttyFluffers]

15. this is how i feel the gov't falls on this issue too.

since no law is being used to fund, allow, allocate space, etc. a nativity scene provided by an individual then is a public display of freedom of speech -- and this cuts all ways, so if a Satanist wants to have an anti-display he must be allowed as long as it falls within the guidelines of free speech. though about littering laws might have precedence to dispose of both the fake sacrificial altar display and the nativity.

personally i'd recommend the requestor to place it on private property first, so as piblic land issues do not have to get involved, and more importantly, litter laws don't have to remove the decorations overnight, everynight.

[Mountainman]

9. This will show my age, but back when I was a kid in the 50's

there was never any discussion about the appropriateness of a nativity scene on public property. Also there wasn't much discussion about a woman's place in the home or about civil rights and many other things that people took for granted. Well not all people took them for granted. The people who were repressed by what we all took for granted began to speak up and that's why there is discussion today about these things. I think that the right wants to take us back to those days were anyone not in agreement with the majority should just shut the hell up and accept what we all take for granted.

This point here is that if we don't recognize our diversity than there will again be repression. A nativity scene on public property does not respect the beliefs of non Christians and for that reason and because I don't want to go back to the "good old days" I think we should not have a nativity scene on public property. Also there is so much more private property than public property that nativity scenes could be placed just about everywhere you look. Placing them on public property makes a statement that Christianity is the more accepted form of religious expression. I think that is wrong.

[beyurslf]

10. While I think it is probably wrong, I think we have a lot of more

important battles to fight. These type only give ammunition to those who say we hate religion.

[Eugene]

11. A nativity scene on the town commons is okay if and only if...

the it is privately backed and it gets no
special treatment over other private expression.
Personal expression on open public land is okay
as long as the government does not play favorites.

However, a nativity scene in the town hall or
a public school would be an inappropriate
government endorsement of religion.

[Beer Snob-50]

14. How about if there is a nativity scene

a christmas tree, a santa clause, maybe a menora (sp). All expressions of the holiday season?

[NuttyFluffers]

16. only if we get a kwanzaa menorah and...

any other solstice symbols, perhaps like Dirvali lights or something, big ol' statue of Shiva sitting next to baby jesus... somewhere a fundy is awakening from this 'nightmare' screaming. that makes me smile :D

[FlaGranny]

18. I have no problem

with allowing religious symbols on public property if every religion is allowed equal space for their own symbols. That said, I could never understand why anyone would want to advertise their religion by displaying religious symbols in public in the first place. I think it's rather silly. I also think there are lots more important things to do than displaying religious icons/symbols.

Edit: I am reminded of a story my husband told me about an Army buddy. This fellow was religious. He bought himself a bible in the PX and proceed to get a pair of scissors and cut all illustrations from the bible - iconic images - and bad, just like graven images.

[politicat]

21. What about the non-religious?

We are about 1 in 6.... For us, all of the religious symbology is equally exclusionary.

Pcat

[FlaGranny]

22. We non-religious

don't really HAVE any symbols except perhaps a Darwin fish display or something? ;-)

[welshTerrier2]

20. "only if displays by other religions are allowed"

i think it is totally wrong to use public property to convey religious messages or display religious symbolism ... interesting enough, i would perhaps consider certain exceptions to this rule for example, tombstone markers in Arlington National Cemetery ...

the problem i have with those who say it's OK if other religions are allowed, is one of limits ... can i have my religious symbols displayed 365 days a year? will each religion be given an allocation of just how long their symbols can remain? would it be based on square footage ?? or the number of members in the congregation ?? how high could it be ?? does it have to meet zoning regulations or should this be an exception because religion is "important" ??

whether you see religious displays as "no big deal" or not, i see no justification for using taxpayer dollars to provide free space to religious organizations ... the "it's no big deal" argument is YOUR opinion ... could atheists have a display that says "Religion Sucks" or religion is the opiate of the people?? what is your justification for allowing religious displays ??

religious institutions have a right to own private property ... why not display your symbols there ??