Public Christmass displays... are they constitutional, ethical?

I write this post baring in mind that a very similar post in nature was locked.

While I agree with said lock since there where some rather ugly exchanges taking place... I thought the issues deserve further discussing.

Ive created this thread to focus on what I thought the issue really camed down to... Shoudl the Goverment of the United States... THE FIRST IN THE WORLD TO SEPARATE CHURCH AND STATE, endorse a religion??

Are Christmass displays a sign of Christian domination? Would... lets say a muslim governor be allowed to fill the capitol with rammadan decorations during, well... rammadan??? Or an etheist governor to put an atheist display??? Or a Satanic Governor allowed to put a Satanic exagon??? Or a mexican governor allowed to put mexican flags during the 5 the mayo???

I know if they where either jewish... or Christian...the right wouldnt complain... but why on all of the other examples do we complain?? Shouldnt we just follow the consitution and limit this displays to private property, since religion is such a personal issue??

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:28:03 PM by Baff

Are they constitutional? I say yes, so long as they are not publicly funded.

Are they ethical? I don't see why not. So long as the invitation is open to all religions or faith systems or... whatever (assuming they follow other basic laws; so, if your religion does human sacrifices, sorry, too bad for you) and, preferably, kept equal-opportunity through a lottery or other randomized system.

Ethical? Yes. Constitutional? Very much so. Their not supporting that religion, just allowing people to display it. As long as it's positive and not offensive or an attack on other religions, it's fine.

BTW, theirs only 2 Ss(Ses? si?) in Christmas.

What if they just sacrify goats. On a public building, you know... as part of their religion.

I dont know... isnt it Christmass... mass for or to Christ???

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:34:17 PM by Baff

I'd let them sacrifice animals if it was done in a humane (i.e. instantaneous) manner, and I'd make them clean up all the mess involved.

Ummm... wouldnt it be easier to ask them to do it in their homes...

Whouldnt it saves us the trouble???

I guess that, besides constitutional and ethical... I should have asked convinient.

I am almost sure that muslim governor would never be allowed to place rammadan decoration on a capital building.

But you brush the ethics of it with much ease because... you are used to our state sponsoring a religion... That is christianity.

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:37:39 PM by Baff

Yes, but it's written Christmas. Just ask the Pope.

On sacrificing animals. There is a line between a display, and a religious ceremony. That crosses it. We aren't going to hold mass in town hall, sacrifices can be made in you Temples.

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:39:48 PM by Joesolo

Separation of church and state does not and should not equate to state repression of religion. Given that it was originally designed to keep the state out of church business as much as it was intended for the opposite, I hardly think the Framers intended for us to simply ban religion from the public sphere, nor should we do so. Secularism is impartiality, not atheism or anti-theism.

And, again, I fail to see how it inconveniences us at all if they're the ones cleaning it up. If they don't, then you censure them. It's not that hard.

Also, yes, it's Christmas with one s at the end.

I rather spell it my way. Dont think I am traying to be offensive... I just think the spelling is closer to its true meaning.

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:41:05 PM by Baff

No one is repressing religion!!!! Lol.

Christians or Jews, or muslims, are not entitled to having the state sponsoring their religions with tax payerd money in tax payed buildings.

You also make an excellent point. Dont think I didnt know that aspect of the Separation of Church and satate. Thats the beuty of it!!! We cant force religious people to put american flags in their churches or pledge aligience to the flag in their gatherings and so... They cant force the goverment to put religious imagery in public buildings!!!

This has been repeated to death but many of the founders where atheist and the liberalism of the times was very anti-christianity.

All the founders... or at least the ones we get to know in school where inspired by very radical french and inglish liberals... thus our very radical consitution... I mean... being judged by our pears??? Separation of Church and state??? The right to keep and bear arms???

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:45:57 PM by Baff

That doesn't even make sense.

Anyway, I would say that the inevitable fight against Ramadan trappings would also be wrong, as was the idiotic push against the "Ground Zero" mosque. So...

I don't understand how that constitutes state endorsement of religion (unless it's singling out a religion, in which case it is wrong).

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:44:25 PM by USAF713

Uh...Right. You might want to try Google Chrome, it's got a built-in spell checker. Not for Christmas but some of your other words are a little...Off.

You have a point, but their really isn't much cost from the displays. Besides a few minutes of set up and maybe a little bit of power, it dosn't take much.

I dont use word spell checker.

The reason why I write in this forum is to improve my writing actually.

Also.. if Christians are allow to have displays... then we are forced to grant everyone displays! Atheist... Ancient Austronauts belivers... WBC... Wickans... Australians...

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:54:10 PM by Baff

Oh, alright then. Spell check does tend to make you lazy with spelling. I've slowly gotten better b/c of Google though, cause you have to fix the spelling yourself.

Wonderful thing isn't it, that freedom of speech.

Yup.

The US is super awesome and all but Henry V and Pope um... I forget, C-something, beat the US to that by about six centuries, and that's not counting historical states which were simply irreligious. Separating church and state is older than nationalism.

edited 22nd Dec '11 7:57:59 PM by AManInBlack

There was no speration. It was just a "all your bases are belong to us" moment.

To this day the Queen of England is the head of the Chruch of England.

Besides constitutional theory states that true states (constitutional ones) only came to be during or rather after the renaisence. I personally would include ancient sumerians and Greeks to (excluding feudal Europe) but in all the stated examples... there has never been a separation.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:02:32 PM by Baff

Uh... no shit.

Though "Australians" isn't a religion.

'Course, there's not enough spots for everyone, which is why you have a lottery or something similar. People who don't get a spot this year can have one next year.

So what if christians dont get it and the Chruch of Australianism does???

I can't even believe this is a topic. Of course it's constitutional and ethical. It's a holiday display. We put up displays for all sorts of holidays where that's a traditional thing. The arguments haven't been about whether it's constitutional or not, and that's a really stupid thing to bring up in this regard. If you disallow those, you disallow having an opinion about something. There's nothing inherently wrong with putting up a display in a public space, providing you get permission from the relevant authorities. (I would assume city authorities, in the case of places like public parks and whatnot.)

...too bad, try again next year?

Stranger things have happened than wondering weather public displays are constitutional or ehtical.

So if I get the permision of the authorities and follow procedure I can put a banner in favour of the Church of Maradona??? and if my petition is denied my free speach is being denied? gotcha.

I really dont see that working out. Either because the system would and always does, discriminate in favour of the mayority, or because of the system would be actually fair and thus quickly eliminated since conservatives chrisitans would hate it and leftists too.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:06:13 PM by Baff

I think the Atheist have slowly been proving they don't deserve displays though. All they put up is signs about how other religions are wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE. If it's not positive, it should be allowed. they want a "winter solestice" display, fine, thats nice, but the" theres no angles or God, your wrong and were right" signs are just rude.

Then we should just encourage all the real religions to do!!! The system would not hold.

And this is not a discussion about atheist anyways.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:07:14 PM by Baff