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

You're asking an abstract ethical question. I'm giving a theoretical system that would work to make it fair. If we were to implement it in real life, obviously it would take a lot of work to make it function properly. Leave your Perfect Solution Fallacy at the door, please.

I am now known as Flyboy.

A perfect solution is not to allow public displays since people dont have the:

"Right to use Public property to further their religious views"

And thus no such right, nor freedom of speach, is violated when such permissions are denied.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

The notion that the religious and religion itself are above criticism because of that simple fact is not one that deserves to be just attacked. It is to be besieged, toppled and the ground it stood on salted.

The idea that the religious are privileged and thus protected is a vile notion. They are not immediately deserved of respect. They are not above criticism. They are not above mockery.

Religion does not deserve respect. People deserve respect. All people, equally.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:13:32 PM by GreatLich

Once again that is not the topic of this thread.

Neither Athesit not Theist should use public space to further their views.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:10:46 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Henry VIII and Pope Clement VII? That was separation of England from Catholicism, but Protestantism took it's place, so. Unless that wasn't the point you were making...?

Luther's doctrine of the two kings was the beginning of the modern concept of the separation of church and state, to my knowledge.

On topic: I know very little about the American Constitution, but it is certainly ethical to have Christmas displays.

Fundamentalist Christians are rude, also. Should we do the same to Christians, then? *

^{If your answer is "no", then let this be a lesson to you — don't tar the entire group with a single brush. Think it over next time.}

Wrong Henry V, sorry, should have looked up the name of the pope and the accord to be clearer.

This Henry V, the German one, negotiated with (well, basically forced upon him by) Pope Calixtus II. The Concordat of Worms separated the secular power of Bishops granted by kings from sacred investiture granted by the pope, and tacitly recognized that pope was separate from and not subordinate to the kings and their kingdoms.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:21:45 PM by AManInBlack

It's beautiful and so full of deep imagery that it doesn't surprise me to find that it has gone WAY over your head

In the United States, the value of the right to express one's opinions is supposed to be sacred. Public land is owned by the people. I see no reason to deny privately-funded displays from going up, so long as they cause no conflict with other laws and do not disrupt society at large.

I am now known as Flyboy.

Lol so the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire instituted separation of church of state???

I dont want to be rude but that made me laught out loud for real.

Among the many objections I have to your disertion, I most point out that a great deals of current displays are publicly financed. gettin permision to put a banner on a street... that would be reasonable... putting a nativity scene in a courthouse on the other hand is not what I would call separation of church and state...

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:17:52 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Whoops, sorry. I knew the name of Clement and assumed you had the wrong Roman numeral, haha... in hindsight, the date reference should've caught me off.

That's quite interesting, actually. The things you learn, huh?

I think the best way to deal with offensive atheist displays is to just politely ignore them. They're just doing it for a reaction. Mature atheists are less likely to try and offend, like mature people of other beliefs.

Baff, are you now saying you think a public Christmas display is somehow unethical? In spite of the fact that a Nativity scene or a generic Santa Claus and reindeer display pretty much does nothing and just sits there and looks festive? It's not pushing a view, it's just putting out something for people to see during the season. And it's constitutional. And recent arguments have revealed that others can put their stuff out on display, should they decide to go to the effort to do so.

Well yes. I think its unethical and uncostitutional to tell the truth. I dont want my tax payer money to go to Santa. And I dont want symbols of christianity inside public buildings...When christian images are placed in courthouses its actually offensive to me.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:21:32 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Doesn't Santa Claus get some kind of diplomatic immunity or something?

And let us pray that come it may (As come it will for a' that)

Yes, it did. Technically, the Catholic church invented it, and it's a large part of why the Catholic church is a powerful and independent entity to this day instead of the defunct state religion of a defunct empire. It's an old history major joke, the Holy Roman Empire is neither holy nor Roman.

I know you were trying to make some point about freedom of religion, not separation of church and state, but Americans didn't invent that, either. Please, don't make teethgratingly silly claims about history.

It's beautiful and so full of deep imagery that it doesn't surprise me to find that it has gone WAY over your head

Just because the Emperor did not rule over the church... it doesnt mean that there was separation of Church and state.

The Holy Roman Empire was after all "holy".

Bust as Oscar Wilde once said "The Holy Roman Empire is nether Holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire".

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Atheists and anti-theists find religion offensive so we should purge it from the public sphere, but neo-Nazis need their civil right to free speech? Preposterous. Suck it up and get a display of your own if it means that much to you, then. Your tax dollars go to much worse things than that as it is.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I dont get why you brought up Nazis...

But yes.. we should eliminated Christian displays from public buildings because some people find them offensive and because we live in a Republic that separates church and state and thus has no bussiness sponsoring religon.

And Neo-Nazis also have or should hava a right to civil-free speach. But I dont get how that related to the topic. In fact there are Nazi protests outside the Lenin monument in Seatle.

Indeed. Seatle is a funny place.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:28:50 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Because neo-Nazis are infinitely more offensive than Christians.

And, once again, it's public property (though I'm not particularly sure why courthouses are the issue; usually Christmas stuff goes on main street or some equivalent). It's "offensive" in the sense that people don't agree, and we have freedom of speech for that. Again, suck it up, and find something better to complain about, seriously.

I am now known as Flyboy.

If I get a race car and put a sticker on it that says "Dominos Pizza" wouldnt you think said car is sponsoring Christmass???

Likewise if there is a Christmass tree in the rotunda of the State Capital...woulndt you agree that the state is sponsoring christianity???

Decorations in main street are not really the problem. They can put up lights and stuff if they wish to.

Freedom of speach is a what we call a negative right. In other words... the state has a prohibition to interfere with free speach. But when it comes to public display the state is actually "doing", or allowing, mantaining, and up keeping speech. Thus it falls outside the sphere of the right to free speach.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:33:14 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

Er... so, you think Christmas displays need to be removed from the public sphere, but Neo-Nazis should be allowed to publicly express their views?

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:33:35 PM by tropetown

Ummm... yes. And they actually do, and the world hasnt ended as far as I know. But if Nazis wanted to put a display up in public property then I would be all against it.

I sound evil now...

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:35:20 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

• 1) ...no, because I'm not entirely sure what Dominoes Pizza has to do with Christmas...
• 2) A Christmas tree isn't even a religious symbol, as far as I know. If it is, it isn't Christian.
• 3) Under that theory of freedom of speech, you only have freedom of speech when you're on private property, which would be horrendously stupid and render the entire concept useless, so try again.

I am now known as Flyboy.

T His is why I love America:

http://olyblog.net/neo-nazis-protest-statue

1st... read in context 2nd... Thats like saying the crescent moon isnt a muslim symbol 3rd... I am thinking about it. You raise a good point.

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:37:47 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.

No, they're celebrating Christmas. And also helping the economy by buying a tree from a farm. They are not pushing a religion. It's just a decorated tree. And, as many would point out, originally a pagan thing.

So yeah... not seeing the problem with a fucking tree, of all things. This is starting to edge into "you are far too easily offended" territory.

Not evil, I'm just wondering why the same right that is being giving to Neo-Nazis, or indeed, any ideology, suddenly needs to be removed when Christianity is concerned.

All aspects of religion are pagan. Besides... usually besides townhall there is some church... move the tree there.

Legally speaking Christianity and Nazism are ideologies and both share the same rights and the same obligations and not one can be said to be better that the other.

@USAF.

I think I found an answer to your question. There are actually 2 types of publica property. One is public in the sense that anyone can use it, like streets, with very little limitations.

The other one is public fiscal... like a corthouse or school, which even do are public, are managed as if they where private. I beleive the separation of Chruch and State coresponds to the latter one and not to the other one. d

edited 22nd Dec '11 8:42:30 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.