Follow TV Tropes

Following

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

Go To

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#101: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:03:47 PM

[up] Public property as in Federal and state buildings and not as in streets or parks, or for public employees and the public in general to wear religious symbols inside public property and the ability to have little religious icons in their work stations but not in common areas of said offices or work stations.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:05:27 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#102: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:05:12 PM

Except it's not a reasonable compromise. The correct response to injustice is not to enact more injustice, it's to correct the injustice itself.

Seriously, you've presented no other argument than "it's offensive" and your own personal interpretation of the Constitution which has been rejected by the Supreme Court. Do you seriously have nothing else to offer, besides "wah, religion is oppressive by its existence, wah?"

I am now known as Flyboy.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#103: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:06:43 PM

[up]

You have to make a difference between something being offensive, and something that makes you feel subjugated (in a very limited sense of course).

I personally dont feel offended by the Christmass tree, but I feel like I am less of a citizen.

[up] Plus I am not saying religion is offensive by its existence. If you own a private lot of land and build in it a 100 stories high christmass tree with the due permits I wont be offended at all.

Also... experience and my teachers have tought me than when you are able to keep calm while the other side increasingly shows only anger, then you probably have a more reasonable argument.

edited 23rd Dec '11 4:55:48 AM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#104: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:08:57 PM

You've only changed the wording of the argument, not the substance. "I don't like it" isn't good enough to take away civil rights.

Again, I'm sure bigoted homophobes feel like they're "less than average citizens" because they have to coexist with homosexuals. Shall we make homosexuals stay in the closet for their poor little feelings? Like hell.

I am now known as Flyboy.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#105: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:10:21 PM

[up] No because there is nothing in the constitution that creates a separation of Gay and State.

In this particular case there exists such separation.

Once again you are able to be religious all you like where ever you like and to be gay as much as you want as long as you want.

But you cant put a gay flag in a public building or a Christmass tree for the matter.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:11:32 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#106: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:12:04 PM

Nothing in the Constitution says that there's such a thing as separation of church and state, either, if you want to be technical. It says that we cannot establish an official religion, which necessitates either equal treatment for all religious beliefs (ideal) or general secularism (not really ideal). You're rejecting the first because of Perfect Solution Fallacy and the second is, in this context, idiotic.

I am now known as Flyboy.
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#107: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:13:37 PM

@USAF: To be fair, that's their goal, by and large.

Personally, I don't like the first solution either because we're not mature enough for it. But that's neither here nor there. You say you'd be fine with a pentagram or something like that. (I believe you). But there's an awful lot of people who wouldn't be and are not.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:14:17 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#108: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:15:34 PM

Well fuck those people. "It's politically unfeasible" doesn't mean it isn't right.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:16:08 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#109: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:15:51 PM

[up] Its not in the constitution but its one of those things that are self evident.

Now I know what I just said sounds really shacky and is sort of a rethorical trick... but I didnt invent constitutional theory and this concept, you can ask anyone who knows about law, is as tangible as any clause of the constitution.

Also I am not proposing a perfect solution because the State will never be 100% secualar. I just dont want Christian, Atheist, Nazias, Gays, Agnostics, Mexicans, Mulims, Jews, or whatever to put their symbols in our public buildings. It isnt too much to ask.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:16:49 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#110: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:16:50 PM

No, it's not that it's even just politically unfeasible. That's one thing. It's socially and culturally unfeasible. That's another whole ball of yarn, especially when it comes to issues of religion.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#111: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:16:59 PM

If a gay Christian decided to rent a public space and decorate it with the gay rainbow flag or whatever they use, they could indeed do that. They'd probably have to pool their resources with some other people, but they could do it. They could do it on any public surface, provided they went through the same channels as anyone else putting shit up.

And frankly, if a fucking tree makes you feel like less of a citizen, you've got issues other than Christmas decorations going on.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:18:09 PM by AceofSpades

Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#112: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:17:52 PM

[up]And you think that people wouldn't go apeshit over that? Actually I think it should be clarified, we're talking here about public property, that is, owned by the public, and not privately held property that is in the public sphere.

So what this would require is it would require permission from the local board or whatever, that may or may not happen (it's often not easy), because of the whole apeshit factor. The big problem with these things is that privilege and entitlement become wrapped into it.

Most people here are OK with maximizing freedom of speech. But there's enough people out there who play upon privilege, it becomes very hard to do in the real world.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:20:28 PM by Karmakin

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#113: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:18:20 PM

Its not in the constitution but its one of those things that are self evident.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Well, I don't know, Baff, I see my "there must not be any establishment of an official religion" idea, but not your "total separation of church and state" idea. Go figure. Oh, and look, free exercise of religion! Guess what that means!

I just dont want Christian, Atheist, Nazias, Gays, Agnostics, Mexicans, Mulims, Jews, or whatever to put their symbols in our public buildings.

I am now known as Flyboy.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#114: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:18:56 PM

Oh, people would go apeshit over it. But they still have the right to do it, which nullifies Baff's argument. "I am offended" is not enough of a reason to remove a Christmas tree, no matter what it's decorated with.

Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#115: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:19:41 PM

[up] If hes renting it then...If I am not wrong... said plot of land is actually private land, or to be more precise, the right he has over said terrain.

Now I dont know what is the procedure to rent public property and I dont even know if its allowed.

Otherwise, Congratulations! You found a loophole.

[up][up] If you dont care then why are you in this thread? Also, when you put religious symbols in public buildings your are moving towars stablishing a state religion, by sponsoring and letting the public now that you approve if it, thats is why it should be uncostitutional.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:22:50 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#116: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:21:37 PM

[up][up]"I am offended" is often enough to censor a lot of other things, especially when it's coming from a majoritarian/relatively powerful social position.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#117: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:23:21 PM

Well, to be honest, I'm not exactly sure how one goes about procuring a public space for putting up decorations. I've never done it, don't really plan to, so I don't know how a person would go about it. I assume there is some procedure so you don't end up getting into an argument with someone else who wants to put up something there, particularly around Christmas. Whatever the procedure, it's public land for public use, and people can put up all the Christmas trees they want. Decorated with gay flag symbols, even.

[up]That flies with public obscenity, but less and less these days with things like simply flags. And also Christmas trees.

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:24:04 PM by AceofSpades

USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#118: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:24:49 PM

The Constitution says that the state cannot establish a state religion, but also that it must allow free exercise of religion. Allowing all religions an equal shot at putting up decorations is exactly following this; prohibiting it entirely is not, because it violates the second half.

As for the inequality of the matter, the answer is fix the fucking problem, and don't take away people's rights in a hissy fit because you don't want to approach the issue properly.

I am now known as Flyboy.
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#119: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:25:11 PM

As I mentioned before, until relatively recently, they were generally Christian only affairs, until a flurry of lawsuits resulted in open access being relatively established conventional legal wisdom. Maybe over the last decade or so this has happened?

There was a case down in California that assigned the spots via a lottery.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#120: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:27:45 PM

[up][up]

You talk as if using public buidlings to further your cause was a right... it isnt.

The effect that removing religious symbols from public property would have on religion and its freedom of speach its so neglegible that it can hardly be said to go against it, and if you choose to say that it does (which it doesnt) threatens free speach, the separation of Church an State should over-rule it.

ON a side note... do you know the sentence in which the Supreme Court rules in favour of the decorations???

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:28:30 PM by Baff

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#121: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:28:50 PM

Don't believe it ever went to the SCOTUS. It's something that was pretty much settled at lower levels. When you get multiple jurisdictions making the same decision for the same reason, usually it won't even bother the SCOTUS with it.

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
Baff Since: Jul, 2011
#122: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:30:04 PM

[up]

USAF said that it had. I thrust USAF was speaking the truth. But searching this sentences is sort of a pain in the ass.

I will always cherish the chance of a new beggining.
Karmakin Moar and Moar and Moar Since: Aug, 2009
Moar and Moar and Moar
#123: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:32:24 PM

Doesn't really matter. It's settled law at this point. Doesn't always take the SCOTUS to get to that point (actually it usually doesn't, I think)

Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
USAF713 I changed accounts. from the United States Since: Sep, 2010
I changed accounts.
#124: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:34:14 PM

The effect that removing religious symbols from public property would have on religion and its freedom of speach is neglegible that it can hardly be said to go against it, and if you choose to say that it does (which it doesnt) threatens free speach, the separation of Church an State should over-rule it.

It doesn't work like that. Any affront to rights that is not justified—and this certainly isn't—is unacceptable, period, no cigar.

As for the ruling, you have:

"[T]he Establishment Clause does not compel a government to purge from the public's sphere all that in any way partakes of the religious."

From Van Orden v. Perry (2005).

edited 22nd Dec '11 10:35:19 PM by USAF713

I am now known as Flyboy.
AceofSpades Since: Apr, 2009 Relationship Status: Showing feelings of an almost human nature
#125: Dec 22nd 2011 at 10:37:45 PM

Basically, we can put up the decorations of any religion we see fit. And all the arguments you've put against it are petty in the face of the actual law.


Total posts: 129
Top