Again, as I am mistaken about your intentions, you assume too much from my writings. I'm a fairly strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution, so depending upon the issue, I may be labeled as leaning to the right or the left. I've studied the writings of our nation's Founders in some detail (and continue to do so on a continual basis), so I'm often fairly bemused at some of the renderings that come from our nation's courts. A truly impartial judge is a rarity these days. Our judicial branch is too fraught with politics & ideology to truly have judges who would decide cases based upon a strict reading of the Constitution. I've seen cases rendered with a perverted reading of this document so often it only surprises me now when I see a decision that I think is in keeping with original intent. Chief Joke Rehnquist was usually good for a laugh a week. . .

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

As to your rhetorical question, it already happens in varying degrees around the country. Dr. Tiller's abortion clinic in Wichita is regularly besieged, and pharmacists often take it upon themselves to deny birth-control prescriptions to women based upon their own moral systems. What happens in those cases is what is happening in the case in W. Chester----the matter continues to be litigated ad nauseam, and frankly, it doesn't concern me all that much. . .a person getting an abortion or taking a pill doesn't affect my life one iota, and a person blocking the clinic door or denying the prescription likewise affects me not at all.

__________________


"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither breaks my leg, nor picks my pocket."

Thomas Jefferson

There are those types all over the country like those you mentioned. It's another example why I feel the way I do as I expressed.

There are alot of people--not the majority but enough to be a problem--who lean left, centre or right but yet share a common view--that what is permitted and prohibited by the constitution is whatever they say is the case. Whatever issue the court rules in their favour they take, and whenever a decision disagrees with anything they believe should be the case, they take the law into their own hands rather than use the many proper ways to address their grievances to seek potential relief. In short, they just want everything to suit their will, and screw anything and anyone that disagrees with it. It's self will run riot in total disrespect for our system and the people, and those types of individuals are an obstacle to ordered liberty.

__________________

So many times the argument displayed is out of reference to what is initially stated.

I agree with O'Sullivans point here - that the ACLU's own interest in making the U.S. void of religion is the reason for this action, not because they actually believe peoples rights are being violated.

What the ACLU is trying to do, and with some degree of success, is to circumvent the elected governing body and the will of the people via activist judges.

As with here - they move in an area where there is no problem, find someone willing to claim there is a problem - and then try to file suit that their patsy's rights are being violated.
This is not in the countries best interest, they do this in THEIR best interest in trying to make the country void of all things religion.

Again, they will not stop until Christmas is revoked as a holiday.

I think that the only reason I disagree with you here is that "Christmas/Hannukah" decorations really aren't religious or representative of anything religious. Hannukah is a minor and unimportant holiday in the Jewish religion, and Christmas has long since been secularized and commercialized right out of the religious sphere. That is to say, putting up Christmas/Hannukah decorations is basically like putting up green on St. Pattie's day or putting up extra flags on the fourth of July. There is nothing religious about "christmas trees", reindeer, candy canes, santa claus, etc. And, while menorahs have religious significance, you can find a fair cross section of Jews that would be hard pressed to explain it. The mehnorah has become a defacto symbol of "Diet Christmas - an altrenative".

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Simply decorating a conifer or putting up greenery, I agree is not a religious act. But the creche is quite religious.The Menorah is too, and I can explain it even though I'm not Jewish, it may be a minor holiday, it's still religious.

Further this issue has not been settled, O'Sullivan, they would have to allow the Church of Satan, Wichans, Hindus, atheists (placard pointing to creche and saying it never happened?) etc. to put up their decorations. Now they could regulate how each . If they don't is all has to go, that they allowed the plaque to stay because its been in the courthouse so long is not a defense for a creche they just put up and it doesn't give them carte blanche to put up whatever they please.

That is in error.
As he stated the SCOTUS already ruled that displaying Christmas decorations such as a Christmas tree is no an establishment of religion - a Christmas tree is in no way representative of any religion - it is secular to the core.

The majority in this country are Christians and they still consider it to be a celebration of the birth of their messiah. They only call it secular when it is convenient to their celebrations.

__________________
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Again, this is not a christmas tree, which I agree is secular, it's a nativity scene. If thats not religious...

Yes, the ayyy ceee ellll yooooo is largely a group in support of perverts and idiots that don't know up from down.

We COULD ignore them if they weren't so rich and powerful and undermining everything anyone with common sense stands for and believes in.

They are a true "enemy within".

Very well stated. (thumbs up icon...)

Kramer

The SCOTUS held over 20 years ago that the crèche is permitted in such displays so long as other holiday trappings are included. See Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984). The SCOTUS held that including a crèche in displays that show other seasonal adornments are to be taken in their full context. The full context merely depicts the historical origin of the season and thus have "legitimate secular purposes." Any benefit to religion was "indirect, remote, and incidental" and that it was "far too late in the day to impose a crabbed reading of the [Establishment] Clause on the country."

Cases that have followed have consistently reaffirmed this position. There have been instances since Lynch where religious people who do indeed want to push their faith have tried to twist the decision into something it does hold by simply putting up a crèche on a courthouse lawn with nothing else. The SCOTUS has held that pulling that kind of stunt is an Establishment Clause violation whilst still reaffirming the kinds of displays validated in Lynch. See County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989).

The courthouse displays in question have no connivance to it, but follows the Lynch style of decorations that has been consistently reaffirmed by the SCOTUS and is well settled law insofar as its legality.

__________________

Historical Origin of the Season? Sorry this wording is just absurd to me.

Sorry creche, regardless of the courts opinion is highly religious.

And I state again that the Church of Satan, Wichans, atheists, etc. all have a right to put up likewise. Theoretically atheists could put up a placard pointing at the Creche stating 'God Is Dead', now the court can put regulations on it, to ensure equal rights, but it wouldn't be able to limit some religions and not others, to be frank the cats out of the bag once the court allows one display, and every religion on the face of the earth which wants to put up a display must be allowed to do so.

Indeed, that it the position the SCOTUS has consistently taken on thematic displays for holidays.

You mention St. Patrick's Day, and indeed symbols of that can be seen in and around the Chester County courthouse (shamrocks, leprechauns, 'Happy St. Pat's Day' --even a real or comical representation of St. Patrick himself, etc). You will see court personnel choose to wear green clothing, etc.

But, taken hypertechnically, "St. Patrick's Day" is a religious holiday.

St. Patrick is the Patron Saint of Ireland, and he is recognised as a saint in the Catholic Church and some Protestant ones. The holiday's origin lies in a day (March 17) marked for St. Patrick on the original Catholic calendar that recognised 'designated saint days,' March 17 being that for St Patrick.

In the past, Irish Catholics did not use it as a 'party day.' People went to Mass on it and revered the Patron Saint of Ireland.

But, St. Patrick over time became associated with being just a big symbol of the Irish and Ireland. This included Protestant and Catholics alike, including with Irish Protestants, like the Presbyterians for example, whose creeds do not recognise sainthood status. Thus, his name started appearing on secular organisations (example, "St. Patrick's Brigades" in militaries, St. Patrick's name in social clubs and advocacy groups, etc).

Given the massive number of Irish who have immigrated to the US and elsewhere, St Patrick's Day took on a festive nature of celebrating 'the Old County' and their heritage, and the first parades held in American cities were during the colonial days and were done by Catholics and Protestants alike.

From there, it has gradually opened and expanded over the years to just being an American holiday that is open and inviting to everyone regardless of their ancestry, and it now just a big 'party day' for relaxing, drinking, eating, parading, dancing, and just having a good time--something that is positive, secular, and needed by the public for a time to 'chill out and have fun.'

The American adaptation and widening of its intent in recent years has actually caught on in Ireland, and now it also holds parades, partying, etc on that day. It has also caught on elsewhere around the world, although in some places where the Irish also went they too were having the same evolution over time of that day as in America.

To me, it would strain and break credulity for anyone, though, to claim that Christianity and/or Roman Catholicism is being purposefully and effectively pushed and promoted by St Patrick's Day regalia in violation of the Establishment Clause. If anything, I think I would tell anyone advocating that kind of prohibition that they really need to unwind and come out partying with the rest of us more than anyone.

__________________

Why?

Standing alone, it is. And the SCOTUS did recognise that there is religious connotation in it--Christmas itself has it. The SCOTUS felt that the kinds of displays at the courthouse--a generalised makeup overall--make the religious message secondary to the recognition of the public holiday season.

My beef with the ACLU is not in how they feel about these kinds of displays. But, it has been repeatedly litigated and the SCOTUS has spoken repeatedly on these kinds of displays as shown at the courthouse (including its creche as part of it) and affirmed their legality repeatedly, and they are permitted.

Agree or disagree, it's a settled issue of law, and points of disagreement should be taken with requests of overturn the decision whilst respecting the current state of the law and/or seek other means to advocate a change (constitutional amendment, petitioning legislatures to enact laws limiting or prohibiting them, etc). It's what the ACLU is doing here that, IMO, is out of line.

I doubt the SCOTUS would agree with that. These kinds of displays are not year-round--they go up during the holiday season that deals with them and then come down. Christmas, Hanukkah and New Year's decorations fit the theme of the holiday season whilst these other things have nothing thematically to do with it and therefore have no place in it.

__________________