Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

My considered views on religious displays on public land
Vivificat - from Contemplation to Action ^ | 13 December 2012 | TDJ

Posted on 12/13/2012 10:37:05 AM PST by Te骹ilo

Brethren, Peace and Good to all of you.

As you know, every year during the holiday and Christmas seasons, religion-objectors redouble their efforts at proscribing religious displays on government buildings and other common areas in our cities, towns, and villages. The mainstream media’s (MSM’s) strategy has been to declare that there is no “war on Christmas” but Bill Donohue from the Catholic League already took the MSM to task.

Of course, I often share many of Bill Donohue’s observations across many other social platforms including Twitter, and it was in Twitter where I got a couple of respondents who are representative of the repressive school of Christmas display haters. Their argument is straightforward: they argue that the “non-establishment clause” of the First Amendment prohibits religious displays on public –government-owned – property. Therefore, a Christmas crèche, the Ten Commandments, and other demonstrations of religious faith that have had an effect in our culture for over two centuries are verboten under the First Amendment.

But confusion follows when the Christmas-haters are shown the applicable clause of the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
When I ask how a religious display on public property violates the non-establishment clause, I get stammers. If I mention that the Framers had a very precise idea of what an established religion meant (they only had to look back to England, the German states, and Spanish Empire to make their point), I am told that the Framers “knew nothing” about today’s circumstances – which I detect as an argument in favor of the notion that “the Constitution evolves” although they don’t tell me exactly how. Or if I point out that these displays were never an issue until the 1960’s, when Madeline Murray O’Hair started her jihad against religion in the public place, I am answered with non-sequiturs regarding the legal status of atheists in the country, on how the US is not nor was ever a “Christian” country, etc.

After all my years studying this issue, I hereby announce my position on this issue. If you care to read it, this is it:

The First Amendment does not prohibit religious displays on public land. Citizens of any religious persuasion or none at all should be free to exercise their religion on public, government property however they see fit. The only proper role of government is to regulate this exercise in such a way that decorum, order, and safety are guaranteed to those citizens choosing to exercise their liberty in this manner.
In other words, my brothers and sisters, I don’t simply want the courts or the religion-haters to be more accommodating to religious expression in public spaces. No, what I am looking for is their complete capitulation. I hold that every single verdict, judgment, or regulation limiting the free exercise of religion anywhereruns counter to the letter and the spirit of the First Amendment, that such judgments, verdicts, or regulations are rotten at the core, and therefore, contemptuous of our First Freedom. Furthermore, I hold that the enforcement of said judgments, verdicts, or regulations is repressive by their nature, being a flagrant abuse of the coercive power of the state to undermine the freedom of We, the People.

That’s where I stand, my brethren. Our duty is fight this repression with all legitimate tools at our disposal and reverse the sorry course our courts and branches of government have been charting during the last 50 years, a court that has veered us away from liberty and toward the intellectual and moral subjugation of the many by the few.


TOPICS: Activism; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: nativity; publicsquare
Blunders. Typos. Mine.
1 posted on 12/13/2012 10:37:08 AM PST by Te骹ilo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; StayoutdaBushesWay; OldNewYork; MotherRedDog; sayuncledave; ...

PING!


2 posted on 12/13/2012 10:39:13 AM PST by Te骹ilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org - A Catholic Blog of News, Commentary and Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: YellowRoseofTx; Rashputin; StayoutdaBushesWay; OldNewYork; MotherRedDog; sayuncledave; ...

PING!


3 posted on 12/13/2012 10:40:18 AM PST by Te骹ilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org - A Catholic Blog of News, Commentary and Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

Agreed.


4 posted on 12/13/2012 10:43:54 AM PST by MWestMom ("And those that cried appease, appease were hung by those they tried to please" - Horace Mann)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

I agree. We are not the soviet union’s suppressive machine. I am also for harassing any pig who is interlert of religion in your community. Shun him. Let him move to Saudi Arabia where he will be forced by the government and learn about why he objects to and American freedom.


5 posted on 12/13/2012 10:44:13 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

It appears one whose ideology, beliefs and values can become so challenged just by the mere glimpse of a nativity scene brings into question the sanity of that person.

To have the government “protect” you from having to look at it is ridiculous.

For a judge to rule on it is preposterous.

The Constitution was not written for judges or lawyers to interpret, but was written to the common citizen for their security and enlightenment.

Lawyers and judges twist the simple, obvious language to make the Constitution say exactly the opposite of what it does say.

If I was offended by a nativity scene, I would take the personal initiative and close my eyes and choose not to look at it. Don’t need government intervention at all.

bobo


6 posted on 12/13/2012 10:59:13 AM PST by bobo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

The left is fully invested in the promotion of Secular Humanism which has no room for tolerance of religion. They choose to view the 1st Amendment as an affirmation of, and indeed and endorsement of SH.

Unfortunately there are too many in the middle and even on the right who aren’t particularly religious and consequently do not see this (the attack on Christmas and Christianity) as their fight.

Niemöller would be so proud.


7 posted on 12/13/2012 11:08:43 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

Nice.


8 posted on 12/13/2012 11:10:04 AM PST by RIghtwardHo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: loboinok

mark


9 posted on 12/13/2012 11:10:18 AM PST by loboinok (Gun control is hitting what you aim at!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: loboinok

And the suppression of Christmas Carols in schools is a violation of FREE SPEECH!


10 posted on 12/13/2012 11:13:05 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

AGREED. COMPLETELY.


11 posted on 12/13/2012 11:26:55 AM PST by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

>>And the suppression of Christmas Carols in schools is a violation of FREE SPEECH!>>

You are RIGHT!


12 posted on 12/13/2012 11:28:45 AM PST by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

Common sense INDEED!


13 posted on 12/13/2012 11:35:21 AM PST by SumProVita (Cogito, ergo....Sum Pro Vita - Modified Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bobo1
If I was offended by a nativity scene, I would take the personal initiative and close my eyes and choose not to look at it. Don’t need government intervention at all.

My question is, why do you need to see a nativity scene on government property when there are so many churches, and so much private property, to host them?

Why does the government have to also be an organ of religious expression?

I don't understand the insecurity of Christians who feel they need to leverage government property to spread their message.

14 posted on 12/13/2012 12:18:22 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Te贸filo

Well said. I agree.


15 posted on 12/13/2012 12:19:26 PM PST by OldNewYork
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

there is no such thing as “government property”. It is public property, owned by the people, who are supposed to be the government.

The can put a stupid figure of Marx up as long as they clean up afterward.

maybe tear down the Lincoln Memorial because references to God are all over it?

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

Easily understood, especially from the point of history.

If you can get enough support to put some stupid shrine to some atheist icon, more power to you. I will shut my eyes and ignore it. won’t take you to court. In fact, it would only help religion.

Course, they tried that with Lenin in Russia, laid him out in public for years.

bobo


16 posted on 12/13/2012 12:36:55 PM PST by bobo1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bobo1
there is no such thing as “government property”. It is public property, owned by the people, who are supposed to be the government.

Then go for a stroll on the 'public property' at Groom Lake and let me know how that works out for you.

These dissembling semantics avoid the direct question: why do you need to see a nativity scene on government property when there are so many churches, and so much private property, to host them?

Why does the government have to also be an organ of religious expression?

17 posted on 12/13/2012 5:04:22 PM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

Why does the government have to also be an organ of religious expression?


They don,t have to be. Congress can make no laws concerning the establish of religion, nor to prohibit the free exercise of it, that means it is a matter for the people of the states to decide.

Some states have the same law, if they don,t then Christians can move to a state that does if they want.

Or they can be willing to give their very life to preach what they believe in, like the early Christians did.

That does not mean that i like the anti Christ pukes.


18 posted on 12/13/2012 6:14:31 PM PST by ravenwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

The militant atheism that is at work in modern times is but a facet of a larger scheme. A nativity scene is a statement of defiance against those who are seeking to destroy the nation.

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm

27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity which does not need a “religious crutch.”

28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”

A true atheist would find public expressions of faith to be an empty gesture without meaning. What we have here is just another arm of the international left seeking to destroy traditional American society, which was never secular. That alone would make it worth opposing.


19 posted on 12/13/2012 7:01:56 PM PST by GenXteacher (You have chosen dishonor to avoid war; you shall have war also.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Gunslingr3

I will try to be nice, “cuz” you believe in “Gov Property”
the gov owns everything. What? I am in a conservative forum. God, I hate to have to teach those that have no principles. Do you have an ideology or what?

Congratulations. Now, if you hate Christianity and the Lord Jesus Christ, guess whatm millions do! u are not alone?!

If your faith is so challenged that you have to run to the government to shut down a nativity scene, then you have no faith at all”

don’t care what “Groom Lake” is or how in some diabolical way it is supposed to affect me, or even make me scared?

What is this some supernatural challenge that I have to go to “Groom Lake”.

Pretty bizarre.

BTW, it will be hard for you to understand, it kills you to think that someone believes in the Lord Jesus Christ

You are using stupid arguments, but what you are doing mostly, is trying to deny JESUS. wont work. No sense getting into a theological argument with me. you throw up nonsense. i would teach you
What is Groom Lake?

I guess that is to make me “skeered”

buy me a ticket for my wife and me, and a motel room and we will have a vacation. I will deal with “Groom Lake”~!

e nonsense/


20 posted on 12/13/2012 10:58:30 PM PST by bobo1 (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: bobo1
All that typing and no response to the simple question:

Why do you need to see a nativity scene on government property when there are so many churches, and so much private property, to host them?

Why does the government have to also be an organ of religious expression?

21 posted on 12/14/2012 6:37:12 AM PST by Gunslingr3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson