Rehoboth Beach - No nativity scene permitted (Dover, Georgetown: schools, living)

[nuts2uiam]

Originally Posted by udelslayer

Is the big Krampus display still ok?

More than likely.

[Digger 68]

Originally Posted by udelslayer

Is the big Krampus display still ok?

Exactly.

[parentologist]

How about a statue of Moloch, complete with an eternally burning infant in front of him?

[parentologist]

Actually, none of these examples is consonant with those of Christianity. A Roman amphitheatre, stocked with lions devouring Christians would be the closest that one could come, and the last time that happened was about 1700 years ago. And the religion/culture in whose name the Christians were fed to the lions, disappeared about 1600 years ago. Certainly, no Christian children today are reminded that this could still happen to them anywhere in the world, even here, today. The symbols of pagan Rome do not strike fear in the hearts of Christians.

The symbols of many religions are beautiful. Some are universal; some are seen as symbols of hatred and persecution by the victims of such persecution. Some are abhorrent to others. These are all good reasons to keep religious symbols out of the public square, off public property. There are innumerable churches in this country, in front of which each church can display whatever religious symbols or scenes they wish. Lobbying to place religious symbols on public property is a means of demonstrating power and dominance. It has NOTHING to do with the "spirit of Christmas" and EVERYTHING to do with proselytizing, and an attempt to subvert religion in order to exert political power.

[luv4horses]

At this point in time a nativity scene can also be thought of as an historical art installation. Would that be allowed?

[nuts2uiam]

Originally Posted by parentologist

Actually, none of these examples is consonant with those of Christianity. A Roman amphitheatre, stocked with lions devouring Christians would be the closest that one could come, and the last time that happened was about 1700 years ago. And the religion/culture in whose name the Christians were fed to the lions, disappeared about 1600 years ago. Certainly, no Christian children today are reminded that this could still happen to them anywhere in the world, even here, today. The symbols of pagan Rome do not strike fear in the hearts of Christians.

The symbols of many religions are beautiful. Some are universal; some are seen as symbols of hatred and persecution by the victims of such persecution. Some are abhorrent to others. These are all good reasons to keep religious symbols out of the public square, off public property. There are innumerable churches in this country, in front of which each church can display whatever religious symbols or scenes they wish. Lobbying to place religious symbols on public property is a means of demonstrating power and dominance. It has NOTHING to do with the "spirit of Christmas" and EVERYTHING to do with proselytizing, and an attempt to subvert religion in order to exert political power.

Your argument did not hold water with the Supreme Court regarding the nativity in the case I quoted, but it bears repeating again, just like you, those that support this, are not only entitled to their opinion, but in the case of the Ellipse - the courts upheld it.

[parentologist]

Originally Posted by luv4horses

At this point in time a nativity scene can also be thought of as an historical art installation. Would that be allowed?

Really? It can be thought of as an artistic motif, and interpreted in different ways, some of which can be seen as offensive by some people (think of Andres Serrano's crucifix - name is too offensive to even write here, but you can look it up), but that's not why people want to put it up. They want to put it up as a celebration of their religious holiday, and they want to put it on public property, rather than on the church's property, in an attempt to make a statement of political dominance by their religion.

If you want to start classifying it as art, then a nativity scene featuring a jar of ashes in the cradle could be just as appropriate.

[parentologist]

Originally Posted by nuts2uiam

[/b]

Your argument did not hold water with the Supreme Court regarding the nativity in the case I quoted, but it bears repeating again, just like you, those that support this, are not only entitled to their opinion, but in the case of the Ellipse - the courts upheld it.

Lots of valid arguments have not held water with the Supreme Court. From Dred Scott (Blacks are not citizens) to the misnamed Citizens United (corporations are citizens, or at least have the constitutional rights thereof), there have been many, many horrendous Supreme Court decisions, that have led to great suffering in our nation. Here's a list of some of them. https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...-all-time.html

So whether the Supreme Court thinks that placing religious symbols on public land is permissible or not, doesn't change the simple fact that it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. It's patently obvious that when religion rides on the back of the State, the clear question is, whose religion should get that privileged position?

[nuts2uiam]

Originally Posted by parentologist

Lots of valid arguments have not held water with the Supreme Court. From Dred Scott (Blacks are not citizens) to the misnamed Citizens United (corporations are citizens, or at least have the constitutional rights thereof), there have been many, many horrendous Supreme Court decisions, that have led to great suffering in our nation. Here's a list of some of them. https://blogs.findlaw.com/supreme_co...-all-time.html

So whether the Supreme Court thinks that placing religious symbols on public land is permissible or not, doesn't change the simple fact that it is a violation of the separation of Church and State. It's patently obvious that when religion rides on the back of the State, the clear question is, whose religion should get that privileged position?

I will state yet again, you are entitled to your OPINION, and I, mine, the only difference is that mine has the support of the Supreme Court of the land and the annual Nativity display will be on the Ellipse. We will therefore have to respectfully agree to disagree.

[parentologist]

You are absolutely right. The Supreme Court DID uphold it, along with many other violations of the separation of Church and State, and along with slavery, Jim Crow, and many other heinous, shameful decisions. But since they say it's right, it must be right! Time to add that Moloch infant sacrifice to the Elipse!