Nativity scene = religious, menorah & crescent aren't?

[alchemize]

From the nefarious media mouthpiece of the vast right wing conspiracy

"Andrea Skoros sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited. "

It just ain't cool to be christian anymore...

 

[tnitsuj]

They shouldn't have any of that garbage in schools. Take down the damn Christmas tree as well.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They shouldn't have any of that garbage in schools. Take down the damn Christmas tree as well.

Since Christmas trees are so religious...

 

[RabidMongoose]

Maybe she should just put up a cross instead of a nativity scene if that would be allowed. Would be nice if the article had a little bit more detail.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They shouldn't have any of that garbage in schools. Take down the damn Christmas tree as well.

Since Christmas trees are so religious...

Its a frigging "Christmas" tree. It celebrates the Christian holiday of "Christmas". How is that not religious?

I would have no problem if they put up a cross, menorah, crescent, whatever if it were in the context of say an educational display on world religions or something, but in this context it is a religious thing IMHO.

 

[tnitsuj]

I am curious if they would let her put up a cross.

 

[Witling]

Yes, this is a bad decision by a "big frog in a small pond" school official somewhere. If you invite in religious symbols and representations, let them all come in. After all it is cultural. But the christmas tree, snowflake, snowman, holly and Santa Clause are not Christian symbols. They have been associated with Christianity but that has to do with the overlaying of other cultures on Christianity. I am as areligious as one can get and I see Christmas as a shared holiday of goodwill.

 

[rjain]

Well, if the kids are doing it of their own desire, and kids who want to do something else are given the opportunity, why not?

And an interesting addendum from that article: The NYCLU claims that public schools aren't part of the government, so they're allowed to promote religions. There goes Dave's argument about libraries, too.

Edit: Also, in Russia, you don't have a Christmas tree, you have a New Year's tree. That's probably what the tree was originally for in the Catholic regions, as well, in the same way that the Catholic Christmas was originally the Saturnailia.

Interesting link about other Winter Solstice festivals:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/winter_solstice.htm

 

[Zebo]

We need to get rid of public schools and go all vouchers. But then, like in the washington case before the SC, someone would complain about using these vouchers for non-secular education. Can't win if you're christian. Just buck up and pay the ~2500 for each child and you can have two or three Nativity scenes along with crucifixs etc.

 

[DealMonkey]

The New York Civil Liberties Union (search) agreed: "The Constitution prohibits government from promoting religion, any religion, and that means that public schools can be in the business of promoting religion," Donna Lieberman of the NYCLU said.

Ummmm, public schools are government-financed schools. What planet is Donna from? Seems like this school is confused about the nature of religious symbols.

Andrea Skoros sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited.

I'd agree, the Hanukkah menorah and star/crescent are clearly religious symbols. What's wrong with these people?

 

[Genesys]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

The New York Civil Liberties Union (search) agreed: "The Constitution prohibits government from promoting religion, any religion, and that means that public schools can be in the business of promoting religion," Donna Lieberman of the NYCLU said.

Ummmm, public schools are government-financed schools. What planet is Donna from? Seems like this school is confused about the nature of religious symbols.

Andrea Skoros sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited.

I'd agree, the Hanukkah menorah and star/crescent are clearly religious symbols. What's wrong with these people?

theyre called pacifists, thats whats wrong with them.

 

[miguel]

Christmas tree was leftover from worshipping the winter solstice, wasn't it?

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Genesys
theyre called pacifists, thats whats wrong with them.

Huh? They're opposed to using violence to settling a disagreement? Hmmm, well I certainly hope it doesn't come to that.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

The New York Civil Liberties Union (search) agreed: "The Constitution prohibits government from promoting religion, any religion, and that means that public schools can be in the business of promoting religion," Donna Lieberman of the NYCLU said.

Ummmm, public schools are government-financed schools. What planet is Donna from? Seems like this school is confused about the nature of religious symbols.

Andrea Skoros sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited.

I'd agree, the Hanukkah menorah and star/crescent are clearly religious symbols. What's wrong with these people?

actually the what the constitution prohibits is "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

by allowing symbols of other religions to be displayed but not a symbol of another, the law is directly broken. if a state run institution prohibits ANY religious view from expressing itself then it has prohibited the free exercise of that religion. the government is not above it's own laws.

also if no symbols are permitted at all, that is against the law too. one religious view(the atheistic view) would be favored above all others. and again it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.



oh and have a merry CHRISTmas

 

[rjain]

The crusader is at it again.

You have YET TO PROVE that not allowing theists nor atheists to put their religious symbols up is somehow biased against theists.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj

Originally posted by: daniel1113

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
They shouldn't have any of that garbage in schools. Take down the damn Christmas tree as well.

Since Christmas trees are so religious...

Its a frigging "Christmas" tree. It celebrates the Christian holiday of "Christmas". How is that not religious?

I would have no problem if they put up a cross, menorah, crescent, whatever if it were in the context of say an educational display on world religions or something, but in this context it is a religious thing IMHO.

Sure, it was added to celebrate the holiday, but it isn't exactly a religious item.(ie: not the same way the crucificix and such are)

As far as the banning of the nativity scene; if they are letting everything else be shown, ignoring the nativity scene is dumb. If they were just displaying the nativity scene though things would be different.

 

[rjain]

And these same kinds of people attack teachers for teaching their students about Ganesh during Diwali, being scared that their children are exposed to "new-age" religion. (BAHAHAHA. It's at least 3000 years older than your religion)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

The New York Civil Liberties Union (search) agreed: "The Constitution prohibits government from promoting religion, any religion, and that means that public schools can be in the business of promoting religion," Donna Lieberman of the NYCLU said.

Ummmm, public schools are government-financed schools. What planet is Donna from? Seems like this school is confused about the nature of religious symbols.

Andrea Skoros sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited.

I'd agree, the Hanukkah menorah and star/crescent are clearly religious symbols. What's wrong with these people?

actually the what the constitution prohibits is "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

by allowing symbols of other religions to be displayed but not a symbol of another, the law is directly broken. if a state run institution prohibits ANY religious view from expressing itself then it has prohibited the free exercise of that religion. the government is not above it's own laws.

also if no symbols are permitted at all, that is against the law too. one religious view(the atheistic view) would be favored above all others. and again it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

oh and have a merry CHRISTmas

Originally posted by: rjain
The crusader is at it again.

You have YET TO PROVE that not allowing theists nor atheists to put their religious symbols up is somehow biased against theists.

Forget about it Hawk, the Athiests, Islamics and Jews rule now. Christianity has been ruled illegal, unconstitutional and must be completely kicked out of the U.S.

 

[rjain]

Where did I say anything about Christianity in my statement? Muslims and Jews are in the same category as Christians as far as that issue is concerned.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK
actually the what the constitution prohibits is "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

by allowing symbols of other religions to be displayed but not a symbol of another, the law is directly broken. if a state run institution prohibits ANY religious view from expressing itself then it has prohibited the free exercise of that religion. the government is not above it's own laws.

also if no symbols are permitted at all, that is against the law too. one religious view(the atheistic view) would be favored above all others. and again it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

That's simply your interpretation of the first amendment. I'm just thankful you don't sit on the supreme court (or any court for that matter). In a way though, you've created your own conundrum: You can't have the absense of any symbols because that would push the atheist view and you can't have some (or really all) because there would always be an imbalance between representations or one religion not represented. I'm surprised your head doesn't simply explode from the paradox of it all.

 

[rjain]

The zealot resolves a paradox by defining it out of existence.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

The New York Civil Liberties Union (search) agreed: "The Constitution prohibits government from promoting religion, any religion, and that means that public schools can be in the business of promoting religion," Donna Lieberman of the NYCLU said.

Ummmm, public schools are government-financed schools. What planet is Donna from? Seems like this school is confused about the nature of religious symbols.

Andrea Skoros sued the New York City public school system after being told her kids' Nativity scene could not be a part of the holiday display although a Hanukkah menorah and the star and crescent representing Islam could be exhibited.

I'd agree, the Hanukkah menorah and star/crescent are clearly religious symbols. What's wrong with these people?

actually the what the constitution prohibits is "congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

by allowing symbols of other religions to be displayed but not a symbol of another, the law is directly broken. if a state run institution prohibits ANY religious view from expressing itself then it has prohibited the free exercise of that religion. the government is not above it's own laws.

also if no symbols are permitted at all, that is against the law too. one religious view(the atheistic view) would be favored above all others. and again it would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion.



oh and have a merry CHRISTmas

Displaying religious items is not violating the first amendment. It says that congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That means congress cannot pass a law establishing a religion and/or support one. However, they also cannot prevent those from celebrating in public. Since it is in a public school it is a bit more difficult to judge, since it is public property that is state supported

 

[miguel]

Whoever came up with "separation of church and state" = "first amendment" = "no cross on state-owned property" should be found and trout slapped.

 

[Shad0hawK]

Originally posted by: rjain
The crusader is at it again.

You have YET TO PROVE that not allowing theists nor atheists to put their religious symbols up is somehow biased against theists.

actually i made a good case in the other thread, you could not use logic and reason to disprove my assertions, all you could do is call me names like "crusader" and "zealot" look at your statement... it itself proves my point because many religions displaying symbols is part of exercising many religions especially during holidays(BTW the word holiday orginates form the term HOLY day) pertaining to them. the constitution specifically states "or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

"not allowing" IS "prohibiting"

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Shad0hawK

Originally posted by: rjain
The crusader is at it again.

You have YET TO PROVE that not allowing theists nor atheists to put their religious symbols up is somehow biased against theists.

actually i made a good case in the other thread, you could not use logic and reason to disprove my assertions, all you could do is call me names like "crusader" and "zealot" look at your statement... it itself proves my point because many religions displaying symbols is part of exercising many religions especially during holidays(BTW the word holiday orginates form the term HOLY day) pertaining to them. the constitution specifically states "or prohibit the free exercise thereof"

"not allowing" IS "prohibiting"

You forgot to mention that ONLY YOU could actually follow your insane logic that twists and turns back on itself like a snake eating its own tail. If anyone dared to actually follow you down that road to certain insanity, they'd end up traveling back in time through a tear ripped into the time-space continuum. You're like the insane hermit living on the outskirts of town. Convinced of your own genius, everyone else steers clear from the obvious madness.