KMZZuX fqsbweydzoiy, [url=http://btncfmbqwtan.com/]btncfmbqwtan[/url], [link=http://toyabdqcyocb.com/]toyabdqcyocb[/link], http://evlvlhxcomef.com/

that the State can exercise cntenot control.You didn't say it (and I didn't attribute as such) but you described a situation that involves it.Obviously. But it can quite easily say, "O.K., the nativity creche goes over here and the Wiccan wreath goes over there and the Menorah goes up over yonder."Not necessarily, actually. Sure, if there's entirely equivalent space in the town square I suppose it can be simple, but that is often not the case. If one is going under a street lamp, and one behind a garbage can, and one on the corner well, assignment can be challenged.It doesn't have to put them next to each other. It doesn't HAVE to, but there's no reason that the State should care. Other than things like public safety, it's not the State's job to protect A or A's display from the views of B or a B display. Nor is it the state's job to analyze the messages of A or B and decide whether they're complementary or opposing.I also don't see where, if the town square is small enough that only a limited number of displays can fit, the town must permit the !A message to share the same space and time as the A message. They have every right to say "The Christians reserved the space from 12/15 to 12/30 the atheists can have it from 1/1 to 1/15?.That's not true.So what if the town square is only 5 5 feet? Why the heck would the christians get 25 square feet? Just give everyone one square foot and you can fit 25 different people on.If you really insist on sole ownership (which would probably not stand up in court) then the christians can have it, maybe, ethically . for one year. So long as you don't mind, that is, if the Christian folks get denied the next year, and shuttled into January, so that the atheists can post in December. And the following year the jews get it, and then the muslims, and then the wiccans no Xmas displays for 20 years or so until it's the christians' turn again. Because the christians sure as s*** don't own December. Does that work for you?More realistically you'll split it. You can only have one parade down a given street on a given day, but you can fit as many displays into a space as you want.If the pro-choice folks want to have a parade on the day that Roe vs. Wade was handed down, the pro-life folks don't get the right to join that parade, nor do they have a right to have a parade on the same day and time. Now, if the pro-life folks get their act together enough that they reserve the parade route on that day before the pro-choice folks do, then too bad for the pro-choicers. If the pro-choice folks get their reservation in first, they have exclusive right to the parade route on that day, but the pro-life folks have every right to ask to hold a parade the next weekend.Sure . so long as there aren't government machinations which just so happen to result in the prolifers always winning the parade date. Or the christians always winning the town square around Xmas.Problem is, government stagnates, and it's very hard to change things. Again, i encourage you to test your theory. Find a place with a nice parade say, St. Patrick's Day in Boston and try to get your own parade permit for, hmmm, gay rights.* On the same day, in the same place.Hey, you should have to wait no more than a year, right? I mean, there couldn't be any way that they would deny you and your minority group a right to have a parade, just because some extremely powerful group with a history of doing it wants the spot? Hmm? It's public land, you're public can't you do what you want?Good luck.*Carefully chosen, because AFAIK gay rights groups were denied the ability to march in the St P's parade in boston.

Gwen,Some thoughtful ptoins. I do have a few questions/comments. First, with regards to what you say is a waste of taxpayer money; I'm curious if you have figures as to how much money governments actually spend on Christmas decorations. In the case highlighted in the article Rachel originally referenced the creche was provided for by an outside organization. In my hometown, most of the decorations in the center of town were provided by the local Knights of Columbus. I would presume that a majority of towns are like this.I also do not believe that secularizing the public square necessitates the removal of all religious symbolism, particularly seasonal imagery. This is of course debatable but the notion of full removal of religion from the public sphere seems impractical and implausible. I would argue that secularization (which may be as hard to define as religion) is a lack of compelling public belief; that is a secular society is not one that is devoid of religion or even devoid of religion in the public sphere, but one in which it is easy and reasonable to not believe.And our society is not simply a secular society; it is a secular Latin Christendom, which is markedly different than a secular Muslim society or even a secular Eastern Christendom. So cultural tradition, I believe, can be a compelling government reason for the display of Christmas decorations (not tradition for the sake of tradition, but the sense that the promotion of certain cultural traditions is good for society). Additionally a government can always make a compelling economic argument which would have varying degrees of plausibility depending on the town; but since many town centers are economically depressed due to suburban sprawl and big-box retailers, anything that brings people into the center of town (to see the yearly nativity, for example) can be viewed as a compelling government interest.Again, because religion is so hard to define and our constitution is often frustratingly vague, these questions aren't easy. I think it's beneficial if we think of secularization not as the loss or removal of religion but the addition (and permission by society) of other worldviews.In that way, I would say that your attempt to link public school with public square for purposes of equating similar allowance and proscriptions for religious thought is missing a subtle difference. Is the person who encounters the religious expression unreasonably compelled to conform to the religious views of the expresser? In the case of a teacher expressing them in class, this clearly puts undo pressure on the student to conform or agree with the religious expression because of the nature of the authority. What about a traffic cop who wishes you Merry Christmas ? I think it's possible to perceive that, given his level of authority over you, that you might feel that a non-Christian might get less protection or be treated less fairly if, say, you were driving with a non-Christian religious symbol in windshield. But what about the clerk who wishes you Merry Christmas when you go down to city hall to pay your water bill? Is it reasonable to believe that non-Christians are getting crappier water service? Clearly not. It is not that every religious expression by any government employee is an implicit endorsement of that religion by the government, per se. Or, for a more absurd example, does the town of Corpus Christi, TX have to change it's name because a Pastafarian doesn't like writing the body of Christ on her return address labels?So I would say, does the government allowing (or actively putting) a religious display on public property de facto endorse religion insofar as the average person who encounters it feels compelled by the government to publicly believe or support that religion? I don't know, maybe this is too strict a reading; but I feel that it's better if we think of secularization as the addition of unbelief to the public sphere rather than the subtraction of belief.

Sure. Betcha a dollar that dglefboien would bar the former as part of hisher vision of ‘religion out of the public square'. Fidelbogen?Betcha a dollar it's possible for even Christians to use a public space without sticking up a nativity scene. Just like it's possible for a Christian government worker to not go around wishing everyone a merry Christmas , or for a Christian teacher to avoid putting up a big poster saying Jesus saves or God bless all the little children on it.Some people might have apoplexy, but the failure of the government to provide a platform for religiously-motivated speech doesn't stop anyone from expressing such speech on their own platform.It's not obvious to me that a) there's a problem here that needs any other solution than the one we already haveWell, let's start here. What problem do you think there is here, and what solution do you think we have to keep it from happening?and b) that it's desirable to keep religion out of the public square. Religion is widely believed to be a favorable influence on society in general by society in generalHang on there a tick. Christians in general who make up the majority of the United States think that Christianity in general is a good thing. The students at a particular school may, in general, think that prayer to Our Lord Jesus Christ is a good thing. Heck, people at my high school were probably evenly divided among the people who thought that prayer to the Christian God was a good thing and people who thought that prayer to the Goddess was a good thing.What the majority of folks think is a good thing doesn't get government endorsement automatically. I mean, the trans community would probably have a problem with a giant display talking about How Evil Transvestites Are And People Should Just Stick To How God Made Them on the side of the courthouse, and that's not a very large part of society in general , but I'd bet society in general would agree with the statement.Which isn't to say they'd agree with having it put up but then, neither do many religious people, whether their reason is I believe in separation of church and state , I think religious displays are idol worship, or inviting it , it's tacky , or I think advertizing my religion from every street corner is acting too much like a Pharisee .and that fact that a minority feels differently doesn't mean that religious expression or any other kind of expression should be banned from the public square.And the fact that a minority students would feel left out if the valedictorian was allowed to lead the school in a prayer during the graduation ceremony for the local public high school doesn't mean that she shouldn't be allowed to do so.And the fact that a minority of students would feel like their teacher at that same school might discriminate against them for their political views if their teacher shared his own with them doesn't mean that he shouldn't be prohibited from it.Oh wait public school, it does have to make sure to represent the multiplicity of opinions unless there's a real educational or institutional reason why not. Public school teacher, he does have to keep his discomforting opinions out of the classroom unless there's a pedagogical purpose for having them in.Public square. Hmm, I wonder if there's a connection there.Allowing a public school valedictorian to talk about how God changed her life all she wants during the graduation speech, even though it was against the rules and she knew it, but cutting off the taxpayer-funded microphone and sound system.Keeping public schoolteachers from expressing their religious views during school time on school property, but allowing them to let it all hang out, man, when they're off-duty.Keeping public property free of religious displays and paraphernalia unless there's compelling governmental interest in having it there. Banning religious expression from the public square so that people can't even go through it while wearing a cross pendant, or a hijab, or a turban. Or just banning all theists and otherwise religiously-oriented folks, I'm not exactly sure which strawman you're attacking.One of these things is not like the others .Because the exercise of the right to freedom of expression is far more important than whether or not it makes people feel uncomfortable. God knows that feminism makes lots of people uncomfortable. Should that be the next thing banned from the public square?So you are in favor of my feminism-related dioramas and posters going up. I assume that means you're also O.K. with my evolution display, my bacon-cat statue, my Snape diorama, and of course my monuments to Pluto and to atheism? Not to mention my donkey wrapped in an American flag and my I like vanilla, it's the finest of the flavors poster.Look, if every time someone put up a Ten Commandments tablet we were also allowed to put up The Top Ten Really Evil Things Christians Have Done In The Name Of Their Religion list, and maybe an illuminated Principia Discordia, and the Pastafarian account of creation, and the Top Ten Reasons Why The Moon Is A Government Hoax, and so on, and then you could guarantee that they wouldn't get torn down, run over, painted over, hit with a sledgehammer, set on fire, or exorcised, I doubt you'd get quite so much opposition. As it is, though, the response to all or nothing seems to be Christianity! (and maybe Judaism too) , which, obviously, isn't a valid answer, no matter how a big a majority thinks that Judeo-Christianity , whatever that is, is an integral part of our national identity and no matter how small the minority made to feel like second-class citizens because of it. All could get a little bit crowded, and unless the government really wants to have flat-earth dioramas and Have You Accepted The Love of Severus Snape Into Your Heart posters on every available surface, there'd have to be moderation beyond no attacking people or groups directly , and that could, obviously, get sticky. Has gotten sticky, with the moderation most of these towns and public schools seem to have, i.e., rubberstamp Christians and Jews and then deny the Pastafarians their tasteful FSM light display, or look the other way when vandals destroy the Wiccan pentacle-wreaths and then declare that it's too much of a hassle, nothing religious allowed because then we'd have to let all the other religions put up displays too.

GPnkSF smpztaepdlas

A4QuHx , [url=http://huzagqtzunaz.com/]huzagqtzunaz[/url], [link=http://zhtipelwxhyk.com/]zhtipelwxhyk[/link], http://jfyrptxydzbs.com/

fWSbBd mgtnoasthxtb

1yHFdX , [url=http://loaugqkspesq.com/]loaugqkspesq[/url], [link=http://mvqzegqgnicp.com/]mvqzegqgnicp[/link], http://elkgyueykdzv.com/