Monday, December 19, 2011

Fletch Thousands Rally to Save Nativity Scene



It's about time.
I think Christians and Conservatives are getting sick of Liberal Politically Correct rubbish and aren't taking it lying down any more: case in point - an Atheist group complained that someone in a Texas town had been offended by that town's nativity scene and wanted it taken down. Around 5000 people turned up to support the nativity, and the Texan Attorney General also talked tough, saying that they wouldn't bow to pressure from such Atheist groups. 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group based in Wisconsin, sent a letter to Henderson County explaining that a local resident had complained and they wanted the Nativity removed from the courthouse lawn.
The FFRF alleged that the Nativity sent a message of intimidation and exclusion to non-Christians.
But their attack prompted a tremendous outcry not just in Henderson County, but across the nation.
The Texas Attorney General offered to defend the county in the event the atheists sued, arguing that the county has no legal obligation to remove the Nativity scene from the courthouse grounds.
“Our message to the atheists is don’t mess with Texas and our Nativity scenes or the Ten Commandments,” Attorney General Greg Abbott told Fox News & Commentary. “I want the Freedom From Religion Foundation to know that our office has a history of defending religious displays in this state.”
Attorney General Abbott said the organization is trying to “bully local governmental bodies” and he said he wanted to make sure Henderson County knows “there is a person, a lawyer and an organization in this state that has their back, that has the law, that has the muscle and firepower to go toe-to-toe with these organizations that come from out of state trying to bully governmental bodies into tearing down things like Nativity scenes.”
MORE

19 comment(s):

KG said...

Good stuff! :) And about time.

Lucia Maria said...

Fantastic!

Aidesthekiwi said...

The problem is not that the Nativity scene is up, but that it is on the courthouse grounds, thereby breaking their own constitutional seperation of church and state.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation, and other secular groups, couldn't care less if it was on personal property or on church grounds.

Andrei said...

thereby breaking their own constitutional seperation of church and state

Wrong my friend - this is a distortion that is a recent aberration introduced by fundamentalist atheists.

Separation of Church and State means the Government cannot dictate how a Church worships or which Church a citizen worships in.

It does not mean the Church cannot participate in public life or that religious symbolism is barred from public property

Psycho Milt said...

Separation of church and state also means the state doesn't get to impose one religion's beliefs on non-believers - for example, by putting a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn. Or at least, that's what it's supposed to mean, but what those jerks at the Supreme Court know?

Andrei said...

Wrong again PM - of course the culture war is reflected in the supreme court and when it has been dominated by Liberals new "rights" have been found in the constitution "rights" which would astonish the founding fathers.

Be that as it may non believers do not have a "right" to impose their silliness and foolishness on others.

In a democracy the voters choose and given a courthouse lawn is property of the county if the majority of voters in that county are happy to have or want a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn then a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is not only appropriate but desirable - and the foolish atheist minority just have to suck on it.

Aidesthekiwi said...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." - First Ammendment

Ok, it doesn't specify that religious symbolism is barred from public property.
It could be argued though that having it there is, at the very least, a state promotion for a single religion.
This may in itself not be against the letter of the law (I'd have to read way too many supreme court rulings to get the precedents, so I can't be definitive) but it certainly skirts very close to it.

Andrei said...

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

That is so simple and unambiguous, it says nothing about nativity scenes, replicas of the ten commandments or religious parades - not a thing.

It says the Government cannot tell you which church to go to or that you even have to go to church - personal choice

And it says the Government cannot tell Churches what their doctrine should be or how to organize themselves - The Government cannot tell the Catholic church it has to ordain women for example. Not hard.

Nor is the supreme court infallible my friend, it has made some diabolical decisions over the years for example Dred Scott

KG said...

"It could be argued though that having it there is, at the very least, a state promotion for a single religion."
It's no such thing.
How about universities being forced to provide prayer rooms for muslims and employers being required to allow them to pray five times a day at their place of employment?
I don't see militant atheists protesting those things. Funny, that.

Aidesthekiwi said...

"How about universities being forced to provide prayer rooms for muslims and employers being required to allow them to pray five times a day at their place of employment?
I don't see militant atheists protesting those things."

To that I'd have to say you're just not looking hard enough.

"Nor is the supreme court infallible my friend, it has made some diabolical decisions over the years for example Dred Scott"

Interesting you have to go to a ruling from 1857 to make the point. It being a time, which our own history shows, was less than egalitarian at the best of times.

Andrei said...

Interesting you have to go to a ruling from 1857 to make the point. It being a time, which our own history shows, was less than egalitarian at the best of times.

No I simply chose an obvious case that everybody agrees was very bad, so as not to derail this thread

Psycho Milt said...

In a democracy the voters choose and given a courthouse lawn is property of the county if the majority of voters in that county are happy to have or want a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn then a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn is not only appropriate but desirable - and the foolish atheist minority just have to suck on it.

1. Not the "atheist" minority, any minority with a religion that doesn't involve nativity scenes, which is all of them except Christianity.

2. In a democracy with no constitution, your "tyranny of the majority" view of this would be correct. However, the USA has a constitution specifically for the purpose of avoiding tyranny of the majority. Or at least, it's supposed to - apparently, Texas is an exception and whatever the govt "has the muscle and firepower" to achieve is what goes.

Andrei said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrei said...

Milt - most people are pretty much give and take, I don't get into a lather about Jewish symbolism, Hindu symbolism and no Jew or Hindu I ever met was particularly put out by Nativity scenes - the vast majority of people I ever met like them actually = regardless of religious opinion.

On the other hand in a complete display of leftist double standards try banning a Gay Pride parade - something which offends many and all the shouters are out claiming human rights violations

Psycho Milt said...

It's not a matter of whether people are offended or not, it's a matter of what the constitution says the state is allowed to do, and promoting one religion over another is pretty clearly on the "not" list.

And re Gay Pride parades, I expect that if they wanted to hold one on the courthouse lawn, permission wouldn't be granted.

Andrei said...

According to your reasoning Milt this should be unconstitutional - Good luck with making that case

David Winter said...

Yup, nothing promotes one religion over another like letting soldier's memorials reflect which ever religion (or, in fact, irreligion) it is they happen to follow...

leftrightout said...

Andrei said...
According to your reasoning Milt this should be unconstitutional - Good luck with making that case

12:13 PM, December 22, 2011


Well, it would be, but the US constitution does not apply to France.

Perhaps you'd like to argue that crosses should mark graves in the Arlington National Cemetery. Good luck with making THAT case!

I.M Fletcher said...

ps, regarding 'separation of church and state', there is more info here - http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=123

If you follow where the term (separation of Church and State) came from, it is not from the Constitution, but from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson had commented on this subject to others in the past -

[N]o power over the freedom of religion . . . [is] delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Kentucky Resolution, 1798 [3]

In matters of religion, I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the general [federal] government. Second Inaugural Address, 1805 [4]

[O]ur excellent Constitution . . . has not placed our religious rights under the power of any public functionary. Letter to the Methodist Episcopal Church, 1808 [5]

I consider the government of the United States as interdicted [prohibited] by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions . . . or exercises. Letter to Samuel Millar, 1808 [6]


In the end, if you read the whole article, "Separation of Church and State" means exactly the opposite of what many today believe.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.