A Nativity Scene in a public building violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from aiding any religion over another. This isn�t about whether or not someone finds a nativity scene or a Festivus pole offensive; it�s about separation of church and State.

A Nativity Scene in a public building violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the Constitution, which prohibits the government from aiding any religion over another.

Washington State is not "Congress."

Washington State is not Congress, you are right; but the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to cover all branches of government, not only the legislative.

Washington State is not Congress, you are right; but the Establishment Clause has been interpreted to cover all branches of government, not only the legislative.

I disagree with that. The First Amendment specifically binds Congress, not the several states. Contrary to the erroneous opinions of the Supreme Court, there is nothing in the 14th Amendment which makes the Bill of Rights apply to any of the states. This phony "incorporation doctrine" didn't even come about until the 20th century, long after the 14th Amendment had been ratified.

As such, the Federal government has no jurisdiction here and this case has no business being before any Federal court.

Look, you can disagree all you want. That's the way it's been interpreted and until you become a Supreme Court Justice, that's the way it's going to be. A Nativity Scene in front of a public building violates the Establishment Clause and that's the end of that.

Look, you can disagree all you want. That's the way it's been interpreted and until you become a Supreme Court Justice, that's the way it's going to be.

I don't have to be a Supreme Court justice in order to be correct. The Supreme Court has been wrong in the past (e.g. Plessy v. Ferguson) and they're wrong on this. In fact, they're overstepping their constitutional authority. This will change only when A) we start electing officials to our state governments who have the courage to tell the Court to shove it, or B) we elect people to the U.S. Senate who have the courage to impeach these justices for their usurpations. Either way, my interpretation is still correct. I don't have to be elected to anything to understand why their interpretation is twisted and idiotic. The plain text of the document speaks for itself.

A Nativity Scene in front of a public building violates the Establishment Clause and that's the end of that.

How is having a nativity scene the same as having a tax-supported state church?

This will be the last post I make on this thread because unlike you, I do not have unlimited time to devote to arguing circles.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean that the Federal Government, and the States via tie 14th Amendment, cannot establish a religion or advocate one religion over another. A nativity scene in a public building does exactly that. If you don't want to see it, then you need to look closer, because it could not be any clearer.

This will be the last post I make on this thread because unlike you, I do not have unlimited time to devote to arguing circles.

Nor do I, but then again this discussion isn't so difficult that it takes me more than a few minutes to make a decent response. And I'm not arguing in circles. I'm not the one repeating the same arguments over and over. Your entire response up to this point has been, "Well this is the case because the Supreme Court says so." That's not an argument. In fact, it's pretty insulting to those of us who have actually taken the time to study this issue in depth and make a reasonable response in kind.

The Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean that the Federal Government, and the States via tie 14th Amendment, cannot establish a religion or advocate one religion over another.

You're repeating yourself. Anyone who has taken Constitutional Law knows this. But like I said before, I disagree with the Supreme Court's conclusion. They're wrong. Even if the 14th Amendment were to bind the Bill of Rights to the states (it doesn't), it still doesn't change the fact that the First Amendment specifically applies to Congress alone. You have yet to show me anything in the 14th Amendment which explictly says as much.

A nativity scene in a public building does exactly that. If you don't want to see it, then you need to look closer, because it could not be any clearer.

You never answered my previous question. And no, it's not clear at all that the First Amendment prohibits a nativity scene. Seriously, have you ever studied the history behind the Establishment Clause? The term "establishment" specifically refers to a tax-supported state church. A nativity scene is not a tax-supported state church. It may be an expression of religion, but it is definitely not an establishment of religion. Those are two very different concepts.

That's certainly not hate speech. Hate would be: "You're all morons and I hope you die! DIE! DIIIIIE!!!"
Why shouldn't atheists be allowed their viewpoint? They're mostly silenced anyway. ("The placard is often turned around so the message can't be seen, and one year, someone threw acid on it, forcing the group to encase it in Plexiglas." And people often call in to complain and attempt to get such things pulled from the public sphere.) Which causes them to grow more drastic and for some people to take it a little too far. (I personally don't think that that is the case for this.)
Why not allow it next to a nativity scene? What harm are they really doing? It's not like they threw acid on the nativity scene or beheaded Jesus. They're allowing it to be there. They haven't harmed it.
I like this line from the article: "If I can see a placard with dead fetuses on it, I think someone can look at our question and just think about it."
However, I personally wouldn't do something like this. I'm a little too passive. I believe that if religion makes people happy, then they can go for it (until they try to put it in schools and the like) and I don't always agree with a direct approach with protesting religions.
I've grown up around Christmas like all Americans. All have, no matter their religion. You get used to it. It becomes a normal, American thing. But, is it so bad to break through that normalcy? I'm not saying that it's not disrespectful because surely people will see it as such since it is against religion, which people hold very close to their hearts, but why allow other religions to voice their opinions, but not allow atheists to voice their opinions? Why should atheists be silenced? Because they don't agree with religion? No one worries about upsetting an atheist.

Oh and Madeline Rain's comment about separation of church and state made me flash back to my high school graduation.
Here we all are, sitting outside and rehearsing our graduation ceremony and our principal was giving a little speech. To end it he said:
"Forget separation of church and state, God bless you all!"
Forget separation of church and state? That is NOT something a principal should be saying.

Forget separation of church and state? That is NOT something a principal should be saying.

srsly. Separation of church and state is a joke these days, though.. just look at the numerous faith-based initiatives in place. Ugh..

Im not a fan of this type of news, I am only 13. However I myself AM athiest, and agree to what they are doing. Why shouldn't they publicly post their opinions? I have nothing against other religions and what not, but I personally do not belong to one, nor do I believe in them. Or god, for that matter.
I think it's fine, what their doing. Then again, I'm in Canada. Does my opinon count? haha :P

I saw this on the local news. I love WA. :p

Did you hear about the Christmas trees in the SEATAC airport?
A rabbi asked that menorah's be added to the airport, and instead of adding them along with the trees, they took all the trees down. And people were PISSED.

I really dislike this part of religion. WHY CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALOOOOONG?

"If there can be a Nativity scene saying that we are all going to hell if we don't bow down to Jesus, we should be at the table to share our views."

Umm...since when does a nativity scene say that anyone is going to hell? Even Jewish people see Jesus as a prophet...his birth does not condemn anyone. This guy sounds overly-defensive and angry, which makes me believe his intentions weren't just to "represent" another belief.

I'd be angry if I were him too considering that it's being displayed outside of a government building, something that's clearly unconstitutional...

I missed something.. what nativity scene has that on it?

Wait, what? We do? Where is Jesus in the old testament?

I don't get shit like this... I'm an atheist, but I love Christmas. I'm even going to go to Midnight Mass on Xmas Eve cos I love singing carols, and just the whole tradition of it.
I don't see Christmas as a religious festival, I see it as a part of our culture that is pretty damn amazing. I love Christmas =)

Yeah I agree about the Christmas no longer having much to do with religion... seems to revolve entirely around materialism these days.

While I realise many athiests celebrate Christmas, I have to say I have more respect for those who don't. I have a friend who's whole family are athiests. So rather than appear hypocritical, they don't eat Christmas dinner on Christmas day (they go out for a curry instead), and they send winter solstice cards instead of Christmas cards.

And while you're perfectly entitled to enjoy Christmas as a tradition rather than a religious festival, I have to admit I find it a little weird that you would go to church and sing carols, when you don't believe in what they are saying. I do find that a little hypocritical.

Celebration of something I enjoy celebrating is hardly hypocritical. Consider the Christians' celebration of holidays that aren't Christian such as Halloween. Or hell, Christmas. ;)

Actually many Christians DON'T celebrate Halloween. The church I went to growing up used to be very anti-Halloween. And while these days I'll put on a fancy dress costume and go to a party... it's hardly the same as singing songs or praying to someone I don't believe in, about something I don't believe in.

And if you read what I said, I did actually say I accept that athiests will celebrate Christmas for the tradition of it (and that it isn't all about religion anymore). I just think going to mass and singing the carols or saying prayers is going a little too far. Just my personal opinion though.

Actually many Christians DON'T celebrate Halloween. The church I went to growing up used to be very anti-Halloween. And while these days I'll put on a fancy dress costume and go to a party... it's hardly the same as singing songs or praying to someone I don't believe in, about something I don't believe in.

This is correct. I don't celebrate Halloween myself (I celebrate Reformation Day instead), but I don't rain on the parade of those folks who do. Plenty of people wish me a "happy Halloween," but I don't get offended by it simply because I understand that those sentiments are just indicative of the culture in which I live.

Actually many Christians DON'T celebrate Halloween.

And this is entirely NOT true. All over the place, here in the United States anyway, I see signs at churches advertising a HALLOWEEN PARTY every year.

So in actuality, MANY MANY Christians "celebrate" Halloween.

Actually it's entirely true in the UK. Most British churches are pretty anti-Halloween. Obviously, being British, I cannot comment on American Christians, although I'm aware of at least a few American Christians on Bloop who don't celebrate Halloween.