NationStates Jolt Archive


Are Christmas plays illegal?

Zilam
21-12-2005, 20:45
I was just thinking, if the gov't can't sponsor specific religions, then why are schools putting on christmas plays?

Lets get some legal discussion
Balipo
21-12-2005, 20:54
Technically they are illegal, yes...unless they have a holiday play that celebrates all major holidays...or do Frosty the Snowman or something, technically no X-mas related.

Then again...the pledge is technically illegal as it says under god, so is use of currency as it says In God We Trust.
Iztatepopotla
21-12-2005, 20:55
They should be banned, but not on religious grounds, just for being boring as hell.
Anarchic Christians
21-12-2005, 20:55
Load of crap. Nativity plays performed by anyone younger than required by the part should be broken up with tear-gas.
Balipo
21-12-2005, 20:56
I disagree. Since they are usually put on by little people that fall and mess up lines a lot, I find them highly entertaining.
Iztatepopotla
21-12-2005, 20:58
I disagree. Since they are usually put on by little people that fall and mess up lines a lot, I find them highly entertaining.
Substitute with midget wrestling and it will be far far more entertaining.
Anarchic Christians
21-12-2005, 21:01
I disagree. Since they are usually put on by little people that fall and mess up lines a lot, I find them highly entertaining.

OK, I'll amend that. If any and all singing is done by those able to keep a tune and beat at the same time then the play may continue under careful supervision.
Desperate Measures
21-12-2005, 21:04
I was just thinking, if the gov't can't sponsor specific religions, then why are schools putting on christmas plays?

Lets get some legal discussion
What schools are putting on Christmas plays? Which plays?
Chellis
21-12-2005, 21:06
They aren't illegal unless kids are being pushed to be in it. Just like christian clubs at schools, etc.

Most of the play's at my school are student run, however, so it might be different wherever you are.
Eruantalon
21-12-2005, 21:08
Pffft, arguing over Christmas plays. Americans are so uptight!
Gargantua City State
21-12-2005, 21:11
I find the whole idea of discussing the legality of anything Christmasy totally ridiculous.
If you don't like Christmas, boycott it. ALL of it.
It frustrates me that people feel the need to change the names of things: i.e., Christmas Tree = Holiday Tree.
No. It's for Christmas. Last time I checked, the holiday name of Christmas is still what people call it. It's not a tree for all of the holidays, year round.
political correctness is total b.s.
Desperate Measures
21-12-2005, 21:17
I find the whole idea of discussing the legality of anything Christmasy totally ridiculous.
If you don't like Christmas, boycott it. ALL of it.
It frustrates me that people feel the need to change the names of things: i.e., Christmas Tree = Holiday Tree.
No. It's for Christmas. Last time I checked, the holiday name of Christmas is still what people call it. It's not a tree for all of the holidays, year round.
political correctness is total b.s.
Why care about what a person calls a tree they erect in their house once a year?
Avika
21-12-2005, 21:17
I find the whole idea of discussing the legality of anything Christmasy totally ridiculous.
If you don't like Christmas, boycott it. ALL of it.
It frustrates me that people feel the need to change the names of things: i.e., Christmas Tree = Holiday Tree.
No. It's for Christmas. Last time I checked, the holiday name of Christmas is still what people call it. It's not a tree for all of the holidays, year round.
political correctness is total b.s.
Indeed. Well, if people get to boycott Christian holidays, then I should be able to boycott Jewish, Hindu, Islamic, secular, etc. holidays. How's them apples?
I also hate the "there is no attempt to attack Christmas" bs. O'reilly showed proof that there is. Crappy proof, but proof none-the-less. How many liberals showed proof that there isn't? If you don't have proof, don't expect people to believe you when the people who disagree with you showed proof that they're right. Plus, "holiday tree" really is bs. Fine cal it a holiday tree. I then get to say that Jews use holiday candle holders and use holiday tops for their Decmeber holiday.
Anarchic Christians
21-12-2005, 21:25
How many liberals showed proof that there isn't?

So, are you still beating your wife?

Do you have WMD's in your backyard?

And, for the record, Liberal means 'in favour of liberty'. Let's use words in ways that make sense eh?
Kinda Sensible people
21-12-2005, 21:28
I was just thinking, if the gov't can't sponsor specific religions, then why are schools putting on christmas plays?

Lets get some legal discussion


Depends on the context and the play.

If it's put on by students who participate by choice and aren't receiving a grade for it's instruction, or if it is being used as an educational device for which no other play can substitute (say for comparitive religion, or an example of a certain type of theatre) then even a nativity scene is fine.

If it's a required performance, it's full 'o shit, legally.
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 21:44
I was just thinking, if the gov't can't sponsor specific religions, then why are schools putting on christmas plays?

Lets get some legal discussion

Because despite what people with their own agendas tell you, there is absolutely nothing illegal about a Christmas play. There are several special interests that spread the myth that it is illegal and a number of schools and school districts have gotten caught up in the politically correctness. There are now major legal resources that will intervene on your behalf in cases where school districts and workplaces attempt to place these illegal bans on things such as christmas plays, nativiety scenes, christmas music, wearing of a cross or other religous symbols. The list goes on. Fortunately for us all, these people are very few in numbers, and those that will gladly protect the freedom of religion are finally waking up.

Personally, I think it is all kind of silly, but I fear a world where minions of whinning leftists are able to dictate what a community can do, and what it cannot.
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 21:51
And, for the record, Liberal means 'in favour of liberty'. Let's use words in ways that make sense eh?

or morally unrestrained depending on where you look.
Kinda Sensible people
21-12-2005, 21:51
Because despite what people with their own agendas tell you, there is absolutely nothing illegal about a Christmas play. There are several special interests that spread the myth that it is illegal and a number of schools and school districts have gotten caught up in the politically correctness. There are now major legal resources that will intervene on your behalf in cases where school districts and workplaces attempt to place these illegal bans on things such as christmas plays, nativiety scenes, christmas music, wearing of a cross or other religous symbols. The list goes on. Fortunately for us all, these people are very few in numbers, and those that will gladly protect the freedom of religion are finally waking up.

Personally, I think it is all kind of silly, but I fear a world where minions of whinning leftists are able to dictate what a community can do, and what it cannot.

It's fine for PRIVATE citizens to do whatever they want in regards to religion. The problem is that GOVERNMENT agencies should not and cannot. A community may do whatever the hell it likes, a school however, may not. The issue here is not "whining leftists" making war upon the christian right of beleif (as much as Conservative pundits like to say otherwise) the issue is the militant right attempting to continue a tradition of making the government push THEIR religious agenda.

There are plenty of organizations that will protect your right to religious expression however, I'd like to point you at the ACLU as one of the best for that particular issue. They also prevent the government from breaking it's own law and forcing every student to acknowledge a christian ritual. Best of both worlds, eh? You get your rights and I get mine.
Zilam
21-12-2005, 21:52
Oh thanks for the feedback..I was just thinking about this last night..Not that I am in favor of taking it out..but i was just wondering...
Zilam
21-12-2005, 21:54
or morally unrestrained depending on where you look.


And from certain viewpoint, conservatives are greedy, materialistic, uptight bastards? :D
UpwardThrust
21-12-2005, 21:55
or morally unrestrained depending on where you look.
And where is that?
Zilam
21-12-2005, 21:56
Wait another thought....Why is christmas a government holiday? Isn't that wrong??? I don't see the gov't shutting down for oh.... Yom Kippur or something like that...hrmmm
Kinda Sensible people
21-12-2005, 22:00
Wait another thought....Why is christmas a government holiday? Isn't that wrong??? I don't see the gov't shutting down for oh.... Yom Kippur or something like that...hrmmm


Well legally speaking, it probably oughtn't to be, but in reality, whether or not the government acknowledges it, December 25th will see the shut down of most major industry and government agencies (if for no reason other than that individuals will take the day off).


Besides which, would YOU say no to a free day off? :p
Zilam
21-12-2005, 22:01
Well legally speaking, it probably oughtn't to be, but in reality, whether or not the government acknowledges it, December 25th will see the shut down of most major industry and government agencies (if for no reason other than that individuals will take the day off).


Besides which, would YOU say no to a free day off? :p


Yeah thats true...
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 22:12
It's fine for PRIVATE citizens to do whatever they want in regards to religion. The problem is that GOVERNMENT agencies should not and cannot. A community may do whatever the hell it likes, a school however, may not. The issue here is not "whining leftists" making war upon the christian right of beleif (as much as Conservative pundits like to say otherwise) the issue is the militant right attempting to continue a tradition of making the government push THEIR religious agenda.

There are plenty of organizations that will protect your right to religious expression however, I'd like to point you at the ACLU as one of the best for that particular issue. They also prevent the government from breaking it's own law and forcing every student to acknowledge a christian ritual. Best of both worlds, eh? You get your rights and I get mine.


The issue was by my understanding was is it illegal. The answer is no it is not illegal despite what certain groups would have you believe. I have a problem with groups that mislead and misrepresent the laws regardless of their intentions or beliefs. If by chance they are able to get their views of the world transfered into established law, more power to them. Until such time however, I will continue to applaud any and all efforts to stop their misrepresentations presented as "truth" or as, "the law".
It is highly unfortunate, however, some groups just cannot seem to grasp that the way one goes about getting laws and policies enacted in their favor, has absolutely everything to do with their very credibility.
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 22:13
And where is that?

The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48
Eruantalon
21-12-2005, 22:17
I also hate the "there is no attempt to attack Christmas" bs. O'reilly showed proof that there is. Crappy proof, but proof none-the-less. How many liberals showed proof that there isn't?
Conservatives are evil. They're trying to steal Christmas from liberals.

Seriously, most liberals like Christmas. A recent poll on this mostly liberal forum proved it.

or morally unrestrained depending on where you look.
From an authoritarian perspective, perhaps. From my perspective, laissez-faire capitalism is "morally unrestrained" but that is neither here nor there in this topic.
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 22:21
Conservatives are evil. They're trying to steal Christmas from liberals.

Seriously, most liberals like Christmas. A recent poll on this mostly liberal forum proved it.


From an authoritarian perspective, perhaps. From my perspective, laissez-faire capitalism is "morally unrestrained" but that is neither here nor there in this topic.

Actually when you get right down to it, they are all morally unrestrained in some form or manner. To the best of my knowledge no one has ever found middle ground and gotten everyone to agree to stay on it. I doubt they ever will, but it would surely be something to behold.
Zilam
21-12-2005, 22:25
here's a thought..related to christmas.. Pres. Bush should dress up the NSA agents at santa claus, so that way they can't be in trouble when trying to find out who is naughty and nice. (i thought of that ALLL by myself)
Kinda Sensible people
21-12-2005, 22:31
The issue was by my understanding was is it illegal. The answer is no it is not illegal despite what certain groups would have you believe. I have a problem with groups that mislead and misrepresent the laws regardless of their intentions or beliefs. If by chance they are able to get their views of the world transfered into established law, more power to them. Until such time however, I will continue to applaud any and all efforts to stop their misrepresentations presented as "truth" or as, "the law".
It is highly unfortunate, however, some groups just cannot seem to grasp that the way one goes about getting laws and policies enacted in their favor, has absolutely everything to do with their very credibility.

Because there's no clause in the 1st Ammendmant that states that say the government can't establish a religion. Right... :rolleyes:

Listen, the first ammendmant and it's intentions are pretty clear. Nobody, and that means nobody, gets to force the government to encourage their beleifs. So play nice now...
Zilam
21-12-2005, 22:36
Listen, the first ammendmant and it's intentions are pretty clear. Nobody, and that means nobody, gets to force the government to encourage their beleifs. So play nice now...


Then why do atheist get to? Just wondering and trying to be fair
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 22:41
Because there's no clause in the 1st Ammendmant that states that say the government can't establish a religion. Right... :rolleyes:

Listen, the first ammendmant and it's intentions are pretty clear. Nobody, and that means nobody, gets to force the government to encourage their beleifs. So play nice now...

Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that a christmas play in a kids school establishes a state sponsored religion? That is just plain nuts to even try and pawn off on people and perhaps the very reason no one has been quite numb enough to get the supreme court to address it.
Like I said though, if you can get it established as the law of the land more power to you. Just do it right and within the law and I have no problem with it. Misrepresent the law and make false claims as to it being the law and I am going to have a problem with it until the end. Hell, I am not even religious.
Kinda Sensible people
21-12-2005, 22:53
Exactly how do you come to the conclusion that a christmas play in a kids school establishes a state sponsored religion? That is just plain nuts to even try and pawn off on people and perhaps the very reason no one has been quite numb enough to get the supreme court to address it.
Like I said though, if you can get it established as the law of the land more power to you. Just do it right and within the law and I have no problem with it. Misrepresent the law and make false claims as to it being the law and I am going to have a problem with it until the end. Hell, I am not even religious.

Bull-fucking-shit. There is an establishment every time the government gives a nod to the existence OR lack of existence of a god. Establishment is in the fucking constitution and the actions of a state or representative of the government (public schools included) are violations of that. It's fair, if they're willing to either acknowledge either no religions or all religions with their christmas play (think on that one for a minute...). Otherwise, it is establishment in the most blatant.

I don't need to get a law passed because it's been around as long as the current government of the U.S. (even if it's also been ignored).

Then why do atheist get to? Just wondering and trying to be fair

Atheists don't. Do you see the government saying "One nation not under god because there is no god" or "In the lack of god we trust" or putting on shows that states that there IS no god? Nope. That would be an establishment of religion and it would be wrong. Secularism just says that no one has the right to use the government to force their beleif system off on someone else.
Myrmidonisia
21-12-2005, 23:14
In a saner moment, the 10th circuit court ruled (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/NEWS01/512210407/1008/NEWS01)that the display of the ten commandments was not an unconstitutional act. The point of the decision was that the "court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions." Certainly a reasonable person can extrapolate this decision to school plays and see that the school isn't trying to teach religion.

As an added benefit, the judge that wrote the opinion told the ACLU to kiss off.

A federal appeals court has upheld a display of the Ten Commandments alongside other historical documents in the Mercer County, Ky., courthouse.

The judge who wrote the opinion blasted the American Civil Liberties Union, which challenged the display, in language that echoed the type of criticism often directed at the organization.

Judge Richard Suhrheinrich's ruling said the ACLU brought "tiresome" arguments about the "wall of separation" between church and state, and it said the organization does not represent a "reasonable person."
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 23:18
Bull-fucking-shit.

I don't need to get a law passed because it's been around as long as the current government of the U.S. (even if it's also been ignored).


My thoughts exactly. Well, that and you are full of prunes. I am sorry, but by my way of thinking it is a stretch (of biblical proportions!) to equate a childs play, a teacher wearing a cross around her neck, a nativity scene, having a christmas tree in the lobby, so on and so forth as the establisment of the official governmentally endorsed religion for the United States of America. The very attempt to present it as such borders on lunacy. That said, however, you will in fact have to get it before the supreme court and get them to endorse your position before any credibility can be given to attempts to portray your preference as law. Like it or not, that is the fact of the matter.
Liverbreath
21-12-2005, 23:33
In a saner moment, the 10th circuit court ruled (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/NEWS01/512210407/1008/NEWS01)that the display of the ten commandments was not an unconstitutional act. The point of the decision was that the "court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions." Certainly a reasonable person can extrapolate this decision to school plays and see that the school isn't trying to teach religion.

As an added benefit, the judge that wrote the opinion told the ACLU to kiss off.

Thanks for the post! To expand on your quote a bit, this speaks volumes.

"Suhrheinrich wrote that a court has to decide whether a "reasonable person" would find that a government display endorses religion, not whether someone finds it offensive. He said the ACLU "does not embody the reasonable person."

I believe fringe groups will be devastated if this is upheld.
Myrmidonisia
21-12-2005, 23:42
Thanks for the post! To expand on your quote a bit, this speaks volumes.

"Suhrheinrich wrote that a court has to decide whether a "reasonable person" would find that a government display endorses religion, not whether someone finds it offensive. He said the ACLU "does not embody the reasonable person."

I believe fringe groups will be devastated if this is upheld.
I really hope this is a first step in the return to common sense.
The Cat-Tribe
22-12-2005, 02:41
Personally, I think it is all kind of silly, but I fear a world where minions of whinning leftists are able to dictate what a community can do, and what it cannot.

Yep. I'd hate to live in a country with a Constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Cat-Tribe
22-12-2005, 02:46
In a saner moment, the 10th circuit court ruled (http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051221/NEWS01/512210407/1008/NEWS01)that the display of the ten commandments was not an unconstitutional act. The point of the decision was that the "court recognizes that the Constitution does not require that we strip the public square of all vestiges of our religious heritage and traditions." Certainly a reasonable person can extrapolate this decision to school plays and see that the school isn't trying to teach religion.

As an added benefit, the judge that wrote the opinion told the ACLU to kiss off.

Um, it was the 6th Circuit and not the 10th.

And, as even your slanted article points out, the Supreme Court has already ruled that nearly identical displays were unconsitutional.

How does one teach "our religious heritage" in a school play about the birth of Jesus without teaching religious beliefs?
New Genoa
22-12-2005, 02:49
I was unaware that schools are Congress because I'm pretty sure it says "Congress shall make no law..." And if you *seriously* think it's encouraging religion or *forcing* it, then you're full of shit. You *don't* have to go to the god damn play, jesus christ, people. But of course, liberals just love pushing petty litigation.
The Cat-Tribe
22-12-2005, 02:53
I was unaware that schools are Congress because I'm pretty sure it says "Congress shall make no law..." And if you *seriously* think it's encouraging religion or *forcing* it, then you're full of shit. You *don't* have to go to the god damn play, jesus christ, people. But of course, liberals just love pushing petty litigation.

The 14th Amendment makes the 1st Amendment applicable to state and local institutions, like schools. Nice try.

You don't have to "force" religion to be unconstitutional. The government must remain neutral.

But, of course, conservatives like to belittle the Bill of Rights as petty.
New Genoa
22-12-2005, 02:57
It's frivolous litigation, I don't see why the hell people are so offended by a volitional act. Should we ban "A Christmas Carol" because it has the word "christmas" in it or because it makes references to religion? Cmon, stop wetting your panties over this. But whatever, you're a lawyer...more money for you.
Funky Evil
22-12-2005, 03:01
ok. all you people who said schools shouldn't be able to hold christmax plays, take a deep breath. now walk over to your window. and jump out.

what is your goddamn problem? Are yo so easily offended that santa claus gives you internal bleeding? Do you suffer a stroke when somebody (the nerve) wishes you a very merry christmas?

honeslty. what goes throught those tiny, politically correct, overly-sensitive brains?
Keruvalia
22-12-2005, 03:01
I was unaware that schools are Congress because I'm pretty sure it says "Congress shall make no law..."

The 14th Amendment holds States to the Bill of Rights and State money funds public schools. Hence, public schools are held to the same standards as Congress.

Why do you think a Federal judge recently declared that teaching ID in school is unConstitutional? (Cat Tribe beat me to it ... as usual)

Anyway, that said, most Christmas plays done in public schools are about Santa, not Jesus. Nothing religious about Santa.


But of course, liberals just love pushing petty litigation.

The same "petty legislation" that protects my children from being forced to pray to Jesus in school is the same "petty legislation" that protects your children from being forced to bow 5 times a day towards Mecca in school.

Do you *really* want to remove this "petty legislation"?
The Cat-Tribe
22-12-2005, 03:03
It's frivolous litigation, I don't see why the hell people are so offended by a volitional act. Should we ban "A Christmas Carol" because it has the word "christmas" in it or because it makes references to religion? Cmon, stop wetting your panties over this. But whatever, you're a lawyer...more money for you.

Um, what litigation are you referring to as frivolous? You are the only one that thinks this is being litigated.

And nice job of attacking a strawman and using an ad hominem attack.
Kinda Sensible people
22-12-2005, 03:06
It's frivolous litigation, I don't see why the hell people are so offended by a volitional act. Should we ban "A Christmas Carol" because it has the word "christmas" in it or because it makes references to religion? Cmon, stop wetting your panties over this. But whatever, you're a lawyer...more money for you.

Demagouge much? It's one thing to ban the GOVERNMENT from showing religious or anti-religious bias, your personal life has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. There's a huge difference, and when you cast them as the same you are making it clear you refuse to listen to reason on the issue.
The Cat-Tribe
22-12-2005, 03:11
ok. all you people who said schools shouldn't be able to hold christmax plays, take a deep breath. now walk over to your window. and jump out.

what is your goddamn problem? Are yo so easily offended that santa claus gives you internal bleeding? Do you suffer a stroke when somebody (the nerve) wishes you a very merry christmas?

honeslty. what goes throught those tiny, politically correct, overly-sensitive brains?

I have never said schools cannot or should not have Christmas plays.

Nice strawman.
Novoga
22-12-2005, 04:04
This is the most pointless thread ever.
OceanDrive3
22-12-2005, 04:28
Pffft, arguing over Christmas plays. Americans are so uptight!since some big US Corporations have forbidden employees ... to ever say the words "Merry Christmas"... Nothing surprises me anymore...

"Only in Amerika" ...sounds about rite.


.
Myrmidonisia
22-12-2005, 12:33
Um, it was the 6th Circuit and not the 10th.

And, as even your slanted article points out, the Supreme Court has already ruled that nearly identical displays were unconsitutional.

How does one teach "our religious heritage" in a school play about the birth of Jesus without teaching religious beliefs?
But this is a decision that favors common sense over a misguided interpretation of the First Amendment. Now a slightly different Supreme Court can either hear the case or not. Only if they hear the case and overturn it, is it a step backwards.

And I did say that extrapolating this decision to school plays required a reasonable person, not a contrarian such as yourself.
UpwardThrust
22-12-2005, 13:40
I was unaware that schools are Congress because I'm pretty sure it says "Congress shall make no law..." And if you *seriously* think it's encouraging religion or *forcing* it, then you're full of shit. You *don't* have to go to the god damn play, jesus christ, people. But of course, liberals just love pushing petty litigation.
What litigation?