Does a nativity scene belong on municipal property?

Question

In Berkeley, Michigan, a nativity scene has sat at city hall for 65 years. The ACLU has filed an objection to that specifiying it violates the separation of church and state.

Three alternatives have been mentioned - place the nativity on a nearby business property, establishing a free-speech zone or letting religious leaders put it elsewhere.

The mayor of Berkeley said that in her own opinion the city should not be putting up religious displays.

What are your thoughts and views on the situation?

Answer 1

It should not be displayed on municipal property unless the municipality is open to having displays by Muslims, Wiccans, Jews, and any other religious or philosophical group.

Answer 2

To me, it's a non-issue. There is nothing wrong with the nativity scene being on government property. And this opinion is coming from someone who has a severe grudge against the Christian faith! The first amendment to the Constitution states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". And that's it when it comes to religion.

Putting up a nativity scene is in no way making a law that everyone has to be christian. And, since most people in the US are Christian, the nativity scene has become more of a cultural icon than a religious one.

I think the ACLU has gotten bored and has too much time on its hands. They could be doing other things with their time.

Answer 3

The nativity scene has been displayed for 65 years and now this particular mayor doesn't accept it? I'd get a new mayor poste haste, and I'd get in touch with the AFA Center of law and ask for help. TThe nativity scenes, crosses at Easter, crosses in cemetaries are all part of our heritage. The aclu should not force their view or the view of one or two people on the majority. Why can't they just vote on it? After all isn't that what we are all about? ACLU doesn't believe in that because they'd be voted down every time.

Answer 4

The assault on America's religious underpinnings is based on a distorted interpretation of the establishment and free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."
Only a lawyer could claim not to understand the plain meaning of those words.
When the First Amendment was passed it only had two purposes.

There would be no established, national church for the united thirteen states. To say it another way: there would be no "Church of the United States." The government is prohibited from setting up a state religion, such as Britain has, but no barriers will be erected against the practice of any religion. Thomas Jefferson's famous "wall of separation" between church and state comment was made in a letter to a group of Baptist clergymen January 1, 1802 in Danbury, Connecticut, who feared the Congregationalists Church would become the state-sponsored religion. Jefferson assured the Danbury Baptist Association that the First Amendment guaranteed that there would be no establishment of any one denomination over another. It was never intended for our governing bodies to be "separated" from Christianity and its principles. The "wall" was understood as one directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values. It keeps the government from running the church but makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.
The second purpose of the First Amendment was the very opposite from what is being made of it today. It states expressly that government should not impede or interfere with the free practice of religion. The purpose of the separation of church and state in American society is not to exclude the voice of religion from public debate, but to provide a context of religious freedom where the insights of each religious tradition can be set forth and tested. As Justice Douglas wrote for the majority of the Supreme Court in the United States vs. Ballard case in 1944: The First Amendment has a dual aspect. It not only "forestalls compulsion by law of the acceptance of any creed or the practice of any form of worship" but also "safeguards the free exercise of the chosen form of religion." The First Amendment was a safe-guard so that the State can have no jurisdiction over the Church. Its purpose was to protect the Church, not to disestablish it.

Answer 5

My thoughts are this - It's a shame that the mayor isn't more concerned with other MORE IMPORTANT issues. What is the harm of a nativity scene? With all the crime and unemployment I would think she'd have more to deal with than a harmless Christmas scene that just goes along with the season. (Good avatar, Pink Floyd fan also)

Answer 6

Yes, and this from one of those nasty liberal types. The nativity scene encapsulates the spirit of the season. It is irritating that PC takes over from traditional values which one can appreciate or bypass as wished. Who are the ones you see drawn to these scenes? Mainly, small children with a glint in their eyes and smiles on their faces.
Let there be a truce and a freedom of values zone.

Answer 7

the holiday of Christmas has grow to be so secularized that the easy presence of a nativity scene is considered by using maximum as area of the holiday decor, not greater religious than a tree or a wreath or a candle or a dove or a megastar (which all could have religious meanings in case you have chose, yet are time-honored secular holiday symbols). There are those like me as a Christian who experience the two discriminated against if all symbols of religion linked with trip journeys are eradicated (and exceptionally if basically those referencing Jesus are, jointly as others are allowed to stay) I particularly have considered many public holiday reflects the place there are symbols of Hanukkah, Kwaanzaa, etc. coated besides as classic Christian symbols, and that i do no longer discover this offensive. What offends me is the excellent secularization of Christmas and the Orwellian (1984) tries to rewrite historic past and do away with any attainable connection with any faith from our public sq.. it is nowhere close to what our founding fathers meant by using separation of church and state--it replaced into to guard the loose expression of religion different than for a state-backed church, to no longer exclude religious expression from being a factor of loose speech. The close by, state, and federal government does issues with my tax money on a daily basis that are against my ethical and non secular ideals (abortion investment for starters, yet i could record many greater) that rely plenty plenty better than no rely if or no longer there's a nativity scene in public someplace. If I could recover from that, then others who do no longer basically like the nativity scene could have the means to recover from that too! Why no longer basically seem at it as a logo of happy tidings and peace "Peace in the international, goodwill in the direction of adult males." in the spirit of the holiday, because of the fact the message that the angels informed the shepherds? in case you do not have faith this is genuine besides, then why is that so plenty greater offensive than Santa or elves or the rest "magical" it is displayed in this season??

Answer 8

I thought a nativity scene was only appropriate at Christmas time

Shorely the state/taxpayer is paying to provide that space so no religions can find their own space for their displays

Answer 9

Why not, but if they have the kings at the nativity scene then that should be removed. Kings didnt show up till Jesus was at least 2.

Answer 10

No big, just put up a Santa clause, and a menorah, and some Kwanzaa stuff, and whatnot, and add a sign about celebrating all the cultures of your town.