For as long as anyone can remember, a Nativity scene has been displayed during the Christmas season in front of the public library in Emmaus, Pennsylvania, but not this year.
After Americans United for Separation of Church and State dangled the threat of a lawsuit, the borough agreed reluctantly to end the tradition this year. The scene has since found a new home on Main Street outside the Emmaus Moravian Church.
Not everyone was happy about it. Some argued that the display honored the borough’s distinctly Christian roots: Emmaus was founded by the Moravians and named after the biblical town where Jesus was seen by two of his disciples after his crucifixion and resurrection.
“There were a couple of members of the council who felt strongly,” said borough manager Shane Pepe. “Their emotional response was, ‘Why should we bow down once again to an overly sensitive organization that is looking to sue people?’ But we’re not fighting a legal battle over this.”
Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said her organization has handled hundreds, if not thousands, of such cases over its 40-year history. The foundation now has nine attorneys and two legal assistants on staff.
“All we do in December is this kind of thing,” said Ms. Gaylor. “People will be driving past their city hall on Christmas Eve and send us an email with a picture because they’re offended. It goes on all through December and into January.”
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
10 comments:
Why don't they just shut the heck up and celebrate their day. I'll enjoy Christmas, so I don't care if they want to decorate a a-hole to celebrate.
If they, the atheist, choose this sacred time of year to sue and close Nativity scenes, just WHAT are Christians doing against them during the year? If nothing, which it appears, then expect more of the same.
It seems to me if religious displays are only in front of churches and synogoges everyone should be happy. Of course a display of someone being beheaded in front of a temple might cause some concern.
Time to start attacking them.
The length of time something has been in violation of the law has no bearing on it's legality.
The amount of people supporting it has no bearing on it's legality.
The number of Christians in the town, or that the town was founded by Christians has no bearing on it's legality.
Someone pointing out that the law is being violated and asking compliance with the law isn't being "overly sensitive, or offended".
Saying someone who is asking for the law to be followed is "overly sensitive or offended" makes you an overly self important a-hole.
Every citizen with private property can put whatever religious iconography on their property that they please.
This is not persecution, being just as equal as everyone else may rub your privileged the wrong way.. but it's not persecution.
Every year with the same stories... and every year with the same tired strawmen and adhominems.
Just ask Illinois or Arkansas about the Satanic monuments going up on public land where Christians just couldn't play nice. If you let one religion to the party... you have to let them all..so unless you want to invite Baphomet to your party.... lets try and all get on the same page with this? The establishment clause was written for a reason.
"Someone pointing out that the law is being violated and asking compliance with the law isn't being "overly sensitive, or offended"
What 'law' is that, 4:17?
There is no 'law', and cannot be, because the very same Establishment Clause you refer to says the government may not prohibit the free exercise of religion.
There are indeed some satanist displays popping up here and there. So be it. I certainly don't care for them, but it is their right if they want to do it. And I won't get in their face about it, call them names or say that they are trying to 'force their religion down my throat'.
I'll just do what they should be doing.. mind my own business and ignore their display if I don't like it.
Just my two cents... have a great Christmas. See you next year.
As long as we just sit back and cater to their every whim, it will only get worse. Just look at what Madelyn Murray Ohare accomplished because no one told her to sit down and shut up/
Civil war is coming
@ December 7, 2018 at 8:41 PM
When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a bible.
@ December 7, 2018 at 6:29 PM
Well, that's a good question so lets clear things up about the law, and this case, and the legality of nativities in general, shall we!
The highest law of land actually, the Constitution.
Reference the meaning of the 1st Amendment as described by it's author Thomas Jefferson in the letter to the Danbury Church where he penned the term "wall of separation between church and state"
You know, the law that the Supreme Court rules on with some regularity... the highest authority on the law in the land?
Here are only a few times the Supreme Court ruled on this law:
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879)
Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948)
Burstyn v. Wilson, 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)
Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488 (1961)
Engel v. Vitale, 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)
Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203 (1963)
Epperson v. Arkansas, 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)
Lemon v. Kurtzman, 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)
Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980)
Wallace v. Jaffree, 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)
Edwards v. Aquillard, 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)
Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989)
Lee v. Weisman, 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)
Church of Lukumi Babalu Ave., Inc. v. Hialeah, 113 S. Ct. 2217 (1993)
What is interesting to note, the SCOTUS has ruled on cases regarding religious holiday displays.
Lynch vs Donnely (1984)
County of Allegheny vs ACLU (1989)
The long and short of the two cases is that if the nativity is most certainly allowed if it is lumped in with other secular images, and is not by itself in a high traffic areas, giving the impression that it is the focal point of the holiday. Both Supreme Court decisions, Lynch v. Donnelly, and Allegheny v. ACLU, were decided after a fact-sensitive analysis. Indeed the Court continually stresses that the constitutionality of such displays are determined on a case-by-case basis. Lynch Vs Donnely ruled that Nativity did not violate the establishment clause... and the menorah in Allegheny vs ACLU did not violate... but the nativity did!
This is why at the Illinios statehouse you see alongside the Nativity a Satanic display as well. This, is not in violation.
Now, considering the law, lets look at this case. In front of the library, prominently displayed with no other discerning decorations, is an almost life size recreation of the nativaty. There are some bows in the flower pots in the background.. but that's it.
So, the law is the law... and Emmaus County PA was in violation. They CORRECTED this fault, and moved the nativity to a nearby church... thus avoiding legal action and complying with the law.
Post a Comment