town square nativity scene...

[thatguywhojuggles]

I live in a small midwestern town, Sullivan, IL. I live directly across from the courthouse which is located on the town square. The town has a population of about 4400 people. The other morning I stepped out of my apartment building to discover, directly in front of my place, on the square in front of the courthouse, a huge gawdy nativity scene that has been put up by the city.

My question is this. Is this a violation of the First Amendmant?

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.

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

I should do research BEFORE I post questions...

From this website: http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html

Allegheny County v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573 (1989) - Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violates the Establishment Clause.

So a nativity scene inside a government building is in violation. I would assume that a nativity scene on the lawn of the courthouse would also be a violation.

 

[Tricky]

I should do research BEFORE I post questions...



So a nativity scene inside a government building is in violation. I would assume that a nativity scene on the lawn of the courthouse would also be a violation.

If that were true, a Christmas tree on the front lawn would also be a violation, yet almost all towns have a city-sponsored tree-lighting ceremony the day after Thanksgiving.

But it may give you some peace of mind to remember that the nativity story as well as the lighted tree are borrowed from non-Christian belief systems. Maybe you could sneak in and put a name-plate on the cradle that identifies the infant as "the baby Mithras".

 

[thatguywhojuggles]

More fun...

From: http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=5937

County residents seek return of Nativity scene to courthouse lawn
...
Jack Ruckel plans to build a Christmas Nativity scene in the bed of his pickup truck and park it in front of the Tippecanoe County Courthouse.
...
"It's disgusting when they holler about church and state," Ruckel said. "Are they saying we've been doing something wrong (in America) for 200 years?"

Uh... yes!

I imagine such would be the scene if I tried to do something about the nativity scene here.

Every day I lean closer and closer to abandoning my US citizenship and moving to... well, anywhere!

 

[l0rca]

Baby Mithras, aww.

In the spirit of Christmas, I'm going to give baby Jesus "Teh Mithras Man" Christ a present:

Capricorn:

Your elders were young once, too, so if you need advice about group situations, you can always turn to them. They've seen and done it all, and they won't mind sharing with you. All you have to do is ask.

 

[ceo_esq]

I live in a small midwestern town, Sullivan, IL. I live directly across from the courthouse which is located on the town square. The town has a population of about 4400 people. The other morning I stepped out of my apartment building to discover, directly in front of my place, on the square in front of the courthouse, a huge gawdy nativity scene that has been put up by the city.

My question is this. Is this a violation of the First Amendmant?

My opinion as a lawyer (not constituting actual legal advice, you understand): probably but not certainly.

Among the factors that would arguably be relevant to this determination would be whether the square in question is a traditional open public forum, the relationship of the square to the courthouse (is this the front lawn of a public building, or simply an adjacent public park?), whether the display is privately sponsored, and whether the display appears in isolation or in proximity to other religious and secular holiday displays.

If that were true, a Christmas tree on the front lawn would also be a violation, yet almost all towns have a city-sponsored tree-lighting ceremony the day after Thanksgiving.

That's because the courts have determined that a Christmas tree is now a secular symbol (actually, so far as I am aware, it never carried any symbolic significance within the Christian religion). A nativity scene is still regarded as a religious symbol, of course.

But it may give you some peace of mind to remember that the nativity story as well as the lighted tree are borrowed from non-Christian belief systems.

True as to the lighted tree; no evidence (at least as far as anyone has been able convincingly to demonstrate in numerous discussions in this forum) as to the nativity story.

Maybe you could sneak in and put a name-plate on the cradle that identifies the infant as "the baby Mithras".

The details are all wrong for that, but perhaps he could erect a separate Mithraic nativity scene.

 

[kmortis]

The details are all wrong for that, but perhaps he could erect a separate Mithraic nativity scene.

Oh, THAT'LL go over well in central IL...a gutted bull carcass in the town square. mmm-mm.

Upon further review, setup a Paypal account and I'll donate to your Mithral NAtivity Scene fund.

 

[jjramsey]

Baby Mithras, aww.

I could just see it, a god born from a rock, dagger in one hand, torch in the other, with a Phrygian cap on his head, and two torchbearers at his side.

What, some of you actually thought he was born of a virgin? Go read some Manfred Clauss and get back to me.

 

[Tricky]

True as to the lighted tree; no evidence (at least as far as anyone has been able convincingly to demonstrate in numerous discussions in this forum) as to the nativity story.

I guess I missed those discussions (too many threads to read them all). But I don't mean the nativity myth in Christianity is identical to the Mithran myth (say that three times real fast ), but only that they contain many similarities. Too many, IMHO, to be coincidental. The nativity myth is probably cobbled together from various stories, perhaps with a few new things thrown in. It is certainly not very original, or very logical.

1) Son of God is born amidst much rejoicing, spectacular astronomical events, and recognition by foreign dignitaries.
2) Everyone forgets about Son of God's birthday party and he disappears into obscurity for about 30 years with nothing much known about him during that time.
3) Son of God reappears, but everyone has forgotten about his amazing birthday party, and he has the deuce of a time convincing anyone he is the son of God.

Sorry, this is off topic. It just strikes me as one of the more unexplainable parts of Christianity.

 

[jjramsey]

1) Son of God is born amidst much rejoicing, spectacular astronomical events, and recognition by foreign dignitaries.
2) Everyone forgets about Son of God's birthday party and he disappears into obscurity for about 30 years with nothing much known about him during that time.
3) Son of God reappears, but everyone has forgotten about his amazing birthday party, and he has the deuce of a time convincing anyone he is the son of God.

Um, none of those apply to Mithra; like I said, go read some Clauss. If you squint a fair bit, you might get the myth about Alexander the Great's birth to fit item (1), but (2) and (3) are problematic.

Sorry, this is off topic. It just strikes me as one of the more unexplainable parts of Christianity.

What's inexplicable to me is that such poorly supported pseudohistory has become such common currency among those who are supposed to be skeptics.

 

[kmortis]

Um, none of those apply to Mithra; like I said, go read some Clauss. If you squint a fair bit, you might get the myth about Alexander the Great's birth to fit item (1), but (2) and (3) are problematic.



What's inexplicable to me is that such poorly supported pseudohistory has become such common currency among those who are supposed to be skeptics.

Not to derail onto historical Mithrasism, but what happened to Mithras when Zoroaster started his branch? I mean, Mithra was the Hermes-figure between Aharua Mazada and the earth, right? So, why did Zoroater write him out? Or did I miss something in my scanning of the Avestas?

 

[geni]

Not to derail onto historical Mithrasism, but what happened to Mithras when Zoroaster started his branch? I mean, Mithra was the Hermes-figure between Aharua Mazada and the earth, right? So, why did Zoroater write him out? Or did I miss something in my scanning of the Avestas?

What makes you think Mithrasism predates zororitraism?

 

[geni]

1) Son of God is born amidst much rejoicing, spectacular astronomical events, and recognition by foreign dignitaries.

Rejoicing appears to be limted to a few shepards
The bible doesn't claim dignitaries.

 

[jjramsey]

Not to derail onto historical Mithrasism, but what happened to Mithras when Zoroaster started his branch? I mean, Mithra was the Hermes-figure between Aharua Mazada and the earth, right? So, why did Zoroater write him out? Or did I miss something in my scanning of the Avestas?

You are presuming that there is continuity between the Persian god Mithra and the Roman god Mithras. The mystery religion clearly has some Persian bits in it, but it does not seem to be an evolution from these Persian beliefs. Rather, it's as if someone created Mithraism by borrowing a Persian god but giving it a whole new mythology, based perhaps on astrology (though no one's too sure about that). The central elements, like the rock birth and the killing of the bull, are not in the Persian mythology, and it is not clear how they arose from it.

 

[kmortis]

You are presuming that there is continuity between the Persian god Mithra and the Roman god Mithras. The mystery religion clearly has some Persian bits in it, but it does not seem to be an evolution from these Persian beliefs. Rather, it's as if someone created Mithraism by borrowing a Persian god but giving it a whole new mythology, based perhaps on astrology (though no one's too sure about that). The central elements, like the rock birth and the killing of the bull, are not in the Persian mythology, and it is not clear how they arose from it.

Nope, since Zoroaster and Mitra are both Persian, I fail to see how the Romans enter into this.

 

[Tricky]

Um, none of those apply to Mithra; like I said, go read some Clauss. If you squint a fair bit, you might get the myth about Alexander the Great's birth to fit item (1), but (2) and (3) are problematic.

I'm talking about Christianity only here, not how it is related to Mithraeism. I said it was off topic.

What's inexplicable to me is that such poorly supported pseudohistory has become such common currency among those who are supposed to be skeptics.

What pseudohistory are you talking about? I'm talking about what the bible says.

 

[kmortis]

What pseudohistory are you talking about? I'm talking about what the bible says.

Let's see...pseudohistory....the bible...psuedohistory....the bible.

I think you answered your own question, my big blue friend.

 

[stamenflicker]

That's because the courts have determined that a Christmas tree is now a secular symbol.

That may be true, but there are sects such as the JW's that find it offensive. Why don't we just neuter our entire culture?

Flick

 

[kmortis]

That may be true, but there are sects such as the JW's that find it offensive. Why don't we just neuter our entire culture?

Flick

Yeah, but JW's don't vote, so how much political pull do you think they have?

 

[Tricky]

Let's see...pseudohistory....the bible...psuedohistory....the bible.

I think you answered your own question, my big blue friend.

I think that jjramsey was thinking that I was proposing that Mithraeism (or other beliefs) were saying these things, and I admit it was ambiguous.

It is true that the bible is pseudohistory, but it is so much more. It is pseudo-science as well, and we could throw in pseudo-philosophy and pseudo-morality.

It not only slices, it dices...