Pennsylvania Town Rejects Atheist Holiday Display

Something the Dog Said wrote: The Lemon test is used to decide whether a display violates the constitution. Essentially, the primary purpose of the display must be secular in nature.
1.The government's action must have a secular legislative purpose;

2.The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and

3.The government's action must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion.

Thanks... I knew there was a "test", but couldn't remember the name of it....

posteryoyo wrote: Thanks. Where did you get that or did you formulate it yourself?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_v._Kurtzman

Is your Google Fu broken?

Atheist Display: Santa Skeleton Nailed to a Cross
Loudoun County Courthouse, Leesburg, VA

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/ ... to-a-cross

I guess I can't really get behind the idea of a group of athiests complaining they are not being "included" in a town celebration when what they are in fact actually trying to do is not celebrate but protest.

Yep, they have a right to protest, but not a right to protest and complain at the same time they are not being "included". Maybe if they had simply come up with a banner that said something like "Celebrate Humanism" or "Joy To The Secular World" or something along those lines it would have been more plausible that they wanted to take part in a celebration and not just protest someone elses.

AspenValley wrote: I guess I can't really get behind the idea of a group of athiests complaining they are not being "included" in a town celebration when what they are in fact actually trying to do is not celebrate but protest.

Yep, they have a right to protest, but not a right to protest and complain at the same time they are not being "included". Maybe if they had simply come up with a banner that said something like "Celebrate Humanism" or "Joy To The Secular World" or something along those lines it would have been more plausible that they wanted to take part in a celebration and not just protest someone elses.

That would be a reasonable compromise... how about a small sign... "The Joy of the Season is Knowing that god is a myth"

posteryoyo wrote: Thanks. Where did you get that or did you formulate it yourself?

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 Supreme Court case that held that a Pennsylvania law that allowed the state to reimburse pariochal schools for secular classes taught in the Catholic schools was unconstitutional.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

posteryoyo wrote: Thanks. Where did you get that or did you formulate it yourself?

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971 Supreme Court case that held that a Pennsylvania law that allowed the state to reimburse pariochal schools for secular classes taught in the Catholic schools was unconstitutional.

I posted the link up thread.

AspenValley wrote: I guess I can't really get behind the idea of a group of athiests complaining they are not being "included" in a town celebration when what they are in fact actually trying to do is not celebrate but protest.

Yep, they have a right to protest, but not a right to protest and complain at the same time they are not being "included". Maybe if they had simply come up with a banner that said something like "Celebrate Humanism" or "Joy To The Secular World" or something along those lines it would have been more plausible that they wanted to take part in a celebration and not just protest someone elses.

Interesting viewpoint. I hadn't seen it as a protest, but rather as a "You get to promote your ideology, why can't we?"

I do like the idea of the banners you suggested.