Do you support equal access to public owned grounds for displays in December?

Question

Do you support allowing the hindus, buddists, islamics, jews, shintoists, satanists, scientologists, atheists, wiccans etc to erect displays in December on public grounds--that is--alongside the nativity display would it be alright to have religious displays from these groups?

If you don't think they should have equal access then aren't you suggesting the state show support to a single religion--which is in violation of the establishment clause.

The issues involving the nativity on public grounds are often referred to as a war on christmas--I know of no government agency that interferes with the right of the christian religion to put religous figures on display on personal or church property. The only issue is with public property.
Isn't it really the case that the christians are simply incensed because they lost the "special" position they had in the american governement in centuries past-and are now treated equally with other religions?

Answer 1

Frankly, I'm rather support *no* displays on public grounds.



However, if you're going to allow *any,* you have to allow *all.* That's how it works.



Peace.

Answer 2

I don't think any religious display should be allowed on public grounds. That would be a violation of the 1st Amendement. Now, if the display is on private property, that is a different story. Everyone has the right to display anything they want on their own private property, so why they also feel the need or have the right to put their displays on public property is beyond me.

Answer 3

First of all, there have been and are instances where private displays have been attacked and people have tried to have churches and houses take down displays that are seen by any passer by because they say it causes non believers to feel awkward and that somehow their rights are being violated by having to see it as they pass by. That being said. I am all for any religion having the right to put up a display. I feel that it should be up to the individual building or land to decide what best represents their particular demographic area. Take for instance New York City that has a "china town". If the chinese people are mostly budhist, then a local courthouse or government building should put up decorations supporting the micro-local demographic. I also feel that it should go before local townhall meetings to have involved citizens vote or voice their opinion as to what religion is displayed.If more hindus show up to make their opinion heard than Chritians, then shame on Christians for not speaking up and let the Hindus get their display. What I also think is that any such displays should not be paid for by the taxpayers, but private donations should pay for any electricity or decoration costs.

i do not think that every piece of land or building should have a representation from all religions at one time. I.E. i don't think a cross should be next to the statue of Buddah in a santa suit. Townhalls should hold a once a year meeting to determine what holidays will be celebrated and what type of religous display will be chosen for each holiday. Let the people's voice be heard and let we the people decide by democractic vote .

Answer 4

I say instead of putting all these different symbols up, we do what we should have long ago. We take back christmas. Get rid of the Manger scene, that was never part of the original Yule celebration. Keep the rest. The trees, the lights, the snowmen, the wreaths, reindeer... the rest is all good.



The christians do not own this day, they have overshadowed it so long that nobody remembers how it started and we're all just happy to stand idle and let them push us around. They think they own it, because we let them start taking it over.



The church converted pre-existing pagan celebrations into "christmas" as a way to take over the holidays and force people to celebrate Christ, since the church could not get them to stop their ancient celebrations.



I say turn around is fair play and take the holiday back. Don't get rid of Christmas, just force the Christians to convert it back into a wider celebration. It dosn't belong to anyone. NO religion "owns" christmas. Yule can be good again if we just remember our history.



Why are we letting them push us over like this? Jesus is NOT the reason for the season, it was there before the church inserted him into it. Jesus was not born December 25'th. The wonderful seasonal celebrations we ALL enjoy are pagan in origin, and they are happy to share their ancient symbols as part of the heritage that belongs to all of humanity. Unlike the Christians, who only want the people in their special club to enjoy anything.

Answer 5

Separation of church and state actually would require that public lands remain secular, if it were applied correctly. Have a the religious displays you want on privately owned church land. See, my tax dollars also paid for that land, and i don't wish to be offended by nativity scenes or whatever. A religious display on public land is basically an endorsement of religion by the state, which is contrary to the constitution.

Answer 6

Absolutely, although I would prefer that "equal access" mean no access for anyone. There's no reason our government needs to do our celebrating for us, If you want a religious decoration, just put it on your own property. This issue has become a pissing contest, more like marking territory than actual celebration.

Answer 7

Sure. All or none, on property owned by all.



How about anybody who wants to put up a display has to file a request by Nov 1?

And then, the area is divided into that many equal portions. And everybody gets their little spot.

Answer 8

Other than Satanism, which is a false religion made up to irritate the Christians, all have similar upbeat seasonal attitudes. Anyone that has an upbeat message should have equal access. Those who wish to hurt others should not.

Answer 9

"I've had it with these motherfuk/ng snakes aboard this motherfuc/ing plane!"



That covers my feeling about ANY AND ALL displays of religious clap-trap on public, taxpayer-supported property. They don't belong there and all of them should be ripped up and hauled away by the police as the trash they are.

Answer 10

If the religions can't play fair, then no one gets to put up their painting.





In other words...if religions constantly fight over a piece of property to display their "pretty" (i.e. nativity scene, minorah, pentacle whatever), then NO ONE gets to display their "pretty".

Answer 11

Supporting popular tradition relating to a majority population is not a violation simply because it has religious meaning.



If other religions want to put up displays on their holy days that at least a majority of the population wants then that's OK.



Christianity is number one. Deal with it.

Answer 12

I think there should be absolutely no religious display of any kind on public owned property. Period.

Answer 13

The government doesn't have that much public land anymore. Alot of it is actually private.

Answer 14

YES, I think it would be great. I would love to see displays from all groups. I wonder what the atheists would display, but it would be great.

Answer 15

Isn't Christmas a Christian holiday? So now should Christmas decorations be put up on diwali? Do what you want but it's kind of ridiculous.

Answer 16

I support NO access to public-owned grounds in December, or any other time. If you want to peddle your faerie tale, do it on your own property.

Answer 17

Sure in proportion to the population





So Christians get 80% of the space



Jews 15%



Muslims 5%





and Athiests get the porta-pottie

Answer 18

You forgot - atheist.



Of course they'd have nothing to display.

Answer 19

That IS what FREE SPEECH is all about.

Answer 20

hehe... erect displays...

Answer 21

Sure. All or none