[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Two things:

 

One, the private property part is not what the city is relying on at all to gain a bye on this. Indeed, it could hurt them more than it could help them. For instance it would be patently illegal for the city to pave a driveway on private property at public expense and folks would raise cain about that. Said differently, what is the city doing erecting anything on private property? If that would give the city cover, then why don't they erect a nativity scene directly on Church property and if on the property of one church, shouldn't they, to be fair, erect one on every church's property including the guy who got a mail order divinity degree and is head of the church of tax deduction.

 

Second, the existing court decisions that apparently guide the city are those that suggest that these kinds of displays (on public property) require that a mismash of symbols in which no particular symbol has preference or dominance and respect is provided toward all religions. That the display is the single 'grandest' display the city has and that it is not even 'centrally located' on the private property but instead is located on the parcel closest to the Mayor's church ... and that there are no other displays there celebrating other religions (wouldn't fit 'cause it is too close to the church) all scream violation of the intent of the decisions that allow holiday decorations at all.

 

As to why it is AU's business ... there are AU members in Paulding county and I am one of them. I am one because I believe in more than the just the protections of the press contained in the first amendment. It is their business because it is my business. I am a Christian but I am not a Baptist nor am I a member of the First Baptist Church. I see this is an act favoring not only one religion over another but one Christian church over other Christian Churches.

 

Further, I see it as a clumsy effort by an arrogant man to establish his church as the favored church in the community. If he weren't arrogant, he'd have seen the problem and solved it by privatizing the display quietly and with a smile. Instead, I'm understanding that he plans to take this to hilt and demagogue about it to high heaven in an effort to expand his power as mayor to annoint one church over others.

 

Constitutionally and legally this is a blatant, pernicious and arrogant abuse of power of a public office by someone who thinks that he can do what he chooses without regard for something as sacred to my heart as the Constitution of the United States of America. I relish the thought of having the opportunity to stand up and be counted on this issue.

 

The reality of government today; and this goes to all levels, is they can and will do anything they choose to do until they're sued and told to stop by a judge. Yes, they torture, they violate habeus corpus, they spy on us and they bust down our doors (invade our castles). However, I don't see this as a conspiracy. Rather what threatens us is basically genetic stupidity, compounded by ignorance of the law and gross incompetence.

 

Guard Dad, this is not at all about religion it is about politics, demagoguery, incompetence and arrogance and the only people those folks will listen to are those who can throw them in jail for not addressing them as Your Honor.

 

pubby

 

Pubby,

 

I never indicated it was all about religion. What I don't understand is, it you don't think it's about religion then why do you support the AU's involvement when their (stated) mission is to protect separation of church and state?

 

If it's about politics the battle should be fought in the political arena. Instead, it will be fought in the media and possibly in the courts by lawyers and organizations that probably don't even live in this state, much less the City of Dallas. And as you stated earlier, only the lawyers will win.

 

I going to leave this debate for awhile. This is an emotional topic and I've probably caused you and the mods too much grief the last couple of days. I just hope and pray that when all this is over it will have been worth it for those who have beat the war drums.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

If you are against a Special Interest Group (AU) protecting the First Amendment; you are most certainly doing it with a personal Christian agenda. One that posits that violating the First Amendment is fine as long as it benefits Jesus Christ is most certainly "pushing their faith on people".

I'm opposed to AU because I'm aware of their political driven agenda and their nasty habit of sticking their nose into other people's business. if you care to re-read my posts, I don't believe the 1st amendment is being broken, therefor I am not advocating any violations of it.

 

Now, I must leave to go to a Christmas party. Perhaps you feel that is also pushing my beliefs on you; if so, oh well.

 

Later kids.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

You think you people are untouchable? Just do whatever you want with non-Christian tax dollars? Maybe the First Amendment doesn't apply to you? I am Jewish and my God is bigger and badder than your god. In fact; My God made your little god. Don't spend my tax dollars on your little god stuff.

Cool yer jets there Cochise, I have not been arguing this from a religious point or view or pushing my faith on anyone. If you read back through my posts I stated that the religious freedom in this country applied to everyone, including atheists.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

It's sad that Christians in politics are so dishonest now that they cannot abide by the US Constitution. I am glad the AU is intervening. Someone has to protect the taxpayers that are Jewish, Deists, Pagan, Hindu, and Muslim from the Christian politicians that want to take NON-CHRISTIAN tax dollars and spend it on promoting Jesus Christ.

And there goes the Christian bashing again.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Pubby,

 

That's pretty good explanation of where this may go. And I agree that there has been and are still ways that this could be worked out to keep it from getting any uglier. I'm glad you pointed out that the display being on privatively owned land may give cover, that moves the allegations from it IS illegal to it MAY BE illegal. That is one of the points I've been trying to make; because of the differences in this case, I don't think there is a precedent that really covers it so we really can't make that charge. It's sad that politics of the last couple of decades have brought us to this point.

 

I still just don't understand why this is any of the AU's business. Nothing good will come of their intervention.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

I think I would say that it is definitely illegal if it is specifically described in law as illegal and it appears to be legal--or better, despite the double negative--not illegal, if it is not specifically described in law as illegal.

Yep, that "sounds" better. That's what I get for posting while busy doing something else.

 

 

On a positive note, it's raining cats and dogs here. Woot!

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

That's not how it works. I am guessing you know that though.

If you mean that the city may be forced to defend itself, yes. but ultimately the person/group making the charge must prove it.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Get your threads straight now GD.

Too many threads on this issue, my bad.

 

I was referring to the thread she started.

 

I guess time will tell

On that, we agree.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

I never said or implied I was anti-christian. I am a christian. You are asking for specifics and I am not a lawyer so yes it does take me some time to get the answers you ask. I have backed up the charges I made but that is not good enough for you. I don't ask you to agree . Show me a law that shows it is legal?

 

I will take your word that you are Christian, that is between us and our maker anyway.

 

The information you have provided was for cases quite different than this one and likely don't pertain to these circumstances.

 

As for showing you a law to prove it's legality; I don't have to, you made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. If you or someone else cannot prove it ilegal, then it is legal by default.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

You know I have not insulted you personally or gone after you or anyone else personally because your view differs from mine. Why as a good christian do you feel the need to insult me and drag me down?

 

FYI I have not emailed, called or written the AU for answers to your questions. I happen to be busy and can not always be here, much less look up the answers for you. I don't profess to know all, so yes sometimes I like to do some research before I answer. The same research you can do as well.

Mystery,

 

I haven't insulted you or drug you down. I think I've been very calm and polite in my discussion here. But you started this thread, claimed responsibility for what happened, took a very anti-Christian tone in your verbiage, and made charges that what the city has done here is illegal. All I'm doing is asking you to back up the charges you've made. If you can't do that you shouldn't have started this snowball rolling. I will also point out that you are the one that keeps bringing Christianity into the discussion between us, I have approached the issue more from a point of law.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

And if had been PURCHASED with private money there would be no problem.

 

It seems rather arrogant that this P.O.S. turned down offers from private citizens to purchase the thing from the city. This is why I want to see him busted. If he is wrong, he should be prosecuted.

You may well be right about the mayor, I don't know the guy and honestly I'm not defending how and what he did. But is it illegal? I have my doubts. I am amazed at the people on here that are lining up to rant about it being illegal and they have no idea what, if any, law covers it. Most of them don't even know the facts of the situation.

 

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

The tax is levied on us all by the state, county and city government for the purpose of running a government.

Tax dollars were spent on a religeous display. That is considered by the supreme court as participating or supporting a church affair.

That's your opinion, and it's probably incorrect.

 

You never answered my earlier question; under your train of thought, how can the government buy Bibles for use in the courtroom? How can the military employ chaplains?

 

We'll wait while you e-mail the AU for a pat answer.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa.

 

The display is on private property that does not belong to the church. The government was not participating in the church's or any other religious organization's affairs. No tax was levied.

 

Tell your buddies at the AU to try again....

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

The law is the Constitution. It says that there can't be anything that gives the appearance of an established religion. Aleegheny in 1989 said that a display cannot be show favoritism of one religion and that made the nativity illegal. Kaplan verses Birmingham said a city bought nativity was illegal because it was a solitary display in the area even though other decorations were nearby. In McCreary Kentucky of 1005 the court ruled the law was broken because the nativity didn't serve a secular purpose. In Dallas, it looks to me like it is not serving a secular purpose but the Mayor's church purpose.

 

You do realize that the display is on private property....right? Not the church's property.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Doesn't matter if the citizens approve it or not. What he did was against the law. I hope he is prosecuted.

I'll ask again...can you cite the law that was broken? So far the few attempts some have made to produce a law that specifically covers this has failed. If there's a law that pertains to this, please educate me on it.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

If you didn't even read the legal briefs, but you want to argue anyway.. why would I bother? seesh.

 

I read the part that matters. Are you stating I'm incorrect in my analysis? If so please correct me, otherwise your link is irrelevant.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Welcome to the Deep South. Down here there are folks that think Big Bang was a hoax to discredit Jesus, and that Man never set foot on the Moon. Down in Georgia; less than one out of every two Georgians will even graduate High School (only 48% graduate; versus 96% in New Jersey). I fully expect Christianity to be pushed via nativity scenes, as well as other acts to appease the uneducated and myopic voting public. If we live in the South and deny that there is an Unconstitutional Christian agenda, we are fooling ourselves. I accept it as just "one of them racing things". $1 Rusty Wallace. You enjoy the weather (Golf 2x this week while Northerners shoveled snow), make lots of money, live inexpensively, and look at the downside (Unconstitutional violations, uneducated masses) as the price you pay for being down here.

 

As generous as we are here, perhaps we can raise money to buy you a ticket back to Yankeeville.

 

Where's Caped Crusader when we need him?

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

On the flip side, if we allow our fear of going to court be our guideline as to the legality of our actions instead of our convictions, then we have lost our liberties.

 

Exactly right Seeker. I wish people could see the red flags here.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Cutetellowbug,

 

I didn't read the entire decision because the text on a pink background was killing my eyes. But if I properly understood it, the courts problem was that the display was on public property. Perhaps you missed the fact that the Dallas disply is on private property, and property that is not owned by the church either.

 

Now, would you care to present a ruling that states it's illegal for a city government to spend money on what could be construed as religious items?

 

By the way, how do explain the Bibles that are purchased for use in the courtroom?How do explain the chaplains that are employed by the military?

 

 

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

If it were a snowman scene, it would be legal.

 

And what if I told you I worship snowmen? Would AU want Hiram to take down their decorations? What would be the next freedom that an organization tries to take from us?

 

Come on people...the decorations are on private property, the only issue is whether or not the Citizens of Dallas approve of how the mayor spent the money....and it's up to them to handle it.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Don, I've asked for proof of this law also with no result. I find it amazing how many people believe this is illegal but don't seem to know why. I think the anti-regionists and the separation bunch have been very effective in brainwashing the public into thinking this is wrong. A similar issue is the one that involves prayer and schools. For many years there was such a hysteria created about it that most people actually believed that it was illegal to pray at a school. And that is a right that a private citizen is guaranteed in the Constitution of the US. Thankfully, there has been some clarification of that and schools have backed off of that some by realizing that as long as the prayer isn't initiated by or sanctioned by the school, it's just fine.

 

This issue is very similar to the prayer issue of a few years back. People have been made to believe that it's automatically illegal because it involves religion, and that just isn't so.

 

What people here should be doing instead of instantly siding with the AU and jumping on their bandwagon, is to follow the premise of innocent until proven guilty and demand that AU substantiate their charges with some proof. This case is quite different even from the other bad court decisions concerning religious items because they are on private property. I suspect that most of the people griping about this don;t even realize that fact, that the decorations are not on church property.

[Getting to know you]

Well, let's see...

 

I'm 50, happily married for 27 years, and have a very beautiful 19 year old daughter who graduated from Hiram High and is now in college. I am an owner of two businesses in Hiram, a contracting business and another business that involves rental. I also live in the Hiram area, outside of the city limits though. I work too much, but always make time for my wonderful family. I'm a Christian, I like to fish, I love sound equipment, I'm into weightlifting, and I enjoy working with my hands. Life is good!

 

Oh and here's a shocker, I love to debate politics.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

I also belong to AAA, American Cancer Society, St Jude, HADD, Red Cross, Pet perks and several others. Are you going to provide links for all of those too.

Only if they are connected to this City of Dallas issue.

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

It "sounded" that way to me Guard dad. If I'm wrong, I apologize. The AU has been shared about, and posted about for a long time on P.com, and they are very easy to find information about online.

No problem. I am not a longtime member so I'm not aware of what has been discussed here in the past. Even being the old political dog I am, I didn't connect the initials AU with Americans United at first.

 

Since you shared your feelings about AU, I will too. I have a big problem with them. They have no business threatening churches by telling them they can do certain things or they'll lose their tax exempt status. I was in a church a number of years ago when the AU flooded them with threatening letters regarding voter guides. Scared the seniors half to death, and we were doing nothing wrong. Their literature was misleading and filled with half truths, nothing but a scare tactic.

 

Pop quiz for anyone who is interested; How many churches have lost their tax exempt status over political issues?

[Thank You Mayor Austin!]

Give me a break.

 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a great organization in my opinion. And they certainly don't "hide" like you seem to be indicating, who or what they do.

 

The great thing about America is that you and I don't have to agree on the AU. You don't have to support them in any way.

How did I indicate anything of the sort? I merely posted a link so all could learn of them and draw their own conclusions.