i going to bow out of this debate with you b/c either you’re completely ignorant about const law and you’re just trying to fake it, or you’re not ignorant and just weird. i mean, “congress” does not apply to the states, the first ammedment says nothing about free expression on govt property? this is just basic stuff which i’d be happy to elaborate on but you don’t seem to really want to learn, as your weird exchange with rob demonstrates.

What do you mean by that? You’ve lost me.

Umm, this is a supreme court brief, last I checked they were in washington, dc.

Dude, see post 181. You are badly wrong on this–that’s ok, we all make mistakes, but no need to dig yourself in deeper.

But if a government spends taxpayer money on a nativity display, then other folks can legitimately request a Diwali fireworks show, Iftaar feasts, Chinese dragon boat shows, and so on, and so forth, and there is absolutely no basis to refuse any of these, as far as I can see.

i think as constitutional law stands now, they can request and can’t be denied due to viewpoint, not unlike publicly financed art museums as Giuliani discovered.

Thats the implication when you use it to defend a persons right to say Merry Christmas. (of course barring the harm)

as is obvious from looking at the text of the constitution where prohibiting the free exercise of religion is specifically banned.

wrong o again. the constitution says that congress shall pass no law establishing one religion. it says nothing about free exercise of relgion on govt property.

surely you know that the first amendment has been applied to all state actors for some time now as “congress” has been interpreted broadly.

show me a case where “congress” was interpreted broadly. Congress should be interpreted what it says.. Congress. because it elucidates the true context in which this amendment was put forth in the first place.

separation of church and state is not in the constitution. the first amendment bans an establishment of religion and people saying merry christmas at work does not constitute an establishment.

Separation of church and state is a, state based issue. If certain states wish to adhere to it more strictly, then they may do so. However, they do so across the board. Personally, I believe it. And I lose no sleep over some christian conservative whining about not being able to say “christmas” in a public/govt forum, as it’s clear that no one is trying to suppress his voice in a debate, or his point of view on an issue, rather to reinforce the founding father’s notion that no one religion should be given any kind of importance or signifance moreso than another, which is why I wouldnt want someone saying Happy Diwali either.

the govt protecting a “true religious holiday” would also be unconstitutional

I’m not talking about the gov’t exclusively, nor am I even saying that the gov’t is willfully doing it for that reason. I’m just pointing out the irony how the very “Christians” that bark about the war on christmas are likely to be waging an even more heinous war on the holiday themselves, by diluting it.

That’s rich. Saying that Christmas should celebrate the birth of Christ as “an interpretation”

Not all Bill of Rights were incorporated against the state by the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment fulls incorporates the 1st, 4th and 6th Amendment against the state while partially incorporates 5th and 8th Amendment against the state.