High school uses loophole for Nativity scene

[SassyIrishLass]

It makes no difference whether the nativity scene is displayed with actors or mannequins, the display in either configuration manifests as a potential violation of the Establishment Clause, hence the injunction and hearing next month.

The school is not at liberty to unilaterally implement a 'compromise' before the hearing and without the consent of the judge who ordered the injunction; the school is displaying contempt for the court's lawful order and the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So nothing to say about the 'ignorant religionists' in Islam. Just Christianity.

Not "Christianity," but the pseudo-Christians on this board and elsewhere.

Who are the ignorant Muslim religionists on this board?

The posters who began referring to and slagging off Christian beliefs on this thread were Lakota and you. There was no 'ignorant religionism' from anyone - just people who were happy that a loophole for putting on the nativity was found. So you attacked Christianity in the absence of any 'ignorant religionism', I shall look forward to seeing if you have the cajones to do the same about Islam and it's ignorance. But obviously I won't hold my breath as you Christian bashers always stay well away from daring to criticise Islam in any way, shape or form.

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

 

[Tilly]

So nothing to say about the 'ignorant religionists' in Islam. Just Christianity.

Not "Christianity," but the pseudo-Christians on this board and elsewhere.

Who are the ignorant Muslim religionists on this board?

The posters who began referring to and slagging off Christian beliefs on this thread were Lakota and you. There was no 'ignorant religionism' from anyone - just people who were happy that a loophole for putting on the nativity was found. So you attacked Christianity in the absence of any 'ignorant religionism', I shall look forward to seeing if you have the cajones to do the same about Islam and it's ignorance. But obviously I won't hold my breath as you Christian bashers always stay well away from daring to criticise Islam in any way, shape or form.

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not "Christianity," but the pseudo-Christians on this board and elsewhere.

Who are the ignorant Muslim religionists on this board?

The posters who began referring to and slagging off Christian beliefs on this thread were Lakota and you. There was no 'ignorant religionism' from anyone - just people who were happy that a loophole for putting on the nativity was found. So you attacked Christianity in the absence of any 'ignorant religionism', I shall look forward to seeing if you have the cajones to do the same about Islam and it's ignorance. But obviously I won't hold my breath as you Christian bashers always stay well away from daring to criticise Islam in any way, shape or form.

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

The loons are bawling "it's not FAIR!!!!! They found a loophole!!!!!!!" Priceless

 

[Arianrhod]

The posters who began referring to and slagging off Christian beliefs on this thread were Lakota and you. There was no 'ignorant religionism' from anyone - just people who were happy that a loophole for putting on the nativity was found. So you attacked Christianity in the absence of any 'ignorant religionism', I shall look forward to seeing if you have the cajones to do the same about Islam and it's ignorance. But obviously I won't hold my breath as you Christian bashers always stay well away from daring to criticise Islam in any way, shape or form.

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

The loons are bawling "it's not FAIR!!!!! They found a loophole!!!!!!!" Priceless

"Loophole" was your word. What are you trying to tell us?

 

[IsaacNewton]

Not "Christianity," but the pseudo-Christians on this board and elsewhere.

Who are the ignorant Muslim religionists on this board?

The posters who began referring to and slagging off Christian beliefs on this thread were Lakota and you. There was no 'ignorant religionism' from anyone - just people who were happy that a loophole for putting on the nativity was found. So you attacked Christianity in the absence of any 'ignorant religionism', I shall look forward to seeing if you have the cajones to do the same about Islam and it's ignorance. But obviously I won't hold my breath as you Christian bashers always stay well away from daring to criticise Islam in any way, shape or form.

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

"And Jesus said, let thou not love your enemy but thou should gloat whenever possible. Be not humble and forgiving but pass judgement always and with great hatred".

Well that's what the conservative 'jesus' says, the real Jesus says the opposite. Which is why modern cons in the US are anti-Christ.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The posters who began referring to and slagging off Christian beliefs on this thread were Lakota and you. There was no 'ignorant religionism' from anyone - just people who were happy that a loophole for putting on the nativity was found. So you attacked Christianity in the absence of any 'ignorant religionism', I shall look forward to seeing if you have the cajones to do the same about Islam and it's ignorance. But obviously I won't hold my breath as you Christian bashers always stay well away from daring to criticise Islam in any way, shape or form.

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

"And Jesus said, let thou not love your enemy but thou should gloat whenever possible. Be not humble and forgiving but pass judgement always and with great hatred".

Well that's what the conservative 'jesus' says, the real Jesus says the opposite. Which is why modern cons in the US are anti-Christ.

Friggin morons claim not to believe but are always quoting. What a bunch of gonads

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The posters who began referring to and slagging off Christian beliefs on this thread were Lakota and you. There was no 'ignorant religionism' from anyone - just people who were happy that a loophole for putting on the nativity was found. So you attacked Christianity in the absence of any 'ignorant religionism', I shall look forward to seeing if you have the cajones to do the same about Islam and it's ignorance. But obviously I won't hold my breath as you Christian bashers always stay well away from daring to criticise Islam in any way, shape or form.

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

The loons are bawling "it's not FAIR!!!!! They found a loophole!!!!!!!" Priceless

Loophole? No, they disobeyed the intent of the law, as the Judge is about to point out to them. As for their case in January, over and done with, they done fucked with the Judge, never a good idea.

My bet is, he rules with prejudice and that is the end of all appeals.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

The loons are bawling "it's not FAIR!!!!! They found a loophole!!!!!!!" Priceless

Loophole? No, they disobeyed the intent of the law, as the Judge is about to point out to them. As for their case in January, over and done with, they done fucked with the Judge, never a good idea...

I said nobody cares about you Mr 3000 Worthless.

 

[Tilly]

So you can't name any ignorant Muslim posters on this board and you don't think there are any ignorant Christian posters because you obviously subscribe to the War on Christmas.

Shouldn't you be out in front of Starbucks protesting the loss of the Sacred Snowflakes?

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

The loons are bawling "it's not FAIR!!!!! They found a loophole!!!!!!!" Priceless

Loophole? No, they disobeyed the intent of the law, as the Judge is about to point out to them. As for their case in January, over and done with, they done fucked with the Judge, never a good idea.

My bet is, he rules with prejudice and that is the end of all appeals.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I have no idea what your sacred snowflakes are and I'm not a Christian. The point remains your claim is bogus as there was no display of ignorant religionism on this thread, just ignoramuses like you who find it amusing to attack Christianity unprovoked whilst being way too scared to do the same with Islam. Shame on you.

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

The loons are bawling "it's not FAIR!!!!! They found a loophole!!!!!!!" Priceless

Loophole? No, they disobeyed the intent of the law, as the Judge is about to point out to them. As for their case in January, over and done with, they done fucked with the Judge, never a good idea...

I said nobody cares about you Mr 3000 Worthless.

Then stop responding, you stupid ****...

 

[Tilly]

Nonsense.

No one is 'attacking' Christianity, and no one is 'attacking' Christmas.

Requiring government entities such as schools to comply with settled and accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence prohibiting the promotion of religion by government is not to 'attack' Christianity, the notion is ignorant nonsense.

And should Muslims likewise seek to conjoin religion and government in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, they too would be subject to a warranted, appropriate lawsuit prohibiting them from doing so, where such a lawsuit would in no way manifest as an 'attack' on Islam.

You are not responding to anything in my post. But thanks anyway. It's good to see you all getting so bent out of shape because some Christians got something past you. Lol.

The loons are bawling "it's not FAIR!!!!! They found a loophole!!!!!!!" Priceless

Loophole? No, they disobeyed the intent of the law, as the Judge is about to point out to them. As for their case in January, over and done with, they done fucked with the Judge, never a good idea...

I said nobody cares about you Mr 3000 Worthless.

Then stop responding, you stupid ****...

According to FOX28, there was applause at the Concord High performing arts center and some people were even moved to tears when the curtain rose to reveal a static Nativity scene. All whilst obeying the law. Well done to them.

 

[ogibillm]

Ah, loopholes, ain't they grand? I wonder if the little snowflake and father who filed suit stroked out?

Banned live Nativity scene at Indiana high school goes on with mannequins

ELKHART, Ind. (December 13, 2015) — After a federal judge banned Concord High School from performing a live nativity scene at their yearly Christmas Spectacular, the school compromised and used mannequins instead of student actors.

According to FOX28, there was applause at the Concord High performing arts center and some people were even moved to tears when the curtain rose to reveal a static Nativity scene.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the school district on behalf of a Concord High School student and his father, arguing that a Nativity scene conveyed an endorsement of religion. And a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction last Wednesday to stop this year’s live scene.

Banned live Nativity scene at Indiana high school goes on with mannequins

And, once again, they need to be sued. Keep your fucking gods out of our secular public schools.

Meh, treat it like a myth. Next year they can do the Great Pumpkin.

Next year there won't be Jesus on stage, period. This was their last cheat, the last time they break the law in the name of Jesus.

Diddums. Look just how bent out of shape you are, lol.
It seems they are industrious enough to find more work arounds. Bless their ingenuity.

This wasn't a work-around. The school will be sued and they will lose and it will cost them.

That's poor stewardship of the taxpayer's dollars

 

[JOSweetHeart]

To me, they should have just had the nativity take place somewhere else. Then the students could still be who made it all happen.

God bless you and them always!!!

Holly

A church would have been a dandy place for that, and they wouldn't have been breaking the law.

A performing arts place would have been good too. If they want it to be in more than just a church place, they should be allowed to do it elsewhere too just like everything else that can be done in more than just one place.

God bless you and them always!!!

Holly

P.S. To me, if things like shooting people is going to happen anywhere, so should a religious production.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Taking you down one illegal action, like the OP, at a time: Illinois school district to stop coach-led prayers - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Colorado clerk removes religious poster after FFRF complaint - Freedom From Religion Foundation

That's where you anti-American fascists go wrong. Freedom of is way different from freedom from.
Move to Iran, asshole.

My people founded this nation. Your kind is trying, like these assholes at this Public School, to make it a theocracy for Jesus.

In Iran they would have had religion all over that Public school, they do not have freedom of religion there, your kind of place.

I'm an a American and my people founded his nation.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Taking you down one illegal action, like the OP, at a time: Illinois school district to stop coach-led prayers - Freedom From Religion Foundation

Colorado clerk removes religious poster after FFRF complaint - Freedom From Religion Foundation

That's where you anti-American fascists go wrong. Freedom of is way different from freedom from.
Move to Iran, asshole.

My people founded this nation. Your kind is trying, like these assholes at this Public School, to make it a theocracy for Jesus.

In Iran they would have had religion all over that Public school, they do not have freedom of religion there, your kind of place.

I'm an a American and my people founded his nation.

You are an American in name only. Liberals founded the place, for liberals.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Oh yes they do, dupe. Tell a muslim student to remove her headgear. I dare you, phony.

That is a person, dumbass. The kids have freedom of religion, the school does not.

The school is comprised of kids, moron.

Nope. We own it, and it doesn't not have Freedom of Religion.

The kids are the primary part of 'we'.

Nope. They didn't even pay for the fucking thing, they just go there to learn what we teach them.

Brainwashed dupe. We pay for it through taxes.

 

[Marianne]

Ah, loopholes, ain't they grand? I wonder if the little snowflake and father who filed suit stroked out?

Banned live Nativity scene at Indiana high school goes on with mannequins

ELKHART, Ind. (December 13, 2015) — After a federal judge banned Concord High School from performing a live nativity scene at their yearly Christmas Spectacular, the school compromised and used mannequins instead of student actors.

According to FOX28, there was applause at the Concord High performing arts center and some people were even moved to tears when the curtain rose to reveal a static Nativity scene.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the school district on behalf of a Concord High School student and his father, arguing that a Nativity scene conveyed an endorsement of religion. And a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction last Wednesday to stop this year’s live scene.

Banned live Nativity scene at Indiana high school goes on with mannequins

Oh look the atheists are having their annual shitting of a brick festival at the idea that other people don't believe as they do. Personally I love that they found a loop hole. We have had atheists complain about the Menorah and Nativity on our green and they tried to get the city to remove it. We also had a loop hole. The town green doesn't belong to the city, it actually belongs to the first Congregational Church. The church is generous enough to allow city functions on their land even if they aren't Christian I.E. the menorah now on the green. I guess the religious are more tolerant than atheists.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

That is a person, dumbass. The kids have freedom of religion, the school does not.

The school is comprised of kids, moron.

Nope. We own it, and it doesn't not have Freedom of Religion.

The kids are the primary part of 'we'.

Nope. They didn't even pay for the fucking thing, they just go there to learn what we teach them.

Brainwashed dupe. We pay for it through taxes.

The adults pay, not the kiddos, and while they do have religious freedom, the school does not, and it is promoting religion, which is illegal here.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Ah, loopholes, ain't they grand? I wonder if the little snowflake and father who filed suit stroked out?

Banned live Nativity scene at Indiana high school goes on with mannequins

ELKHART, Ind. (December 13, 2015) — After a federal judge banned Concord High School from performing a live nativity scene at their yearly Christmas Spectacular, the school compromised and used mannequins instead of student actors.

According to FOX28, there was applause at the Concord High performing arts center and some people were even moved to tears when the curtain rose to reveal a static Nativity scene.

The Freedom from Religion Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union sued the school district on behalf of a Concord High School student and his father, arguing that a Nativity scene conveyed an endorsement of religion. And a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction last Wednesday to stop this year’s live scene.

Banned live Nativity scene at Indiana high school goes on with mannequins

Oh look the atheists are having their annual shitting of a brick festival at the idea that other people don't believe as they do. Personally I love that they found a loop hole. We have had atheists complain about the Menorah and Nativity on our green and they tried to get the city to remove it. We also had a loop hole. The town green doesn't belong to the city, it actually belongs to the first Congregational Church. The church is generous enough to allow city functions on their land even if they aren't Christian I.E. the menorah now on the green. I guess the religious are more tolerant than atheists.

Look, dumbass, they didn't find a loophole, they disobeyed the spirit of the law, and are about to get nailed for it, in less than 24 hours.