Senator Schumer to light brooklyns largest menorah.

Tonight @ 6pm all are invited to join NY senior senator Charles Schumer as he lights Brooklyn's largest menorah.

Live music, Hot "latkes", Gifts for the children.
HAPPY CHANUKAH

My friend sent me this.

I think it's the the same one, I will go tonight to see it myself.

I guess nobody's bothered here by an obvious infringement of church/state separation, eh?

Massimo wrote: I guess nobody's bothered here by an obvious infringement of church/state separation, eh?

I don't think this was in his official capacity as Senator, but rather as an individual. It's not like the White House Easter Egg roll...

i walked past that thing over the weekend
its the crapiest menorha ive ever seen.
it looks like it was spot welded together from old bed frames.

Carnivore wrote: I don't think this was in his official capacity as Senator, but rather as an individual. It's not like the White House Easter Egg roll...

That may be, but part of my point is that the display is on private land (unless I'm mistaken), and therefore whoever put it up had to get permission from Borough government.

Massimo wrote: [quote=Carnivore]I don't think this was in his official capacity as Senator, but rather as an individual. It's not like the White House Easter Egg roll...

That may be, but part of my point is that the display is on private land (unless I'm mistaken), and therefore whoever put it up had to get permission from Borough government.
Did you mean public land?

Carnivore wrote: Did you mean public land?

Yup, sorry, must have been tired last night...

Massimo wrote: I guess nobody's bothered here by an obvious infringement of church/state separation, eh?

Actually, it's not. In County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, the Supreme Court ruled that it's not a violation of the separation of church and state when there are representations of multiple religions in a public space. It's only when there's only one religion represented that it's considered government endorsement of a religion. Given that there are also Christmas decorations, this is clearly not a violation.

apollonia666 wrote: [quote=Massimo]I guess nobody's bothered here by an obvious infringement of church/state separation, eh?

Actually, it's not. In County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, the Supreme Court ruled that it's not a violation of the separation of church and state when there are representations of multiple religions in a public space. It's only when there's only one religion represented that it's considered government endorsement of a religion. Given that there are also Christmas decorations, this is clearly not a violation.

so says the supreme court, and they must be right, huh? i mean, they would know a violation when they saw one, right? i mean, obviously, if you allow multiple religions (or if you happen to have only a nativity scene and don't specifically prohibit others), then we're talking about "establishment of religions" (plural), which is a far cry from the "establishment of religion" (singular) prohibited by the constitution. because well, at least it's fair to everyone right? unless you happen to be atheist or whatever, in which case you're not allowed. but then you're going to hell anyway. so yeah, i guess they're right.

Smokin' Joe wrote: [quote=apollonia666][quote=Massimo]I guess nobody's bothered here by an obvious infringement of church/state separation, eh?

Actually, it's not. In County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, the Supreme Court ruled that it's not a violation of the separation of church and state when there are representations of multiple religions in a public space. It's only when there's only one religion represented that it's considered government endorsement of a religion. Given that there are also Christmas decorations, this is clearly not a violation.

so says the supreme court, and they must be right, huh? i mean, they would know a violation when they saw one, right? i mean, obviously, if you allow multiple religions (or if you happen to have only a nativity scene and don't specifically prohibit others), then we're talking about "establishment of religions" (plural), which is a far cry from the "establishment of religion" (singular) prohibited by the constitution. because well, at least it's fair to everyone right? unless you happen to be atheist or whatever, in which case you're not allowed. but then you're going to hell anyway. so yeah, i guess they're right.

I'm not saying I personally support menorahs or Christmas trees or any other religious symbols in public spaces, nor am I trying to say what I think the law on this *should* be. I was simply trying to answer the question of whether a menorah in a public park violates the doctrine of separation of church and state under the law as it stands. I didn't say the Supreme Court was right. I think the Supreme Court is often wrong on a LOT of things, but they're still the last word as far as how the law is interpreted and applied in this country.

Smokin' Joe wrote: i mean, obviously, if you allow multiple religions (or if you happen to have only a nativity scene and don't specifically prohibit others), then we're talking about "establishment of religions" (plural), which is a far cry from the "establishment of religion" (singular) prohibited by the constitution.

i don't think you CAN establish religions (plural) with any real authority, because so vanishingly few religions think another one is right. you don't catch the catholic church, for instance, saying "you should believe in jesus! but hinduism's okay with us too! so if you're hindu, we think you're on the right track."

you're both right, of course. i was just getting caught up in the holiday spirit.