Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Federal court allows schools' Jewish and Muslim symbols, bans Christian nativity
Associated Press (via fortwayne.com) ^ | Thu, Feb. 09, 2006 | Associated Press

Posted on 02/09/2006 3:52:59 PM PST by newzjunkey

NEW YORK (AP) - A federal appeals court has upheld New York City's policy on school holiday displays, which allows symbols of Jewish and Muslim holidays but prohibits Christian nativity scenes. Santa Claus, reindeer and Christmas trees are permitted.

The 2-1 ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court judge, who said allowing secular symbols neither advanced nor inhibited religion.

The appeals court said no objective observer would believe the city wanted to communicate to its million-plus students "any official endorsement of Judaism and Islam or any dismissal of Christianity." Instead, the court said, the purpose was to use holidays to encourage respect for diverse cultural traditions.

Dissenting Judge Chester Straub objected that the policy "utilizes religious symbols of certain religions, but bans the religious symbols of another."

The original case was filed by Andrea Skoros, a Roman Catholic mother of two sons who attended public schools, who said the policy promotes Judaism and Islam while conveying disapproval of Christianity. Her purpose was not to bar Jewish and Muslim symbols but to have schools add Nativity scenes.

Skoros' lawyer plans to ask the full 2nd Circuit to review the case or, if that fails, to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: 1stamendment; 2ndcircuit; andrewaskoros; antichristian; antichristianbias; blackrobedthugs; catholic; chesterstraub; jesushaters; judicialtyrrany; leftisthypocrisy; moralabsolutes; multiculturalism; nativity; nyc; waronchristmas
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last
To: zeugma

ping


21 posted on 02/09/2006 5:05:37 PM PST by zgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: montag813

[The Judges have spoken. Now it's time for the people to totally ignore their ruling, and the Executive branch to refuse to enforce it.]

The President of the United States should not be in the habit of breaking the law.


22 posted on 02/09/2006 5:06:48 PM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

bump


23 posted on 02/09/2006 5:08:55 PM PST by lowbridge (All that is needed for evil to triumph is for "RINOS" to do something)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
The President of the United States should not be in the habit of breaking the law.

What law would the President be breaking?

24 posted on 02/09/2006 5:13:28 PM PST by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Seniram US
This is absolutely outrageous, but I am not surprised.
We allowed all sorts of people in our country and, now, they are subverting the Christian population and culture.
The worst part is that the trend is accelerating (see the open borders)...
25 posted on 02/09/2006 5:20:45 PM PST by dbostan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

Hypothetically, if Constitutional law is being violated in an area where the Executive branch has jurisdiction, and the President refuses to enforce the law then that would be illegal.

Having said that, if the law as it's being interpreted, is not what the people want, then there is a legitimate process to rectify that.

Having laws on the books that are routinely ignored for political reasons is never a good thing. U.S. immigration policy is a good illustration of this.


26 posted on 02/09/2006 5:35:17 PM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JackTom

"Plus judge Straub, although beeing Clinton appointee, is on the right side not for the first time."

I thought an interesting take on all this judge stuff was Olympia Snow's (I think!) statement on why she was going to vote to confirm Alito. In part she said (I paraphrase) that experience shows that attempting to devine how any given person might rule in some future case was a completely futile effort, so one had to look to other things in making one's decision.

I had to have some respect for RINO Snow on that count.

Or let's put it this way, thank Goodness Clinton put somebody with a brain on the court!


27 posted on 02/09/2006 5:50:42 PM PST by jocon307 (The Silent Majority - silent no longer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
I agree with some of what you say, and the Appeals Court should hear the case en banc, and, if necessary, the Supreme Court as well.

I understand the rectification process and agree that laws "on the books," by congressional legisilation should be enforced.

But a President refusing to enforce a court decision is not unprecedented as I think you would agree.

28 posted on 02/09/2006 5:55:05 PM PST by HoosierHawk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: HoosierHawk

[...a President refusing to enforce a court decision is not unprecedented as I think you would agree.]

I agree.

<?:^)


29 posted on 02/09/2006 6:06:52 PM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: spinestein

I agree with Andy Jackson, who said he swore to uphold the Constitution as he understood it, not as someone else interpreted it for him.

(If the people, who are the ultimate source of power in this country, don't like it, they can throw out the justices or throw out the President. But the court cannot throw out a president, nor the president throw out a justice.)


30 posted on 02/09/2006 6:27:13 PM PST by CondorFlight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Sisku Hanne
Uh-huh, they is.

And that song really does encourage me as well.

31 posted on 02/09/2006 7:36:56 PM PST by ExcursionGuy84 ("Jesus, Your Love takes my breath away.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07

The decision, albeit without reading it, appears ludicrous on its face from the snippet. LOL.


32 posted on 02/09/2006 8:02:24 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
This is just another outright admission, the same as the ACLU constantly admits, that Christianity is the founding faith of the nation. It's just another acknowledgement that the strength of the nation is the Christian faith.

33 posted on 02/09/2006 8:10:15 PM PST by William Terrell (Individuals can exist without government but government can't exist without individuals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

Somebody needs to sue theses a$$wipes for a violation of US Code Title 18 Section 242...Deprivation of rights under color of law!


34 posted on 02/09/2006 8:15:09 PM PST by MamaTexan (I am NOT a ~legal entity~, nor am I a *person* as created by law!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: XR7
Lets get bloody because some False Prophet's grandson got killed in a battle

Guys - educate yourself about the history of Islam and then ask yourself - Could such a thing come from God?

35 posted on 02/09/2006 8:16:35 PM PST by DeaconNoGood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: freepatriot32

Have you seen this yet?


36 posted on 02/09/2006 8:16:41 PM PST by GoodWithBarbarians JustForKaos (LIBS = Lewd Insane Babbling Scum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee; MillerCreek

FYI.


37 posted on 02/09/2006 8:52:06 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spinestein
Two unelected judges, do not a law make.

The judiciary DO NOT MAKE LAWS. It is high time CONgress started doing their job and stop this nonsense.

38 posted on 02/09/2006 8:52:07 PM PST by Just A Nobody (NEVER AGAIN - Support our troops. I *LOVE* my attitude problem! Beware the Enemedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Justanobody

Ditto that


39 posted on 02/09/2006 9:02:51 PM PST by spinestein (All journalists today are paid advocates for someone's agenda.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: DeaconNoGood
Guys - educate yourself about the history of Islam and then ask yourself - Could such a thing come from God?

Nope.


40 posted on 02/09/2006 10:40:04 PM PST by XR7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-50 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson