The Social Network & Community JUST for Firefighters
Charleston Firehouse Ordered to Remove Nativity Scene
CHARLESTON, S.C. - A fire department in South Carolina has removed a nativity display from a station after getting a complaint.
The Post and Courier of Charleston reported Monday that the nativity scene was removed from Charleston's Fire Station 12 after the complaint that the display supports Christianity.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter dated Dec. 17 to Mayor Joe Riley and Fire Chief Thomas Carr asking that the display be removed. The letter says a local resident complained.
The complaint was referred to the city's legal department, which recommended the scene be removed, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings against promoting one religion over another.
A number of Charleston fire stations have Christmas decorations, but those include Santa Claus and holiday lights.
___
Information from: The Post and Courier, http://www.postandcourier.com
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
The Post and Courier of Charleston reported Monday that the nativity scene was removed from Charleston's Fire Station 12 after the complaint that the display supports Christianity.
The Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation sent a letter dated Dec. 17 to Mayor Joe Riley and Fire Chief Thomas Carr asking that the display be removed. The letter says a local resident complained.
The complaint was referred to the city's legal department, which recommended the scene be removed, citing U.S. Supreme Court rulings against promoting one religion over another.
A number of Charleston fire stations have Christmas decorations, but those include Santa Claus and holiday lights.
___
Information from: The Post and Courier, http://www.postandcourier.com
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher Lee Melton on
-
i wanted to be clear. i support your right to freedom of religion no matter what religion it maybe. this time of year is about taking care of one another giving and coming together. i love all my fireman bros. no matter what your beliefs are. you are all dear to my heart and i wish you all the best.
-
Permalink Reply by Ron Ayotte on
-
The Great Gig in the Sky... 1973, Pink Floyd, Dark Sie of the Moon, track 4.
4 minutes, 44 seconds.
Written by the late Richard Wright Vocals by Clare Torry
-
-
We have a few firefighters who have the word "bald" under the hair color section of their FD ID cards..
I am a clean car fanatic.. My garage is a house of worship.. I call it the Church of the Highly Reflective Finish.. an I get a tax exempt status for it?
-
Permalink Reply by Ben Waller on
-
You guys don't attend the Rev. Billy C. Wirtz's church?
The First House of Polyester Worship and Throbbing Horizontal Teena...?
I'm a little suprised here.
BTW, I have "bald" as my hair color, too. The DMV disagrees and claims that bald is a length, not a color.
-
-
The nativity scene has been replaced at Station 12, with the support of Charleston Mayor Joe Riley.
Firefighter Hourly and the Charleston Post and Courier have the story.
-
Permalink Reply by Jack/dt on
-
Ben;
I have no issue in discussion nor defending what I've written but, you make points and statements with regard to what I've said but, with out quoting me I have no clear idea what to respond to or how to respond to it. (e.g. artificial, narrow construct as a landmark to this reply)
-
-
Ben,
As for the government getting into the prohibition of free speech, the supreme court ruled that public property can not be used to promote one religion over another. It preserves the "sanctity" (if you will) of public-ness. It does however allow for the display of all religions, so as not to single any one out, either for or against.
To your point about firefighters's right to free expression, why should ff's be singled out to have some greater right of expression than anyone else? Their house is still city property. I think John Crabbe explained it best in that a ff can not use his/her duty time, or in uniform to campaign for a candidate or political stand as it would give the impression that his/her position is that of the fire department.
The greater difference is that in the examples you subsequently give, you are pointing out that people are protesting or campaigning for the opportunity for equal treatment and civil rights. If the ff's, off duty, wanted to march with signs expressing their belief that they should be able to have a display on/at their station, that would have been allowed.
Religious displays in a common public space, so long as all are permitted is allowable under the constitution. But putting up a particular display on or at a building which promotes only one belief suggests an affirmation or approval of that belief over another by the (a, some) government entity.
If a firefighter from another religion wants to put up a crescent moon or a menorah, or whatever, then shouldn't they be allowed to do that as well. Why should it only be limited to a ff? It's a public building. So I presume then that you would be in favor of allowing, on or at a firehouse, a banner, sign or symbol announcing ramadan and then a sign wishing everyone a happy Eid ul-Fitr? Would the fire department allow an indian request to put lights up on the station to celebrate divali? With or without an indian firefighter?
Prohibition of one can be construed as a prohibition of all. Prohibitions are an interference with "the free exercise" of rights by definition. Right, like prohibiting the right to yell fire in a crowed theatre. One person's rights end where they infringe on another person's rights. What was your argument with regard to the menorah only being allowed 1 day of display on public property, yet the christmas sign is allowed up for the season? Remind me, did that firehouse generously offer to allow the menorah to be displayed in their station. Yes, I do indeed see the relevance now.
-
-
1) Prohibiting religious displays is "interfering with the free exercise therof". Prohibiting all religious displays does not allow free exercise.
2) It doesn't matter how a particular religion views their deity. If they are prohibited from their "free exercise" along with everyone else, then the government isn't allowing the "free exercise" guaranteed in the Constitution.
3) Freedom from religion (the concept, not the Wisconsin group) is not the same thing as the freedom of religion.
4) If we prohibit the free exercise of religion because it is in public, then we can logically remove the artificial narrow construct that limits this to only religion, and include prohibiting the free exercise of the right to gather peacefully on public property and the right to free speech on public property.
After all, prohibiting the excercise of free speech on public property and the freedom to assemble peacefully on public property are fair to everyone in the same sense that prohibiting religious displays are fair.
The artificial construct is limiting the prohibition to religion while using another standard for Constitutional freedoms like assembly and speech.
4)
-
-
As for "ratcheting up", I'll respectfully ask you to look at the volume and tone of your posts on the subject compared to mine. My comment about ratcheting it up was directed at your changing the direction from the original post to one of a variety of religious topics and issues and writing about joshua and jerichio.
Ben, when you say volume and tone, how exactly do you mean? When you say volume, do you mean as in loudness (all caps) or prolifically? If it is the latter please note that others have contributed considerably to this discussion and I am not aware of any word limits to individual posts. I try to make myself clear in each of my replies. Between you and me indeed there is a considerable volume of replies between us. That's not a good thing?
That I have numerous replies is indicative of the fact that I am responding to other posts or replies. Please show me where I am violating the TOS, or even forum etiquette? (I might add that you yourself can be rather prolific.) Also, while I understand that this has kind of become a you-and-I debate there are many others who post both often and wordy.
As to "the tones..(of my)...posts" I have been well behaved and constrained, which is more than I can say of some who have posted. Yet I never see you jumping in and telling someone that they should tone it down, why is that?
Do you see the relevance now? Now, out of context that statement seems fine on the whole, but taken IN the context of what you had written, it takes on a sarcastic tone, one of you chiding me as though I fail to see your point(s). It was a bit off putting but I'll let it slide.
Again, in many of the responses the tone was such that it may have well elicited a somewhat less than neutral tone from me. Not unlike how your tone changes a bit with something I've written. I guess we are all fallible in that regard but it is much less noticed when the person doing it happens to agree with you. I'm just saying...
-
-
Jack,
Jack, - I wasn't 'ratcheting up' the discussion.
I was responding to the "war" topic that you brought up.
You had already done quite a bit of responding to other's posts, in a lot more volume (number of posts, not all caps) than my total here.
That sounds a little like you trying to steer the conversation in a certain way, thus the "artificial construct" statement. When you bring war into the conversation, then that opens the door for additional conversations about war, which is all I did there.
I fail to see how it is "ratcheting it up" when I respond to one of your posts in disagreement when you've already done the same many more times earlier in the discussion. My comments have been neutral as well, limited to a) news story updates, b) questions about Constitutional comparisons between where we can exercise a variety of Consitutional freedoms, and c) points about the lack of a specific religion being mentioned on our money or in the context of the wars under discussion. I fail to see how I deserved a "ratcheting it up" comment from you based on that.
As for my "relevance" question, that wasn't anything more than a question to find out if you understood my point or not, period. You apparently read something into that question that was not intended.
The interesting thing is that Mayor Riley apparently agrees with my point that it is better to allow a variety of religious displays than to prohibit them all. Once again, a blanket prohibition is not the same as allowing "free exercise".
-
-
I hope I'm getting this right, no one told me there was going to be a quiz.
1) I disagree. If that statement were true people would be allowed to put up displays any time, any where and for any 'reason'. Banning or restricting religious displays on or at public buildings is not a restriction of freedom exercise. They have that right to do it practically everywhere else but a public building is neither the time nor place for it. There HAS to be decorum. How else do you explain the radical infringement of rights in a courtroom? Contempt of court? Where is my right to freedom of speech there? Oh wait, it's necessary to maintain order. I get it.
But zoning regulations that restrict house color, visible play ground equipment or other infringements on freedom of expression are ok?
2) No one is being prohibited from believing or expressing their beliefs. This is nothing more than a strawman argument.
3) Again I disagree. Article VI, section 3, USC "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." That seems to me to be a guarantee of freedom from religion and yes, freedom from IS the same as freedom OF (perhaps opposite sides of the same coin). Everyone has the same right to be religious as to not be.
4) Strawman again. No one is being restricted or prohibited from expressing their beliefs in public, only on occasion from displaying it on public property. I'm pretty sure that if the local church asks for permission to have a sunrise service for easter, it would be granted. As would permission for any other religion for their worship. You are conveniently confusing freedom of religious expression with governmental support of one religion over another.
4) i. "After all, prohibiting the excercise of free speech on public property and the freedom to assemble peacefully on public property are fair to everyone in the same sense that prohibiting religious displays are fair." Correct me if I'm wrong but oftentimes, in order to assemble permits are usually required (for an organized event). If one needs permission from local government is that a violation of rights?
4)ii. Again you are strawman-ing the issue. If someone places a sign on public property expressing a point of view it will be removed (or at least required to be permitted) because since it is public property the government can not be seen as supporting any particular viewpoint. It has to (or should) maintain neutrality.
© 2024 Created by Firefighter Nation WebChief.
Powered by
