Winnit Argumentative Essay

Winnit wanted to put up a statue to show his religion, but he put it right in front of another religious statue. Official take it down thus making Winnit mad, so he files a lawsuit demanding to put it back up. The District court ruled in favor of the officials saying that it wasn’t a violation of freedom of exercise of religion, and if the troll was kept would act as government speech, which is a violation of the First Amendment. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed with both the District and eventually the Supreme Court. I have a dissenting opinion with the majority with the Supreme Court. Trying to take Winnit’s statue down is a violation of establishment because they are then allowing the other statue to stay up. This shows favoring …show more content…
Donnelly, Lynch, like Winnit wanted to put up a Christmas display located in the city's shopping district. The creche had been included in the display for over 40 years. Daniel Donnelly objected to the display and took action against Dennis Lynch, just like the officials did by taking down Winnit’s statue. The Supreme Court decided that there is no violations of free exercise and the Supreme Court held that the symbols posed no danger of establishing a state church. Therefore, leaving both statues up would not violate freedom of exercise, but if they allow one statue they will have to anyone to put up a statue. Allowing people to put up their own religious statues means the official is violating establishment. The difference between the Lynch case was more than just the religious part of Christmas, it was just mainly decoration and the Winnit case is about religious meaning. In another case Allegheny County v. Greater Pittsburgh, there was a creche and menorah in a holiday display, which the Supreme Court found no violation. The hard part for the Supreme Court was the overall effect of the display. The Supreme Court questioned if it was to emphasize the religious nature of the symbols, or emphasis was primarily