[artlady]

Intolerance in any way shape or form is never pretty.

It is an expression of ignorance and that,sadly, crosses all faiths.

[Synnen]

It's not lack of tolerance.

I don't CARE what people believe, as long as they don't tell ME that I have to believe the same thing. Sadly, it comes off as though I "attack" Christians, because in my personal experience, it's Christians that have the LEAST tolerance of other beliefs, and are the MOST likely to tell you how horrible you are if you don't believe what they do.

I agree that the sign could have been better worded. I also still believe that there would have been NO real debate here if the sign hadn't been stolen, flipped around, and argued about endlessly.

My points have always been to try to make people see that their OWN religious symbols are offensive to others, regardless whether it is a majority or not. A majoriy can't be used to decide this, because then it just becomes religious bullying--because the "majority" in this country are Christians, and it is that group of people that feel the most attacked.

The signs that I've talked about may not have been in government buildings, but they HAVE been on billboards and signs along the highway. Had the atheist sign been posted on a billboard, would you have been less likely to talk about how offensive it was, even though a billboard is technically private property?

Apology accepted, by the way.

[speechlesstx]

It's not lack of tolerance.

I don't CARE what people believe, as long as they don't tell ME that I have to believe the same thing.

And yet, that is in a sense what the atheists are doing here.

Sadly, it comes off as though I "attack" Christians,

Actually I don't take it that way... from you. However...

because in my personal experience, it's Christians that have the LEAST tolerance of other beliefs, and are the MOST likely to tell you how horrible you are if you don't believe what they do.

I don't think that's the 'because.' The reason one would come off as "attacking" Christians is because of what they say, not because of what Christians have said. You choose what you say and how you say it, and that's part of my point - it doesn't matter how others act, we are each responsible for our choices and we don't have to be antagonistic just because someone else was.

I agree that the sign could have been better worded. I also still believe that there would have been NO real debate here if the sign hadn't been stolen, flipped around, and argued about endlessly.

Blame it on O'Reilly, he raised a stink long before the idiot thieves got involved.

My points have always been to try to make people see that their OWN religious symbols are offensive to others, regardless whether it is a majority or not. A majoriy can't be used to decide this, because then it just becomes religious bullying--because the "majority" in this country are Christians, and it is that group of people that feel the most attacked.

Honestly, I don't think any of us have doubted that our symbols, our signs, our behavior offend others, but can we not be mature enough to base our objections in this on what IS said and done and not feelings?

The signs that I've talked about may not have been in government buildings, but they HAVE been on billboards and signs along the highway. Had the atheist sign been posted on a billboard, would you have been less likely to talk about how offensive it was, even though a billboard is technically private property?

Let's see, how many timers have I, tom, TexasParent and perhaps others said that's a totally different scenario? If the atheists want to rent a billboard in Times Square on New Year's Rockin' Eve and display that very message I may not like it, but that's their business and their money, have at it.

[michealb]

I still don't see how you can call me intolerant. When all I want is the freedom for all groups to display there message equally on government property regardless of the message.

While I may personally feel religion is a bad idea. I would never interfere with anyone's freedom to make bad decisions.

You will always see me arguing for more freedom, regardless of the group involved.

[TexasParent]

So you would have no problem having pedophiles posting a sign saying: "Children are good for screwing, kidnap and rape one today" ?

My point is since you are for as much freedom as possible, do you have ANY limits on what is said or displayed?

[jillianleab]

Yet for those of you in this thread supporting the atheist side; there seems to be no tolerance at all.

It's not about intolerance, it's about being empathetic. It's about being able to see someone else's point of view. I'm not offended by the nativity. I'm not offended by the sign. I support neither in their message, but support both for their right to be there. Some people, on both sides are offended. I get that. I also get that neither side sees their display as inappropriate or offensive, but that some people do. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean the message or display is "wrong"; all it means is someone is offended by it. Someone is offended by nearly everything. So please tell me, how is that I'm being intolerant?

So you would have no problem having pedophiles posting a sign saying: "Children are good for screwing, kidnap and rape one today" ?

Now you're just being obtuse. Please tell me you see the difference between promoting illegal behavior and a sign that someone took personally.

[TexasParent]

It's not about intolerance, it's about being empathetic. It's about being able to see someone else's point of view. I'm not offended by the nativity. I'm not offended by the sign. I support neither in their message, but support both for their right to be there. Some people, on both sides are offended. I get that. I also get that neither side sees their display as inappropriate or offensive, but that some people do. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean the message or display is "wrong"; all it means is someone is offended by it. Someone is offended by nearly everything. So please tell me, how is that I'm being intolerant?



Now you're just being obtuse. Please tell me you see the difference between promoting illegal behavior and a sign that someone took personally.

OK, let's change the sign to: "White are people superior, black people are inferior". It's not much different than saying "There is no God, and religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds" as it is pointing out their superior position in their opinion by claiming there is no God and denouncing religion (a group) as being inferior to them as it "hardens hearts and enslaves minds".

My point is (and I was directing this to michaelb; but you are welcome to join in) if we take the stand that all signs and opinions are welcome in the name of freedom, is there a limit to that freedom, and do you or michaelb have ANY limits on freedom?

[jillianleab]

OK, let's change the sign to: "White are people superior, black people are inferior". It's not much different than saying "There is no God, and religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds" as it is pointing out their superior position in their opinion by claiming there is no God and denouncing religion (a group) as being inferior to them as it "hardens hearts and enslaves minds".

Such a sign, as vile as the message might be, is still legal. The KKK chants things similar to that all the time - they are allowed to exist. I still see a flaw in your sign comparison, as I don't see the atheist's sign as a message of superiority, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it. Are you insinuating your made up sign shouldn't be allowed to be posted?

My point is (and I was directing this to michaelb; but you are welcome to join in) if we take the stand that all signs and opinions are welcome in the name of freedom, is there a limit to that freedom, and do you or michaelb have ANY limits on freedom?

Let me turn your question around on you - what freedoms are you willing to give up? Me? I want all the ones the founders of this country gave me.

But you're ignoring the point of my post - arguing for the atheist's side isn't about intolerance, it's about empathy. Either you have it, or you don't.

[speechlesstx]

But you're ignoring the point of my post - arguing for the atheist's side isn't about intolerance, it's about empathy. Either you have it, or you don't.

First, I don't believe anyone has argued FOR eliminating rights, we've defended their rights all along so that's a non-issue. Secondly, empathy is a poor excuse for tolerating bad behavior. I can have all the empathy in the world for atheists but it doesn't mean I'd love for them to smack me over the head with it. I have empathy for inmates but it doesn't mean I want to set them all free. Empathy is great, but as an excuse to defend an attack on someone else is not very empathetic to the target. But I know, we Christians have demonized atheists so long we deserve it... that seems to be the attitude.

[jillianleab]

First, I don't believe anyone has argued FOR eliminating rights, we've defended their rights all along so that's a non-issue. Secondly, empathy is a poor excuse for tolerating bad behavior. I can have all the empathy in the world for atheists but it doesn't mean I'd love for them to smack me over the head with it. I have empathy for inmates but it doesn't mean I want to set them all free. Empathy is great, but as an excuse to defend an attack on someone else is not very empathetic to the target. But I know, we Christians have demonized atheists so long we deserve it...that seems to be the attitude.

BS. No one is saying "Christians deserve it"; stop being so dramatic. Ever the victim...

Who says I'm tolerating the bad behavior? I've repeated time and time again that I don't agree with the sign, but that I support their right to post it, and I'm empathetic to their position. I'm also empathetic to the Christians who are offended by the sign - they have every right to be offended, I understand why they are offended, but they don't have the right to steal and deface property because of their offence.

And about the elimination of rights - you have said they have the right to post a sign, but the sign they posted is unacceptable. To have it your way, only a "nice" sign would be posted. The thing is, "nice" is subjective, and you know it. People look upon the nativity as "not nice" but you support it being there. So yes, you say they have the right to post, you just have to approve of the message they post.

[speechlesstx]

BS. No one is saying "Christians deserve it"; stop being so dramatic. Ever the victim...

Come on Jillian, I'm not the one playing the drama here and never have. It's not "ever the victim" to mention the "target." Are you saying the sign targeted no one? It wasn't me that spoke of "the nativity respresenting persecution," "special privileges" for Christians, "no regard for the rights of minority groups" or asking the ultimate drama question, "what freedoms are you willing to give up?" So please, spare me the "ever the victim" BS.

Who says I'm tolerating the bad behavior? I've repeated time and time again that I don't agree with the sign, but that I support their right to post it, and I'm empathetic to their position. I'm also empathetic to the Christians who are offended by the sign - they have every right to be offended, I understand why they are offended, but they don't have the right to steal and deface property because of their offence.

Here we go again, as if we haven't condemned the sign thieves enough. While you and others have been defending their rights (which I have done as well), I've condemned what's wrong on both sides. Stealing the signs was wrong, but so was attacking those who believe in God, and you guys can't bring yourselves to admit that.

And about the elimination of rights - you have said they have the right to post a sign, but the sign they posted is unacceptable. To have it your way, only a "nice" sign would be posted. The thing is, "nice" is subjective, and you know it. People look upon the nativity as "not nice" but you support it being there. So yes, you say they have the right to post, you just have to approve of the message they post.

I've been very clear Jillian, only one display expressly, explicitly attacked other people and it was the sign. It's like Potter Stewart said about pornography, I may not be able to define what's acceptable to everyone, but I know an obvious attack when I see one, and that sign was an obvious attack, and that is WRONG.

[jillianleab]

Come on Jillian, I'm not the one playing the drama here and never have. It's not "ever the victim" to mention the "target." Are you saying the sign targeted no one? It wasn't me that spoke of "the nativity respresenting persecution," "special privileges" for Christians, "no regard for the rights of minority groups" or asking the ultimate drama question, "what freedoms are you willing to give up?" So please, spare me the "ever the victim" BS.

First off - the question about what freedoms are you willing to give up wasn't directed to you, but was in direct response to texasparent who asked what limitations on freedom I support. The reason I told you to knock off the dramatics is because you said, "we Christians have demonized atheists so long we deserve it...that seems to be the attitude. That's not mentioning the target, that's attempting to gain sympathy by being overly dramatic. I spoke of the nativity representing persecution because I was pointing out the point of view of the atheists who put up the sign, how is that being dramatic? And, I beg your pardon, but you are the one who brought up that Christians are the only ones who have a federal holiday, thus introducing the "special privileges". I stand by my "BS", my call of "drama" and my "ever the victim" statement.

Here we go again, as if we haven't condemned the sign thieves enough. While you and others have been defending their rights (which I have done as well), I've condemned what's wrong on both sides. Stealing the signs was wrong, but so was attacking those who believe in God, and you guys can't bring yourselves to admit that.

Did I say you didn't condemn the sign theves? NO. I simply made a statement about it, as I described what actions I understand and which ones I don't. And you've continued to ignore that I haven't endorsed the sign, I haven't defended it, I've only said I understand.

I've been very clear Jillian, only one display expressly, explicitly attacked other people and it was the sign. It's like Potter Stewart said about pornography, I may not be able to define what's acceptable to everyone, but I know an obvious attack when I see one, and that sign was an obvious attack, and that is WRONG.

And that goes back to someone making a subjective judgement. The atheists can use the same statement to defend their sign because to them, the nativity is an attack.

I'm not saying you can't be offended. I'm not saying you can't view the sign as an attack. I'm saying you aren't seeing the other side; you have no empathy, you have no perspective. But OK, you say the sign is wrong; what do you suppose ought to be done about it?

[TexasParent]

And that goes back to someone making a subjective judgement. The atheists can use the same statement to defend their sign because to them, the nativity is an attack.

I'm not saying you can't be offended. I'm not saying you can't view the sign as an attack. I'm saying you aren't seeing the other side; you have no empathy, you have no perspective. But ok, you say the sign is wrong; what do you suppose ought to be done about it?

What about the navitity scene is an attack? Nothing, it's a scene of people standing around a baby with some farm animals thrown in. The sign on the other had is an explicit, worded attack against a belief system which at last count 70% or more of American's believe in, in some shape or form. The navitity scene has no words on it, and I for one other than have learned that it represents the birth of Jesus, don't know much else. Any reasonable person would not attach a negative meaning to the scene. Just like if the atheists wanted to put up a symbol that is recognised as the world holding hands and saying something like; we are in this together. Myself, and I doubt many Christian would have a problem with something to that effect.

The problem truthfully is the anti-religious bigotry, no one here who is not religious (with the exception of myself) sees anything positive about the nativity scene, they impose their hatred of religion and say the scene represents all the negatives they feel about religion. They try to say that the nativity scene is more than equal to the direct attack on religion that was explicitly worded on atheist sign. That is complete nonsense.

[jillianleab]

What about the navitity scene is an attack? Nothing, it's a scene of people standing around a baby with some farm animals thrown in. The sign on the other had is an explicit, worded attack against a belief system which at last count 70% or more of American's believe in, in some shape or form. The navitity scene has no words on it, and I for one other than have learned that it represents the birth of Jesus, don't know much else. Any reasonable person would not attach a negative meaning to the scene. Just like if the atheists wanted to put up a symbol that is recognised as the world holding hands and saying something like; we are in this together. Myself, and I doubt many Christian would have a problem with something to that effect.

Oh for cryin' out loud... have we been reading the same thread? Let me help you; go back to page 4 and read post #31 and the article in that post. Then, go to page 6 and read post #53. THEN go to page 11, post #107 (which was directed at you). That should be enough to get you started.

And what, precisley is your point in stating that 70% of Americans are Christian? Because it is likely to offend more people, it shouldn't be allowed? The rights and offence of the majority trump the rights and offence of the minority?

Could the sign have been worded more gently - YES. But the group who put up the sign displayed THEIR message the way THEY see fit, which is their right. It is not up to you or me to tell them it's impolite and shouldn't be allowed. And I beg to differ that an alternate sign would not be faced with similar opposition. Perhaps not by the people on this board, but there is a substantial population of Christians who take offence to anything which is not "pro-Christianity". For example, people who have their cars vandalized because they have a Darwin fish.

The problem truthfully is the anti-religious bigotry, no one here who is not religious (with the exception of myself) sees anything positive about the nativity scene, they impose their hatred of religion and say the scene represents all the negatives they feel about religion. They try to say that the nativity scene is more than equal to the direct attack on religion that was explicitly worded on atheist sign. That is complete nonsense.

I am not anti-religious, and I am not a bigot. I don't see anything negative about the nativity scene - it doesn't bother me in the least. I do not hate religion, I do not think the nativity, or any religious symbol, for that matter representes the negatives I feel about religion. I have not said the nativity is equal to the sign. Please do me a favor and stop passing judgements on people you don't know. While you're at it - come on off that high horse.

I have said, both groups have a right to put up a display. Both groups see an attack. Both are offended. Neither has the right to not be offended. I have said I am empathetic to both sides. I get it. You, apparently, don't.

[TexasParent]

Oh for cryin' out loud... maybe you get part of it and I do to with regards to peoples rights; but there is a big difference between the two displays.

Tell me there is no difference between a Navitity scene and a sign like this:

"There is one God. There is one Devil. There are angels, a heaven and hell. There is more than our natural world. Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

You have acknowledged that the sign could have been worded more politely. That's the point.

What is wrong with promoting your point of view by characterizing what is good and attractive about your point of view rather than attacking anothers point of view. The Nativity scene doesn't attack anothers point of view explicitly. If you want to argue that it attacks anothers point of view indirectly by it's meare presence, then we could debate that point, but it's not an explicit attack.

Can't we just agress that everybody should be FREE to express their beliefs in a manner that doesn't directly or explicitly attack anothers? What ever happened to respect, politeness or or tolerance.

There is middle ground here, and I'm trying to find it. Without that middle ground then we suppress freedom by eliminating all expression; if we accept any and all freedom, then we accept hatred being displayed. Which by the way the Supreme Court does limit first Amendment Rights in the case of obscenity, hatred, fighting words, etc. and in part those subjective determinations are determined by the local community.

So community standards have a precendence in limiting the right to free expression. Does the sign overstep the right for those display it, probably not; but it is at the edge of what the community will accept.

Also, in advertising you can go on about your product and how great it is and hope people buy your message and your product. It is very rare that they will attack another product or service that is not fact based or they will get their butt sued for libel or slander. This works pretty well, it keeps things civil.

That's all I'm asking, civility. Self promotion, not attacks.

I wonder if a group of religious people went to court and sued the makers of the sign for libel over the truthfulness of their statement whether they would win.

That's how freedom works in this country right, you have all you want until you lose your case in court.

[speechlesstx]

First off - the question about what freedoms are you willing to give up wasn't directed to you, but was in direct response to texasparent who asked what limitations on freedom I support.

And that makes it irrelevant how?

The reason I told you to knock off the dramatics is because you said, "we Christians have demonized atheists so long we deserve it...that seems to be the attitude. That's not mentioning the target, that's attempting to gain sympathy by being overly dramatic.

Oh please, don't tell me you can't recognize a little sarcasm either.

I spoke of the nativity representing persecution because I was pointing out the point of view of the atheists who put up the sign, how is that being dramatic? And, I beg your pardon, but you are the one who brought up that Christians are the only ones who have a federal holiday, thus introducing the "special privileges". I stand by my "BS", my call of "drama" and my "ever the victim" statement.

Do I really have to point out yet again how silly it is for anyone to feel "persecuted" by a manger scene? Offended, OK, but persecuted? Give me a break. Can you really not get that after days of people whining about us wanting to take away rights, non-existent persecution, verses and signs from Christians that don't exist in this display, banning messages on private property and all other manner of nonsense, that my raising the federal holiday issue - in the manner and tone I used - was also to make point about all this whining? Good grief Jillian, there is not one hint of a victim mentality in any of my posts in this thread. I just got fed up with people's drama, telling me I shouldn't be offended and yes, playing the victim.

Did I say you didn't condemn the sign theves? NO. I simply made a statement about it, as I described what actions I understand and which ones I don't. And you've continued to ignore that I haven't endorsed the sign, I haven't defended it, I've only said I understand.

And that goes back to someone making a subjective judgement. The atheists can use the same statement to defend their sign because to them, the nativity is an attack.

I'm not saying you can't be offended. I'm not saying you can't view the sign as an attack. I'm saying you aren't seeing the other side; you have no empathy, you have no perspective. But OK, you say the sign is wrong; what do you suppose ought to be done about it?

And I'm saying bullsh*t, I do understand the other side, I've acknowledged they can be offended - but I've countered the arguments that there is no positive way to get their beliefs across and they have no symbols, and offered compromises... I'm still waiting for someone to reciprocate. The sign is not subjective, it is an explicit attack on believers, it is not in the spirit of the settlement and the governor was wrong to approve it as submitted. Period. It's about doing what's right, and it would go a long way to everyone getting what they want.

[artlady]

You know what scares me the most EXCON is that when you take one persons freedom of expression away you are setting a very dangerous precedence.

Who is next?

I want to know why, when I had a young impressionable son in high school,requiters from every branch of the military were allowed to go there and spend time with these kids(on school*learning*time)ie;taxpayers dollars.Give them gifts,give them a rap.Its wrong!

I am a teacher of the 21st century I understand education needs to change,get with now,I am making changes in the world for the good of earth. I want to come to your school and discuss the future of the world that you will be taking over one day.

You can bet your as:p I can't come to your school.

I like how you challenge us to think and create debate.. Thanks!

[jillianleab]

Oh for cryin' out loud... maybe you get part of it and I do to with regards to peoples rights; but there is a big difference between the two displays.

A difference which I have acknowledged.

Tell me there is no difference between a Navitity scene and a sign like this:

"There is one God. There is one Devil. There are angels, a heaven and hell. There is more than our natural world. Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

You mean the sign the Christians countered with? Yes, there is a difference. A difference I have acknowledged.

You have acknowledged that the sign could have been worded more politely. That's the point.

What is wrong with promoting your point of view by characterizing what is good and attractive about your point of view rather than attacking anothers point of view. The Nativity scene doesn't attack anothers point of view explicitly. If you want to argue that it attacks anothers point of view indirectly by it's meare presence, then we could debate that point, but it's not an explicit attack.

The people who put their sign up put up what they think is right. I'm not saying I think it's the right way to do it, but they did, and it's their right to do so. There's nothing wrong with putting up your point of view politley; this group, for whatever reason, decided not to. That is their right. Maybe they think their sign is polite; I don't know. You're dismissing the offence taken by the nativity scene here - it doesn't matter if it's an explicit or implicit attack - it's still seen as an attack.

Can't we just agress that everybody should be FREE to express their beliefs in a manner that doesn't directly or explicitly attack anothers? What ever happened to respect, politeness or or tolerance.

There is middle ground here, and I'm trying to find it. Without that middle ground then we suppress freedom by eliminating all expression; if we accept any and all freedom, then we accept hatred being displayed. Which by the way the Supreme Court does limit first Amendment Rights in the case of obscenity, hatred, fighting words, etc. and in part those subjective determinations are determined by the local community.

This is where it shows you still don't get it. NO we cannot agree everyone should be free to express their beliefs in a manner that doesn't directly or explicitly attack others because too often, "attack" is percevied and subjective. By the standard you've put fourth, neither display can be there, because the atheist group feels the nativity expressly attacks them.

One part of your paragraph is correct - if we accept any and all freedom, we accept hatred being displayed. That's why the KKK can post signs, buy billboard space, etc. The limits are imposed on things that are obscene or incite violence. The atheists could not have, for example, posted a sign that says, "Religion sucks, go bomb a church."

So community standards have a precendence in limiting the right to free expression. Does the sign overstep the right for those display it, probably not; but it is at the edge of what the community will accept.

Also, in advertising you can go on about your product and how great it is and hope people buy your message and your product. It is very rare that they will attack another product or service that is not fact based or they will get their butt sued for libel or slander. This works pretty well, it keeps things civil.

That's all I'm asking, civility. Self promotion, not attacks.

You can ask for it all you want, but it is their right to post what they did.

I wonder if a group of religious people went to court and sued the makers of the sign for libel over the truthfulness of their statement whether they would win.

That's how freedom works in this country right, you have all you want until you lose your case in court.

You have a very warped view of how freedom in this country works.

[jillianleab]

And that makes it irrelevant how?

Because it was a counter to a question posed of me, which asked what limitations on freedoms I support. You appear to have taken that I asked that question personally (which must be why you replied that you have defended the rights of everyone). The question wasn't posed to you - it was posed to someone who, in my opinion, has a warped view of how rights should and do work in this country.

Do I really have to point out yet again how silly it is for anyone to feel "persecuted" by a manger scene? Offended, OK, but persecuted? Give me a break. Can you really not get that after days of people whining about us wanting to take away rights, non-existent persecution, verses and signs from Christians that don't exist in this display, banning messages on private property and all other manner of nonsense, that my raising the federal holiday issue - in the manner and tone I used - was also to make point about all this whining? Good grief Jillian, there is not one hint of a victim mentality in any of my posts in this thread. I just got fed up with people's drama, telling me I shouldn't be offended and yes, playing the victim.

You can say their feelings are silly, but it doesn't make them any less real. You might think you have no tone of "victim" in your posts; I disagree. See your post #167, page 17. Some highlights: MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone.. Nope. No whining, no dramatics, no playing the victim there at all.

And I'm saying bullsh*t, I do understand the other side, I've acknowledged they can be offended - but I've countered the arguments that there is no positive way to get their beliefs across and they have no symbols, and offered compromises... I'm still waiting for someone to reciprocate. The sign is not subjective, it is an explicit attack on believers, it is not in the spirit of the settlement and the governor was wrong to approve it as submitted. Period. It's about doing what's right, and it would go a long way to everyone getting what they want.

And I've acknowledged they could have put their message out there more politley, more inviting. It doesn't matter what they could have done; they didn't, and they don't have to. They did what they wanted to do. The sign is subjective - if it wasn't, everyone would be offended, not just the Christians. The governor was not wrong to approve it - if he had, he would be suppressing the rights of the atheists. The language in that sign, though offensive to you, is still protected. And if he had rejected it, just how does that help in "everyone getting what they want"?

You didn't answer my question. You say the sign is offensive - what should be done about it?

[speechlesstx]

Because it was a counter to a question posed of me, which asked what limitations on freedoms I support. You appear to have taken that I asked that question personally (which must be why you replied that you have defended the rights of everyone). The question wasn't posed to you - it was posed to someone who, in my opinion, has a warped view of how rights should and do work in this country.

I think 4 people have now posed that question or used that line of thinking. We have not argued for limiting freedoms, we have offered compromise and asked for common sense, courtesy, civility, decorum, decency, respect. You guys act as if that's a bad thing.

You can say their feelings are silly, but it doesn't make them any less real.

Who said they weren't real? Being offended is one thing, feeling persecution is another. There is no persecution in this particular nativity scene, to "feel" otherwise is silly. It's a representation of an event - the birth of a special child - accompanied by a sign explaining what it is in a completely non-threatening way and who sponsored it. Let's base this on reality, not "feelings" from things imagined.

You might think you have no tone of "victim" in your posts; I disagree. See your post #167, page 17. Some highlights: MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone.. Nope. No whining, no dramatics, no playing the victim there at all.

Really, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between actual drama from people feeling threatened by imaginary persecution and playing hardball in return. The fact is Christmas is a federal and state holiday, not winter solstice. They want a holiday, they need to fight for one (which is what I said), but in the mean time I offered compromise and countered every excuse... and all we get is more excuses.

And I've acknowledged they could have put their message out there more politley, more inviting. It doesn't matter what they could have done; they didn't, and they don't have to. They did what they wanted to do.

WRONG, and that's what everyone is missing here. Besides the fact that common sense and decency call for government to ensure that any display on state property does not intentionally and explicitly attack another group of its citizens, there was a lawsuit, there was a settlement, and the settlement agreement called for displays to be "consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities." Are you saying an explicit, expressed attack on another meets that requirement?

The sign is subjective - if it wasn't, everyone would be offended, not just the Christians.

WRONG again, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,” is an emphatic declaration. There is nothing subjective, nothing left to the imagination on what they meant, and who it offends is irrelevant to determining whether it's subjective. Next excuse.

The governor was not wrong to approve it - if he had, he would be suppressing the rights of the atheists. The language in that sign, though offensive to you, is still protected.

WRONG again, see the settlement. And again we're back to "suppressing" rights, more drama. And then back to my point, having rights vs. doing what's right.

And if he had rejected it, just how does that help in "everyone getting what they want"?

If I want something from my wife I don't call her a whore. If I want a raise from my boss I don't call him an idiot. Antagonizing and insulting others is not an effective method of change, it leads to the other party digging their heels in deeper... or have you not noticed that in this thread?

You didn't answer my question. You say the sign is offensive - what should be done about it?

That was answered many times before you asked the question. I offered compromise and I'm still waiting for the other side to reciprocate. What is wrong with finding "middle ground" as TexasParent put it?