Hello wingers of all persuasions:

Well, you Christians wanted YOUR stuff displayed in public, and so it was... That should make you Christians happy. YOUR message IS in the public square... Nobody is trying to REMOVE your nativity scene, like they used to... Nope, you guys WON that battle..

But, hold on a minute podner... That danged governor of ours said that if the public arena is open for religious display, then it should be open to ALL religious displays...

No?? Just yours? Cause we're a Christian nation??

In any case, we're NOT a Christian nation. So, some atheist group put a sign alongside the nativity scene in the public square. It says “There is only one natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

So, what's wrong with that?

excon

Here is the text :
”At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. 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.”

What does it say positive about atheism ? Nothing . All it does is attack other's faith . Maybe you should edit the posting to say it is some anti-theist group.

Christmas was declared a United States Federal holiday in 1870 by an act of Congress .


Before the 19th century, many Americans worked on Christmas, but in the industrial era the holiday began also to honor universal values, such as home, children and family life, and to incorporate secular customs like exchanging gifts and cards, and the decoration and display of evergreen "Christmas Trees." Congress proclaimed Christmas a federal holiday in 1870. In 1999, a federal court acknowledged these secular aspects in rejecting a claim that the holiday impermissibly endorsed and furthered a particular religious belief.
An Overview of U.S. Holidays (http://www.america.gov/st/diversity-english/2008/January/20080113151228abretnuh0.5784265.html)

By that reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to have Christmas celebrated in the public square.

Hello tom:

Thanks for the complete text.

It DOESN'T say anything positive about atheism, because there is no atheism to BE positive about. Atheism isn't something - it's a LACK of something.

Notwithstanding the courts ruling, Christmas IS a religious holiday. It just is. You can pretend it isn't.. But, if it quacks like a duck and all that stuff...

But, I don't have any problem with Christmas being celebrated in the public square, as long as the public square is open to anybody who wants celebrate something. That's what this ruling is all about - INCLUSIVENESS!! You just don't happen to like what was included.

Why is the atheist message less important than the Christmas message?

excon

Christmas IS a religious holiday. It just is. You can pretend it isn't.. Uh, Christmas is Santa Claus, and elves, and presents! What cave have you been in??

I see the atheist's,as you said,as a non messenger,but an entity against the religion which they are taking a stand against.

I really do see both sides to this.

Tradition verses (my personal beliefs)

To change is to accept the fact that we might be growing as a nation.

When was the last time you saw that kind of change?

I don't get the obsession with something you don't believe in .
It is like a vegan shaping their tofu into the shape of a burger . They even creatively use spices to make them taste like burgers.

Why do you need a symbol or to make a "sign"for a non-belief?. Not to proclaim your non-belief but to attack someone else's. That sign is a negative attack commentary ;that's all it is .It's as if we were putting up a Christmas tree that had a sign on it "all you atheists are condemned to hell"

Tell you what ; remove the word "religion " from the last sentence and replace it with the word 'Islam' and what you would have is a "hate-crime " .

I don't get the obsession with something you don't believe in . I don't get this obsession with something you believe in. Can't you keep it personal? An atheist's lifestyle can be celebrated just as much as a christian, don't you agree?

Why do you need a symbol or to make a "sign"for a non-belief?. Not to proclaim your non-belief but to attack someone else's.

And just how did the other religions start their campaign of their beliefs?

Were they not shunned and in fact killed,because they were against the populace?

“I once wanted to be an atheist but I gave it up. They have no holidays!”
Henny Youngman

An atheist's lifestyle can be celebrated just as much as a christian, don't you agree?

Sure .they already have a day... May 1. :)



The problem here is that this is not a celebration of atheism . It is raw attack on religion. It is not even an equal response to a nativity scene because as I said ;all it is is a commentary against the belief of those who celebrate the nativity .

I agree it is an attack. The wording is all wrong.

I don't get the obsession with something you don't believe in . Hello again, tom:

Couple things...

If you thought your president believed in four leafed clovers... Nahhh, let me rephrase that... If you thought your president based his LIFE on four leafed clovers... Nahhh, let me rephrase that again. If you thought your president, not only believed deeply in four leafed clovers, and based his life on them, but was going to indoctrinate YOU and YOUR CHILDREN with public displays of four leafed clovers, plus he has every intention of teaching a devotion to four leafed clovers in YOUR schools, then I bet you'd have an obsession with something you don't believe in.

That's kind of how I feel.

Now, if the four leafed clover fanatics wanted to believe in four leafed clovers amongst themselves, and didn't try to foist a belief in four leaved clovers upon the rest of us, I'll bet you'd be right there cheering us along. No?

excon

The fact that the President celebrated 4 leaf clovers publicly would not imply he was trying to establish the belief of 4 leaf clovers as the religion of the state. The establishment clause is a 2 headed coin.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

The government cannot either establish a religion or oppose it.

Ex, it was an attack plain and simple. Why should the state of Washington allow one group to attack another on public land?

When I was in 7th grade I was in catholic school and I kidnapped Baby Jesus from the nativity scene and left a ransom note. I asked for 30 cartons of chocolate milk by December 20th if they ever wanted to see baby Jesus again. I didn't get my milks but I did get detention for the rest of the school year. I learned then do you dirt by yourself. Snitches!

Hello spit:

Funny!

excon

“I once wanted to be an atheist but I gave it up. They have no holidays!”
Henny Youngman


sure .they already have a day .....May 1. :)



The problem here is that this is not a celebration of atheism . It is raw attack on religion. It is not even an equal response to a nativity scene because as I said ;all it is is a commentary against the belief of those who celebrate the nativity .


Excuse me... May 1 is Beltane, a pagan holiday celebrated worldwide.

Pagans are NOT atheists. Choose one of your OWN holidays to negate if you're going to negate one.

Actually I was talking about the godless communist celebration .Don't blame me if they coopted the pagan holiday .

Btw .why are you not as offended with their reference to the solstice . Isn't that also a coopting of a pagan celebration ?

Nah, the Christians and other faiths swiped the Solstice ages ago, and we're pretty used to them using our symbols and festivities (look up Saturnalia sometime) that time of year.

And frankly, while I think their wording was VERY poorly phrased, the sign had JUST as much right to be there as the Nativity. Each are just as offensive to either side, really, and if you're going to allow the public acknowledgment of ONE religion, you may as well recognize any and all others that show up--including atheism (lack of religion), Satanism (the belief that Lucifer was maligned and that only God's side of the story got told--victors writing history and all that jazz), Kwanzaa, Hannukah, the Pagan solstice, whatever. I feel the same way about prayer in school as I do about cities having holiday displays--I don't care if you do it, as long as you allow EVERYONE to put up their own stuff for it.

As far as it being a hate crime--it's not, really. A hate crime would have specified Christianity, since it was next to a Christian display. Instead it spoke of religion in general, and used "gods" (plural) and other symbols that are common in MANY religions. Granted, it didn't hit ALL religions (except with the use of gods), but it hit on a lot of them, rather than specifying any ONE religion.

If being anti-religion is a hate crime, I guess being "pro-religion" would have to be also, since it specifically targets those who have no religion (atheists and agnostics)

And now the sign is in the hands of the local cops,turned in by anonymous... hmmm,but not before the churches posted their own rebuttal.

This might become interesting.

Atheists never tire of hitting an empty sack do they?
I mean, after all, according to THEM God doesn't even exist, so what they are doing is attacking a nothing.
Seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Nope.

See, that's what people who focus on the wrong thing don't see there.

They're not attacking a god they don't believe in. They're attacking the fact that established religion has a greater say in EVERYTHING in this country---and it shouldn't. It's not attacking "god", who may or may not exist (I have my views, other people have theirs--I'm not debating the existence of any gods with you); they're attacking RELIGION. Big difference there.

Betcha the people that can't see the difference are the ones that thought the kids destroyed god at the end of the Phillip Pullman books (His Dark Materials), rather than killing the head of the church, which is really rather closer to what it was.

Anyway--if it's tilting at windmills to announce your beliefs, let's just get rid of the "god" in the Pledge of Allegiance, and on our money, and in our courtrooms. I mean, if God exists with or without that stuff, what difference does it make if you have it there or not? If you believe it, it doesn't matter if it's there or not, right?

To use your words---if it's "beating an empty sack" to be atheist and to state your beliefs, I guess that's what they have left after they dump out the beliefs from the sack that other religions--primarily the Christian religions (and I say that ONLY because I've never had any OTHER religion ask me to convert, whether I've found Jesus, told me arbitrarily that I'm going to hell, knocked on my door and asked to share their beliefs with me, handed me pamphlets, etc etc etc)--have shoved into their hands repeatedly. Maybe they're tired of holding a sack holding the imaginary friend of someone else. Maybe they're just trying to get the last of the dirt out of the sack so that they can use it for something other than belief?

Whatever it is, they have JUST AS MUCH RIGHT to their beliefs (or lack thereof) as your or I have to our beliefs. If one religious group (and I term atheists as a religion ONLY because it fits into the religious freedoms thing--I understand that it's a lack of belief in a higher being, rather than a belief "in" something) can put their beliefs/opinions/symbols on the public green, then every OTHER religion can put their beliefs/opinions/symbols on the public green too.

They weren't stopping anyone from practicing their beliefs. They were just putting an alternate point of view out there.

I wonder if a sign saying "Jesus is Lord" or "Jesus is God" (I've seen the former and I think I've seen the later) is not equally attacking atheist beliefs in the same manner as an atheist sign saying "There is no God".

Aren't the Christian's promoting that there is a God in Jesus; why can't the athiests have equal freedom to say there is no God? And how does saying "there is no God" any more of an attack on a religion that it is to say "there is a God" which would attack the core values of those who don't believe in God?

Okay, finally found the original news story (stories). Shame on you Ex for not giving me a damned link! Couldn't look earlier because I was at work, and linking the wording to the sign got me about 20938723049687 hits. Too many bloggers talking about it!

Anyway--the deal is this: Both displays were given permits by the government, applied for WELL ahead of time. This wasn't a random atheist response put up on the spot by someone ticked off by a tree--it was planned, by a group that's been around for some years, and has placed another sign with the same words on it in the Wisconsin capitol building for many years. This year, they decided to add it to Washington's state capitol building as well. So what?

What's hilarious about this is that it started with a public display of a menorrah. Then someone wanted to put in a nativity scene, asked for it too close to Christmas, sued (instead of just realizing it was a TIMING issue, not a discrimination issue), and got to put it up this year. Since the nativity scene lawsuit was publicized, the FFRF decided to apply for THEIR permit as well, and it was granted.

Basically, ANY religious group (or any group with a belief system) can put up their religious symbol in the capitol, as long as they apply for a permit in advance. So--I could apply now for next year's display and be able to put up a Saturnalia display next year if I want to. Or whatever.

Like the group says---freedom OF religion is also freedom FROM religion. Stating "Jesus is Lord" on a billboard is EXACTLY the same offense level as this sign.

BOTH displays in the capitol were privately funded, and are taken up and put down by private parties, as is the Christmas tree that is there every year as well.

Yes they applied for and were granted a permit and that is the issue. I don't have an issue with atheists wanting in on the action, I have issues with the state of Washington approving such an attack.

The group said the purpose of their sign was “not to coerce but just to have a place at the table,” and yet their display is not about having a place at the table, it's an attack plain and simple. Where is the attack in displaying a Menorah? Where is the attack in displaying a nativity scene? How on earth can anyone justify their display on state property, especially next to such innocuous displays? Where was the civility, where was the decorum? Should the state allow Christians to put up a sign next to theirs saying "Repent and believe in Jesus or spend eternity in hell?" How would that go over?

Hello again:

I don't know. You guys talk about civility and decorum. You talk about attacks. How come you don't talk about the law?? Cause, maybe you don't like it. You want YOUR stuff displayed, but nobody else's. That ain't very Christianlike... But, I'm used to you Christians NOT being Christianlike.

You know, THIS is the very reason why our founders separated the church from the state. The bottom line, is there should be NO religious displays in the public square. Cause if you get the one you want, you're also going to get the one you DON'T want.

excon

And there again that's a myth, the founders did NOT eliminate God from government. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and the rest of the power is delegated to the states. It is a right of the people, giving constitutional immunity from federal dictation in matters of religion.

You say it "ain't very Christianlike," but I'm not saying they can't have a display, that's up to the state to decide. The state of Washington obviously thinks it's lawful for atheists to attack everyone who believes in God -Christian or not - on state property. Christians and Jews just wanted to display symbols of their beliefs, I'll allow for atheists to do the same. Is that what they did? I suppose so if hatred is a symbol of their beliefs, or is that not really "atheistlike" behavior?

I'll allow for atheists to do the same. Is that what they did? I suppose so if hatred is a symbol of their beliefs, or is that not really "atheistlike" behavior?Hello again, Steve:

”At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. 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.”

I agree with the sign - absolutely and unequivocally. But, I don't hate anybody, especially YOU, or any of my other Christian friends. In fact, I don't see ANY hate in the sign - NONE!

And, that's the crux of the situation... You guys call disagreement with your viewpoint, hatred... I hate that you do that.

excon

First off---that EXACT wording has been used in the state of Wisconsin's capitol building for years. I guess maybe Wisconsin is more tolerant of unbelief than the state of Washington. I don't know.

Second--the menorrah that someone mentioned is going up on 12/21--yet another representation of yet another religion.

Thirdly--that sign is EXACTLY what atheists believe, just as a nativity scene is EXACTLY what Christians believe.

If somehow, somewhere, insanity prevails and the sign is banned---I'm starting lawsuits against EVERY SINGLE privately paid for and put up billboard that I see that states that "Jesus is Lord" or that "God loves all the babies, even those not born"---because that's offensive to me, as a non-Christian. And frankly--for a group of people that want to keep such things as "In God We Trust" on our money, and "under God" in our pledge of allegiance, people are showing a remarkable lack of tolerance for a SIGN. How do you think those who do not believe in god feel about the money and the pledge? Can you understand NOW how offensive that is?

I retract what I said above about the wording of the sign. It doesn't need to be altered in the least. It's perfect the way it is---because it states EXACTLY what atheists believe.

Hello again, Steve:

”At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. 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.”

I agree with the sign - absolutely and unequivocally. But, I don't hate anybody, especially YOU, or any of my other Christian friends. In fact, I don't see ANY hate in the sign - NONE!

And, that's the crux of the situation... You guys call disagreement with your viewpoint, hatred... I hate that you do that.

LOL, that's rich, ex. If I say "Jesus loves you" someone on these boards would scream about my hatred. In fact I don't have to do anything to be accused of hatred, all I have to do is be a conservative, or a Christian, or a Republican, or mention a name like Limbaugh or Malkin in passing and I'm automatically considered a purveyor of hate by some on these boards.

And yet, atheists put up a display next to harmless symbols that emphatically says everything we believe is a myth and then claims it "hardens hearts and enslaves minds" is not an attack? It isn't hatred to declare on public land that we're deluded, hard hearted, unreasonable, superstitious fools whose minds are enslaved and are out to enslave others is not hatred? That's bullsh*t, ex, and you know it.

Claiming that I call disagreement with my viewpoint hatred is also bullsh*t, it goes against all the evidence where I've agreed to disagree, where I've outright stated I don't expect people to be like me or believe like me, that it would be an awfully dull world if we were all the same.

I've conceded that they have rights here, I don't expect them to believe like me or keep silent. But I don't care if it's exactly what atheists believe or not, I don't care if they have the right to put up their display or not, I don't care that they have the freedom to say what they want - it doesn't make it the right thing to do. Where you're more concerned with their rights I'm more concerned with doing the right thing. I guarantee if Christians had put up a sign criticizing atheism in a similar manner heads would roll. But then I doubt the governor would have approved such a sign in the first place and would probably have issued a statement that the state would not be a party to such bigotry and intolerance.

By the way, everyone who is offended by "In God we trust" on their money can send theirs to me.

Missing atheist sign found in Washington state - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/?iref=mpstoryview)

According to this article the sign was stolen. It was recovered, and now has an addition - "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Here's what to Gov. said:

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

That is what this is about. Free speech.

And to all of you who say a nativity scene is innocuous, here's how the FFR feels:

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

You may not agree, but this organization feels the nativity scene is an attack. So there is another question that must be asked now - how come Christians can attack non-Christians in their display? How come the state approved such a message of hate?

See? It goes both ways.

Just found this too:

The Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Redmond's Antioch Bible Church put up his own sign at the Capitol on Friday that says, in part: "There is one God. ... Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

If the atheist's sign was an attack, why attack back? Why not turn the other cheek? Instead, Christians have resorted to theft, destruction of property, and an equal attack by changing one word. The sign just gets more and more accurate, doesn't it?

Local News | Capitol holiday-display controversy turning into "circus" | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008475714_atheist06m.html)

Just found this too:

The Rev. Ken Hutcherson of Redmond's Antioch Bible Church put up his own sign at the Capitol on Friday that says, in part: "There is one God. ... Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

If the atheist's sign was an attack, why attack back? Why not turn the other cheek? Instead, Christians have resorted to theft, destruction of property, and an equal attack by changing one word. The sign just gets more and more accurate, doesn't it?

Local News | Capitol holiday-display controversy turning into "circus" | Seattle Times Newspaper (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008475714_atheist06m.html)

I also watched this Rev. on the news stating the exact signage.I totally agree with jillianleab in this.

The need of this representative to defend his position about his purist beliefs and then to attack the atheists in this way... well... shows the message all too clear.(by the way,I purposely didn't say the churches views,this is just a single individual doing this,but he represents the religion he is defending)

I wonder if the higher authorities are ever going to join the little people,in the church that is,in this statement.

This began with? A man a few years ago fighting the system because his child was made to say the pledge of allegiance?(at least that is when I became of this argument in the public forum.)

Been a long time coming,what with this type of information has been on the money and capital buildings for more than 200 years.

KBC

Say Ex, if you don't like Christmas, then go to work on that day and treat it like any other day. I don't have Xmas decorations anymore. I don't even put up a tree anymore. It's been years and years since I've had a tree. And yes, I did have to work on Christmas several years in a row. I don't go overboard buying presents anymore like I used to. Somehow it's okay for other people to celebrate whatever they want, whenever they want. I just don't have to participate if I don't want to. And no, I am not an atheist either. Christmas is for kids and Santa Clause and gifts. The real Christmas is in your heart and deeds done to your fellow man. I don't care who puts up what religious display in the town square. It's their money and if they choose to do this, so be it whether it is Christian, pagan, Kwanza, Jewish menorah, nativity, or a sign that says There is No God. People nowadays are getting nuts over this religious display stuff. Can't they find something else to spend their energy on instead of arguing about a religious display? Guess not. We've become a nation of litigious people.

Hello twink:

It's OK. I'll look out for YOUR First Amendment rights for you. Somebody's got to do it.

excon

Hello twink:

It's ok. I'll look out for YOUR First Amendment rights for you. Somebody's got to do it.

excon

Thank you dear Ex. Please look out for my First Amendment rights for me. I'm too busy to do this all by my lonesome and you're such a big, strong, silent (?) type that is quite cabable of doing this for me. Sigh!

Actually I'm busy taking down my Halloween decorations I didn't put up.

“At this season of the Winter Solstice may reason prevail. 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.“

The way I see it, everyone should have their rights... of course. But I don't think my heart is hardened for believing in God, nor do I think anyone's is hardened for not believing in God. I think that part was a little shocking.
In ways of course religion enslaves your mind, just like anything you believe in, it becomes a part of you and you go with it. Just like someone would go on without religion their mind is enslaved to NOT believe in the same thing as others.
I think this time is a beautiful time of the year, it brings more charity, volunteers, it brings us all together, to me that isn't so heart hardening, is it?
We should all just come together and if you want to BECAUSE IT IS YOUR RIGHT, you get to choose not to read it;) (you can thank me later ex;))

Synn, you are exceptional when it comes to this subject! I have to add that in because you are wonderful at explaining it best. I do think the sign could have left the harden of hearts part out. Other than that, I think we all should have the same rights and that goes for the rights not to read it or watch it.;)

Well said Start... 22

Stringer

Here is the text :
”At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail. 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.”

What does it say positive about atheism ? nothing . all it does is attack other's faith . maybe you should edit the posting to say it is some anti-theist group.

Christmas was declared a United States Federal holiday in 1870 by an act of Congress .


An Overview of U.S. Holidays (http://www.america.gov/st/diversity-english/2008/January/20080113151228abretnuh0.5784265.html)

By that reasoning it is perfectly acceptable to have Christmas celebrated in the public square.


1] why don't the atheists try to pull that crap in Iran or Pakistan or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia and lets see what kind of reception they get.

2] " Nobody talks so constantly about God as those who insist that there is no God. "
- Heywood Broun





g&p

The funny thing about this entire thing to me is that the Christians that are so offended are acting very UN-Christian.

Stealing the sign. Protesting instead of turning the other cheek. Getting all uptight about the entire thing instead of just acknowledging that their faith is (or SHOULD be) above it. Pastors seeing hate where there IS no hate--just no belief. Lack of belief in someone's god doesn't mean you hate them--it just means they believe in something you don't.

A woman I work with is truly one of the best Christians I have ever met in my life. She LIVES her faith. She forgives those who offend her, and tries to help them anyway. She gives of herself--she's a recovering alcoholic, sober for several years, who sponsors others in the Alcoholics Anonymous program. She goes to church every week, not just on the "big" days, says a daily meditation, and prays all the time---and all of this WITHOUT shoving it in the face of those around her. She just IS a good Christian--she doesn't PREACH being a good Christian.

It seems to me that those Christians that can be THAT offended by a sign that offers a different belief than theirs are the ones whose faith is shaken too easily---and the ones too busy pointing out the motes in the eyes of others.

If Christianity REALLY wants to get its faith out there to others, and have things go back to the "good ol' days" when they controlled basically everything in this country, from school pageants to downtown displays to whatever--the best way to convert people is to BE a good Christian instead of PREACHING Christianity.

Honestly---the best way to handle this entire situation so that it wasn't blown so far out of proportion that people are up in arms about the entire thing---and believe me, if it's not dropped, what it will lead to is NO religious displays on ANY public property, period--is that someone should have put up a sign by the nativity that said "The birth of Jesus is God's way of saying that he believes in you, even if you don't believe in Him, and that he forgives you your sins even though you do not deserve forgiveness".

That's a better retaliation, don't you think, than stealing the sign and pointing fingers and screaming "hate!!"? Wouldn't that be a more Christian and forgiving thing to do?

Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

1] why don't the atheists try to pull that crap in Iran or Pakistan or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia and lets see what kind of reception they get.Autocratic theocracy.

1] why don't the atheists try to pull that crap in Iran or Pakistan or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia and lets see what kind of reception they get.

You know... a statement like that could easily be interpreted as you wishing harm upon those who are different that you. Not very Christ-like, if you ask me

1] why don't the atheists try to pull that crap in Iran or Pakistan or Indonesia or Saudi Arabia and lets see what kind of reception they get.



Those countries weren't founded with the idea of Freedom of Religion, or the separation of church and state.

Apples to oranges there.

And really---CHRISTIANS wouldnt' get a very good reception in any of those countries, either. Especially since they (the Christians) tend to be very vocal about pushing their belief system on others.

And really---CHRISTIANS wouldnt' get a very good reception in any of those counries, either. Especially since they (the Christians) tend to be very vocal about pushing their belief system on others.

When was the last time a Christian "pushed" their beliefs on you? Anyone? I don't go around "pushing" my beliefs on anyone, I can't think of a single friend among the hundreds of Christians I know that "pushes" their belief systems on others. A nativity scene likewise does not "push" Christianity on others, it's a symbol, it's passive and harmless. The atheist sign is not a symbol, it's openly hostile to religion.

Oh really? Harmless?

What pagan traditions do you celebrate in your home every year, calling them "Christmas" holidays? Do you even KNOW?

And the whole "In God We Trust" on our money isn't pushing someone's religion on me? What about "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I'll give you a perfect example: I am openly pagan. I am happy with my religion, and completely believe it. I have never made it through a MONTH without someone asking me if I believe in Jesus, or telling me that I'll go to hell, or that I'll be cursed. I've never made it through the holidays without people calling me a hypocrite for celebrating "Christmas", but have been literally spat upon for pointing out that Christmas borrowed almost all of its traditions from other religions--religions that they (the Christians) burned people at the stake for believing.

I have been shunned at work gatherings once people find out my religion. I've been called a baby-sacrificer, a devil-worshipper, a witch, an evil spellcaster, and just plain evil. I've had people spit on me, and throw stones at me, and leave me hate notes. I've had my pagan symbols stolen from my car, or had them defaced.

I've had my religious rites interrupted by people with no respect for them. I've had decapitated rats left outside my front door with notes that stated that if I didn't repent and choose Jesus, I'd see worse.

And, to the best of my knowledge, all of those things were done by Christians. I certainly can't see Muslims or Jews doing it, anyway. Maybe Atheists did it--I don't know for sure--but I somehow doubt it because atheists tend to be a lot more tolerant than Christians.

It was a sign, passive. It wasn't hurting anyone who really had faith. It was a declaration of a belief, just as the nativity was a declaration of belief---just as the sign down the street that says "Jesus is Lord" is a belief.

And Christians responded---not by turning the other cheek and offering love to those who didn't agree with them (which, really, is what Jesus would have done), but by stealing the sign (breaking one of their own Ten Commandments), screaming "hate" when it was just a statement of belief, and basically attacking the atheists, who until that point had just put up a sign that stated their beliefs.

If that sign were TRULY an offense to all religions, why as EVERYTHING I've seen that cries "offense!" been from Christians? Why aren't the pagans and Muslims and Jews and Satanists all screaming "foul!" right along with them, if it were an attach on "religion"?

Probably because this is a tempest in a teacup, and the only people offended are those that are offended simply because they don't have a monopoly on the holiday season anymore.

C'mon Steve... Father Chuck spruiks here all the time that it is a Christians job to spread the word of the Lord and anyone who does not accept him will not be saved blah blah blah... You may not personally push it on people Steve (not directly anyway) but your religion certainly does. To deny that is ignorance to the extreme.

If a simple sign causes this much angst over there than you guys really are a helluva lot more divided than you try and make the rest of the world believe.

Synnen, there's no accounting for idiots like that of any persuasion, and most Christians do not go out of their way to confront others like that. In fact I'd say the majority of Christians in this country rarely if ever talk about their faith with others, and any that don't take the time to care about who they're talking to regardless of their faith or lack of it have seriously missed the boat on what Christianity is about.

I'll grant you this, nobody said we had the right to not be offended and that goes for both of us. You choose what offends you just as we do, but we can argue the same to you. "In God we trust" and one nation "under God" isn't really hurting anyone either if they're secure in their beliefs. I've already said I have no problem with them having "a place at the table" as they said, but you can't whitewash the fact that the sign is an openly hostile anti-religious statement. There's nothing about it that fits your description (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/1418589-post12.html) of the season as being about "goodwill and generosity," "spreading love instead of hate" or "kindness instead of pettyness." "

"In God we trust" and one nation "under God" isn't really hurting anyone either if they're secure in their beliefs.

Just the same that a gift certificate to PP shouldn't offend Christians if they are secure in their beliefs..

No??

Autocratic theocracy.

Exactly. The fact that atheists can have the right to free expression, offending whoever, is proof that the US is NOT a theocracy despite the atheist paranoia.

The challenge to atheists about spreading their gospel and belief that god does not exist, in Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia, is the fact that atheists know they can take advantage of the US legal system to spread their own gospel. The stereotype is that we Christians are intolerant bigoted hate mongers, but the proof is that they can do this here in this country because they know Christians are not intolerant or hate mongers or bigots. If this were a Christian autocratic theocracy, then the consequences for what they attempt, would be no different than in Iran or Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.





g&p

C'mon Steve..... Father Chuck spruiks here all the time that it is a Christians job to spread the word of the Lord and anyone who does not accept him will not be saved blah blah blah..... You may not personally push it on people Steve (not directly anyway) but your religion certainly does. To deny that is ignorance to the extreme.

If a simple sign causes this much angst over there than you guys really are a helluva lot more divided than you try and make the rest of the world believe.

It's really very simple Skell, we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others and whether we do or not has nothing to do with our salvation no matter what Father Chuck says. I am in no way suffering from denial, but I do think all this talk about "pushing" and "forcing" is in most cases greatly exaggerated.

As for the sign, I've already said I don't care if atheists feel that way and say so publicly, but it is not appropriate for the state to endorse hostility toward religion no matter what any of you say.

How about the state endorsing "In God We Trust" on our money, then? I mean, really---I believe in a Goddess, and some people believe in the FSM. Isn't THAT the government condoning the pushing of religion onto people?

And see it how you like--when you're in the minority, and have the majority CONSTANTLY get their way on these things, even though there should be a separation of church and state--you DO feel as if it's being pushed.

The sign hurt no one, really--yet it was stolen. It's been flipped around. Its message is blown out of proportion. How would you feel if someone stole the Jesus out of that nativity? Or turned him over every time they walked by so that he was butt-up? What if they put a mustache on him? Wouldn't THAT be more hateful than just ignoring it?

This would have never reached the proportions it had if someone hadn't gotten mad that a belief so opposite their own had the SAME right to be their as a nativity scene.

I, personally, am offended every time I see a religious symbol of ANY kind on state property. The Christmas tree in the Capitol building in Washington, DC bothers me. I do, however, just put up with it, because everyone should be able to put up symbols in recognition of their beliefs.

I ask yet again: What would Jesus have done about it? *I* think he would have shaken his head, and walked away, knowing that a sign couldn't hurt him, and that he would love those who didn't believe as much as those who did--because that's what Christianity is about, isn't it? Loving and forgiving those who don't deserve to be loved and forgiven?

Again Synnen, this separation of church FROM state is nowhere in our constitution, "in God we trust" is entirely consistent as a part of this nation's heritage from its inception and is not intentionally, openly, defiantly hostile to others. Feel free to mark it out on all your money, I won't get offended. The atheist sign IS intentionally, openly, defiantly hostile toward others. For I think the third time now I've allowed for an atheist display, why the heck can't it be one in good taste instead of telling people their faith "enslaves" their minds? I still don't see how that fits in the spirit of the season as you describe it.

speech, did you happen to miss my post below?


Missing atheist sign found in Washington state - CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/?iref=mpstoryview)

According to this article the sign was stolen. It was recovered, and now has an addition - "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

Here's what to Gov. said:

"I happen to be a Christian, and I don't agree with the display that is up there," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire told The Olympian newspaper. "But that doesn't mean that as governor, I have the right to deny their ability to express their free speech."

That is what this is about. Free speech.

And to all of you who say a nativity scene is innocuous, here's how the FFR feels:

"When people ask us, 'Why are you hateful? Why are you putting up something critical of people's holidays? -- we respond that we kind of feel that the Christian message is the hate message," he said. "On that Nativity scene, there is this threat of internal violence if we don't submit to that master. Hate speech goes both ways."

You may not agree, but this organization feels the nativity scene is an attack. So there is another question that must be asked now - how come Christians can attack non-Christians in their display? How come the state approved such a message of hate?
See? It goes both ways.

You are saying the nativity scene isn't an attack, that it's just a symbol, but there are people who don't feel that way. These people feel the Christians are attacking them - it's the same thing on both sides. BOTH sides feel attacked. The difference is the Christians have resorted to theft and destruction of property, while the atheists have put up a sign. To them, the nativity scene is an "openly hostile anti-atheist statement".

I'll grant you that a lot of claims of "pushing" religion are exaggerated, but, if what Synnen says is true (and I have no reason to think she's lying), she's not exaggerating one bit. Think of the public faces of Christianity - how many of them lead a life that would attract an outsider? How many preach intolerance and hate (WBC), how many are hypocrites (Ted Haggard)? Wiki has a list of evangelical scandals, if you'd care to read the history (dating back to the 1920's).

Not all Christians are like those people. Most that I encounter aren't, in fact. It seems as long as you stay off the topics of religion and politics, people get along just fine. But there are those who won't stay away from those topics, they instigate. They use those topics as a platform to push their agenda/religion/way of life. But really, to ignore what those public figures do, and what those who Synnen has encountered do, that's just... well...

You are saying the nativity scene isn't an attack, that it's just a symbol, but there are people who don't feel that way. These people feel the Christians are attacking them - it's the same thing on both sides. BOTH sides feel attacked. The difference is the Christians have resorted to theft and destruction of property, while the atheists have put up a sign. To them, the nativity scene is an "openly hostile anti-atheist statement".

Jillian, come on now, if people "feel" attacked by shepherds, sheep and a baby in a manger they have bigger problems to deal with. But coming right out and telling me emphatically in words that religion "enslaves" me is a whole different ball game. Show me some of that peace, love, forgiveness and tolerance Synnen keeps talking about, but don't intentionally insult me.


I'll grant you that a lot of claims of "pushing" religion are exaggerated, but, if what Synnen says is true (and I have no reason to think she's lying), she's not exaggerating one bit. Think of the public faces of Christianity - how many of them lead a life that would attract an outsider? How many preach intolerance and hate (WBC), how many are hypocrites (Ted Haggard)? Wiki has a list of evangelical scandals, if you'd care to read the history (dating back to the 1920's).

I don't think Synnen is lying, in fact I don't doubt it one bit. I have no excuse or use for such supposed Christians. But these "public faces" of Christianity do not represent the whole. They give us a bad name and I'm tired of defending myself based on THEIR behavior and the behavior of a minority of other confrontational idiots.


Not all Christians are like those people. Most that I encounter aren't, in fact. It seems as long as you stay off the topics of religion and politics, people get along just fine.

This is what I'm saying. I've said it before about conservatives, most people would never know one if they were sitting across the table having lunch together. It's the same for most Christians, we're just people trying to get along the best we know how.


But there are those who won't stay away from those topics, they instigate. They use those topics as a platform to push their agenda/religion/way of life.

I acknowledged those already.


But really, to ignore what those public figures do, and what those who Synnen has encountered do, that's just... well...

Who's ignored them? I haven't, I condemned them - twice now in this thread. What more do you guys want?

Jillian, come on now, if people "feel" attacked by shepherds, sheep and a baby in a manger they have bigger problems to deal with. But coming right out and telling me emphatically in words that religion "enslaves" me is a whole different ball game. Show me some of that peace, love, forgiveness and tolerance Synnen keeps talking about, but don't intentionally insult me.

Maybe they have bigger problems to deal with, but the same argument can be said for those who are up in arms over words on a sign. But beyond that, perhaps this group doesn't adhere to the things Synnen is talking about - you acknowledge not all Christians think and act the same way, why must all atheists? It would be better if their sign wasn't so aggressive, but it doesn't reflect the POV of every non-believer out there, the same way that the WBC signs don't reflect the views of every Christian. Maybe asking for this group to put up a non-aggressive sign is like asking WBC to back off - it just ain't going to happen. But either way, BOTH groups (all groups) have a right to say what they want.


I don't think Synnen is lying, in fact I don't doubt it one bit. I have no excuse or use for such supposed Christians. But these "public faces" of Christianity do not represent the whole. They give us a bad name and I'm tired of defending myself based on THEIR behavior and the behavior of a minority of other confrontational idiots.

I hope I didn't indicate you thought she was lying, I didn't mean to if it came out that way. And yes, these public faces of Christianity give the good ones a bad name, but the point is, they are still the face that a lot of people see. So maybe from the perspective of this particular atheist group, they are seeing minds being enslaved (people giving money to people who mismanage it, or who go off and have sex with men when they say homosexuality is a sin). In that sense, their minds are enslaved. These people are pushy and aggressive. The actions of a few vocal people have a stronger impression than the actions of those who are less vocal - look at this site for clear evidence of that!


This is what I'm saying. I've said it before about conservatives, most people would never know one if they were sitting across the table having lunch together. It's the same for most Christians, we're just people trying to get along the best we know how.

I agree, many of you are. But the ones who are stealing signs and defacing property aren't trying to get along the best that they know how. They're aggressors, and again, their actions taint the rest of the group.


Who's ignored them? I haven't, I condemned them - twice now in this thread. What more do you guys want?

Your post to skell, where you said, "we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others" read to me like you were ignoring what others do in the name of Christianity. Perhaps it was your use of quotations around key words - that reads with a bit of sarcasm. I accept you probably didn't intend it that way.

But either way, BOTH groups (all groups) have a right to say what they want.

Agreed, but not state approved attacks.


Your post to skell, where you said, "we are to 'offer' our faith to others, we are to give a 'testimony' of our faith, we are to lovingly 'encourage' others to believe, but in spite of what 'some' do we were never commissioned to "push" our beliefs on others" read to me like you were ignoring what others do in the name of Christianity. Perhaps it was your use of quotations around key words - that reads with a bit of sarcasm. I accept you probably didn't intend it that way.

No sarcasm, just alternatives to "push."

Agreed, but not state approved attacks.

You're still missing the point. The atheist group sees the nativity as an attack - a state approved attack. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees (not everyone sees the atheist sign as an attack, after all) that it is or isn't. Both groups feel attacked.

My friend has recently become a born again. He loves it. It makes him happy. It fills a hole in his life. Im happy for him. But he isn't the friend I once knew. His mind is enslaved. He struggles to make house repayments yet still he gives 10% of his wage to his Christian church / leader.

He can't put petrol in his car yet his church leader drives a Porsche.

He asks me all the time to go to church with him. He wants me to see how great it is. He thinks I need to learn to love myself. He pushes. His mind is enslaved. As are all his friends from church. And from what I see this a is a pretty common trait amongst all the so called "new age" christian groups. Not at all really with the Catholics and Anglicans I know. And from what I see in the United States its even more so the case.

You're still missing the point. The atheist group sees the nativity as an attack - a state approved attack. It doesn't matter if everyone agrees (not everyone sees the atheist sign as an attack, after all) that it is or isn't. Both groups feel attacked.

No Jillian, I most definitely am not the one missing the point. I've acknowledged that some people "feel" attacked, but only one IS an attack.

No Jillian, I most definitely am not the one missing the point. I've acknowledged that some people "feel" attacked, but only one IS an attack.

Yup. The nativity.

It's caused wars, crusades, inquisitions, stake-burnings, annihilation of native peoples in the new world, and generations of people who think that because THEY believe it, everyone ELSE should believe it, and if they don't, they have bad things happen to them.

It's caused splinter sects of weirdos that perpetuate horrible things in the name of "God". It can really be accused of promoting sexism--until this century, women could not serve as lay people with most churches, and many STILL do not allow it. It causes people to go off the deep end at abortion clinics, gay pride marches, and Wiccan rituals.

Yeah---that sign from the atheists has NOTHING on what the "signs" from Christianity has done over the years.

You really do NOT get it. Christian symbols ARE an attack to some people, just the way you see the sign as an attack, or that Jews would see a swastika as an attack. Actually, that's probably the BEST analogy---the known meanings behind Christian symbols ARE an attack on those who have suffered because of the misdeeds of some Christians. Therefore, the nativity is JUST as much an "attack" as the sign. EQUAL.

You think your religion's symbol is harmless. They think their sign is a statement of their beliefs. NEITHER are meant to attack the other, but BOTH are felt as attacks by the opposite side.

Yup. The nativity.

It's caused wars, crusades, inquisitions, stake-burnings, annihilation of native peoples in the new world, and generations of people who think that because THEY believe it, everyone ELSE should believe it, and if they don't, they have bad things happen to them.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Now we've gone to the obligatory Crusades, inquisitions and witch burnings. What the heck does that have to do with this? Not a thing is what. The last Crusade was 552 years ago. The last Inquisition was 148 years ago. The last person executed as a witch in Europe was in Poland in 1792, 216 years ago, the Salem witch trials were in the 1690's over 300 years ago.

Of course in Saudi Arabia Fawzi Falih was convicted of witchcraft in February of this year and now faces beheading. The Bantu in Southern Africa still hunt and kill witches, one can be convicted of witchcraft in Cameroon and Togo, and 11 alleged witches were burned to death by a mob in Kenya in May of this year... I seriously doubt the nativity had anything to do with those. But hey, if you want to talk about what followers of a certain religion are on a Crusade and executing infidels we can do that.


It's caused splinter sects of weirdos that perpetuate horrible things in the name of "God". It can really be accused of promoting sexism--until this century, women could not serve as lay people with most churches, and many STILL do not allow it. It causes people to go off the deep end at abortion clinics, gay pride marches, and Wiccan rituals.

Oh yes, and let's not forget the obligatory crazed Christians at abortion clinics, especially those abortion doctor killers, how rampant is that again?


Yeah---that sign from the atheists has NOTHING on what the "signs" from Christianity has done over the years.

Absolutely, all of those "signs" are so relevant to a man and a woman looking at a baby accompanied by a sign that says, "This Nativity holiday display was provided and erected by private citizens of the State of Washington to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, which is celebrated by Christians around the world."


You really do NOT get it. Christian symbols ARE an attack to some people, just the way you see the sign as an attack, or that Jews would see a swastika as an attack. Actually, that's probably the BEST analogy---the known meanings behind Christian symbols ARE an attack on those who have suffered because of the misdeeds of some Christians. Therefore, the nativity is JUST as much an "attack" as the sign. EQUAL.

Please, for the last time, stop telling me I don't get it. I do get it, I have acknowledged it. You guys just can't bring yourselves to acknowledge the difference between a commemoration and an expressed, written insult.


You think your religion's symbol is harmless. They think their sign is a statement of their beliefs. NEITHER are meant to attack the other, but BOTH are felt as attacks by the opposite side.

It's simple Synnen, one is in good taste, one is not. One is appropriate, one is not. It is not in good taste to insult others in writing on public land, it is not appropriate to insult others in writing on public land. One is a representation of salvation, innocence, peace, good will. The other is anything but. Change the message to something appropriate and I'll have no issues, but I believe I stated that already.

You all have made some great points.
Speech, I agree it was in bad taste. I am not offended but I could see how someone may be. (I choose not to be) I believe in letting people have their say... but respectfully. I do believe your last statement hit it on the nail.

It says “There is only one natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.” So, what's wrong with that?Hello again:

I have come to believe now that the parts of the sign I have illuminated above are, indeed, offensive. The point could have been if they'da just put a period after superstition.

See?? I listen. That's why I ask this stuff. I THINK I know all the answers, but...

excon

Yes Start, respectfully. What is wrong with that?

And the birth of Christ was reportedly approximately 2000 years ago. The last day of WWII in Europe (basically the end of the Nazi regime) was in 1945--63 years ago. The 95 theses of Dr. Martin Luther was in 1517 -- 490 years ago. The Council of Nicea was in 325 --1,683 years ago. Henry the VIII's separation from the Church in Rome was in 1534--474 years ago. I could go on and on.

Are you really going to sit there and tell me that these things have no relevance today?

*I* find Christian displays on public property to be offensive in the extreme. I get seriously ticked off when I go to a high school football game and there is a prayer beforehand. I went to church last year, on the request of my in-laws, and had to walk out because the message wasn't one of love, but of political one-upness, and of continuing to fight to have Christians get their way in the world. This was on Christmas Eve, by the way, when one would think that the message would be one of harmony and peace rather than dissention and pride.

So Christ was crucified on a cross, 2000 years ago. The last witches were burned at the stake 216 years ago. If your memory is long---so is ours! Those of us who are Wicca, and practice modern witchcraft hold those men and women as martyrs--of COURSE we are going to bring it up! Christians still bring up the sacrifice that Christ made, don't they?

I was RAISED Christian. All of my family and my husband's family are Christian. I know some GREAT Christians. I'm just sick of having Christians claim their message is harmless when it is NOT.

For those of us NOT of your faith, those of us who have suffered at the hands of other Christians, ESPECIALLY those going back in history--yes, the nativity IS offensive. So is the cross. So what? Most of the time, we don't make a big stink about it, reasoning that if you can put up YOUR religious beliefs and symbols everywhere from your own front yard, to the Capitol building in Washington, to the roadsigns that advertise "Jesus is Lord" and "God loves ALL of His children, even the unborn", then we should be able to put up our beliefs too.

Want to know the sentiment that drives me the craziest? The one that makes me want to deface public property, because I feel so enraged that people don't see how offensive it is? It's those signs that advertise that adoption is better than abortion. "Adoption: The loving option" and "Choose life, not death! Adoption is the caring option!" Now---those might not be offensive to you, in the least, but they ARE to me. They make me angry and sad, and I want to buy up billboards that state the number of suicides, the number of women depressed, and the statistics on adoptive parents that break their word about keeping the adoption open.

What does all of this have to do with a "harmless" nativity scene? Nothing--except that OFFENSE IS IN THE EYE OF THE OFFENDED.

You are offended by the sign that says that ALL religion enslaves minds and hardens hearts. I'm offended by the signs that make it seem as though adoption isn't as bad as abortion, but you're still not "good enough" to be a parent if you choose it.

You're offended that someone doubts your faith. I'm offended that your faith assumes that everyone sees the symbols of your religion innocuously.

Bottom line is that we're never going to agree.

Hello again:

I have come to believe now that the parts of the sign I have illuminated abaove are, indeed, offensive. The point could have been if they'da just put a period after superstition.

See??? I listen. That's why I ask this stuff. I THINK I know all the answers, but....

Now that's a start. Thanks, ex.

And the birth of Christ was reportedly approximately 2000 years ago. The last day of WWII in Europe (basically the end of the Nazi regime) was in 1945--63 years ago. The 95 theses of Dr. Martin Luther was in 1517 -- 490 years ago. The Council of Nicea was in 325 --1,683 years ago. Henry the VIII's separation from the Church in Rome was in 1534--474 years ago. I could go on and on.

What was the NATURE of those things as opposed to Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings? What Christians today are involved in Crusades, Inquisitions and witch burnings? Why the heck should we today pay the price for those ancient transgressions? I don't know a single witch-burner, we are not guilty of Inquisitions or Crusades. They are entirely irrelevant to today's Christian community and I will not stand for ANYONE connecting my Christian family to such atrocities. Wasn't it you who first mentioned FORGIVENESS in this thread? Where is your forgiveness for people who are not even guilty of the sins you mention? Shouldn't we at least have to commit the alleged transgression before we're tried and convicted? I'll agree we must remember those things and guard against them, but I am NOT going to pay the price for sins I haven't committed.


Are you really going to sit there and tell me that these things have no relevance today?

*I* find Christian displays on public property to be offensive in the extreme. I get seriously ticked off when I go to a high school football game and there is a prayer beforehand. I went to church last year, on the request of my in-laws, and had to walk out because the message wasn't one of love, but of political one-upness, and of continuing to fight to have Christians get their way in the world. This was on Christmas Eve, by the way, when one would think that the message would be one of harmony and peace rather than dissention and pride.

So there is no freedom of speech, no right to dissent, no right to have a say in the affairs of this land for Christians? Are we not citizens, too?


So Christ was crucified on a cross, 2000 years ago. The last witches were burned at the stake 216 years ago. If your memory is long---so is ours! Those of us who are Wicca, and practice modern witchcraft hold those men and women as martyrs--of COURSE we are going to bring it up! Christians still bring up the sacrifice that Christ made, don't they?

Relevance, Synnen, relevance. Since witch-burnings at the hands of 'Christians' have long ended, been condemned and repudiated, we should be released from the guilt you unfairly project on us. I feel no guilt whatsoever about any of those things so I'm fine, it would be to your benefit to forgive and move past long resolved issues. It would be rather silly to not remember Christ's WILLING sacrifice on OUR behalf since that is the entire basis for our faith, and that we believe He is God and is alive today, now wouldn't it?


I was RAISED Christian. All of my family and my husband's family are Christian. I know some GREAT Christians. I'm just sick of having Christians claim their message is harmless when it is NOT.

Again, some supposed 'Christian' messages are not harmless, another thing which I have already acknowledged. I believe I said I have "no use" for such people, so how about a little credit here finally?


For those of us NOT of your faith, those of us who have suffered at the hands of other Christians, ESPECIALLY those going back in history--yes, the nativity IS offensive. So is the cross. So what? Most of the time, we don't make a big stink about it, reasoning that if you can put up YOUR religious beliefs and symbols everywhere from your own front yard, to the Capitol building in Washington, to the roadsigns that advertise "Jesus is Lord" and "God loves ALL of His children, even the unborn", then we should be able to put up our beliefs too.

If these atheists want to put their sorry sign up in their front yard, on a roadside sign on private land, buy space on a billboard or buy ad time on TV, radio or print, more power to them. That's an entirely different situation.


Want to know the sentiment that drives me the craziest? The one that makes me want to deface public property, because I feel so enraged that people don't see how offensive it is? It's those signs that advertise that adoption is better than abortion. "Adoption: The loving option" and "Choose life, not death! Adoption is the caring option!" Now---those might not be offensive to you, in the least, but they ARE to me. They make me angry and sad, and I want to buy up billboards that state the number of suicides, the number of women depressed, and the statistics on adoptive parents that break their word about keeping the adoption open.

Buy all the billboard space you want, that again is an entirely different situation - public and private property. I could be wrong but I don't know of any PUBLIC property that promotes adoption over abortion in that manner.


What does all of this have to do with a "harmless" nativity scene? Nothing--except that OFFENSE IS IN THE EYE OF THE OFFENDED.

You are offended by the sign that says that ALL religion enslaves minds and hardens hearts. I'm offended by the signs that make it seem as though adoption isn't as bad as abortion, but you're still not "good enough" to be a parent if you choose it.


I don't disagree, but we are talking about what is allowed and what is appropriate on public, i.e. state, city, county or federal property. It is improper for the state to expressly offend a particular class of people. Post an appropriate message and I'm fine with it. How many times do I have to say that?


You're offended that someone doubts your faith. I'm offended that your faith assumes that everyone sees the symbols of your religion innocuously.

You're absolutely, unequivocally wrong. I've been very clear about this, I'm offended that the State of Washington endorsed an expressed, written insult to not only my faith but me personally. I'm offended that some of you keep telling me I shouldn't be offended. But I am NOT offended that someone doubts my faith, and I'll defend your right to do so and say so, just not state approved attacks.


Bottom line is that we're never going to agree.

Nope, but I've made numerous concessions. When will you?

The funny thing about this entire thing to me is that the Christians that are so offended are acting very UN-Christian.

Stealing the sign. Protesting instead of turning the other cheek. Getting all uptight about the entire thing instead of just acknowledging that their faith is (or SHOULD be) above it. Pastors seeing hate where there IS no hate--just no belief. Lack of belief in someone's god doesn't mean you hate them--it just means they believe in something you don't.

A woman I work with is truly one of the best Christians I have ever met in my life. She LIVES her faith. She forgives those who offend her, and tries to help them anyway. She gives of herself--she's a recovering alcoholic, sober for several years, who sponsors others in the Alcoholics Anonymous program. She goes to church every week, not just on the "big" days, says a daily meditation, and prays all the time---and all of this WITHOUT shoving it in the face of those around her. She just IS a good Christian--she doesn't PREACH being a good Christian.

It seems to me that those Christians that can be THAT offended by a sign that offers a different belief than theirs are the ones whose faith is shaken too easily---and the ones too busy pointing out the motes in the eyes of others.

If Christianity REALLY wants to get its faith out there to others, and have things go back to the "good ol' days" when they controlled basically everything in this country, from school pageants to downtown displays to whatever--the best way to convert people is to BE a good Christian instead of PREACHING Christianity.

Honestly---the best way to handle this entire situation so that it wasn't blown so far out of proportion that people are up in arms about the entire thing---and believe me, if it's not dropped, what it will lead to is NO religious displays on ANY public property, period--is that someone should have put up a sign by the nativity that said "The birth of Jesus is God's way of saying that he believes in you, even if you don't believe in Him, and that he forgives you your sins even though you do not deserve forgiveness".

That's a better retaliation, don't you think, than stealing the sign and pointing fingers and screaming "hate!!"? Wouldn't that be a more Christian and forgiving thing to do?

Maybe I'm just expecting too much.


My wife is a Born Again Christian and recently met a self-professed church attending Christian all his life who is now a recovering alcoholic who has attended Alcoholics Anonymous meetings for years; and he said to her, "I had no idea what being a Christian was until I walked the walk of AA. I wish all Christian's could walk the AA walk, then they would know what it is to be Christian".

The funny thing is, my mother is an Alcoholic and I've attended many AA meetings and they are for everyone of any religion where your specific religion or the tenets of your religion are not discussed so as not to discourage others from attending and immersing themselves in the principles of the program.

If all Christian's truly knew the walk of Christ in their heart through a program like AA which regularly produces miracles of the spirit (and I might add without the mention of Christ) rather than simply parroting their preacher or the other self-appointed interpreters of "God's word", Christian's would be the role models people may aspire to be like, just like your friend.

Wanna know the sentiment that drives me the craziest? The one that makes me want to deface public property, because I feel so enraged that people don't see how offensive it is? It's those signs that advertise that adoption is better than abortion. "Adoption: The loving option" and "Choose life, not death! Adoption is the caring option!" Now---those might not be offensive to you, in the least, but they ARE to me. They make me angry and sad, and I want to buy up billboards that state the number of suicides, the number of women depressed, and the statistics on adoptive parents that break their word about keeping the adoption open.

.


As an adoptive parent of 3 children, how can you equate abortion to adoption? :confused:

Do you want to ask MY kids if they find their death or my CHOOSING to adopt them
Offensive? Or morally equivalent? :confused:







g&p

As a birthmother who has attended the funerals OTHER birthmothers who committed suicide due to the depression and lack of understanding--and in one case, when the adoptive parents moved, left no forwarding address, and deliberately made it impossible for her to find them after promising her an open adoption---who are YOU to say whose death is more relevant?

My point was that it offends me that people think one choice is "better" than another, and really, the "better" is only from your point of view.

However, that has nothing to do with this thread other than as an example of how what ONE person finds offensive isn't offensive to ANOTHER person. Obviously, my anger at what offends me actually offends YOU.

So--who's to say whether something is "offensive" from the point of view of those supporting it?

Some people were offended by a sign, others by the nativity, others by whatever. Yes, it was in a state building, but so was the nativity.

Want my solution on the whole thing?

Get rid of ANY religious displays on ANY public property. Period. If you want to put up a nativity, do it in your yard, or in your church, or pay for the billboard. If you want to put up a menorrah, do the same. If you want to put up a pentacle, do the same. If you want to state your belief that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds--guess what? You can do the SAME THING as all those other people.

And then--no SCHOOLS can put up Christmas trees or candles in the window or holly berries or whatever. No Capitol buildings can have menorrahs or signs that offend religious people or nativity scenes. The White House (as a public building) is now relegated to having their Christmas tree someplace else, someplace on PRIVATE property.

No city can put up holiday decorations unless they are so vague (like plain lights) that there is no reference to any religion. No more holiday parades put on by towns. Private parties are welcome to pay for parades, but no city can sponsor one.

You want absolute equality of religious displays so that NO ONE is offended? Then get rid of them entirely.

Obviously, my anger at what offends me actually offends YOU.

Geez Synnen, how can I have been more clear at what offends me than to state it plainly as I have? Why on earth should anger at what offends you, offend me? Inappropriate application of that anger doesn't make me too happy, but feel free to be offended by whatever you want.


You want absolute equality of religious displays so that NO ONE is offended? Then get rid of them entirely.

That is probably the only solution. I don't necessarily think it should be the solution but that's probably what it will come to. A little respect for others would go a long way to easing the problem, but these atheists obviously missed that.

A little respect for others would go a long way to easing the problem, but these atheists obviously missed that.

Perhaps 'these' atheists aren't showing the proper respect, but I can assure you that the atheists I know 'seem' far more tolerant of religious displays than religious people 'seem' to be of atheist displays of their beliefs.

However, despite the fact that I don't agree with you probably 60% of the time, I do have a respect for you as you 'seem' unlike the stereotypical Christian poster in that you can acknowledge the other sides view point and even agree from time to time.

You have GOT to be kidding me. Now we've gone to the obligatory Crusades, inquisitions and witch burnings. What the heck does that have to do with this? Not a thing is what. The last Crusade was 552 years ago. The last Inquisition was 148 years ago. The last person executed as a witch in Europe was in Poland in 1792, 216 years ago, the Salem witch trials were in the 1690's over 300 years ago.



The Bible was written thousands of years ago. That's why I feel it should be discard as well.

That is probably the only solution. I don't necessarily think it should be the solution but that's probably what it will come to. A little respect for others would go a long way to easing the problem, but these atheists obviously missed that.

And what of the Christians who stole the sign, defaced it, or put up an identical one with the word "atheism" instead of "religion"? Did those Christians miss it too? I sure think so.

I'm not saying the sign is innocent. I'm not saying a nativity is offensive. All I'm saying is the Christians put up something offensive to a group of atheists, meaning it is state-sponsored. The atheists put up something offensive to a group a Christians, meaning it is state-sponsored. It's the same thing, you're just dismissing the offence of the other side. And now, the Christians have taken the atheist's message and turned it around, putting up yet another offensive item, again, state-sponsored. There is offence and uglyness all around - don't try to pin it all on one group.

And what of the Christians who stole the sign, defaced it, or put up an identical one with the word "atheism" instead of "religion"? Did those Christians miss it too? I sure think so.

I may not have expressed it directly about them (I forget, so many posts here), but I have said more than once I have "no use" for 'Christians' like that. Yes, whoever it was (do we know a 'Christian' stole the sign?) missed it, too.


I'm not saying the sign is innocent. I'm not saying a nativity is offensive. All I'm saying is the Christians put up something offensive to a group of atheists, meaning it is state-sponsored. The atheists put up something offensive to a group a Christians, meaning it is state-sponsored. It's the same thing, you're just dismissing the offence of the other side. And now, the Christians have taken the atheist's message and turned it around, putting up yet another offensive item, again, state-sponsored. There is offence and uglyness all around - don't try to pin it all on one group.

Have you not read my recent posts? I don't deny it may offend some, but as I said earlier, one is a commemoration, the other an expressed, written insult. What is so difficult about the obvious distinction between the two? It's like me posting an image of Jesus and you saying "you're an idiot."

It's like me posting an image of Jesus and you saying "you're an idiot."

LOL... well put :eek:

LOL....well put :eek:

Thanks, and by the way, thanks for your earlier comments. I'm not unreasonable... I just have a little Texas stubbornness and orneriness. :)

How about this comparison, instead:

One posts a picture of Satan standing in Hell and gloating over a suffering Christ, being tortured by demons (but not graphically--the offense needs to be what the picture represents, not it's content) at Easter (since hey--he did descend into Hell for 3 days, and one would assume Satan had power over him then). Let's just pretend this side is a group of devout Satanists, and this is a commemoration of their only triumph over Christ or something (I have to say that I hope I don't offend any Satanists here--I honestly have no idea of that would be a valid commemoration or not). Another group puts up a sign saying "Christ is the only salvation and the only truth, and if you don't believe that, you will suffer for eternity in hell with murderers, traitors, and rapists".

Okay--one is just a picture, a commemoration.

The other is a statement of belief that equates being NON-religious with being a rapist, murderer and traitor.

Would you condone that sign being put up? Is it not, after all, what you believe? And would you fail to be offended by the Satanists picture, and the timing of its placement?

I for one have already stated that a Christian sign with similar content should not be approved .

As far as Satanic symbolism I see it all the time in State sponsored art museums where vile depictions mocking things sacred to Christians are often displayed despite our protestations .

Hello again:

Ok, I have the answer... All right, I don't. But, amazingly, our framers did. They didn't want the public square to be a forum for ANY religion... Those guys were really, really smart.

Wouldn't we all be better off if we did that??

excon

OK Synnen, it would be like you posting that image and me saying "You're an idiot." No, a sign from Christians or any other religion or group making a similar attack is also inappropriate. I think I've been quite fair about it, you just can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge this particular sign is inappropriate.

Ex I would say that is your opinion of what the founders thought. I have studied the 1st amendment for a long time ,read a lot on it and have yet to find a consensus opinion about it. Judges are just as perplexed to find a consistent set of standards to apply.

My own opinion is that they wanted to avoid the excesses of Europe ,but were not absolutists either way. Almost all of them believed in a universal God (even Jefferson who was torn between atheism and his Episcopalian roots) .But even there varying positions were in play .Jefferson and Madison believed that the state should not support a particular church at all . Others, such as John Adams and Washington, believed it was entirely permissible for the state to financially support churches in a non-preferential way.

The one thing I think is universally agreed upon is that they did not want an established national church . However they added the free exercise clause in the same amendment for very real reasons. I do not find evidence that they wanted to restrict the free exercise of religion in the public square. In fact I'm almost sure of that . Why would they include that in the same amendment with an almost absolute free speech in public clause if they did not find the 2 related ?

Anyway ; this is a state matter. There was never a restriction of state religion at the local level that any of the founders supported . In fact in the 1800s many states had established churches .

Have you not read my recent posts? I don't deny it may offend some, but as I said earlier, one is a commemoration, the other an expressed, written insult. What is so difficult about the obvious distinction between the two? It's like me posting an image of Jesus and you saying "you're an idiot."

An offensive commemoration is still state-sponsored offence.

An offensive commemoration is still state-sponsored offence.

And what might I ask was overtly, expressly offensive about the nativity scene? Don't answer that, we'll just be back to square one. The difference between a harmless commemoration of an event and a display expressly telling people they're fools in writing is beyond obvious.

Ex I would say that is your opinion of what the founders thought. I have studied the 1st amendment for a long time ,read alot on it and have yet to find a concensus opinion about it. Judges are just as perplexed to find a consistent set of standards to apply.Hello again, tom:

Yes, indeed. Perplexion rules. Hence, this discussion... and, many before... and many to come if we don't find a solution...

And, I think it WAS found, when the wall of separation came into existence... Now, I know it doesn't SAY those words... And you should know that I'm personally appalled at adding words to the Constitution that weren't already there...

But, I'm looking for a SOLUTION to the problem, not a legal argument one way or the other.

The solution IS to keep the public square FREE from ANY religious material. That would just plain solve it, no if's and's or but's. Simple... Problem solved. Let's get on to more pressing matters.

The problem is with your Christianity and your thinking that YOU have the public square to yourself because most of you are Christians, and so were the founders... You seem to let THAT part take over from your ordinarily sensible part... Because you SEE the argument and you think the solution is for everybody else to be banned from the square BUT YOU.

You KNOW that's not going to work. YOU KNOW IT! If you allow YOUR message, shortly, there will be one from your local mosque telling you that Christians are infidels... And, you're going to have to KEEP that message there...

But, you don't see that, do you?? I don't know why.

excon

And what might I ask was overtly, expressly offensive about the nativity scene? Don't answer that, we'll just be back to square one. The difference between a harmless commemoration of an event and a display expressly telling people they're fools in writing is beyond obvious.

Too bad! :p

I don't think the nativity is offensive. I don't think the sign is offensive. Someone on each side, however, thinks it is offensive. You say the nativity is a "harmless commemoration"; many people probably agree with you. The sign, on the other hand, I think is harmless; many people probably agree with me. The sign is an expression, an opinion - it says religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds. It's an opinion, that's all.

Why is it OK for the Christian group to offend the atheist group? Why are you dismissing the offense of the atheist group?

If you allow YOUR message, shortly, there will be one from your local mosque telling you that Christians are infidels... And, you're going to have to KEEP that message there...


My public square message does not condemn anyone . If the Muslims want to make a positive case for their peaceful religion then go for it. I would not object. If Synn wanted a tribute to Gaia... no problem.

Too bad! :p

I don't think the nativity is offensive. I don't think the sign is offensive. Someone on each side, however, thinks it is offensive. You say the nativity is a "harmless commemoration"; many people probably agree with you. The sign, on the other hand, I think is harmless; many people probably agree with me. The sign is an expression, an opinion - it says religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds. It's an opinion, that's all.

Why is it ok for the Christian group to offend the atheist group? Why are you dismissing the offense of the atheist group?

Why do you guys keep asking me why I dismiss the offense to the atheists? I never dismissed it, in fact in this response (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/blue-state-288638-8.html#post1423441) to you I said "I don't deny it may offend some," so can we all please stop suggesting things about me that aren't there? I can't explain it any clearer than I have already Jillian, the atheist sign is openly, directly, expressly, clearly hostile. The nativity scene is not. I've acknowledged atheist's rights, that the nativity scene offends some, and said if the situation were reversed it would be equally wrong, so there's nothing more for me to add... unless someone again attributes something to me that doesn't exist.

Too bad! :p

I don't think the nativity is offensive. I don't think the sign is offensive. Someone on each side, however, thinks it is offensive. You say the nativity is a "harmless commemoration"; many people probably agree with you. The sign, on the other hand, I think is harmless; many people probably agree with me. The sign is an expression, an opinion - it says religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds. It's an opinion, that's all.

Why is it ok for the Christian group to offend the atheist group? Why are you dismissing the offense of the atheist group?


Use the child test (of reading age) to determine the appropriateness of a display.

If a child sees a nativity scene for the first time they will see a bunch of people, a baby, and some animals. There is no message to either inspire or to infect the child's mind. If the child should ask their parents what it is, the parents can choose to either explain it fully from a Christian point of view, or say that it's a symbol of myth, etc. The scene itself
has no meaning unless it is explained, researched or asked about either by children or adults. It is not offensive in any way unless you choose for it to be offensive by you, formed by your own opinion; not the display itself.

The sign on the other hand incorporates an opinion; an opinion that some parents do not want their child exposed to and have no way to shield them since the child can read it themselves.

While as a taxpayer I don't mind symbols of the season, nativity scenes, menora's, Santa Claus, Christmas trees adorning public areas. I don't want any interest promoting it's opinion in these public areas.

If the "Celebraters of the Winter Solctice" want to display a symbol on public property, I have no problem with it, but keep your opinion to youself; if I want to know more I will research it myself.

I know someone will eventually say by the "child test standard" it would be appropriate to display a Swastika in a public place. No it wouldn't, society/community has standards which it can impose. Such as choosing not to display pornographic material, etc.

Would the people who provided the sign past such a test, I doubt it because of if the sentence "religion hardens hearts, and enslaves minds". If that is their goal and at the core of their movement rather than a more moderate expression like "we are alone on this world and the choices we make can make us a better place, so lets celebrate this Winter Solctice with love and kindness towards each other"; then I doubt the community would approve a symbol from them in a public place based on the "religion hardens hearts and ensalves minds" core belief as it is devisive; but would approve a symbol if they used a non-devisive expression of their belief like the one I proposed above.

Can you imagine doing this to a muslim holiday? I just don't get it. This is OUR celebration of OUR Lord's birth. Why in the WORLD do atheists even care? They don't have to celebrate it. I am SICK to death of being polically correct. It is disrespect to the Christian Faith and I for one am HIGHLY offended. What is it to an atheist? Geesh.

Can you imagine doing this to a muslim holiday? I just don't get it. This is OUR celebration of OUR Lord's birth. Why in the WORLD do atheists even care? They don't have to celebrate it. I am SICK to death of being polically correct. It is disrespect to the Christian Faith and I for one am HIGHLY offended. What is it to an atheist? Geesh.

What it is to an aethist is what it would be to you if our country became prodominately Muslim and the majority only approved of Muslim displays in public places and found your Christian displays an attack on Islam.

What is at stake here is higher than your God, my God, or no God; it's the principle of Freedom of Religion even if that Religion is Atheism. Without that freedom, the majority wins and all other faiths are oppressed. It's great while your in the majority, but it's life threatening when your in the minority.

It's about upholding a principle that allows everyone to celebrate their own faith, and protects it through that freedom. To restrict even one faith opens the door for restricting your own.

You call it political correctness, I call it freedom.

Texas,

Well you can call it freedom if you like. I call it disrespect to MY FAITH. As far as I am concerned... we are living in a POST Christian nation anyway. If you don't like Christmas don't celebrate it... but don't disrespect it either.. that isn't freedom.. it is RUDE.

Texas,

well you can call it freedom if ya like. I call it disrespect to MY FAITH. as far as i am concerned...we are living in a POST Christian nation anyway. If you don't like Christmas don't celebrate it...but don't disrespect it either..that isn't freedom..it is RUDE.

As far as the part of the sign which said that "Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds" I do agree it was rude, offensive and should not have been displayed on public property.

However, it did not attack your faith in particular; and might I remind you that the season is celebrated by Jewish people as well; not just Christian's. Furthermore, Christmas has long lost it's Christian only meaning. I loved Christmas growing up, it meant forgiveness, kindness, thinking about others; but not once did I ever know it was Christian, it was Santa, family, and giving.

It no longer belongs just to Christian's, and it's been argued that it was never truly Christian in origin either; it started as a pagan celebration.

So plenty of people choose to celebrate it in different ways, and what it means to people differs dramatically and all should be free to celebrate the season in anyway they see fit; provided it doesn't 'directly' insult anyone else's belief of what it is and stands for.

That is Freedom.

Texas,

Jewish people celebrate something other than the birth of Christ. And guess what, they haven't tried to disrespect the Christian Holiday. This is a Christian Holiday... DEAL WITH IT. You want to celebrate something? GREAT... pick another day and GO FOR IT. . It belongs to OUR faith, our savior, HIS BIRTH. You don't Like Jesus? You don't believe in him? FINE. Ain't no one making you.

Hello again, T:

The issue here isn't Christianity, Christmas, atheists, or ANYTHING religious, actually.

I think Christmas is great. When we were kids, we could still have a Christmas play every year. I loved playing Jesus... I'm a supporter of Christmas, the holiday and I'm respectful of it's religious implications, and of the people who believe in them.

The issue HERE is whether the state should support one religion over another or should it support any of them.

Putting a manger in a state building IS a message FROM the state, just like Christmas ornaments in your front yard deliver a message from you. It's FINE for you. It ISN'T fine for the state.

excon

Texas,

Jewish people celebrate something other than the birth of Christ. And guess what, they haven't tried to disrespect the Christian Holiday. This is a Christian Holiday....DEAL WITH IT. You wanna celebrate something? GREAT ...pick another day and GO FOR IT. . It belongs to OUR faith, our savior, HIS BIRTH. You don't Like Jesus? You don't believe in him? FINE. Ain't no one making you.

Really, Christmas belongs to you; Christian's? That is where you are mistaken. No where does Santa tell kids that it's a Christian holiday; and in my house we had a Christmas tree, family dinners, love; but it was not a celebration of Christ. Did I know it represented the day Christ was born, yes; but more as a history of how it came about as well as the pagan celebrations that it was also born from.

How dare you call it your holiday! How dare you dismiss a family celebration that I have been a part of for over 50 years. What gives you the arrogance to call it your own!

It's not even in the bible, it's not even God sanctioned as it were, it's origins are pagan celebrations and the state gives everyone a holiday, not just Christian's.

For you I imagine it's a celebration of Christ's birth, for millions of other American's it something else entirely but just as much theirs as it is yours.

I imagine in your world, only Christian's would be allowed to celebration Christmas; would the rest of us have to roast like the chestnuts if we committed heresy by celebrating our version of Christmas?

For a Christian you would think you would want everyone to celebrate Christmas rather than keep it Christian so as to help bring others to Christ; but it doesn't sound to Christ like for you to be divisive.

I know this for sure I wouldn't want YOU in charge of Christmas even if I were a Christian.

Really, Christmas belongs to you; Christian's? That is where you are mistaken. No where does Santa tell kids that it's a Christian holiday; and in my house we had a Christmas tree, family dinners, love; but it was not a celebration of Christ. Did I know it represented the day Christ was born, yes; but more as a history of how it came about as well as the pagan celebrations that it was also born from.

How dare you call it your holiday!! How dare you dismiss a family celebration that I have been a part of for over 50 years. What gives you the arrogance to call it your own!!

It's not even in the bible, it's not even God sanctioned as it were, it's origins are pagan celebrations and the state gives everyone a holiday, not just Christian's.

For you I imagine it's a celebration of Christ's birth, for millions of other American's it something else entirely but just as much theirs as it is yours.

I imagine in your world, only Christian's would be allowed to celebration Christmas; would the rest of us have to roast like the chestnuts if we committed heresy by celebrating our version of Christmas?

For a Christian you would think you would want everyone to celebrate Christmas rather than keep it Christian so as to help bring others to Christ; but it doesn't sound to Christ like for you to be divisive.

I know this for sure I wouldn't want YOU in charge of Christmas even if I were a Christian.

Lol... THE HECK with Christmas.. I'd just like to be in charge of YOU:p... LOL. Hey stop trying to imagine my world. I don't care if you celebrate it as Christ birth or not... just don't disrespect it. That is ALL I'm asking.

lol....THE HECK with Christmas..i'd just like to be in charge of YOU:p...LOL. Hey stop trying to imagine my world. I don't care if you celebrate it as Christ birth or not...just don't disrespect it. That is ALL i'm asking.

On that point, we can agree :D

Hello again, T:

The issue here isn't Christianity, Christmas, atheists, or ANYTHING religious, actually.

I think Christmas is great. When we were kids, we could still have a Christmas play every year. I loved playing Jesus... I'm a supporter of Christmas, the holiday and I'm respectful of it's religious implications, and of the people who believe in them.

The issue HERE is whether the state should support one religion over another or should it support any of them.

Putting a manger in a state building IS a message FROM the state, just like Christmas ornaments in your front yard deliver a message from you. It's FINE for you. It ISN'T fine for the state.

excon

OH GOOD GOSH! You are kidding right? We got people starving in the world but we are going to argue our rights if we put Jesus in a manger on a state building lawn. See, You aren't even upset about that.. you just are picking a fight. I know your type mister... sides Christmas IS fun just like you remember it as a kid. AND I might add.. this wouldn't even have been an issue back in those days but now we can't offend anyone. UGH! We really are a post Christian nation and thin skinned to boot! Sad.. sad indeedy

The issue HERE is whether the state should support one religion over another or should it support any of them.

Putting a manger in a state building IS a message FROM the state, just like Christmas ornaments in your front yard deliver a message from you. It's FINE for you. It ISN'T fine for the state.

excon

IF that is all this is about then no one should be able to erect anything and should keep it in your own home. I think that if Christians want to show what they want, then others should be allowed too. BUT messages like that signs make me want to say screw it for everyone...
If they still do allow it after this year, then a rule should be applied... "dont show respect then don't erect anything." Common sense really, but who uses that anymore? Not many as far as I am concerned.

Why do you guys keep asking me why I dismiss the offense to the atheists? I never dismissed it, in fact in this response (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/blue-state-288638-8.html#post1423441) to you I said "I don't deny it may offend some," so can we all please stop suggesting things about me that aren't there? I can't explain it any clearer than I have already Jillian, the atheist sign is openly, directly, expressly, clearly hostile. The nativity scene is not. I've acknowledged atheist's rights, that the nativity scene offends some, and said if the situation were reversed it would be equally wrong, so there's nothing more for me to add ... unless someone again attributes something to me that doesn't exist.

You say you aren't dismissing the offense of others, but you are arguing that the nativity is harmless, regardless of the fact that is offends people, yet the sign isn't harmless because offends people. There are those out there who see the nativity as "openly, directly, expressly, [and] clearly hostile". You're teetering on the edge of a double standard.

Hello again, T:

The issue here isn't Christianity, Christmas, atheists, or ANYTHING religious, actually.

I think Christmas is great. When we were kids, we could still have a Christmas play every year. I loved playing Jesus... I'm a supporter of Christmas, the holiday and I'm respectful of it's religious implications, and of the people who believe in them.

The issue HERE is whether the state should support one religion over another or should it support any of them.

Putting a manger in a state building IS a message FROM the state, just like Christmas ornaments in your front yard deliver a message from you. It's FINE for you. It ISN'T fine for the state.

excon

You know lights, ornaments, wreaths, garland, etc. look great this time of year. And frankly most public spaces could use the facelift once a year, most public places are drab and cold looking.

I understand your point, and I agree; but I also know that somewhere in law, but mostly in my heart it's not wrong to display lights, garland, wreaths and ornaments. They as symbols don't speak to anyone in particular; Christians will say they they represent their Christmas, I will say they represent winter and my non-religious view of the Christmas season, and I don't think even the Jews have been at particular odds with non-Christian representations of the season.

If the majority want non-offensive season appropriate decorations in our public places I am all for it, they look great.

As for lights and ornaments in my yard; what message would that be? How could you determine what my message is?

I've posted earlier about my view on the nativity scene and the sign, I won't repeat it here; but I wanted to add, that I don't mind a few of my tax dollars at work to beautify our public spaces during the "Winter Solictice" season ;)

You know lights, ornaments, wreaths, garland, etc. look great this time of year. And frankly most public spaces could use the facelift once a year, most public places are drab and cold looking.

I understand your point, and I agree; but I also know that somewhere in law, but mostly in my heart it's not wrong to display lights, garland, wreaths and ornaments. They as symbols don't speak to anyone in particular; Christians will say they they represent their Christmas, I will say they represent winter and my non-religious view of the Christmas season, and I don't think even the Jews have been at particular odds with non-Christian representations of the season.

If the majority want non-offensive season appropriate decorations in our public places I am all for it, they look great.

As for lights and ornaments in my yard; what message would that be? How could you determine what my message is?

I've posted earlier about my view on the nativity scene and the sign, I won't repeat it here; but I wanted to add, that I don't mind a few of my tax dollars at work to beautify our public spaces during the "Winter Solictice" season ;)

Agreed, but that sign has no beauty in it what so ever;)

You say you aren't dismissing the offense of others, but you are arguing that the nativity is harmless, regardless of the fact that is offends people, yet the sign isn't harmless because offends people. There are those out there who see the nativity as "openly, directly, expressly, [and] clearly hostile". You're teetering on the edge of a double standard.

Who are those who find the nativity scene hostile? What do they find hostile about it? Read my earlier post about the CHILD TEST.

There is nothing hostile about a few people gathered around a baby and having a few farm animals thrown in to boot. On the surface it would look like to a child a family in a barn; because that is all it is until you assign your own prejudices to it; either positive or negative. Is that the fault of the scene itself, no. It delivers no message on it's own, you have to have learned your hostility from somewhere else.

As for the "sign" in question, it did display a hostile opinion towards another belief; and hence is inappropriate for display in a publicly funded place.

That is the difference.

Hello wingers of all persuasions:

Well, you Christians wanted YOUR stuff displayed in public, and so it was... That should make you Christians happy. YOUR message IS in the public square... Nobody is trying to REMOVE your nativity scene, like they used to... Nope, you guys WON that battle..

But, hold on a minute podner..... That danged governor of ours said that if the public arena is open for religious display, then it should be open to ALL religious displays....

No??? Just yours? Cause we're a Christian nation????

In any case, we're NOT a Christian nation. So, some atheist group put a sign alongside the nativity scene in the public square. It says “There is only one natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

So, what's wrong with that?

excon


So, Ex, are you implying that atheism is a religion?






g&p

Use the child test (of reading age) to determine the appropriateness of a display.

Your "child's test" fails in your very own post - the swastica. If society/community has standards which it can impose, why are those imposed on some but not all?

And if Christians would be, in your opinion, more receptive to a less-aggressive sign, why did this statement: Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake. which appeared on the side of busses in DC cause an uproar? Different topic - just food for thought.

Who are those who find the nativity scene hostile? What do they find hostile about it?

The group which put the sign up. Read the link I posted back on page 4, post #31.

Can you imagine doing this to a muslim holiday? I just don't get it. This is OUR celebration of OUR Lord's birth. Why in the WORLD do atheists even care? They don't have to celebrate it. I am SICK to death of being polically correct. It is disrespect to the Christian Faith and I for one am HIGHLY offended. What is it to an atheist? Geesh.

Pardon me, but nothing is being done to a holiday, it's a sign going up in the month of December. It is the ultimate sign of arrogance for you to claim the month of December as "yours".

And, for your educating pleasure:

December 6 - December 9, 2008
Hajj (Annual Pilgrimage to Mecca)
The Hajj, or annual pilgrimage to Mecca, consists of several ceremonies meant to symbolize the essential concepts of the Islamic faith, such as submission, brotherhood, and unity, and to commemorate the trials of the Prophet Abraham and his family. Required once in a Muslim’s lifetime, over two million Muslims perform the pilgrimage annually.

December 8, 2008
Eid-ul-Adha (Festival of the Sacrifice)
Holiday occurring on the third day of the Hajj, lasting four days. It commemorates the Prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, who was replaced by a lamb.

December 29, 2008
Islamic New Year (1430 A.H.*)
Marks the beginning of a New Year in the Islamic calendar. There are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, making Muslims one of the world's largest religious group in the United States. There are an estimated 6-8 million Muslims in America, making Muslims the second largest religious group in the United States. While the majority of American Muslims were born in this country, they are from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds: African-American, South Asian, Arab, African, Persian, and the remaining are European, Southeast Asian and Turkish.

That is okay with me.

The nativity scene does not say in writing - you non Christians believe in superstition and myth that hardens the heart and enslaves the mind.:confused:

Just as long as my fellow Muslims don't expect me to hold to the sacrifices made during the month of Ramadan. They are tougher than me
;)


g&p

As for lights and ornaments in my yard; what message would that be? How could you determine what my message is?Hello again, Tex:

Well, I could determine that you're a Christian person who celebrates the birth of Christ. I could be wrong, of course. However, I think my reading of the signs would be accurate. It's you who wishes to make it secular (which, of course, is fine with me). To wit:


No where does Santa tell kids that it's a Christian holiday; and in my house we had a Christmas tree, family dinners, love; but it was not a celebration of Christ. Did I know it represented the day Christ was born, yes; but more as a history of how it came about as well as the pagan celebrations that it was also born from.

If you saw a menorah in my window, what would you determine from that? I'll bet you'd be right.

excon

So, Ex, are you implying that atheism is a religion?
Hello in:

What? You have to be a religion to post a sign in the Capitol? I didn't know that.

excon

Your "child's test" fails in your very own post - the swastica. If society/community has standards which it can impose, why are those imposed on some but not all?

And if Christians would be, in your opinion, more receptive to a less-aggressive sign, why did this statement: Why believe in a God? Just be good for goodness sake. which appeared on the side of busses in DC cause an uproar? Different topic - just food for thought.

Alas, I know the Swastika DOES past the "child's test" because a child wouldn't know what it meant until someone told them; but for those who do know what it represents it is so offensive that the uproar would be even more than what is taking place over the sign. Then who becomes the judge of what is appropriate and what is not. Unfortunately, I guess EXCON is right, the state should not be in the position to judge what is appropriate or not and should not display anything at all.

Shame really; I like pretty. Can we agree that red and green are not offensive to anyone and can the State display red and green banners this time of year? Is pine garland offensive to anyone? Can we have a national referendum on what is appropriate during this time of year?

I vote for green, because there is too little of it in winter!

Sigh.

Pardon me, but nothing is being done to a holiday, it's a sign going up in the month of December. It is the ultimate sign of arrogance for you to claim the month of December as "yours".

And, for your educating pleasure:

December 6 - December 9, 2008
Hajj (Annual Pilgrimage to Mecca)
The Hajj, or annual pilgrimage to Mecca, consists of several ceremonies meant to symbolize the essential concepts of the Islamic faith, such as submission, brotherhood, and unity, and to commemorate the trials of the Prophet Abraham and his family. Required once in a Muslim's lifetime, over two million Muslims perform the pilgrimage annually.

December 8, 2008
Eid-ul-Adha (Festival of the Sacrifice)
Holiday occurring on the third day of the Hajj, lasting four days. It commemorates the Prophet Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son, who was replaced by a lamb.

December 29, 2008
Islamic New Year (1430 A.H.*)
Marks the beginning of a New Year in the Islamic calendar. There are an estimated 1.5 billion Muslims in the world, making Muslims one of the world's largest religious group in the United States. There are an estimated 6-8 million Muslims in America, making Muslims the second largest religious group in the United States. While the majority of American Muslims were born in this country, they are from a wide variety of ethnic backgrounds: African-American, South Asian, Arab, African, Persian, and the remaining are European, Southeast Asian and Turkish.


Well, I DO pardon you Jill. And I never claimed the month of December as MINE. The last time I checked... Christmas was ONE day... December 25. I said CHRISTMAS was about CHRIST and it was a CHRISTIAN Holiday. I don't care who wants to celebrate what in December... but I don't like when other Organizations want to disrespect OUR CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY with things that demean our FAITH. You want to call that arrogance?. Again, I submit to you if it wasn't about Christianity, you wouldn't have an issue.

Alas, I know the Swastika DOES past the "child's test" because a child wouldn't know what it meant until someone told them; but for those who do know what it represents it is so offensive that the uproar would be even more than what is taking place over the sign.

You're forgetting the swastika is a religious symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism... and more. The Nazis adopted it and now it is associated with them alone, but on it's own (and depending on the direction it faces), really, it shouldn't be an offensive symbol. You're also using a child ignorant of history but capable of understanding the words on the atheist's sign and the intended meaning behind them.


Then who becomes the judge of what is appropriate and what is not. Unfortunately, I guess EXCON is right, the state should not be in the position to judge what is appropriate or not and should not display anything at all.

I agree - keep it all out. It's impossible to not offend someone with something; the best course of action is to take it all down and keep it all down.


Shame really; I like pretty. Can we agree that red and green are not offensive to anyone and can the State display red and green banners this time of year? Is pine garland offensive to anyone? Can we have a national referendum on what is appropriate during this time of year?

I vote for green, because there is too little of it in winter!

Sigh.

Red and green... they don't offend me, but the origins of why they are Christmas colors is significant. Google it, you'll see several histories indicating how the colors relate to Christianity. I think you're safe with pine and garland, since pine trees keep their look for the winter... but... then you get into Christmas trees... How about snowflakes? Snowmen? Peppermint candies? Holly leaves?

Well, I DO pardon you Jill. And I never claimed the month of December as MINE. The last time I checked... Christmas was ONE day... December 25. I said CHRISTMAS was about CHRIST and it was a CHRISTIAN Holiday. I don't care who wants to celebrate what in December... but I don't like when other Organizations want to disrespect OUR CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY with things that demean our FAITH. You want to call that arrogance?.

Where does the atheist sign attack Christmas? I read it and it says nothing about Christmas, or even specifically Christians. It says religion. It's not attacking "your holiday". No one is arguing Christmas is a Christian holiday.

And you DID claim the month of December as "yours" when you dared the atheists to do this "to" a muslim holiday, and when you were dismissive of the Jewish celebrations during the month.


Again, I submit to you if it was about Christianity, you wouldn't have an issue.

I have no idea what you mean by this.

Are we sufficiently off topic yet? I think so. If you want to continue, feel free to PM me.

Jill,

It says there is NO GOD. Christmas celebrates the BIRTH of the Lord Jesus Christ who is in fact GOD! It also states that religion ENSLAVES minds. It is right beside the display of the nativity scene!! Naah that's not an attack... I'm just being thin skinned. Pick a muslim Holiday and put THAT sign up RIGHT beside something sacred to them. See what happens. That doesn't mean I think December belongs to the Christians.. I think what I am saying is... Christians are sick of having their faith disrespected. By the way, I LOVE the Jewish Holidays and feasts... I was never dismissive.

I just want to extend a Happy Festivus to everyone !

I just want to extend a Happy Festivus to everyone !

We've already begun the airing of grievances, now it's time for feats of strength.

Can you imagine doing this to a muslim holiday? I just don't get it. This is OUR celebration of OUR Lord's birth. Why in the WORLD do atheists even care? They don't have to celebrate it. I am SICK to death of being polically correct. It is disrespect to the Christian Faith and I for one am HIGHLY offended. What is it to an atheist? Geesh.

YOUR celebration of YOUR lord's birth just HAPPENS to fall on or around the date of a major holiday for at LEAST 4 religions.

It's not ALL yours, and *I* am sick to death of the "majority rule" attitude when it comes to displays and celebrations.

Either ALL get to, or NONE get to---take your pick.

As far as the swastika being compared to pornography--that's a bit out of line. Until the Nazis went overboard with it, the swastika was a symbol used in several major Eastern religions, and has been known to appear in several Native American traditions as well. So frankly--if a Hindu wanted to put up a swastika, you couldn't stop them, BECAUSE it is a religious symbol. Equating that to a picture of two people attempting to procreate isn't exactly the same thing, hmmm? And again, if a child of reading age had to look at a symbol and see a geometric pattern or a picture of the nativity---isn't it STILL up to the parents to choose how to discuss it with their child.

And frankly, really--a good religious symbol to Gaia COULD be one of those little stylized naked women. Is nakedness out too? Or just outright pornography?

I GET the idea of standards. I just want to know WHOSE standards they should be.

I believe in a Creator, you know. It's a goddess/god thing, but it's still a religion. I haven't seen any Jews protesting or stealing the sign. Nor have I seen Muslims all up in arms about it. Don't think there are any Hindus screaming "hate", or Buddhists protesting because their religion has been slandered.

Nope---it seems to be only Christians that have a problem with it.

*I* am not offended by that sign. I'm also not personally offended by the nativity. The fact that the two of them are near each other isn't that either one is attacking the other. That just happens to be the space that some bureaucrat assigned each of them. When the menorrah goes up, I'm thinking it's going to be in the same general area as those other two displays.

What DOES offend me is the attitude that ONE belief can be put up in the capitol building and another cannot. It DOES offend me that people think ONE of those displays is offensive and the other is not. Either they both are, or neither are, in my opinion.

What DOES offend me is the attitude that ONE belief can be put up in the capitol building and another cannot. It DOES offend me that people think ONE of those displays is offensive and the other is not. Either they both are, or neither are, in my opinion.

For the umpteenth time, one "belief" says "to commemorate the birth of Jesus Christ, which is celebrated by Christians around the world." The other says religious people are idiots. There are 4 displays in play here, all required by the settlement (http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/WesseliusSettlement.pdf) (pdf) to be "consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities."

A "Holiday Tree"
A Menorah
A nativity Scene
A sign saying there is no God and religion "enslaves minds"

Lets' boil it down to a little Sesame Street game:


One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Hello again:

I find it SO interesting that this discussion takes all these twists and turns...

So, whether the state can display such things is now, NOT a matter of what's religious, but, what's offensive - and the offensive stuff ain't allowed.

Uhhhh. What?

excon

A "Holiday Tree" - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions
A Menorah - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions
A nativity Scene - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions
A sign saying there is no God and religion "enslaves minds" - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Hello again:

I find it SO interesting that this discussion takes all these twists and turns...

So, whether the state can display such things is now, NOT a matter of what's religious, but, what's offensive - and the offensive stuff ain't allowed.

Uhhhh. What?

excon


I tried to get the color GREEN off the offensive list, but I couldn't even get it out of this forum, never mind subjecting to a larger vote.

Well, if offensive is the criteria then we had better remove all the statues and memorials from public squares, grounds, buildings as I am sure there is someone, somewhere, who is offended by them.

So let it be written that there will be no display of any kind on public funded grounds. This includes statues, plaques, art of any nature, religious symbols, etc. Any landscapping features that resemble anything outside of nature or can be interpreted as symbol will be promptly re-arranged to remove said similarity to such symbol. Trees that grow looking like a symbol will be promptly re-located to a private institution.

Note: Due to a individual request we are currently reviewing whether flower gardens will be allowed on public property because this individual wants to save "pretty" in public places. Anyone who finds flower gardens offensive may contact us in writing, once we recieve the first such letter, flower gardens will not be allowed in public places.

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Yeah---the holiday tree.

That's the only one that actually combines the traditions of SEVERAL religions into one symbol.

The rest are the beliefs of a specific belief system.

If you find the sign offensive and think it should be removed. What's next?

Should I not be allowed to preach about the ills of religion in a public park?

Should we not be allowed to teach children about the Spanish inquisition because it paints religion in a bad light?

Should stories about priests that molest children be squashed because they paint religion in a bad light?

Should we start separating children of different religions so your children don't learn new ideas?

Should we start rounding up the adults of different religions and put them in some sort of camp?
Oh wait Catholics tried this one already and ended up killing 6 million Jews.
Maybe we should draw the line somewhere before that.

Bottom line is that Christians find lots of stuff offensive and what's great about living in the USA is that they have to put up with it in public places.
If you don't want to put up with it you are more than within your right to go buy lots of private land and only allow the faithful on it.


Be thankful I haven't knocked on your door at 9am on a Saturday to tell you how great it is to shed your stone age believes.

Michaelb, quite the dramatic presentation, but this is about government endorsing an explicit, anti-religious attack on state property. You're free to insult whoever you like, but it isn't the government's place to endorse such an attack and display for it all to see and it violates the settlement that such displays be ""consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities." Next year I think I'll apply to display a sign saying, "At this season of the winter solstice, atheists can kiss my a$$" and see how that goes over.

michaelb, quite the dramatic presentation, but this is about government endorsing an explicit, anti-religious attack on state property. You're free to insult whoever you like, but it isn't the government's place to endorse such an attack and display for it all to see and it violates the settlement that such displays be ""consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities." Next year I think I'll apply to display a sign saying, "At this season of the winter solstice, atheists can kiss my a$$" and see how that goes over.

You might get it approved if you replace the word "a$$" with a statue type donkey and simply have an arrow pointing to the cute donkey in place of the offending word... ;)

Something like this?

Put the virgin Mary on the donkey and see what happens with it.

Put the virgin Mary on the donkey and see what happens with it.

The Mexican edition of Playboy is already trying a similar angle (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1094198/Mary-Christmas-readers--Mexican-Playboy-puts-nude-Virgin-Mary-cover.html). I like this lady's idea (http://www.melissaclouthier.com/2008/12/15/playboy-insults-christianity/) better, try displaying a naked Mohammed with a 12 year old virgin instead.

Something like this?

Nice :D

michaelb, quite the dramatic presentation, but this is about government endorsing an explicit, anti-religious attack on state property. You're free to insult whoever you like, but it isn't the government's place to endorse such an attack and display for it all to see and it violates the settlement that such displays be ""consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities." Next year I think I'll apply to display a sign saying, "At this season of the winter solstice, atheists can kiss my a$$" and see how that goes over.

Isn't the message the scene with the manger is trying to depict that the state is Christian and if you don't believe your going to be tortured in a pit of fire for all eternity without even death as a release and we Christians feel that punishment is completely justified. Frankly only being told kiss someone's donkey, I personally feel that it would be an improvement over your current message. So I'd rather see your sign than the normal displays.

If I had to bet money I'd say the Atheist's sign would still be stolen first even if your sign was right next to it.

I also didn't see anything explicit in the sign, anti-religious yes but if your going to allow pro something on public grounds you have to allow anti something or nothing at all.

Also the sign wasn't disruptive it was the Christian who protested that were disruptive. Calling the sign disruptive and saying it can't be there would be like saying Martin Luther King couldn't speak because the protesters were being disrupting. You basically crush free speech with this logic.

This is a very bad slope Christian are walking along. I hope there are enough people of reason to keep you out of the hole your digging.

It also isn't reasonable to justify your own bad actions by someone else's worse reaction. Which is what your doing by constantly bringing up Muslims.

It would be like if I smacked you for being dumb and then said it's okay because if you were dumb in front of this other guy he would have killed you. The world doesn't work that way.

Isn't the message the scene with the manger is trying to depict that the state is Christian and if you don't believe your going to be tortured in a pit of fire for all eternity without even death as a release and we Christians feel that punishment is completely justified. Frankly only being told kiss someone's donkey, I personally feel that it would be an improvement over your current message. So I'd rather see your sign than the normal displays.

No, and this has been argued to death here already. Only one thing here is an explicit, not to mention verbal, insult and it's the atheist sign.


I also didn't see anything explicit in the sign, anti-religious yes but if your going to allow pro something on public grounds you have to allow anti something or nothing at all.

I guess it's just believers that shouldn't be insulted when they're insulted. It's beyond me how anyone reasonable person can think telling people of faith emphatically that their religion "is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" isn't an explicit insult.


Also the sign wasn't disruptive it was the Christian who protested that were disruptive. Calling the sign disruptive and saying it can't be there would be like saying Martin Luther King couldn't speak because the protesters were being disrupting. You basically crush free speech with this logic.

The Christians weren't a part of the display, THEY were exercising the first amendment rights you keep defending, protesting a government endorsed attack. You're missing the boat here michaelb, no one is trying to prevent free speech. In fact I said you're free to insult whoever you like, our government is not free to allow attacks on one particular group.


This is a very bad slope Christian are walking along. I hope there are enough people of reason to keep you out of the hole your digging.

You really should read the rest of the posts, I defended the atheists right to have a display as well, just make it appropriate.

I'm still of the opinion that a non-partial group needs to make the decision as to what's "appropriate".

Personally, I still think that we should get rid of ALL Federal, State, and local public displays of religious ANYTHING.

No signs, no nativities, no angels, no menorrahs, no pentacles (because yeah... THAT has ever happened), no whatever. The ONLY place for a religious symbol on public ground is on a gravestone.

You want to get REALLY picky about this? Technically roads and the area near roads, especially the highway systems, is public property. No more roadside memorials with crosses or Stars of David, or Pentacles or words to the effect of "God has taken my child to Heaven because of a drunk driver!". NOTHING religious. Period.

THAT would be the only fair way to make sure that no one is offended by anyone else's religious display.

No, and this has been argued to death here already. Only one thing here is an explicit, not to mention verbal, insult and it's the atheist sign.
First there was nothing explicit about the sign not a single thing on there would be considered explicit by the FCC. So since you feel the atheist sign is insulting it shouldn't be displayed with what I feel is a more offensive display that calls for my torture for eternity. Your right though the atheist sign but it into words while the Christian display only explicitly implies it.



I guess it's just believers that shouldn't be insulted when they're insulted. It's beyond me how anyone reasonable person can think telling people of faith emphatically that their religion "is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" isn't an explicit insult.
You can be insulted and you can choose not to read the sign you can choose to avoid the area with the sign. You can choose not allow anyone to display something on state property. You can not though pick what insults you and suppress what you don't like.


The Christians weren't a part of the display, THEY were exercising the first amendment rights you keep defending, protesting a government endorsed attack. You're missing the boat here michaelb, no one is trying to prevent free speech. In fact I said you're free to insult whoever you like, our government is not free to allow attacks on one particular group.

Exactly the sign its self isn't disruptive as you claim. It was the protesters that were disruptive. If being allowed to put a display on government property is considered and endorsement than all religions symbols need to leave government property right away because that is a big no no in the USA.



You really should read the rest of the posts, I defended the atheists right to have a display as well, just make it appropriate.
How exactly can you can you put an atheist message out there that won't offend fanatical Christians. I maintain you can't. So why try they aren't the target for the message anyway. In fact your playing right into the hands of the sign maker because if you get this upset over a sign your crazy and people on the fence will see that.

It also isn't reasonable to justify your own bad actions by someone else's worse reaction. Which is what your doing by constantly bringing up Muslims.

It would be like if I smacked you for being dumb and then said it's okay because if you were dumb in front of this other guy he would have killed you. The world doesn't work that way.

As if I’m really going to do something like that. There’s a point in there if you think about it, and it’s nowhere near your example. Plus, I don’t recall ever “constantly bringing up Muslims.”

First there was nothing explicit about the sign not a single thing on there would be considered explicit by the FCC. So since you feel the atheist sign is insulting it shouldn't be displayed with what I feel is a more offensive display that calls for my torture for eternity. Your right though the atheist sign but it into words while the Christian display only explicitly implies it.

explicit (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/explicit) - 1 a: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intent

“Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." That's explicit, and it has nothing to do with the FCC.


You can be insulted and you can choose not to read the sign you can choose to avoid the area with the sign. You can choose not allow anyone to display something on state property. You can not though pick what insults you and suppress what you don't like.

Why? Let’s add a display of “explicit” child pornography, can we do that? Let’s put up a sign that says “Jews are pigs,” can we do that?


Exactly the sign its self isn't disruptive as you claim. It was the protesters that were disruptive. If being allowed to put a display on government property is considered and endorsement than all religions symbols need to leave government property right away because that is a big no no in the USA.

Goodness, what part of explicitly insulting, antagonizing and condemning millions of believers is not disruptive? The protestors responded to the disruption, and rightfully so.


How exactly can you can you put an atheist message out there that won't offend fanatical Christians. I maintain you can't. So why try they aren't the target for the message anyway. In fact your playing right into the hands of the sign maker because if you get this upset over a sign your crazy and people on the fence will see that.

First of all, I’m neither “crazy” nor “fanatical.” In fact if you’ll do as I suggested and read the entire thread you’ll see I wasn’t angry about it until so many of you kept insisting I shouldn’t angry. And yes, some people will never be happy with an atheist display, but there are such things as good taste, common sense, appropriateness, civility, respect…the atheist sign meets holds none of those qualities.

Okay---so let's put up a Swastika.

That's a SYMBOL. It doesn't come out and say anything. It's definitely NOT explicit.

Think people will still be offended? You bet your boots. Does it have the SAME standing to some people as a Nativity? Absolutely.

The sign was NO MORE offensive than the nativity. It's all depending on what side of the fence you're standing on as to whether a pretty scene with an age-old message has AS MUCH weight as the words written on the sign.

THAT would be the only fair way to make sure that no one is offended by anyone else's religious display.

You mean all these years I've been told we were supposed to celebrate diversity was a lie?

Nope... not a lie.

But I'm tired of diversity boiling down to "I don't LIKE what they said! Make them take it back!!"

Nope...not a lie.

But I'm tired of diversity boiling down to "I don't LIKE what they said! Make them take it back!!"

The key word here is celebrate. Can we do that without the insults?

Why? Let’s add a display of “explicit” child pornography, can we do that? Let’s put up a sign that says “Jews are pigs,” can we do that?

Goodness, what part of explicitly insulting, antagonizing and condemning millions of believers is not disruptive? The protestors responded to the disruption, and rightfully so.

First of all, I’m neither “crazy” nor “fanatical.” In fact if you’ll do as I suggested and read the entire thread you’ll see I wasn’t angry about it until so many of you kept insisting I shouldn’t angry. And yes, some people will never be happy with an atheist display, but there are such things as good taste, common sense, appropriateness, civility, respect…the atheist sign meets holds none of those qualities.

Child pornography can't be put up because child porn violates the rights of the children in the display, that's why child porn is illegal because it violates someone's rights. So that is oranges to our apples.

But I would still argue that Christians constant threats of unending torture to individuals that don't believe in your religion is more threatening than "Jews are pigs". By your reasoning people wouldn't be outraged by a KKK holiday reminder if it just said "white people are great by the KKK". I'm however saying it doesn't matter what Christianity or the KKK put on display the message is offensive if it comes from that group.

Crazy people don't know they are crazy. If they did they would go hey that's crazy I should stop that.

What could the atheists have put up that wouldn't offend and still symbols their belief? We don't have a world wide symbol, we don't have a famous scene that everyone knows is ours. All we have is our message that religion is wrong and is bad for mankind. How would you express that in a way that won't offend. Like I said if your offended by the very nature of the groups message then it doesn't matter what they put out there and the people protesting are offended by the groups message.

Child pornography can't be put up because child porn violates the rights of the children in the display, that's why child porn is illegal because it violates someone's rights. So that is oranges to our apples.

You said, and I quote, "You can not though pick and choose what insults you and suppress what you don't like."

So there are exceptions after all then, right? Besides, the courts have ruled that "virtual " child pornography is legal, let's just make it a virtual display. How's that?


But I would still argue that Christians constant threats of unending torture to individuals that don't believe in your religion is more threatening than "Jews are pigs". By your reasoning people wouldn't be outraged by a KKK holiday reminder if it just said "white people are great by the KKK". I'm however saying it doesn't matter what Christianity or the KKK put on display the message is offensive if it comes from that group.

And I would argue that Christians aren't constantly threatening anyone with anything. A manger scene is not a threat and says NOTHING about "unending torture."


Crazy people don't know they are crazy. If they did they would go hey that's crazy I should stop that.

I'm not crazy, this I know.


What could the atheists have put up that wouldn't offend and still symbols their belief? We don't have a world wide symbol, we don't have a famous scene that everyone knows is ours. All we have is our message that religion is wrong and is bad for mankind. How would you express that in a way that won't offend. Like I said if your offended by the very nature of the groups message then it doesn't matter what they put out there and the people protesting are offended by the groups message.

Well then, how about a blank page? Look, the message from Christianity to the world at Christmas is "peace on earth, good will toward men," not "unending torture." Can't atheists have the decency to offer similar good tidings?

Can't atheists have the decency to offer similar good tidings?Hello Steve:

I don't know. Telling people there's a better way to live their life seems to me to be pretty good tidings.

excon

What a twisting of meaning!

A Nativity scene, the central figure of which is the child that will one day voluntarily lay down His life for my and your salvation, somehow becomes a message of hate.

Now, if we are discussing insanity, that comes close!

You said, and I quote, "You can not though pick and choose what insults you and suppress what you don't like."

So there are exceptions after all then, right? Besides, the courts have ruled that "virtual " child pornography is legal, let's just make it a virtual display. How's that?
So your saying that NAMBLA members don't have the same rights as Christians? Although I don't like it, as long as they aren't violating anyone's rights they do. It's why no group should be allowed to display on state grounds.


And I would argue that Christians aren't constantly threatening anyone with anything. A manger scene is not a threat and says NOTHING about "unending torture."
You can argue it all you want but there is only one unforgivable sin in Christianity. He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation. Everyone knows this is fundamental believe behind your religion. You are one of us or your going to eternal condemnation(hell). There for every road side cross every religious display on private and public property is a threat to anyone that doesn't follow your religion. You can make it as look as happy and non-threatening as you want but the message is clear regardless.



I'm not crazy, this I know.
You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure almost everyone that followed Jim Jones was saying the same thing as they drank the Kool Aid.



Well then, how about a blank page? Look, the message from Christianity to the world at Christmas is "peace on earth, good will toward men," not "unending torture." Can't atheists have the decency to offer similar good tidings?

A blank page would only be understood by the person that put it there and would make it useless display. Even putting up the flying spaghetti monster would still be useless because it isn't widely recognized outside of people who hang out on forums on the internet.

Christians might say "peace on earth, good will toward men," but their actions say "get rid of those that don't agree and good will towards Christians, excuse me why I try to prevent others from having the same rights I enjoy." I'm sorry if I feel their actions and underlying message of the religion speaks louder than the once a year slogan.

What a twisting of meaning!

A Nativity scene, the central figure of which is the child that will one day voluntarily lay down His life for my and your salvation, somehow becomes a message of hate.

Now, if we are discussing insanity, that comes close!

Am I wrong as a non-christian according to Christianity am I not suppose to go to hell? Regardless of how I live my live if I don't accept Jesus as the lord and savor, I go to hell according to Christianity. There isn't any way to twist that. If your message to people is become one of us or you will be tortured for eternity. Your group becomes a hate group the same as the KKK. The only difference is the KKK do the torture themselves, Christians think their god will do it for them.

Hello Steve:

I dunno. Telling people there's a better way to live their life seems to me to be pretty good tidings.

excon

Wait a minute, a while back you agreed that it was offensive. Change your mind?

So your saying that NAMBLA members don't have the same rights as Christians? Although I don't like it, as long as they aren't violating anyone's rights they do. It's why no group should be allowed to display on state grounds.

Um, how can one not violate a boy's rights in sexual predation?


You can argue it all you want but there is only one unforgivable sin in Christianity. He who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation. Everyone knows this is fundamental believe behind your religion. You are one of us or your going to eternal condemnation(hell). There for every road side cross every religious display on private and public property is a threat to anyone that doesn't follow your religion. You can make it as look as happy and non-threatening as you want but the message is clear regardless.

I don't have to argue it, I know it. The Christian message is one of love, hope, forgiveness, restoration, peace, healing... but it's a choice. I'm not running around telling people they're going to hell, and that certainly is NOT the message of the nativity no matter what you say. I ought to know, I AM a Christian. I don't pretend to tell everyone what the atheist 'message' is, why are you telling us what the Christian message is?


You just keep telling yourself that. I'm sure almost everyone that followed Jim Jones was saying the same thing as they drank the Kool Aid.

I get it now, there is no atheist message beyond you're idiots, you're fools, you're crazy. Insulting others is just a common practice. I'm not crazy, and I'd appreciate it very much if you'd stop suggesting I am. Besides being just plain rude (like the sign), it's awfully arrogant. Really, it's quite pathetic.


Christians might say "peace on earth, good will toward men," but their actions say "get rid of those that don't agree and good will towards Christians, excuse me why I try to prevent others from having the same rights I enjoy." I'm sorry if I feel their actions and underlying message of the religion speaks louder than the once a year slogan.

I suppose I should judge all atheists and atheism on your example?

Um, how can one not violate a boy's rights in sexual predation?
The courts have said it's possible. As long as they don't go through with it, it's legal because they aren't actually harming anyone. Just as Christians


I don't have to argue it, I know it. The Christian message is one of love, hope, forgiveness, restoration, peace, healing... but it's a choice. I'm not running around telling people they're going to hell, and that certainly is NOT the message of the nativity no matter what you say. I ought to know, I AM a Christian. I don't pretend to tell everyone what the atheist 'message' is, why are you telling us what the Christian message is?
Because it doesn't matter what you know the message of Christianity is. You've made it about what offends people. So it's about how others perceive your message not the actual message.


I get it now, there is no atheist message beyond you're idiots, you're fools, you're crazy. Insulting others is just a common practice. I'm not crazy, and I'd appreciate it very much if you'd stop suggesting I am. Besides being just plain rude (like the sign), it's awfully arrogant. Really, it's quite pathetic.
Now your getting it. There is no message of atheism other than religion is wrong. How can you convey that message without insulting someone and as I said if the government is going to allow a pro-religion message they have to allow the anti-religion message. Personally I think the government should avoid things like this removing all reference to god or a particular religion.


I suppose I should judge all atheists and atheism on your example?

It's your right to do so but as many will point out that the only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in god. Beyond that they can be completely different. Christians however have a complete and well documented belief system and that most follow. While in practice most christian really want to be good people. Most people do. The problem is the fanatics who give the rest of them a bad name and do things like protest and steal stupid signs.

The courts have said it's possible. As long as they don't go through with it, it's legal because they aren't actually harming anyone. Just as Christians

Unless I missed something somewhere, it's entirely legal (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E1DA1F3CF934A25757C0A9649C8B 63), not just 'possible.' But you're avoiding the point, are there exceptions or not?


Because it doesn't matter what you know the message of Christianity is. You've made it about what offends people. So it's about how others perceive your message not the actual message.

I have done no such thing, and I find it telling that you supporters of the atheist sign insist it's about the 'perception' of our message and "not the actual message," while we're not supposed to be offended by the actual message of the sign. I'm not sure an argument can be more flawed, and hypocritical, than that.


Now your getting it. There is no message of atheism other than religion is wrong. How can you convey that message without insulting someone and as I said if the government is going to allow a pro-religion message they have to allow the anti-religion message. Personally I think the government should avoid things like this removing all reference to god or a particular religion.

That's your OPINION, the nativity is not an OPINION, it's a commemoration, a celebration, a remembrance, a symbol and it harms no one. I always thought the message of atheism was there is no God, not "religion is wrong." It's pretty simple to say we believe there is no God without attacking those who do.


It's your right to do so but as many will point out that the only thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in god. Beyond that they can be completely different. Christians however have a complete and well documented belief system and that most follow. While in practice most christian really want to be good people. Most people do. The problem is the fanatics who give the rest of them a bad name and do things like protest and steal stupid signs.

First of all this is not just about Christians, the sign attacks ALL who believe in God. Secondly, fanatics are a problem with any group. A reasonable person does not form their opinion based on a minority of fanatics, they look at the bigger picture.

I'm not offended.

I'm not Christian, and not atheist, and I'm not offended. Suddenly, though, I feel like I'm in an AA meeting.

I'm somewhat amused and somewhat annoyed by the whole thing--but hey! They can believe what they want to believe, right? Same as everyone else! It's not a threat to what *I* believe if they believe something silly.

What actually OFFENDS me is when someone uses religion/belief instead of logic as their reason for doing something, or believing something, that makes a group of people unequal, or when their religion/belief causes them to override another individuals rights and choices. The KKK is a good example of this, as are those cult groups that force women into polygamy at a very young age.

However---I'm not going to tell them to stop believing what they do. I'm just not going to let them have any sort of political power to force their opinions on the REST of us.

Unless I missed something somewhere, it's entirely legal (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A04E1DA1F3CF934A25757C0A9649C8B 63), not just 'possible.' But you're avoiding the point, are there exceptions or not?
There should be no exception. Freedom requires that we defend everyone's rights. Once you start picking and choosing you are no longer free. It sucks freedom would be much easier concept if you could just allow the things you like to exist but it just doesn't work that way.



I have done no such thing, and I find it telling that you supporters of the atheist sign insist it's about the 'perception' of our message and "not the actual message," while we're not supposed to be offended by the actual message of the sign. I'm not sure an argument can be more flawed, and hypocritical, than that.
I never said you shouldn't be offended, you can be offended all you want. I saying you don't have the right to ban things that offend you. Just as I am offended by the KKK I don't have the right to ban their message.



That's your OPINION, the nativity is not an OPINION, it's a commemoration, a celebration, a remembrance, a symbol and it harms no one. I always thought the message of atheism was there is no God, not "religion is wrong." It's pretty simple to say we believe there is no God without attacking those who do.
Everything can be considered an opinion. It is your opinion what the nativity is. It's my opinion that the nativity is a symbol that enslaves peoples mind. Just as I'm not allowed to dictate what you think, you can't dictate what I think.

If there is no god religion is wrong trying to say otherwise would be splitting hairs.



First of all this is not just about Christians, the sign attacks ALL who believe in God. Secondly, fanatics are a problem with any group. A reasonable person does not form their opinion based on a minority of fanatics, they look at the bigger picture.

Your right this isn't about Christians they are just the only ones complaining. Odd that the majority by a large margin is complaining foul when another group takes advantage of a law they wrote.
You are also right that fanatics are a problem with any group and until the group that the fanatics belong to comes out and condemns the fanatics those fanatics speak for that group. I personally feel that groups should be the first to condemn something they don't like when it's done in their name. Not saying something is support in my opinion.

It's really very simple, being free to say what you want doesn't make it the right thing to do, but I've already said that.

Exactly.

Being free to say whatever you want (put up a nativity on state property) doesn't make it right to do so (because those that do not believe in your god shouldn't be subjected to what is, really, a state endorsement of it).

What it comes down to is this: Who is the sign HARMING? Just as you say the nativity is innocuous (in your opinion), atheists say their sign is innocuous (in their opinion).

It is, indeed, your right to speak out against the sign if it offends you---just as it is the right of Atheists to speak out against the nativity if it offends them.

And as I said before--I'd have no problem with someone hanging a swastika on the wall there, either, if everyone else is allowed to express their opinion the same way.

You're saying a symbol would have worked better? How about a picture of Jesus with the "no" sign through it, followed by a picture of a church with the "no" sign through it, then angels, demons, heaven and hell all with "no" signs through them, followed by a picture of people breaking free of a church with a Christmas tree in front of it and leaving the shackles of "religion" behind, followed by a picture of a diverse group of people breaking religious symbols (crosses, stars of David, pentacles, etc) and laughing about it.

Wouldn't that say approximately the same thing as the sign, only it would be MORE open to interpretation, therefore be LESS offensive?

I guess the Easter Egg Hunt is in jeopardy at our public park in the near future. :(

I guess the Easter Egg Hunt is in jeopardy at our public park in the near future. :(

Not from the Pagans :)

We LOVE to see you doing fertillity rites and not having a clue that that's what you're doing, since you say it's in celebration of something else :)

Not from the Pagans :)

We LOVE to see you doing fertillity rites and not having a clue that that's what you're doing, since you say it's in celebration of something else :)

I didn't say it was in celebration of anything actually; I just feel bad for the kids that enjoy the Easter Bunny bringing them candy and they get to play a game that nets them more candy.

However, since it represents something to you either your own belief or what you think it might represent to me or someone else, I am sure it will either offend you or someone else and it will be scuttled.

Neither are actually harming anyone, but the sign is the only one that is actively, explicitly, verbally, intentionally insulting others. The sign SEEKS to insult others - a nativity scene does not. The nativity scene depicts hope - the sign expresses intolerance. What is the VALUE in intentionally insulting others?

Neither are actually harming anyone, but the sign is the only one that is actively, explicitly, verbally, intentionally insulting others. The sign SEEKS to insult others - a nativity scene does not. The nativity scene depicts hope - the sign expresses intolerance. What is the VALUE in intentionally insulting others?


I'm with you on this issue, can we not agree that any group is free to display an approved symbol provided that the symbol and it's underlying, universally or advertised message is positive. Can as human beings of all different religions or lack thereof agree on some fundamentally positive messages (i.e. hope, forgiveness, charity, love, kindness, togetherness) and base our decisions on what can be displayed on that criteria; rather than say no to everything.

Easter Egg hunts, Holiday Trees, Nativity Scenes, Menora's, and if the atheists ever get their marketing together and find a symbol of universal human togetherness, let them display it too. As you've said repeatedly, so long as it doesn't attack another group or belief.

A Swastika does not pass this test as most reasonable people view it as something negative. Can the KKK display something, if they ever stop saying they hate people of color and promote themselves as a white advocacy group; maybe, someday.

The point is, most reasonable people know what is positive and what is negative and I for one would rather that any and all positive messages be welcomed and freely displayed on public grounds where appropriate.

There are several problems with that one is that none of those symbols are positive symbols to atheists. They all represent the hardening of hearts and the enslavement of the mind. The other problem is you want majority rule with no regard for the rights of minority groups. Which is exactly what the court system in this country was setup to prevent.

This is really easy to solve keep your religion/ideas to yourself keep it off public property unless you are willing to allow all groups to make displays. This is about freedom it has to be a two way street. You want to use the public park for your Easter egg hunt fine. Just expect that the park may be used for an atheist rally or maybe even a KKK rally the next week. Freedom comes with a heavy price if your not willing to pay it then your in the wrong country.

There are several problems with that one is that none of those symbols are positive symbols to atheists. They all represent the hardening of hearts and the enslavement of the mind. The other problem is you want majority rule with no regard for the rights of minority groups. Which is exactly what the court system in this country was setup to prevent.

This is really easy to solve keep your religion/ideas to yourself keep it off public property unless you are willing to allow all groups to make displays. This is about freedom it has to be a two way street. You want to use the public park for your Easter egg hunt fine. Just expect that the park may be used for an atheist rally or maybe even a KKK rally the next week. Freedom comes with a heavy price if your not willing to pay it then your in the wrong country.

You know, the funny thing is that I'm not a religious person. Did I grow up seeing these things and find them pretty, yes. Do I like colored lights during the holiday season, yep.

As for not one of those things being positive to atheists, why don't you give us some examples of things that are positive to atheists? As for the park being used for an atheist rally; go for it. KKK rally; no problem. So long a none of them promote hate or intolerance of another group. We already have Gay Pride parades on the public roadways which those groups have to get permits for, and while many don't agree with them; they are FREE to promote themselves in what is essentially a rally, but they don't put down another group.

Society and/or community (the majorities representation through it's elected officials) has always put limits on freedom of expression; can you put pornographic images on a billboard, no. Can you air pornographic movies on prime time network television, no. The majority has always had a say, that is democracy. To elect someone in this country, do they need a unanimous vote, no. If there is one person that doesn't want this person elected does there single vote override the majorities votes for, no.

So there is a balance, and there always has been about preserving freedom of expression and limiting those expressions that are deemed harmful by the majority to the public good.
Have those values changed over different periods of history, of course they have.

Under your scenario, public lands, roads, etc. wouldn't be used for any expression. You had better take down every statue, memorial, and the Santa Claus parade would be toast too.

Instead of applauding our diversity through positive symbols, displays, parades, etc. you want nothing to be displayed because you (if you are an atheist) have no tolerance for any belief and you want the lack of belief to trump all beliefs by eliminating them.

So when little Joey says: "why aren't there Santa Claus parades anymore". Mom says: "Well dear, the people who don't believe in anything, won the expression wars and so there are no public displays like the Santa Claus parade anymore".

Under your scenario, public lands, roads, etc. wouldn't be used for any expression. You had better take down every statue, memorial, and the Santa Claus parade would be toast too.

Instead of applauding our diversity through positive symbols, displays, parades, etc. you want nothing to be displayed because you (if you are an atheist) have no tolerance for any belief and you want the lack of belief to trump all beliefs by eliminating them.

So when little Joey says: "why aren't there Santa Claus parades anymore". Mom says: "Well dear, the people who don't believe in anything, won the expression wars and so there are no public displays like the Santa Claus parade anymore".

Actually, no, this is not how it would be under his scenario. Under his scenario it would be as it is now - either ALL people can display, or NO people can display. Roadside memorials are fine as long as a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, or a Buddhist can put one up. Santa parades can take place as long as the city who issues the permit will issue it to people who celebrate Kwanzaa too.

The government is not supposed to endorse a specific religion. Allowing one religion preference or dominance endorses that religion. If a government can't bring themselves to allow a Star of David to be displayed next to a Christmas tree, that government shouldn't be allowing either symbol.

Actually, no, this is not how it would be under his scenario. Under his scenario it would be as it is now - either ALL people can display, or NO people can display. Roadside memorials are fine as long as a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, or a Buddhist can put one up. Santa parades can take place as long as the city who issues the permit will issue it to people who celebrate Kwanzaa too.

The government is not supposed to endorse a specific religion. Allowing one religion preference or dominance endorses that religion. If a government can't bring themselves to allow a Star of David to be displayed next to a Christmas tree, that government shouldn't be allowing either symbol.


The Miller Test

The Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.

The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[1] It has three parts:

Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.

The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last prong is held to a reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard of the last prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in a certain community might be considered obscene but on a national level might have redeeming value.

For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard. What offends the average person in Jackson, Mississippi, may differ from what offends the average person in New York City. The relevant community, however, is not defined.

Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test, stemming from the English precedent.

In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not de facto obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in Provo, Utah, took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a Movie Buffs video store, in Utah County, Utah, a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the US. Researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, obtaining far more material that way than the store was distributing.[3][4]

The point I was trying to make is that there is an example where the communities opinion can trump first amendment rights. If it works for sexually obscene things, why not those deemed offensive by the majority of the local community when it comes to displays?

There are several problems with that one is that none of those symbols are positive symbols to atheists. They all represent the hardening of hearts and the enslavement of the mind. The other problem is you want majority rule with no regard for the rights of minority groups. Which is exactly what the court system in this country was setup to prevent.

Where is your tolerance for others and their views? As others have said here to me, a little sign like that shouldn't bother me if my faith is strong. It works both ways, a little display of a man, a woman and a baby shouldn't bother you if you're secure in your beliefs so why go out of your way to slam mine? And if you can't find anything positive to display to celebrate your beliefs then no offense, you need to get a life and find something that does, because if all your beliefs represent is meanness, arrogance and intolerance then there isn't much value in your beliefs.

In my world I'd just be telling you all to get over it and be grateful I am offering "a place at the table" in this because Christmas is the only celebration involved here that's a FEDERAL HOLIDAY.


This is really easy to solve keep your religion/ideas to yourself keep it off public property unless you are willing to allow all groups to make displays.

When you guys get it together and decide on your positive symbols and such, go get yourselves a federal holiday and celebrate all you want, I'll enjoy the day off and leave you alone. Meanwhile, if you want to play this silly game of including everyone no matter the message for MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and energy and enjoy the day off.


This is about freedom it has to be a two way street. You want to use the public park for your Easter egg hunt fine. Just expect that the park may be used for an atheist rally or maybe even a KKK rally the next week. Freedom comes with a heavy price if your not willing to pay it then your in the wrong country.

This would be different from now, how? It happens all the time, who is trying to stop it? No one, and these same people you're implying don't want to allow for such would defend your right to do so, I've defended your right to tell me I'm a fool with an enslaved mind, I just asked what's the VALUE in it? You want a display like the Christians? Put up a bust of Bertrand Russell for his birthday, I won't care but I don't know if the folks at Gobbler's Knob would take offense. Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone. If you want respect you need to give respect. It's a really simple concept.

The SOLE reason that Christmas is a federal (and therefore SECULAR) holiday is economic.

If the majority of the country is Christian, and all the Christians take the day off from work, or accuse their bosses of being Scrooge if they CANNOT have the day off, well... of COURSE that's going to make the day a holiday! When 3/4 of the country calls in sick, it becomes an issue for employers that need to stop production lines or close their shops or whatever. Making it a holiday means that people are willing to work that day because of overtime.

So... since that's no longer as big a deal as it was when the holiday was created (partly BECAUSE of diversity, and the number of people willing to work that day because it does NOT mean something to them)---want it so that non-Christians move to have it made a religious and not federal holiday again?

Every example you bring up points out yet again that Christians have privileges, by LAW, that other groups don't have. I find this to be somewhat un-Constitutional, since it comes down to the government supporting one religion over others.

Basically--what it means to me is that yes, that sign SHOULD be accepted, regardless how offended you are by it, because somewhere, someone is offended by your religious symbols. Because, really--the other option is that all CHRISTIAN displays now become JUST as much anathema as any other religion or belief's displays.

What you aren't getting is this: As offensive as you find that sign, there are MANY people that are as offended or MORE offended by the way that Christianity is the unofficial national religion. The Pledge of Allegiance issue shows that, as does the fact that many people want "In God We Trust" off our money. Can you not see the resentment being forced to work around and make accommodation with Christianity and their beliefs and symbols every time you turn around does to non-Christians?

This country has freedom of religion, and the state can not endorse any ONE religion. How would you feel if your child were taught the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "one nation, under Allah" instead of "Under god"? Wouldn't you raise holy hell if your kid was MADE to participate in a religious moment that had NOTHING to do with your religion?

Or let's look at it this way: What if a teacher were to take a moment at the beginning of a class to cleanse the classroom and draw a protective Circle around it, ensuring that evil and malice were kept out of her classroom for the day? Would you not be outraged by the very idea of a teacher forcing her pagan religion on your kids? That's what prayer in school does!

It comes down to the same thing for many people: We're sick of the Christian majority forcing their religion down our throats because there are more of you than there are of us. We're tired of the local government allowing displays on public property that are ONLY Christian based.

The sign has no nudity. It has no defecation. It passes FCC standards. It just says something you don't like. What you're not getting is that the Christian nativity says something that Atheists don't like, something that comes with it's own images of irrationality AS WELL AS the Christian ideas of peace.

If you want more tolerance--well, start with some yourself. I don't know anyone that stood up and said "I hate that nativity scene! Take it down!" until the Christians who stole the sign got downright nasty about things. I don't know anyone that was asking for the Christian display to come down until there were people asking for the Atheist display to come down.

So it offends you. So what? The nativity and the fact that it's on government property offends the atheists. Now BOTH groups are offended. Great! Sounds equal to me!

Let's just shut up about the whole thing and move on--by BOTH sides being tolerant of the other side's display.

Sounds to me like the atheists are willing to ignore the offense of the nativity scene as long as their sign can go up---why can't the Christians move on and do the same? The sign attacks ALL religions--which includes my religion, btw--but here I am still defending its right to be there!

I think I've been more than willing to ignore the sign if it wasn't an intentional, explicit, verbally expressed attack. I asked before, what is the VALUE of the sign? Make it appropriate, make it respectful and I'll shut up. I've been more than willing to compromise, but this is a predominantly Christian nation whether some like it or not.

That's the whole thing!

We shouldn't HAVE to compromise our beliefs (and I say "our' as being a minority religion) just because the majority of people believe something else!

This would never have been even a blip on most peoples' radar had people not acted inappropriately to the sign in the first place!

I don't find the sign offensive. I think that if someone believes that believing my religion makes me a hard-hearted slave, well---their loss. I can just shake my head and move on, leaving them to their beliefs.

That's called "turning the other cheek".

It's called "tolerance of another person's beliefs".

It's "accepting diversity in our country".

I honestly do not find the wording of the sign offensive. I see it as a statement of their beliefs, in a belief system that HAS no symbols to put up.

What this IS going to lead to, though, is a lack of tolerance for ANY religious displays.

Because believe me--if they somehow force them to take that sign down, I will take a leave of absence from work next year to protest--LOUDLY--any other symbols or signs that are on public property that are from ANY belief system.

You get them ALL, offensive or not, or you get NONE.

Period.

"It's called "tolerance of another person's beliefs".

That's exactly what the sign is not, and that's the point. I can shake my head and move on all day, but it does nothing to help us get along better or promote tolerance and diversity to purposefully attack those you expect to be tolerant of you. It makes no sense, Synnen.

It is THEIR BELIEF.

It's EXACTLY the same as you putting up a sign that says "Jesus is Lord! Only those who believe in him will escape eternal hell!"

Hello:

Again, we have digressed... The issue isn't tolerance. It isn't fairness. It isn't about religion. It isn't about NOT being offended. It's not about Christmas.

It's about the state, the public arean, what's displayed there, and the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Nobody has a right to NOT be offended. Free speech and/or the establishment clause says NOTHING about tolerance.

You want tolerance, go to church... Ok, never mind on that one.

excon

It is THEIR BELIEF.

It's EXACTLY the same as you putting up a sign that says "Jesus is Lord! Only those who believe in him will escape eternal hell!"

Maybe we COULD have but we didn't, and that's my point. What's wrong with a little restraint and again I ask, respect?

I do get it, ex, but what's wrong with being better than intentionally attacking others?


You want tolerance, go to church... Ok, never mind on that one.

If you want tolerance, go to college as a conservative and see how that works out.

If you want tolerance, go to college as a conservative and see how that works out.Hello again, Steve:

It'd work out fine at Bob Jones U. I wonder how a lib would fair there?

excon

Hello again, Steve:

It'd work out fine at Bob Jones U. I wonder how a lib would fair there?

I should be more specific, attend most any state university as a conservative and check out the tolerance levels.

Where is your tolerance for others and their views? As others have said here to me, a little sign like that shouldn't bother me if my faith is strong. It works both ways, a little display of a man, a woman and a baby shouldn't bother you if you're secure in your beliefs so why go out of your way to slam mine?

Wait because I want every one's ideas to be treated equal I'm intolerant. That's a new one on me. I thought tolerance meant that everyone was treated equal. It doesn't mean I have to like you idea it just means that it has to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.


And if you can't find anything positive to display to celebrate your beliefs then no offense, you need to get a life and find something that does, because if all your beliefs represent is meanness, arrogance and intolerance then there isn't much value in your beliefs.

Wait my belief represents meanness and arrogance and intolerance.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. Deuteronomy 7:16
Your religion has demonised my kind and others for over 2000 years. Yet you call my belief is intolerant. Calling for people to become open to reason and abandon these stone age beliefs and freeing a person mind is the most compassionate thing I can think of doing for a person.
I of course don't expect for you to feel the same way and of course that is your right that I don't want to interfere with. All I want is the same.



In my world I'd just be telling you all to get over it and be grateful I am offering "a place at the table" in this because Christmas is the only celebration involved here that's a FEDERAL HOLIDAY.

Yes you get special privileges and I should be grateful. How wonderful.



When you guys get it together and decide on your positive symbols and such, go get yourselves a federal holiday and celebrate all you want, I'll enjoy the day off and leave you alone. Meanwhile, if you want to play this silly game of including everyone no matter the message for MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and energy and enjoy the day off.
Being against the oppression of religion is our positive message. Just because you don't think it is doesn't matter.
Since it's a federal holiday it no longer belongs to Christians. It is an American holiday and as an American I can celebrate my holiday any way I wish.



This would be different from now, how? It happens all the time, who is trying to stop it? No one, and these same people you're implying don't want to allow for such would defend your right to do so, I've defended your right to tell me I'm a fool with an enslaved mind, I just asked what's the VALUE in it? You want a display like the Christians? Put up a bust of Bertrand Russell for his birthday, I won't care but I don't know if the folks at Gobbler's Knob would take offense. Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone. If you want respect you need to give respect. It's a really simple concept.
You don't own the month of December you don't even own the 25th of December and I don't want respect and I don't expect it from your group. I want equality. I want the government to recognize my believe as an equal to yours. That's it. I think in this particular case the government did act correctly. Your free to call foul but I'm also free to tell you why your wrong. That's all I'm doing here.

Laws that limit inciting or provocative speech, often called fighting words, or offensive expressions such as PORNOGRAPHY, are subject to STRICT SCRUTINY. It is well established that the government may impose content regulations on certain categories of expression that do not merit First Amendment protection. To illustrate this point, the Court stated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942),"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems."

It could be argued that the sign amounted to fighting words in the minds of Christian's; fighting words are not protected under First Amendment rights.

If it was another group other than Christian's; they might have been incited to fight over words such as those. The point is, there is a precedent in law to limit First Amendment rights when it comes to offending people; and a Nativity scene has no fighting words, it's a symbol, the Sign on the other hand could be argued did have fighting words.

Wait because I want every one's ideas to be treated equal I'm intolerant. That's a new one on me. I thought tolerance meant that everyone was treated equal. It doesn't mean I have to like you idea it just means that it has to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.

My response was to this statement:

“There are several problems with that one is that none of those symbols are positive symbols to atheists. They all represent the hardening of hearts and the enslavement of the mind.”


Tolerance (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tolerance) - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own

There is NOTHING fair and objective about the offending passage.


Wait my belief represents meanness and arrogance and intolerance.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. Deuteronomy 7:16

I don't recall the nativity scene quoting any of those passages, so let's try and keep it to what's actually there.


Your religion has demonised my kind and others for over 2000 years. Yet you call my belief is intolerant. Calling for people to become open to reason and abandon these stone age beliefs and freeing a person mind is the most compassionate thing I can think of doing for a person.

And atheists have demonized us for just as long. You keep swerving away from the facts Michaelb, the only one demonizing anyone in this is the atheist sign. Emphatically telling people their minds are enslaved is NOT a call "for people to become open to reason," it's arrogant and intolerant.


Yes you get special privileges and I should be grateful. How wonderful.

I have offered compromise over and over, if you want to be uncompromising then we have nothing to discuss.


Being against the oppression of religion is our positive message. Just because you don't think it is doesn't matter.

And just because you think telling people emphatically that their minds are "enslaved" is a "positive message" doesn't' make it true or the right thing to do.


Since it's a federal holiday it no longer belongs to Christians. It is an American holiday and as an American I can celebrate my holiday any way I wish.

Of course you can, nobody said you couldn't. In fact I said leave us alone and enjoy it any way you like and we'll do the same.


You don't own the month of December you don't even own the 25th of December and I don't want respect and I don't expect it from your group. I want equality. I want the government to recognize my believe as an equal to yours. That's it. I think in this particular case the government did act correctly. Your free to call foul but I'm also free to tell you why your wrong. That's all I'm doing here.

Ditto, but I seem to be only one here that has offered to compromise. If you don't want to compromise for MY celebration and RESPECT my beliefs than in my first thought is, get over it and find your own thing to celebrate.

Fighting words would not apply here because it refers to personal attacks. Not an attack on a group especially a broad of group as people that believe in a god.

Also courts haven't really been following this decision in recent years. You really don't want them to either because this could be used to ban the bible which I'm sure you don't want.

What your still not getting is that just because you view something as positive doesn't mean everyone does.

If you want only positive messages, who gets to make the choice of what is positive? You, someone like you? Someone like me? The majority? Our founding fathers knew the freedom was to important to be left to the majority that's why the bill of rights was made. That's why you don't get a choice in the subject.

What your still not getting is that just because you view something as positive doesn't mean everyone does.

If you want only positive messages, who gets to make the choice of what is positive? You, someone like you? Someone like me? The majority? Our founding fathers knew the freedom was to important to be left to the majority that's why the bill of rights was made. That's why you don't get a choice in the subject.

What you're still not getting is having a right to do something doesn't make doing it right. Again, I never said you couldn't say what you want, I have now defended your right to call me a fool or whatever at least three times, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. I ask again, what is wrong with RESPECT? If you don't want to get along fine, if you don't want to make the world a better place, make your case with a positive message, fine. Go do your own thing and leave us alone... we'll be more than happy to offer the same in return.

What your still not getting is that just because you view something as positive doesn't mean everyone does.

If you want only positive messages, who gets to make the choice of what is positive? You, someone like you? Someone like me? The majority? Our founding fathers knew the freedom was to important to be left to the majority that's why the bill of rights was made. That's why you don't get a choice in the subject.

I've already demonstrated that there are limits to free speech and expression; in those areas such as obscenity, hate, libel, fighting words, offensive, etc. the local community/majority opinion is taken into account.

Whether that sign fell into one of those categories legally or not; the point I've been trying to make repeatedly is; it was directly offensive in words towards another group. It wasn't a symbol, it was an opinion; and an attack to boot. Show me where other than your mind that a Nativity scene is a direct assault on your beliefs?

P.S. I do get it; and I defend freedom of speech and expression. The fact that you find that anything and everything no matter how offensive, obscene, hateful to able to be freely expressed is wrong, and the majority of American's will not stand for it, that is democracy. As for choosing nothing at all; that is the greatest threat to freedom of speech or expression there is, and I am surprised at you for even suggesting it considering you paint yourself as such a defender of it.

Like speechlesstx has been saying; some tolerance, respect. Everyone can have a symbol celebrating their beliefs or the time of season, year, etc. provided we don't attack each others beliefs.

When will common sense prevail?

Like speechlesstx has been saying; some tolerance, respect. Everyone can have a symbol celebrating their beliefs or the time of season, year, etc. provided we don't attack each others beliefs.

When will common sense prevail?

Exactly, thank you.

http://www.clipartof.com/images/emoticons/xsmall2/1233_hand_clapping.gif

You DO understand that there IS no symbol for atheism, right?

How could they put a symbol up, if there is none?

Again, I am a member of a religion, and I do not find the sign offensive.

And--considering the lack of outrage nationwide, I'm guessing that MOST people don't have an issue with the sign.

So---it's a MINORITY of people that are offended, then, right?

If it's a minority, then there's no problem--because the majority always wins, right?

Apparently they DO have symbols (http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheist6.htm), perhaps it's time to agree on one instead of their 'symbol' being a explicit verbal attack on everyone else.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/emptyset.gif http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheistpu.gif
http://www.religioustolerance.org/circatheist.gif http://www.religioustolerance.org/alphaatheist.gif
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheistsa.jpg http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheistaai.png

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

I’m sorry, but that is just so much BS I can’t believe anyone that claims to adhere to a philosophy of ‘reason’ would dare utter such a thing. Seriously, I’ve tried and tried to be reasonable and to compromise but that’s an asinine argument.


It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

Again I’m sorry, but that’s just lazy. It’s been insisted that atheists have no symbol and I’ve proved that wrong. You insists it’s impossible to phrase your message in a positive manner, and I’m about to prove you wrong.


Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it. -- Mikhail Bakunin

It’s really getting old doing your work for you.


It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

As if that’s an excuse not to start somewhere? Next argument.

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

Only in my adulthood do I know the Nativity scene represents the birth of Jesus and beyond that I don't really have a clue what more it means. I am not a Christian per say; but I respect their beliefs and chose not to have a deeper understanding of the Nativity scene. If an Atheist symbol was on the lawn, as a kid I would have the same amount of understanding of it as the Navitity scene, but as an adult I would likely be curious and find out what it means. That's the point, even if the symbol is negative to me I would have to learn that negativity from another source rather than have it shoved down my throat in words that I can understand.

If the Christian's put up a sign "Jesus is Lord" instead of the Nativity scene; I would be against that because it's forcing an opinion into my consciousness without my consent on public property.

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists" - G.K Chesterton ;)

No doubt organized religion, being a product of flawed human beings, can be bad and do bad things, but the nativity is not talking of religion, but of God.


Merry Christmas!










g&p

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists" - G.K Chesterton ;)

No doubt organized religion, being a product of flawed human beings, can be bad and do bad things, but the nativity is not talking of religion, but of God.


Merry Christmas!

g&p

Only if you BELIEVE in God.

Otherwise it's just a picture that some religions put up once a year to remind themselves they're supposed to be good.

If you don't believe in God, then the nativity is nothing but a representation of 2000 years of corrupt religions.

If you don't believe in God, then the nativity is nothing but a representation of 2000 years of corrupt religions.

It that so, do you speak for all atheists? How about me, this religious truth doubting person who happens to think that if a religion works for you and helps you make sense of this life; then I applaud you and you're entitiled to believe anything you want. Religious people in general are giving, kind, generous folk; that is not a bad thing. They try to follow a set of rules that by any account on the whole are better for their fellow man.

Now, just exactly what rules do atheists follow? While I know there are many giving, kind, generous atheists; is there a standard of atheistic behavior to which people could aspire or admire?

Once you develop a set of guidelines like the religious people try and follow and that have survived centuries of scrutiny because guidelines speak to mankind and the innate desire to be good towards our fellow man (I don't care if they stole those guideline from elsewhere or the spirit of recipricosity already lives within us, they have been the faithful guardians of those values for centuries).

The point is, you likely speak for a small minority of intolerant atheists; who can't tolerate anyone worshipping any God, and won't be satisfied until all symbols of faith are removed and replaced with your God of nothingness.

It is my opinion that YOU simply don't get the big picture on how to get along with others and your are no different than one of two intolerant religions facing off against one another. Which is a shame really, because if all the worlds religions come into conflict you would think that the atheists might be the neutral broker which could help everyone find some common ground. However, you have consistently represented yourself as anti-religion.

I hate to break it to you but your faith is stronger that there is no God than many Christian's believe there is a God. That's not because your right and their wrong, it's because you are more arrogant, negative and closeminded when it comes to faith.

So I hate to break it to you, the majority of people never even consider anything negative when they see the Nativity scene; while you may be playing devils advocate, I say apply for the position full time; you're perfect for it.

TexasParent--

First off, I'm not atheist. I believe in a GODDESS and a god, and celebrate the pagan holidays.

I'm not arguing the rights of atheists because I believe in THEIR malarky either. I'm fighting for the rights of atheists because I, too, am in a minority belief system, and get sick of Christians playing the offended card when they don't get their way "because that's the way it's always been" or "because we're the majority!"

So---way to judge me incorrectly, just as you say I'm judging others incorrectly. I've actually stated my pagan faith several times in this thread, too!

Even though I belong to an established religion, and the sign "attacks" religion, I am simply not offended by it, because I understand that the sign really just states the basic tenets most atheists believe.

As far as a set of rules atheists all follow---are you serious? Really?

A set of rules for a belief is what religion IS! Why would a group of people that do not believe in a god have a set of rules that they ALL believe in? I think most atheists I have met go by the rules of "this is your only life, and this is it--so make the most of it, and do your best NOW, because this is all you get"

As far as the nativity respresenting persecution, let's look at it this way: If a neo-Nazi put up a swaztika, would you expect Jews to be offended? After all, this is a group of people that over years tortured and murdered Jews! And oh goodness, that was over 60 years ago now---and the NEW Nazis aren't like the OLD Nazis, and they don't torture or murder people, they just believe that the Aryan nation is the best and promote it. Shouldn't they be allowed to state their beliefs?

But people WOULD find that offensive, and I can't blame them.

It is the SAME THING with Christian religious symbols for those that belong to belief systems that have been persecuted, murdered, and tortured by Christianity, even though it was YEARS ago, and done by people who are different than the CURRENT Christians. Do you honestly think that Witches should just forgive and forget, just because the last witch burning was a couple hundred years ago? Even though a great deal of our faith and religious books and modes of worship were lost when the witch hunts were happening in Europe?

Here's a more subtle one for you: would you consider it discrimination if someone couldn't get a job based on their religion or lack of it? Even if the candidate for the job was chosen by committee? Well... how likely do you think it is that a non-Christian will hold the presidency in this country anytime in the next couple of centuries?

It's a weird thing for me. I'm not anti-Christianity. I've known several really terrific Christians that LIVE what they believe. I've asked each of them what they think about that sign, and each of them has blown it off with "Pfft, god doesn't care about that sign, and if HE can forgive them, so can I", or something to that effect. The sign just simply doesn't bother them.

The only real reason that *I* care is that I see it as an unpopular belief system getting bullied by a popular belief system, and that's WRONG.

Oh, and about that majority of people not seeing anything negative in the nativity scene? That's because the majority of people in this country are Christian! Of COURSE they don't see anything wrong with it. That doesn't mean the majority is RIGHT about this, though, or that the majority of people see anything as WRONG with the sign. It just means that you're holding up as a standard something that the majority believe in anyway. That's like saying that the majority of people saw nothing wrong with the swaztika and the SS in Germany in 1939. What the "majority" believes isn't necessarily what's RIGHT.

Which is why there is separation of church and state in this country, and why we are not a Democracy.

I couldn't have said it better Synnen.

Synnen & michealb, here’s what baffles me and what you don’t seem to get. By framing the atheist message in that manner they are engaging in the same behavior you condemn among Christians. And don’t tell me you can’t frame an atheist message in a positive manner. I proved you could and showed a number of symbols to choose from.

See... here's the thing.

To THEM--it WAS phrased as a positive message. It was phrased with the idea that "hey! You're being a slave! Let us set you free with these new ideas!" spirit of the thing.

Could it have been done in a different/better way? Sure. But I've seen plenty of Christian messages that could have been done in a different/better way, as well. I mean "Jesus loves you JUST the way you are!" is better than "Jesus is Lord!"---but I never see the first sign, and see the second far too often.

Same with anti-abortion signs. Rather than saying "You're killing a baby with abortion!" they could say "Unexpected pregnancy? Let us Help you! (555) 123-4567"

EVERY message out there can be phrased better, really.

But here's the thing: Would you want to have to make all of your "church's" ONLY be able to post politically correct messages, because they MIGHT offend someone? Or would you be willing to take a small offense to be able to have the right to continue to spread the message of YOUR belief system?

To Synnen: Please accept my apology; when I wrote my post I thought I was responding to michealb.

See... here's the thing.

To THEM--it WAS phrased as a positive message. It was phrased with the idea that "hey! You're being a slave! Let us set you free with these new ideas!" spirit of the thing.

Here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter how many times it’s repeated that it is a positive message, IT’S NOT! It is so obviously NOT a positive message to the targeted audience. To me it’s inconceivable that anyone would think that approach is positive, IT’S NOT.

If that is the ‘spirit’ you say is intended, I could get a 4th grader to write it better. In fact, (and I’m not relating you to 4th graders) you ALMOST did it yourself. Rephrase it as a question, “Why be a slave to religion? Let us set you free!” instead of telling us our minds ARE enslaved and our hearts ARE hardened.


Could it have been done in a different/better way? Sure. But I've seen plenty of Christian messages that could have been done in a different/better way, as well. I mean "Jesus loves you JUST the way you are!" is better than "Jesus is Lord!"---but I never see the first sign, and see the second far too often.

But you see neither of them on display at government buildings do you?


Same with anti-abortion signs. Rather than saying "You're killing a baby with abortion!" they could say "Unexpected pregnancy? Let us Help you! (555) 123-4567"

But you see neither of them on display at government buildings do you? Seems every time I make a point you guys swerve away from the subject at hand. We are not discussing signs on churches, roadsides or in protesters hands, we’re discussing displays approved by the government on government property.


But here's the thing: Would you want to have to make all of your "church's" ONLY be able to post politically correct messages, because they MIGHT offend someone? Or would you be willing to take a small offense to be able to have the right to continue to spread the message of YOUR belief system?

And we’re back to rights vs. what’s right, and I’ve said over and over everyone’s free to say what they want…but it doesn’t make it right.

See...here's the thing.

To THEM--it WAS phrased as a positive message. It was phrased with the idea that "hey! You're being a slave! Let us set you free with these new ideas!" spirit of the thing.

Could it have been done in a different/better way? Sure. But I've seen plenty of Christian messages that could have been done in a different/better way, as well. I mean "Jesus loves you JUST the way you are!" is better than "Jesus is Lord!"---but I never see the first sign, and see the second far too often.

Same with anti-abortion signs. Rather than saying "You're killing a baby with abortion!" they could say "Unexpected pregnancy? Let us Help you! (555) 123-4567"

EVERY message out there can be phrased better, really.

But here's the thing: Would you want to have to make all of your "church's" ONLY be able to post politically correct messages, because they MIGHT offend someone? Or would you be willing to take a small offense to be able to have the right to continue to spread the message of YOUR belief system?

On public property, yes; I would say that is a reasonable expectation to say or display things that are politically correct if that is the term you want to use for positive. On private property, do what you like.

We seem to be able to distingush what is obscene as a society, why can't we distingush what does not attack another set of beliefs while celebrating our own? Why can't everyone display a symbol of the pride they have in their beliefs without attacking another?

At least speechlesstx and I seem to have some religious/non-religious tolerance; we have no anxiety that someone else's non-attacking symbol of belief will change our belief (and I doubt his and mine are the same) and support others rights equally. Yet for those of you in this thread supporting the atheist side; there seems to be no tolerance at all.

Intolerance in any way shape or form is never pretty.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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 (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/blue-state-288638-12.html#post1426255) 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 (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/declared). 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?

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...... What is wrong with finding "middle ground" as TexasParent put it?Hello again, Steve:

I'm going to offer my couple penny's again, here.

All of those civility and decency things you mention are wonderful things, Steve... They just have NOTHING to do with the law. The law doesn't say anything about "respectful" and "decent". It DOES say stuff about freedom, though.

Freedom is messy. It ISN'T respectful, and it ISN'T decent. Should it be?? I'll leave that to others to decide. You for example. I trust you to know what's not decent. But, you need to trust me for knowing what's not lawful...

You speak about middle ground, and compromise... But, when you're dealing with your RIGHTS, there IS NO middle ground, and there's NO compromise. If a freedom is "compromised" upon, it's no longer a freedom. Compromise, by it's very nature, limits freedom. Something you say you don't want to do.

You don't even have to be tolerant of other's freedoms either. You can argue as loud as you want to about them... But, don't sound so wounded when your very reasonable "compromise" is rejected...

I don't think you're too thrilled with the "compromises" made with the Second Amendment, are you?? No, you're not. So, leave our First Amendment alone. Uhhh OK, it's YOURS too - so stop stomping on it!

Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.

Ex

Ex, I've mentioned the legal aspects that are being ignored before:

"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."

I've also acknowledged rights and said I would defend them so I don't know why anyone is still arguing that with me. I'm not "wounded" and I'm not "stomping" on anything, but I am arguing the difference between rights and doing what's right and reasonable compromise. I do think that is a relevant avenue of discussion instead of everyone just beating each other over the head to get what they. To quote a relevant scripture whether folks are offended or not, "come, let us reason together."

ex, I've mentioned the legal aspects that are being ignored before:

"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."

So... if the atheists had, instead of putting up a sign, picketed the nativity scene, causing it to be a "disruptive" display---that would have been better? I'll keep that in mind next time--if someone is putting something I don't like onto public property, I just need to make sure that MY demonstration causes THEIR display to be "disruptive".

As far as "consistant with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government"---are you saying that ANY religious display would be "consistent with the INTENT" of state government? NO religious display should be consistent with the intent of ANY government in this country!

And decorum? Which group acted with the least decorum, in your opinion? Not which DISPLAY was more decorous, but which GROUP had more decorum.

[/quote] I've also acknowledged rights and said I would defend them so I don't know why anyone is still arguing that with me. I'm not "wounded" and I'm not "stomping" on anything, but I am arguing the difference between rights and doing what's right and reasonable compromise. I do think that is a relevant avenue of discussion instead of everyone just beating each other over the head to get what they. To quote a relevant scripture whether folks are offended or not, "come, let us reason together."[/QUOTE]

I've offered a reasonable compromise between rights and doing what's right---the compromise of NO ONE getting to promote their holiday on public property. No crosses on city hall, no menorrahs in the state building, no Santa Claus parades down city streets. No winter solstice celebrations in the park. If you want to display your religion, then do it on PRIVATE property.

Because frankly---you're never going to get a "compromise" on what is "deocorous". Obviously, my ideas of it and yours differ. You say the nativity is just the celebration of a special child. Well, aren't ALL children special? In that case, if someone (say--the neo-Nazis) put up a life-size display of the Adolf Hitler family when he was a toddler, would that be in the spirit of the seaon, and "decorous"? And while Yule is a time of celebrating the new year, and the Birth of the Unconquerable Sun, Samhain is a time of rememberance--so what if at Halloween Pagans displayed a picture of a woman burning at the stake with the quote "We Remember" underneath it?

The whole point of the sign in the first place is that there are a LOT of people offended by religious displays in a government building. Whether you like it or not, that sign has AS MUCH RIGHT to be there as the nativity scene or the menorrah--or any of the other dozens of holiday diplays that I hear are popping up there now.

It was NOT an attack on Christianity, contrary to what so many think. If it was an attack at all, it was attacking ALL religions.

Funny that the Christians are the only ones I've heard about that are offended. I have yet to hear from any of my pagan friends anything but "good! maybe they'll finally stop unofficially supporting Christmas as a national holy day!" The one Jew that I know personally hadn't heard about it at all, and when I pointed her to the articles, she came back with "seriously? that sign ticked off THAT many people? I don't get it!". The Christians I know seem split on the subject, and the two Muslims I know just laughed and said "people can say whatever they want--Allah will know what is in their hearts" (I asked them at the same time, as they are married to each other).

MOST of the people I talked to, though, couldn't figure out what the problem was. Seriously--they didn't understand why there was a problem. Everyone got to put up something about their own belief, right? And anyone that had a belief system could apply and display something about it there? So... what's the issue?

This: People are not civil (or generally even rational) on the following subjects:

1. Religion
2. Politics
3. Abortion law
4. Death penalty
5. the War in Iraq
7. Child abuse
8. How other peoples' kids act in public
9. The welfare system and the people who abuse it
10. Teenagers having sex

I'm sure there are dozens more, but those are the subjects that have been banned from my mother-in-law's table. We are absolutely forbidden to speak on those subjects in her kitchen or dining room. She will hit us with a wooden spoon if we even start migrating there from other topics.

So basically--we're never going to agree on this. I accepted that when I got involved in this discussion. Part of this has been, for me anyway, trying to see FROM the point of view of other people on this. I just can't do it. I try and try, and honestly can not see where you're coming from on this.

speechless -

You still don't get it. I'm done trying to explain it to you.

I'm unsubscribing.

Happy Holidays.

Jillian, how typical, another unyielding person telling me I don't get it and taking the brave way out by unsubscribing.

I've demonstrated to EVERY one of you that I DO get it but am asking WHY we can't go BEYOND all the bullsh*t and work things out. It seems apparent that you are not among those who see the value in reasoning together and compromise, which is EXACTLY what the opening statement of the atheist sign allegedly calls for, REASON. And that's the problem here, you guys aren't interested in getting along or compromising so why don't we all quit pretending this is about fairness, equality, sensitivity and rights and admit it's about people that are pi$$ed off about religion and want to eliminate EVERY hint of it in the public square under the guise of tolerance, fairness, mythical constitutional issues - and fear mongering about freedoms. -Merry Christmas.

Synnen, respect for others and their beliefs is consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of government. There is no respect in that sign, and that lack of respect was the catalyst for protest. When someone pokes me in the eye on purpose they shouldn't be surprised if they get a black eye in return. As I said early on, I didn't make a big deal about it until so many of you told me I shouldn't be offended and well, that offends me.

It also offends me that so many of you think we must enforce a mythical separation of church FROM state, and then rebuff all calls for a compromise that could make everyone happy. If y'all don't want to compromise that way fine, but I will fight to my dying breath for my religious rights and to protect the religious heritage of this country, so bring your boots because it's going to get deep. But just so you know, I will work with you if you want to, but I will not go quietly while history is revised and MY rights are swept away.

For those of you who don't get where this discussion has taken us; it's about civility or lack thereof.

Perhaps a new thread should be started?

This person said better than I could:


With differences this deep, we are in for a protracted fight. Fortunately, the First Amendment makes it possible to wage the war with words, giving all sides freedom to make their case openly and robustly without government interference.

Of course, there will be winners and losers — we live in a democracy. But how we debate — not only what we debate — matters.

It isn't mandated by the First Amendment, but treating our opponents with civility and respect might enable us to live with one another when the battle is finally over.

¢¢¢
Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C. Contact him at [email protected].

Okay, here's the thing.

YOU see the nativity as a peaceful thing, a message of hope and love. You see it as the birth of a "saviour of mankind".

People who belong to religions (or lack or religion) see it as the beginning of a regime of intolerance, torture, and war to bring people over to the side of Christianity. While Christians have done some really great things in the last 2000 years, I don't see a lot of really great things that Christianity has done.

Do you see the separation of the people from the religion there?

So. You're saying it's a harmless picture that promotes love and peace and tolerance. I see that picture as the birth of a child who grew up to preach a religion that then went on to torture, kill, rape, burn, and cause dissent with people of OTHER faiths for several hundred years.

Can you really NOT see how offensive it is to see that supported by a government building?

The sign is offensive to YOU. The nativity if offensive to those NOT of your faith.

You say it's just a picture, I say it's just a sign.

If a little kid peed on the sign, I'd laugh. If a little kid peed on the nativity, you'd be angry. But it's just a picture, right? With no symbolism behind it whatsoever? Since it's just a picture, what people do to it shouldn't bother you, right?

As far as I know, the atheists have been the most "reasonable" about the entire thing. ALL of their rebuttal has been in words.

The Christians have come back with:
1. Signs of their own, mocking the original sign
2. Stealing the sign
3. Defacing the sign
4. Protests

Guess what? MY religion was attacked too! Shouldn't I be offended too, if the sign was that bad? Shouldn't there be more religious groups out there that are upset, if it's THAT bad?

It seems to me that the only people crying "foul!" are the ones that hate the idea of Christianity not being the Grand Poo-bah in this country! The only people truly upset by the sign are the ones that take their religion FAR too seriously! (I might add here---the only ones REALLY upset by the nativity are the ones who take their own religion or lack thereof too seriously).

I'm at the point of wanting to unsubscribe as well, you know. Regardless how you say you want to resolve this in a "reasonable" manner, your viewpoint makes that somewhat impossible. You want the sign taken down, other people want religion to have no part in a government building. Where can you possibly compromise on that?

And I agree with what others have said. Once you start compromising freedoms, you're taking them away. Either everyone has the right to state their belief (or lack thereof) in a government building, or no one does.

As long as it does not threaten harm to any person or group, what difference does it make to you that someone believes that there is no god, or believes in invisible pink unicorns, or believes in a goddess, or believes in the Flying Speghetti Monster? Where is that hurting YOU?

Sigh…

This is exactly what I meant by my last post to Jillian, some people are pi$$ed off at religion – specifically Christianity – and want it eliminated from the public square, and if one believes the atheist sign I'd say they want it eliminated entirely. “There is NO god,” religion “enslaves minds and hardens hearts” and is therefore evil. There is no room in their world for the millions of believers everywhere who have never tortured, maimed and killed in the name of their God but instead have preached and lived – however imperfectly – a message of love, hope and peace. And proof of the evils of religion is a minority of idiots that stole and defaced the atheist sign. I asked once before, do we have proof that whoever did this was indeed a Christian, or are we convicting them on an assumption?

Meanwhile, these good atheists have been nothing but paragons of virtue. That is of course ignoring the fact that they attacked us to begin with, which as the last few elections have shown is the standard M.O. of the left, attack then feign innocence.

For what seems like the thousandth time, I acknowledge the nativity scene offends some, but it doesn't attack and it doesn't persecute. The sign explicitly attacks, and that is the difference you can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge. BOTH can be taken as an offense, only one literally attacks, and that's wrong no matter how you slice it.

Why on earth would I get upset if a child innocently peed on the baby Jesus? If he was provoked into doing so it would be a different story, but my anger would be toward the one using a child in such an offensive way. What kind of a person do you really think I am, Synnen?

It's not about Christians thinking Christianty should be “the Grand Poo-bah in this country.” I had enough of that nonsense with all the fear mongering over Bush, abetted by the right-wing evangelical neocons, allegedly establishing his theocracy. But the fact is a majority of Americans still consider themselves Christian, and as far as I know it's always been that way…it didn't happen overnight. And that's the other thing I've been getting at, God was never banned from government in this country, government was banned from establishing a state religion. Displaying a nativity scene, the Ten Commandments, generic “in God we trust” or “under God” is not establishing a state religion. All religions are still free to practice their faith or no faith, and we aren't trying to change that – because our freedom to do so hinges on YOUR freedom to do so.

You find these things offensive and I understand that, but does it hamper your ability to be happy, prosper and practice your faith? The Stones were right, we can't always get what we want, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way to get along and it's certainly no excuse to interpret the constitution to mean something it doesn't, revise history, refuse to acknowledge the religious heritage of this country and just deal with it. Religious symbolism in government has been a part of this country for ages, (and not all of it Christian) so why should that change? I don't think it should, but it should be civil, respectful and in good taste. I don't see how anyone comparing that nativity scene or any of these examples (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=2441) can say the sign fits that description, and that's the point. Put up a sign, but don't tell me it's endangering freedoms to request that it be appropriate.


what difference does it make to you that someone believes that there is no god, or believes in invisible pink unicorns, or believes in a goddess, or believes in the Flying Speghetti Monster? Where is that hurting YOU?

I don't recall ever hinting that it did and said I would defend your rights, so I find this irrelevant. I just asked for respect.

If people continue to insult theach other over their different opinions, how long will it take for the debate to reduce itself to: "F You", "No, F YOU","F you and yo mama","Nobody talks about my momma; BANG!!!"

Civility and respect allow us to share our opinions, to practice freedom; without it who the hell would listen?

I'm going to take a slightly different approach, one that doesn't attempt to deal with legality.

Speaking as a Christian, maybe the fact that the atheists put their sign right next to the Nativity scene is not such a bad thing after all.

What better than a side by side comparison of the beliefs?

The Nativity scene reminds us of the love of God, expressed in His Son who came for the express purpose to be the final sacrifice for sin, and in the process, give us the teaching and the power to live happy, productive lives on earth and give us entrance to Heaven.

On the other hand, the sign is simply an empty rant against anything of faith; is totally negative; offers no hope in this life or beyond.

Comparison can be a good thing.

Speaking as a Christian, maybe the fact that the atheists put their sign right next to the Nativity scene is not such a bad thing after all.

What better than a side by side comparision of the beliefs?

Oh stop making sense Gal. :D

I don't disagree with that thought, but that's not where it will end if we don't take a stand.

You find these things offensive and I understand that, but does it hamper your ability to be happy, prosper and practice your faith?

Your words.

Does the Atheist sign hamper YOUR ability to be happy, prosper, and practice your faith?

I'm going to take a slightly different approach, one that doesn't attempt to deal with legality.

Speaking as a Christian, maybe the fact that the atheists put their sign right next to the Nativity scene is not such a bad thing after all.

What better than a side by side comparision of the beliefs?

The Nativity scene reminds us of the love of God, expressed in His Son who came for the express purpose to be the final sacrifice for sin, and in the process, give us the teaching and the power to live happy, productive lives on earth and give us entrance to Heaven.

On the other hand, the sign is simply an empty rant against anything of faith; is totally negative; offers no hope in this life or beyond.

Comparison can be a good thing.

I agree with you on your take about the atheist sign; I doubt people will be attracted to that message in droves. It may even help your cause. I still don't agree with attacking others beliefs in this instance; but you've made an excellent point.

Your words.

Does the Atheist sign hamper YOUR ability to be happy, prosper, and practice your faith?

Nope, but is that the only thing you got out of my response? Sure I can be fine with it there, now your turn to answer. Regardless, it doesn't make it any less of an attack, any less wrong, any less inappropriate, any less civil, any more respectful or any more conducive to solving the problem.

I still haven't seen a solution other than banning ALL beliefs from public property.

Well, I haven't seen a solution that isn't taking away freedoms.

I refuse to compromise on my First Amendment rights. The Patriot Act has already stripped away many "rights" of the individual in this country, and I absolutely refuse to lose more just because a few people were offended by a sign that disagreed with their religion.

So... WHAT compromise? WHAT solution?

MY solution is to ban ALL religious references from government. You don't like that, because currently the government, while not "supporting" your religion, at least favors it.

YOUR solution is to take away first amendment rights. I absolutely and unequivically refuse to go along with that.

So---we're at an impass, because I can't come up with anything else, and neither, it seems, can you.

YOUR solution is to take away first amendment rights. I absolutely and unequivically refuse to go along with that.

LOL, have you not read what I've said? Why do you insist that I am for infringing on your rights when I have said unequivocally that I'm not? That's one reason we never get anywhere, at least three people have said I want to take away rights in spite of all evidence to the contrary including flat out saying I would defend your rights.

What's funny here is that the crowd (in general) defending this sign is the same crowd that supports political correctness, hate speech laws and has no problem unfairly enforcing diversity policies and restricting the use of student fees for conservative speakers and Republican groups on college campuses. Tolerance, free speech, fairness and civility have their limits when it comes to people like Christians and conservatives.

Like it or not, the courts have long upheld that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner - but not the content - of expression. Even though the sign is not in the spirit of the settlement in my opinion, I'm not even asking in this case for government to regulate anything, I'm asking for the groups to regulate themselves and show respect. I ask again, what's wrong with that?

I ask again, what's wrong with that?Hello again, Steve:

There's nothing wrong with that.

But, if it was just "asking", you wouldn't complain when you didn't get it. Yet, you DO complain.

Plus, as long as you're using the public arena for YOUR message, you should absolutely expect other messages that you vehemently HATE. And, frankly, I think you should keep quite about them too.

Asking someone in THAT context, to be polite and respectful is MISSING the point of their display and/or the First Amendment in the first place. Even though YOUR intent may be warm and cozy, THEIR intent may be to inflame and incite.

THAT message, in the context of a free society, while mean spirited, is GOOD for us.

excon

Asking someone in THAT context, to be polite and respectful is MISSING the point of the display and/or the First Amendment in the first place. Even though YOUR intent may be warm and cozy, THEIR intent may be to inflame and incite.

THAT message, in the context of a free society, while mean spirited, is GOOD for us.

The RIGHT is good for us, intentionally attacking each other for the hell of it is not.

The RIGHT is good for usHello again, Steve:

We agree. I knew we would.

excon

What’s funny here is that the crowd (in general) defending this sign is the same crowd that supports political correctness, hate speech laws and has no problem unfairly enforcing diversity policies and restricting the use of student fees for conservative speakers and Republican groups on college campuses. Tolerance, free speech, fairness and civility have their limits when it comes to people like Christians and conservatives.


Actually, no.

I think political correctness has gone too far, personally. Call a spade a spade, but quit making high schools with the team names "the Injuns" have to change it.

Hate speech laws? I guess I kind of support that. I think that as long as no PHYSICAL harm comes of someone saying something, then people can say whatever the hell they want.

I work in a registar's office. It's my JOB to make sure diversity policies are evenly enforced. As far as student fees go--at the college *I* work at, a student senate was created mostly so that the STUDENTS would have a say in what kind of speakers to have. I also worked at a major state university several years ago, and one of the speakers that school had was Ron Jeremy. I wouldn't exactly call that "conservative"

Tolerance is really, to me, allowing people to be who they are as long as it does not infringe on someone else. I don't care if someone prays over their lunch as long as they do not bully me into praying with them. I don't care if someone feels the need to throw salt over their shoulder when they spill it as long as they don't expect ME to do the same. That is tolerance---allowing someone to have their culture and beliefs without ostracizing them because of those beliefs. But it's ALSO not forcing anyone ELSE to go along with those beliefs.

Free Speech--as long as it's not hurting anyone, say what you like. Don't go yelling "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a movie theatre, because that COULD hurt people. But don't stop idiots from telling people that they're going to hell if they don't repent because the end of the world is coming, or people ranting on the corner that there are UFOs and the government is lying to us. I believe that the media has an obligation to print the truth to the public, but I also know that the truth is subjective. Since the "child test" has been brought up before--let's go back to when we were 5: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me!" If you don't like what someone has to say, then either argue with them, ignore them, or get your own message out there. Just remember that your message reflects on YOU, not on the people receiving that message.

Fairness and civility are somewhat more subjective. Is it "fair" that "In God We Trust" is on our money when a good portion (not the majority, but still a good portion) of the country doesn't believe in a God? How would you feel if everything started being printed in Spanish, because the "majority" of the country speaks Spanish? Would you find that "fair?

As far as civility goes---there are millions of ways to insult someone while sounding polite. I do it all the time, and people for the most part don't even catch it. The thought that goes around and around in my head is that the worst wars in history have been "civil" wars. We shouldn't HAVE to be nice all the time.

But let's say we DO decide everyone has to be nice. Define "nice". Define "civil". Tell me how a sign that says "Jesus is Lord!" is any MORE civil than "Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds". Tell me how "Abortion is MURDER! Choose adoption!" is more civil than "Pregnant? Scared? Let us help you!" Tell me how protesting outside of an abortion clinic is MORE civil than volunteering at a pregnancy crisis center?

People choose to be less civil ALL THE TIME when they feel strongly about something and want to make a point.

Would you be "civil" about Planned Parenthood going to a local high school in your area? Or would you raise holy hell about it? If someone wanted to talk about the medical benefits of birth control at a local junior high, do you think that parents would be "civil" about it, or would they raise hell?

It's all pretty subjective, wouldn't you say?

We were never in disagreement on that, ex, but a little self-regulation can be a good thing. Apparently, many who would support this atheist sign agree. I don't remember anyone coming to such a vigorous defense of Michael Richards, or Isaiah Washington when he lost his job for exercising his free speech rights. Rush Limbaugh certainly caught hell for exercising his free speech rights concerning Donovan McNabb. Who among you rushed to the defense of Lawrence Summers in the wake of the no-confidence vote among Harvard staff over him exercising his free speech rights?

And that's the thing, many of the people who would defend the right of these atheists to display that sign right where it is with no repercussions DO support limits on speech and/or some punishment or penalty for crossing some arbitrary line.

many of the people who would defend the right of these atheists to display that sign right where it is with no repercussions DO support limits on speech and/or some punishment or penalty for crossing some arbitrary line.Hello again, Steve:

Many Schmany... I'm a free speech purist. Most of your antagonists are too. I try not to lump you in with those right wingers who want the public arena for themselves alone...

The REAL point is that we agree; that if the public arena is going to be used by one group, it may be used by another... We also agree that they should be nice to each other, but it's not legally required.

I think that's pretty good, no?

excon

I think that's pretty good, no?

Yep, we agree and that's good. I just maintain that intentionally attacking each other for the hell of it is not good.

Yep, we agree and that's good. I just maintain that intentionally attacking each other for the hell of it is not good.

So attacking women's choices in their reproductive health "for the hell of it" by screaming at them that they are murderers and trying to stop them from getting medical help for their choice at an abortion clinic should be stopped too?

What about protesting Gay Pride parades? Those are people speaking out "for the hell of it" with negative messages against someone else's lifestyle choice and beliefs!

How about people who, "for the hell of it", protest the War in Iraq by having marches with signs that state negative messages about our government and its politicians? Should they be stopped?

So... just because you believe something strongly, you can't say ANYTHING bad about the people who believe differently from you, or it's an "attack" or a "hate message"? Or is promoting your belief when it's just a sign at Christmas somehow different than promoting your belief that life begins at conception and not when a child is viable outside the womb? Is stating that you think people are "bad" for having religion somehow different than stating that they're "bad" for having a sexual relationship with the same gender? Is protesting via a sign in a capitol building somehow different than protesting carrying a sign in a march in Washington, DC?

So attacking women's choices in their reproductive health "for the hell of it" by screaming at them that they are murderers and trying to stop them from getting medical help for their choice at an abortion clinic should be stopped too?

What about protesting Gay Pride parades? Those are people speaking out "for the hell of it" with negative messages against someone else's lifestyle choice and beliefs!

How about people who, "for the hell of it", protest the War in Iraq by having marches with signs that state negative messages about our government and its politicians? Should they be stopped?

So...just because you believe something strongly, you can't say ANYTHING bad about the people who believe differently from you, or it's an "attack" or a "hate message"? Or is promoting your belief when it's just a sign at Christmas somehow different than promoting your belief that life begins at conception and not when a child is viable outside the womb? Is stating that you think people are "bad" for having religion somehow different than stating that they're "bad" for having a sexual relationship with the same gender? Is protesting via a sign in a capitol building somehow different than protesting carrying a sign in a march in Washington, DC?

I had something nice about how much we actually agree but this showed up before I got it posted. I guess you still haven't accepted that I support the first amendment in spite of all the times I've come right out and said so, or that I'm not trying to BAN anything. I certainly don't mind calling a politician an idiot when it applies, calling Fred Phelps and his bunch the bigots and fools they are or calling Planned Parenthood a blight on society based on experience and known behavior. I just don't believe intentionally attacking others FOR NO GOOD REASON is a good thing.

THAT is what you're not seeing!

It's NOT for "no good reason".

It's a deliberate statement about how religion has "enslaved minds and hardened hearts"--based on what the society who put up the sign has dealt with---based on experience and known behaviour.

JUST like your "offensive words" about Planned Parenthood. EXACTLY like that. The people who put up the sign weren't just being bullies on the playground and beating up whoever came around first. They were putting up a sign that dealt with their experiences with ALL religion, and with the known behaviour of religious people towards their lack of unbelief and toward society in general--from THEIR point of view.

THAT was the one thing you didn't get through this entire conversation: The sign was not "attacking" religion "for the hell of it".

The sign was a statement of belief about religions in general, based on past experience and known behaviour.

I had something nice about how much we actually agree but this showed up before I got it posted. I guess you still haven't accepted that I support the first amendment in spite of all the times I've come right out and said so, or that I'm not trying to BAN anything. I certainly don't mind calling a politician an idiot when it applies, calling Fred Phelps and his bunch the bigots and fools they are or calling Planned Parenthood a blight on society based on experience and known behavior. I just don't believe intentionally attacking others FOR NO GOOD REASON is a good thing.

I'm done with this thread, while I haven't stated it as well as speechlessTX throughout these posts; I too support First Amendment Rights fully. However, let's just say I am a passionate advocate of civility and while civility will rarely if ever trump rights, I don't think it's too much to ask for people to at least consider it when trying to advance their ideas. Without it we risk a more hateful, rude, and inconsiderate society; and frankly we are already going down that road in many respects and I for one mourn the loss of consideration of others in these more self-absorbed times.

But you ARE trying to take away first amendment rights!

If you HAVE to be civil when you are exercising your freedom of speech, every last one of the examples I gave would be stopped.

There would be no more "Planned Parenthood is a blight!", but rather "Planned Parenthood is just not as good as your family doctor" Oh wait, that wouldn't work either, because that makes it sound like one choice is BETTER than another. How about "Planned Parenthood does not hold the same ideals that I do." Is that bland enough not to be offensive to anyone?

Now substitute the word religion for Planned Parenthood above.

Why is ONE protected by free speech, in your opinion, and the other not? Why can you say "Planned Parenthood is a blight" even though others disagree with you, but NOT say that "religion hardens hearts"?

THAT was the one thing you didn't get through this entire conversation: The sign was not "attacking" religion "for the hell of it".

The sign was a statement of belief about religions in general, based on past experience and known behaviour.

OK... I'm back to debate this... lol. The statement is a lie, it's like an old boyfriend putting a sign outside your home on public property and saying "Synnen is a whore".

How can an atheist who doesn't practice religion have past experience with religion; and what is this known behavior? If they did practice religion as it exists TODAY, they could choose to see the millions of people in religions who devote time, money and love to helping others. Whose selfishness mind has been set free by their religion and transformed them into people who's minds and hearts are no longer hardened by the lack of faith and selfishness, but who are now full of purpose and charity.

I am not a Christian and I too had hateful and negative views towards religion many years ago based on my atheist bias. However over time and actually knowing people of many faiths and attending differents services with my friends I learned firsthand what the true nature of religion today is; and also chose to see things in a positive light.

Anyway, if a sign like the one I suggested above was posted near your home; I am sure you would be in court pretty darn quick to have it removed and not so quick to protect your old boyfriends First Amendment Rights.

I think that's what offends Christian's in particular and myself about the sign on the capital is that it is a lie; and there should be a remedy from people posting lies about another group.

Is it too much to ask for others to learn more about others and at the very lest find some tolerance and respect while still advancing their own views.

It is NOT a "lie".

It's an opinion.

There's a HUGE difference.

It's like the statement "Jesus is Lord!" Not offensive, but to me it's a "lie".

You can't PROVE a religion's beliefs. Faith is a big part of any religion--you have FAITH that it is true, you can't PROVE that it is true.

There is no proof either direction.

Your example is something that could be taken as "slander". My ex doesn't have PROOF that I'm a whore, and if he DID, then his sign would stand in a court of law.

I know plenty of people who refuse to tolerate or accept others because of their religion. The people calling women "murderer" outside of an abortion clinic. That's not a "truth", that's an opinion. There is no PROOF as to when life begins, so each side has their own take on it. There is not PROOF that being gay is something that is evil (sorry.. can't accept the Bible as "truth" or "proof" here, because I don't believe the Bible), yet gays are refused basic rights (like that of marriage) because of it. They're called horrid names and for years were discriminated against by "good" religious people. There is no PROOF that Planned Parenthood is a blight, yet I doubt that they're going to sue the pants off SpeechlessTX for saying it.

People are allowed their opinions. I still see several people that seem to be blind to the ideas in their religion (like "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others") until THEY want something out of it.

I know there are a lot of good religious people out there. I also know there are as many bad religious people out there. Think of the atrocities that, even today, are done in the name of religion. Do you honestly think there would be a war between Palestine and Isreal if there were not religious differences? Do you truly think that if all people were religious and followed the "rules" of religion that we'd get along?

I don't think so. I think that too many religions feel the need to "convert" people, or to have people live by THEIR rules.

Stating that "Synnen is a whore" isn't a very good example. It attacks me personally, and is something that can be proven (i.e. he'd have to bring forward witnesses to the effect that I took money or drugs for sex).

Stating "Planned Parenthood is a blight" is a better example---because I can find people on BOTH sides of that issue who would disagree with each other. People with strong opinions both ways---just as with the sign. You can't PROVE to me that all religious people have soft hearts and open minds--I'd disagree with you all the way. Just as you disagree that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

There have been examples BOTH directions on this.

The best thing I can think of to compare this to really is the abortion issue. Some people put up a sign with a really cute baby that says "Where is MY choice?" and other people put up a sign that has a successful young woman that states "You have a choice in your reproductive rights". Which one attacks? Which one is NOT an opinion? Which one is offensive? To whom is it offensive?

Depending on which side of the fence you stand on, EITHER sign could be offensive.

But either way---NEITHER sign is a lie.