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!!"

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

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.

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?

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."

I'm not crazy, this I know.

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?

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!

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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

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

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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Unless I missed something somewhere, it's entirely legal, not just 'possible.' But you're avoiding the point, are there exceptions or not?

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.


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. :(

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.