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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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

---

The Mexican edition of Playboy is already trying a similar angle. I like this lady's idea better, try displaying a naked Mohammed with a 12 year old virgin instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Something like this?

---

Nice :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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 - 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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!!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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?

Quote:

---

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."

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

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, not just 'possible.' But you're avoiding the point, are there exceptions or not?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Unless I missed something somewhere, it's entirely legal, 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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TexasParent

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 :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

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.