[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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."

[Synnen]

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.

[jillianleab]

speechless -

You still don't get it. I'm done trying to explain it to you.

I'm unsubscribing.

Happy Holidays.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[TexasParent]

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].

[Synnen]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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 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.

[TexasParent]

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?

[Galveston1]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Synnen]

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?

[TexasParent]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Synnen]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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?

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

The RIGHT is good for us

Hello again, Steve:

We agree. I knew we would.

excon

[Synnen]

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?