[speechlesstx]

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?

[TexasParent]

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.

[michealb]

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.

[TexasParent]

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".

[jillianleab]

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.

[TexasParent]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Synnen]

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!

[speechlesstx]

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.

[Synnen]

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.

[speechlesstx]

"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.

[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!"

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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?

[speechlesstx]

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.

[excon]

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

[speechlesstx]

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.

[michealb]

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.

[TexasParent]

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.

[speechlesstx]

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 - 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.