[speechlesstx]

Yup. The nativity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[startover22]

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

[excon]

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

Hello again:

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

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

excon

[speechlesstx]

Yes Start, respectfully. What is wrong with that?

[Synnen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[speechlesstx]

Hello again:

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

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

Now that's a start. Thanks, ex.

[speechlesstx]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[TexasParent]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maybe I'm just expecting too much.

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

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

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

[inthebox]

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

.

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

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







g&p

[Synnen]

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

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

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

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

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

Want my solution on the whole thing?

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

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

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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

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

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

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

[TexasParent]

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

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

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

[Skell]

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

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

[jillianleab]

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

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

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

[speechlesstx]

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

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

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

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

[TexasParent]

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

LOL... well put :eek:

[speechlesstx]

LOL....well put :eek:

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

[Synnen]

How about this comparison, instead:

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

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

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

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

[tomder55]

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

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

[excon]

Hello again:

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

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

excon