Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

It would be nice if the side supporting the nativity scene were honest. If the Jesus statue was just a baby with diapers and the nativity was "just" a cute scene, they wouldn't really make such a big deal of it to a) Promote it being placed in the courthouse lawn. b) Make a big press deal when asked to stop doing it. The nativity scene certainly has a very strong meaning for them, and I don't think they are fooling anyone when pretending otherwise.

Obviously the brick a brack in the manger scene are props. I should have said the babe in the manger is an idol of God Incarnate.

ruveyn

I kinda hope for Mary's sake that the diaper itself wasn't then made holy, she might have been the originator of Jesus Christ as an expletive.

Those who also have holiday festivities, like Kwanzaa and Hanukkah are included. Last time I checked, the atheist community had no religious festivals at Christmas.



I saw no such endorsement of the nativity's truth or falsity. It is a symbol that Christians celebrate Christmas this time of year, the government is supporting the event within the confines of it being a holiday. If you want to interpret the nativity to be an endorsement of a specific Christian religious claim, then such a claim would stand at odds with the evidence, since the nativity is only part of the display, Santa, Snowmen Kwanzaa and Hanukkah are also represented. The government is no more supporting the literal truth of Christianity than it is the idea of a literal Santa and Frosty.



What Baptist? He is not even a resident of the town. He is not the man who put it up nor does he have a monopoly on its meaning.

Here is a statement from the County Attorney;

“We’ve got an array of decorations, and feel that we are in compliance with federal law,” said Henderson County Attorney Clint Davis Sanders, as reported by the Athens Review. “We’re not pushing any religion down anybody’s throat. These are holiday decorations we enjoy."

There can however, be little doubt that some secularists have taken things too far:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/scroog ... o-the-cold

Last edited by 91 on 12 Dec 2011, 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

the concept of christmas in denmark is secular, has been for a millenia.

it has always taken the guise of the current religion but the traditions remain the same, besides not excactly xhristianity that started it here.

BS. Oh sure there are no religious festivals. But many seculars have adopted some of the traditions. Many people outside of religion do celebrate these holidays. Give cards. Buy gifts and decorate with trees. They happen to like the orgy of consumerism and hot chocolate. Thank you very much.



Yeah right. If these guys just enjoyed decorations, they would decorate their homes, you know their private spaces and wouldn't need to put their decorations specifically in front of a court house. Once they are putting their decorations in public property just in front of a installation of public law they are making a statement. And as you can see, my current position is: All right, let them make the statement, but let atheists make the statement too.

If they didn't think they are making a statement, why are the Christians pushing for these decorations talking about free speech and religious freedom? If they were "just decorations" why make such a big fuss when FFRF tells them to remove them? Come on, at least try to be honest. These nativity scenes have a clear message. That it is hidden under a baby with diapers instead of a banner held by a group picture does not mean the message is clearly there.

But they are discriminating the Atheists. Question asked millions of times and still with no answer: Why can the Christians assert their beliefs through decorations but atheists cannot because people are so utterly offended by the idea that there are people out there that don't believe in these things?




Yeah right. If these guys just enjoyed decorations, they would decorate their homes, you know their private spaces and wouldn't need to put their decorations specifically in front of a court house. Once they are putting their decorations in public property just in front of a installation of public law they are making a statement. And as you can see, my current position is: All right, let them make the statement, but let atheists make the statement too.

If they didn't think they are making a statement, why are the Christians pushing for these decorations talking about free speech and religious freedom? If they were "just decorations" why make such a big fuss when FFRF tells them to remove them? Come on, at least try to be honest. These nativity scenes have a clear message. That it is hidden under a baby with diapers instead of a banner held by a group picture does not mean the message is clearly there.



Off-topic. Is this a dull attempt to poison the well?

It doesn't matter what a scrooge police man did in another town. The truth is that in this one town we have Christians pushing their beliefs in public property at the time they are discriminating atheists and not giving them that right. In effect the objective of this seems to perpetuate the idea that it is all right for atheists to be second-class citizens. They "hate" Christmas so why don't we just treat them like trash?

I am sorry, but I don't care how many loop holes you try to find in this. I don't care what the law says. This is discrimination. Fair and square and there is no way you can make it pass as a rightful thing.

Sure and those views are represented, by Santa, the Christmas Tree, the reindeer, the Snowman, pretty iconic secular images of Christmas. My point is, what specific atheist symbol is there of Christmas? A general statement of dismissive disdain, while common from one's atheistic teenage relatives during the holidays, does not exactly constitute a specific message or symbol of Christmas that would fit in next to Santa, the Tree, the Nativity and the Hanukkah symbol.



A display on public land is a statement of the government's support of the holidays, it contains symbols from Hanukkah and Kwanzaa as well as many secular images. The government has the right to do that, a right established by supreme court precedent. The government also has the right to say no to some displays and yes to others, another right, established within Supreme Court precedent. The atheist statement that they campaigned to put up has absolutely nothing to do with the holidays and their secular position already had representation.



Because it is representative of free speech and religious freedom. A religious message within a secular display is perfectly valid and they have a right to defend it from a predatory attack wrapped within a half baked legal argument from an out of jurisdiction group. The entire objection is predicated on the assertion that any Christian image within a secular multi-faith display in the public square ought to be considered illegal or can be seen to be offensive, a position that is just not legally or socially viable. The sheer lunacy of the objection is revealed in fact that the atheists, either in the letter or so far in this thread, have not objected to the Jewish symbol being present.



Nonsense, atheistic and secular messages on government property are common. The statue of liberty is a secular display that all atheists can get behind and Christians don't insist that she be remade to be holding up a crucifix.



Hardly, it fits the topic quite well.

A group picture of people holding a message wishing for reason to prevail this season. Something like this:

[img][800:622]http://ffrf.org/uploads/images/Staff%20Photo%20Banner.jpg[/img]



I see a very strong urge to demonize the FFRF for this.

I request you to stop talking out of your ass. The FFRF is clear (and accurate) the supreme court has ruled against making nativity scene the sole focus of a public display. There was no violation of first amendment and FFRF was not entering action until the discrimination against the atheist group happened. And you (and the biased article presented by Inuyasha) keep painting the atheists as these evil lunatics against free speech when in reality it was the court house who blocked their speech in the first place. There would be no legal argument and the atheists wouldn't be complaining if the banner was admitted. Unfortunately for anyone trying to make the atheists look as the bad guys here, the atheist banner was rejected out of ridiculous grounds such as "THEIR BELIEF OFFENDS ME".

It is like what ruveyn said, either allow all or reject all. The local government has made a clear position of anti-endorsement against the atheist group by allowing displays from few groups and outright banning the atheists. Use words like jurisdiction all you want. I don't care about your loopholes. I don't care about legality, this is simply discrimination and it shows that it is the Christians in government that are intolerant. Poor little inuyasha that tried to make a post about atheists being intolerant when the bit of ingormation he gave us clearly shows the opposite. It is the atheists that were denied a display. It is the atheists that were victim of discrimination . And the FFRF felt forced to act.

Exactly, there is precedent for secular things to be placed in public property.

I am not saying the whole US is discriminating. I am talking about the local government that denied the atheist banner. And yes, it is discrimination.

I'll go with yes, you were trying to poison the well.

1. You're failing to comprehend why they would even want to put the sign there. It is not to offend Christians, it is simply to make a point that they can, for the same reasons that Christians can put theirs there. If you don't like it, then simply agree that these types of displays should either be only permitted on private property, or that anyone can do it. You should be thanking the FFRF for that. Imagine Muslims wanted to put a sign up there too, that says "Allah u Akbar". Using the same logic that you present in support of a nativity scene, or I support in favor of that atheist sign, they would be allowed to as well.

Doesn't it seem to make a lot more sense to just make sure that these types of displays are kept to private property instead of potentially alienating citizens who pay into that public property? I should add that I do feel a nativity scene is harmless, just like the atheist sign is harmless, but both obviously arouse controversy, and there is a very simple solution to that.

2. How does one "convert" to Atheism? Do I get a baptism of alcohol and naked ladies or something?

3. There is no misrepresentation of your position. You describe the statement as a deliberate attempt to offend, when it is simply stating what they themselves think. You consider atheism offensive by it's very nature and that is the only reason you're going on with this



Everyone knows that frozen mixed vegetables are highly discriminatory. Additionally baby carrots are trying to make everyone gay

Yes and they insisted that it be put in next to the Manger, not exactly fitting with the rest of the display. No one else put forward a written message and nobody else put forward a direct endorsement of a position. Their specific request was to either have Jesus removed or the banner put up next to him.

From (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... -can-stay/)
The foundation asked for the baby Jesus to be removed, or for a sign to be put up next to his crib that would read: “At this season of the winter solstice may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

They did not complain about the Jewish symbol or the nativity as a hole. They intended to rob the display of its generally positive message and turn it into their billboard. The city was right to decline their demand. Further, the atheists, being secular, were already represented within the display; it had snowmen, gnomes, reindeer, Santa and a Christmas Tree. It also had Kwanzaa and Jewish symbols. Just about every view was already represented in image and no one had a banner. It is disingenuous to claim that the atheists lacked representation because they did not get special treatment for their out of state request.

The county has said it is open to other religions putting up displays. Other counties have similarly refused:

Like this one where a member of a local atheist group nailed a skeleton in a Santa suit to a cross and put it up at a similar holiday display.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/ ... to-a-cross



The FFRF is known for repeatedly making nuance suits, most are dismissed on procedural grounds alone. I repeat again, the Court was under no obligation to meet their request, the need to chose all leads to the choice of none, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Van Orden v. Perry clearly indicates that a religious image within a secular message (like a nativity surrounded in multi-faith images and secular objects), is perfectly acceptable.



I have been over this already but ok. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum would seem to be applicable here. Justice Alito, in his finding, noted that the need to chose all would put Government in a position where it had no choice at all, the Government would be put in a position where it had to put forward conflicting messages and sentiments that were not supported within the community. The decision had no dissent. Further the Supreme Court is having its own nativity scene this year. A permit has been issued for a live nativity outside of the Supreme Court (http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12087) Please note that the display will not use taxpayer funds.



Clearly.

Last edited by 91 on 12 Dec 2011, 8:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

You mean exactly where the Christians insisted to place the nativity scene?

A nativity scene does not fit with a courthouse. A menorah does not fit with a nativity scene. The supreme court said to be inclusive to groups, they said nothing about fitting or not . And believing you are entitled to decide which fits and what doesn't means that you are endorsing some groups over others. Exactly not the spirit of the first amendment.


Supreme court said nothing against written messages.


Yeah right. Putting wings and signs on divinity on baby Jesus are definitely not a direct endorsement. Yeah right.


Don't fool yourself. The nativity scene was there first. The Jewish symbol was included later as a result of the supreme court position and the nativity scene remains the center of the display.

a) What positive message is there in "you are going to hell?"
b) "There is no heaven and no hell" and "Let reason prevail" are some of the most positive holiday messages I ever heard.
c) I've seen the group picture, in order for people to read the message they would have to go very close to the picture and read the relatively small letters. That's not exactly a billboard.


It seems that you find discrimination to be rightful. I find it disgusting.



You don't get to decide whether they are included or not.


What about Krishna? Brahna? Allah? Where there any Wiccan symbols? Was there a Jehova witness sign stating that it is a paganic celebration of satanic motivations? Jews and Christians are not the only religions ever.


As long as everyone gets included. Stop looking for loopholes. Discrimination is discrimination.


Even if this was right (and it likely isn't, you have a whole past attempts to sound like you know any law at all while you don't) Supreme court -mandated discrimination is still discrimination, still wrong and still against at the very least the spirit of America's foundation. They wanted America to be inclusive and they wanted freedom of religion.

Inuyasha mentioned that the flying spagetty monster was also banned. Since the FSM does not include any writing, then we can all agree that 91's excuse that the courthouse is entitled to ban written text is complete and utter BS.

The FSM is quite an atheist symbol specially during the holidays.. But I guess since it is not endorsed by coca cola it deserves to be discriminated against.

@ Vexcalibur

Are you a spokesman for this group? Cause all you have done is prove my point and 91's point.

And here is a FSM nativity scene



If I was the atheist group that sent the group picture I would have preferred something like that . Because pirates and the FSM are awesome. In fact, it was until Inuyasha started this post that I figured out why the group picture was a good idea. It was a great way to reveal the biases of the courthouse and how atheists are being discriminated. It is like what I mentioned. A guy stating he does not belief in god, angels, heaven or hell is more offensive than a picture of Jesus dressed as a gimp spanking Budda.

What was your point, again?

Wha?

Excuse me, but deliberately trying to put up banners over a nativity scene to mock Christians is offensive and could be considered harassment.