• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheists take aim at Christmas

So atheists are rude for putting up their sign. How many lawsuits and how many news stories have we heard in the last 100 years about putting religious symbols on public property and yet year after year xians continually thumb their noses at those of us who pay taxes and do not believe in their religion? Who is rude?

The one's bringing the lawsuits are the one's who are rude. No symbol affected you in any way. No symbol established a national religion or gave and existing religion municipal power, so no symbol ever violated the 1st amendment.

And no, acknowledgment does not violate the 1st amendment, only establishment does. No again, the presence of a symbol does not establish a single thing. Acknowledgment is merely a cultural vestige and nothing more.
 
Last edited:
The one's bringing the lawsuits are the one's who are rude. No symbol affected you in any way. No symbol established a national religion or gave and existing religion municipal power, so no symbol ever violated the 1st amendment.

And no, acknowledgment does not violate the 1st amendment, only establishment does. No again, the presence of a symbol does not establish a single thing. Acknowledgment is merely a cultural vestige and nothing more.
Spot on, that is exactly right.
 
Why do we have to have a law for everything?

We do have hate crimes. Gotta watch what you're doing in other words. If the stuff gets too vicious it could be considered hate.

In other words, you don't like people saying bad things about Christianity. Boo hoo.

I don't like what some conservatives say about gays yet it isn't illegal for them to say it.

Get over it.
 
And no, acknowledgment does not violate the 1st amendment, only establishment does. No again, the presence of a symbol does not establish a single thing. Acknowledgment is merely a cultural vestige and nothing more.

It does when said people refuse to put any other religious symbols on government property. So shall we have something from ALL religions?

So which situation is easier to make sure the 1st is not violated?

#1. Include all religions and put symbols from every religion on government property or.
#2. Don't put any religious symbols up thus not supporting one over another?

Anything other then those 2 would be a violation of the 1st.
 
No, really, the atheists are out of line with what they are saying about religion directly there. They should get their own building or somewhere away from the manger and say what they like there, but not right beside the nativity. That's sort of inciteful to my way of thinking, and we need to watch inciteful.

I think Christians who put the nativity scene are out of line for insulting my intelligence with their fairy tales. So where are we now?
 
In other words, you don't like people saying bad things about Christianity. Boo hoo.
It's not what is said, it is how it is said.

I don't like what some conservatives say about gays yet it isn't illegal for them to say it.
Time, place, manner. If someone says the wrong thing at a gay pride parade and a riot ensues, it may not be exactly legal to say it. Same principle, different example.

Get over it.
Stop doing it.
 
It does when said people refuse to put any other religious symbols on government property. So shall we have something from ALL religions?
If the religion wants to be represented in a respectful manner, so be it.



#1. Include all religions and put symbols from every religion on government property or.
Only if those within the community request it.
#2. Don't put any religious symbols up thus not supporting one over another?
That would be a violation of the first, as it would suppress religious expression.

Anything other then those 2 would be a violation of the 1st.
Nope, the second WOULD be a violation of the first.
 
Time, place, manner. If someone says the wrong thing at a gay pride parade and a riot ensues, it may not be exactly legal to say it. Same principle, different example.

Can you show us where the riot is over this?

Stop doing it.

Get over it, it's not illegal. Christianity sucks and is a fairy tale, now are you going to arrest me?
 
Great but it does not mention Christ as another poster suggests the word Christmas as proof of a mass for Christ.

It is clear that it is a reference to the birth of Christ. Unless you think it is a reference to the birth of the Great Pumpkin or something.
 
No, really, the atheists are out of line with what they are saying about religion directly there. They should get their own building or somewhere away from the manger and say what they like there, but not right beside the nativity. That's sort of inciteful to my way of thinking, and we need to watch inciteful.

It is a tasteless tactic and potentially inciteful (though it generally takes much more to incite larges groups of Chrisitans - unlike Muslims.) This can't be argued. However, I don't think it crosses the line of legality or constitutionality. I disagree with both the message and the tactics, but unless you can show it really presents a danger, it should also be protected.
 
Can you show us where the riot is over this?
If a riot or even fight ensues then it is the responsibility of those who put forth the insult, therefore not protected speech. It is a fairly simple concept.



Get over it, it's not illegal. Christianity sucks and is a fairy tale, now are you going to arrest me?
Ok, so let me try your tact. Athiests are arrogant uninformed bigots, get over it. Calling Christianity a fairy tale pretty much makes the point that some athiests are bigots, prove that Christianity is a fairy tale by using scientific law, go 'head, try it, otherwise, get over it.
 
If a riot or even fight ensues then it is the responsibility of those who put forth the insult, therefore not protected speech. It is a fairly simple concept.

There are fights that ensure over football between a couple of people, last I checked that isn't inciting a riot,

Fights are different than riots. You fail.

Ok, so let me try your tact. Athiests are arrogant uninformed bigots, get over it. Calling Christianity a fairy tale pretty much makes the point that some athiests are bigots, prove that Christianity is a fairy tale by using scientific law, go 'head, try it, otherwise, get over it.

The difference is I believe it is your right to say what you want and to express it legally just as these atheists did.

I don't aprove of their methods, but I approve of their right to do so.

Again, you fail.

Try again when you have a clue about freedom of speech and what it means.
 
There are fights that ensure over football between a couple of people, last I checked that isn't inciting a riot,

Fights are different than riots. You fail.
Nice try, but fighting words are ALSO illegal, as I mentioned. Inciting a riot could be a charge if a riot breaks out because of the sign. Educate yourself before you declare a fail.:spin:



The difference is I believe it is your right to say what you want and to express it legally just as these atheists did.
I didn't say the sign was illegal, I said it was in bad taste and "potentially" illegal if it incites a riot of induces a fight. Once again, simple concept, do try to keep up.

I don't aprove of their methods, but I approve of their right to do so.
Fine, but don't declare the right absolute, since the methods could induce destructive behaviors.

Again, you fail.
And again, you do not understand enough of the right to declare such, which is in itself, a fail.

Try again when you have a clue about freedom of speech and what it means.
Okay, I mean I only studied Law and Ethics and politics as part of my broadcasting degree, but whatever you say professor.:roll:
 
Nice try, but fighting words are ALSO illegal, as I mentioned.

Prove the laws that says this, because there are soo many fights that occur during sports seasons that are not considered riots. You fail.

I didn't say the sign was illegal, I said it was in bad taste and "potentially" illegal if it incites a riot of induces a fight. Once again, simple concept, do try to keep up.

Try to keep up they aren't illegal. Deal with it.

Fine, but don't declare the right absolute, since the methods could induce destructive behaviors.

Actually they don't and you will have to show me where such a "sign" from an atheist has incited a riot which is illegal. Until you do so, deal with it.

Okay, I mean I only studied Law and Ethics and politics as part of my broadcasting degree, but whatever you say professor.:roll:

Then you must have received a failing grade to say the nonsense you have. Try a real college.
 
Prove the laws that says this, because there are soo many fights that occur during sports seasons that are not considered riots. You fail.
1942 Chaplinksi v. New Hampshire SCOTUS, Incitement Doctrine(currently practiced by the court)-Actual incitement likely to produce immediate lawless conduct(Brandenburg v. Ohio). Do your own homework, I aced that test.



Try to keep up they aren't illegal. Deal with it.
Do you understand the difference between illegal and potentially illegal?



Actually they don't and you will have to show me where such a "sign" from an atheist has incited a riot which is illegal. Until you do so, deal with it.
Fine, when a christian mob gets tired of things like this and riots, you get to deal with it, and the group that put the sign up gets to deal with the charges, but you aren't even trying to debate honestly, and it shows.
 
1942 Chaplinksi v. New Hampshire SCOTUS, Incitement Doctrine(currently practiced by the court)-Actual incitement likely to produce immediate lawless conduct(Brandenburg v. Ohio). Do your own homework, I aced that test.
Nailed it. I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I too presented the "fighting words docitrine". You are correct. Believing that there are zero limitations to the First Amendment is a fallacy.

By the way, I'll give you a 100. :mrgreen:
 
Nailed it. I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I too presented the "fighting words docitrine". You are correct. Believing that there are zero limitations to the First Amendment is a fallacy.

By the way, I'll give you a 100. :mrgreen:
You Da Man! I forgot which two got me, but it was a terrific class.
 
You Da Man! I forgot which two got me, but it was a terrific class.

Just show the professor my post and this thread. If he does not acquiesce, tell him to join DP and I will ban him as retaliation for his insolent and totally absurd behavior. :mrgreen:
 
I'm sure thenextera will be able to disprove all this. You just wait. :rolleyes:
 
I'm sure thenextera will be able to disprove all this. You just wait. :rolleyes:

Not at all, if you consider those fighting words than anyone saying homosexuality is a sin should also be considered fighting words and immediately arrested for inciting a riot correct?

Take your pick.

Also I have stated Christianity is a fairy tale, therefore I have insulted a religion. According to you those are fighting words, go ahead and try to have me arrested, thus proving your point wrong.
 
Last edited:
Why won't Christmas die? :(
 
Back
Top Bottom