• 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!

Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court

cmakaioz said:
There's no such thing as a right -- legally or ethically -- to insulation from contrary views.
Click to expand...

Legally most certainly there is nothing wrong with contrary views.

Ethically? I'll have to call BS on that one. There is a time and a place for everything. Is it ethical for West Borro Batist Church to hold thier protests at a gay soldiers funeral? It is most definiately legal. But ethical? Hell no. Everyone crys out against them for doing so. So why is it that when someone posts negative things about religion during a time when that religion is celebrating its holiday its OK?
 
rjay said:
Ahh, it seems you need to refer to the OP

never mind, I will quote from it

"The committee, comprising churches that are behind the nativity display, is suing in federal court, claiming the city violated their freedom of speech by stopping the holiday tradition"

No one is suing over the atheists right to put up their own displays.
Click to expand...

so suing to protect their perceived violation of freedom of speech was not a court action seeking to defend rights?
who knew
thanks for the edification [/s]
 
cmakaioz said:
It's your (and my, and anyone's) prerogative and ability to judge, but that doesn't mean we're owed anything according to that judgment.



The atheist display reflected what that atheist wanted to express during that holiday time. He is not obligated legally OR ethically to tiptoe around your completely arbitrary implication that religious messages have more of a right to that public space.



The atheist message is no more or less appropriate for a holiday display than anything else, including an ad for the local plumber, random art, or a birdfeeder.

This seems to be the sticking point...ONE of the following must be true of your position:

Either:
a) you maintain -- without explanation or warrant -- that the obviously religious nativity scene has some kind of special and superior claim to the use of public real estate for the holiday displays, such that it must be given special insulation from any contrary viewpoints or expression (which would run afoul of the separation doctrine);

or

b) you DON'T endorse special protection, in which case ANYONE else with ANY message (short of fighting words/open calls to break the law) must, by logical consistency, be afforded the same opportunity for using the display space.



Once AGAIN, stop with the hysterical bull****. There has been no evidence of any such takeover. If I sit next to someone on the bus or the subway, and keep my elbows in, I have not taken over THEIR seat.



On this point you are flat out wrong. Intolerance would be attempting to stop a religious symbol or message from even having a space at all. Ironically, it is YOUR position which is turning out to be intolerant. If we did it by your preference, the atheist display shouldn't be granted fair and equal opportunity for exposure (or at the very least, should be irrationally regarded as inappropriate or provocative despite its very mild content).



See above. Either you play fair -- without any special protection for religious messages and symbols -- or you are actually in favor of special exemptions and protections for religious expression.



No one is contesting the right to judge. The point is the glaring hypocrisy. You object to a very mild, tame, indirect critique of a religious symbol, but then you insist that the critique itself (the atheist display) must be open to judgement.



You keep repeating, over and over, the contention that the atheist display somehow constitutes "being a dick", and yet thus far you haven't made so much as a gesture towards explaining what appears to be a massive double standard.



REALITY CHECK: The atheists who set up their display did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop people from visiting the nativity display.

Do you realize that? NOTHING.

Your posts are becoming hysterical (not as in funny, but as in responding based upon raw emotion instead of facts).
Click to expand...

You're wrong. Dix purposely recruited a bunch of his atheist buddies to enter into the lottery just to stop the nativity display from being shown. That is a take over. They didn't stop anybody from visiting the display, they just made the area arguably more hostile to go visit.

Look, legally they are within their rights. Doesn't make their moves anything less than dick moves.
 
I won't respond to the "tradition" nonsense, except to point out that arguing in favor of tradition-for-tradition's-sake is little more than an ad populum fallacy.

Monserrat said:
What he did was pick the time of the year when he knew Christians would be celebrating their traditions and the place where they went with their families to celebrate it. That's what makes him an asshole.
Click to expand...

Hmm...so in order to NOT be an dick/asshole/take-your-pick-of-derogatory-terms, he should have afforded special protection to an obvious and highly visible expression of religious reverence by specifically refraining from placing his message in an context where he quite reasonably expected it to get the most exposure?

Sorry, that just doesn't compute UNLESS you subscribe to the notion that the religious display is owed some kind of special protection.

Point blank: There is no right to insulation from contrary views.


Monserrat said:
*
It's kind of pathetic actually.
Click to expand...

I agree, but from the completely opposite stance. I find it pathetic that such an obvious case of asserting a right of special protection from critique isn't recognized as such. The "he didn't do anything illegal, but he was being a dick" view boils down, one way or another, to arguing that either religious displays have a superior claim on public space, or (less flagrant but still irrational and authoritarian) that certain ways of doing things should be deferred to **solely because they've been that way for a while**.

Pardon me if I consider both of those to be bull****.
 
justabubba said:
so suing to protect their perceived violation of freedom of speech was not a court action seeking to defend rights?
who knew
thanks for the edification [/s]
Click to expand...

I said "no one is questioning the atheists rights" meaning their right to display their message.

You said "then why was this question taken before the courts (only to lose) ?"

I pointed out that the comittee of churches is suing the city. So the lawsuit does not directly involve the atheists

then you reply with -

justabubba said:
so suing to protect their perceived violation of freedom of speech was not a court action seeking to defend rights?
who knew
thanks for the edification [/s]
Click to expand...

I am at a loss. I am unable to comprehend for you.

And on top off all that - this started by one sentence that was a little too general and that sentence had little to do with the point I was making.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
You're wrong. Dix purposely recruited a bunch of his atheist buddies to enter into the lottery just to stop the nativity display from being shown. That is a take over. They didn't stop anybody from visiting the display, they just made the area arguably more hostile to go visit.

Look, legally they are within their rights. Doesn't make their moves anything less than dick moves.
Click to expand...

EMPIRICAL, FACTUAL question:

YES OR NO:

Has there been any evidence presented to indicate that the atheists in question illegally rigged the lottery for display spots?

Was the nativity display prevented from being displayed, at any time, by the DIRECT action of the atheists who set up their own display?

ANSWER to both: NO.

Your stance on this is hysterical. The atheist display WAS, in fact, vandalized (someone interfered with THEIR right to display their message).

The nativity display was NOT vandalized. It was ultimately removed along with all other displays in response to selective vandalism by city government order.

This is a classic dogmatic revision of reality: the atheist display was in fact the one violated, not the nativity scene.

After further review of the article, the entitlement and oblivious privilege involved is even worse than I expected.

The proponents of the nativity display are whining like little crybabies because they used to not have to deal with many others seeking a display spot. This time, however, instead of their usual FOURTEEN spots, they "only" got two. BooHoo.

Guess what, folks? Welcome to life. Grow a god damn spine already. Newsflash: there are other people in the world. Learn to take turns.
 
cmakaioz said:
EMPIRICAL, FACTUAL question:

YES OR NO:

Has there been any evidence presented to indicate that the atheists in question illegally rigged the lottery for display spots?

Was the nativity display prevented from being displayed, at any time, by the DIRECT action of the atheists who set up their own display?

ANSWER to both: NO.

Your stance on this is hysterical. The atheist display WAS, in fact, vandalized (someone interfered with THEIR right to display their message).

The nativity display was NOT vandalized. It was ultimately removed along with all other displays in response to selective vandalism by city government order.

This is a classic dogmatic revision of reality: the atheist display was in fact the one violated, not the nativity scene.

After further review of the article, the entitlement and oblivious privilege involved is even worse than I expected.

The proponents of the nativity display are whining like little crybabies because they used to not have to deal with many others seeking a display spot. This time, however, instead of their usual FOURTEEN spots, they "only" got two. BooHoo.

Guess what, folks? Welcome to life. Grow a god damn spine already. Newsflash: there are other people in the world. Learn to take turns.
Click to expand...

The ONLY reason Dix wanted to take over those spots was merely because he was offended by the nativity display (Oh my!). This isn't about taking turns, or fairness, it was a takeover of a benign christmas holiday. That's not hysteria, that is fact. Sure, he did it under the guise of free speech, but to ignore the intent behind it is ridiculous. It was petty and pathetic. Dix is essentially the Grinch and just stole the Whovillians Christmas tree. Congrats on the big victory.
 
Two atheists arguing over an action taken by other atheists.
both agree that the other atheists were within their rights to do what they did
One says the intent behind it showed dickishness
the other says - the intenet is not known and should not be judged.

One wishes to inject common sense and good manners into the discussion
the other feels that if an atheist did it - then I shall defend it.

Guess who is who?

I am judging - it showed dickishness.
 
cmakaioz said:
I won't respond to the "tradition" nonsense, except to point out that arguing in favor of tradition-for-tradition's-sake is little more than an ad populum fallacy.
Click to expand...
Good, because I wasn't arguing in favor of tradition for traditions sake.



Hmm...so in order to NOT be an dick/asshole/take-your-pick-of-derogatory-terms, he should have afforded special protection to an obvious and highly visible expression of religious reverence by specifically refraining from placing his message in an context where he quite reasonably expected it to get the most exposure?

Sorry, that just doesn't compute UNLESS you subscribe to the notion that the religious display is owed some kind of special protection.

Point blank: There is no right to insulation from contrary views.
Click to expand...

I also wasn't arguing in favor of special protection of the religious.




I agree, but from the completely opposite stance. I find it pathetic that such an obvious case of asserting a right of special protection from critique isn't recognized as such. The "he didn't do anything illegal, but he was being a dick" view boils down, one way or another, to arguing that either religious displays have a superior claim on public space, or (less flagrant but still irrational and authoritarian) that certain ways of doing things should be deferred to **solely because they've been that way for a while**.

Pardon me if I consider both of those to be bull****.
Click to expand...

Again, not arguing for any special protection, just pointing out the fact that Vix and his friends were being assholes. It's a very simple yet accurate assertion based on the fact that atheism has nothing to do with religion or religious holidays yet they deliberately got together to try to derail something that held a lot of meaning for other people and their families. I could call it vindictive but I think just calling it a dick move is more accurate :cool:
 
Chaddelamancha said:
The ONLY reason Dix wanted to take over those spots was merely because he was offended by the nativity display (Oh my!). This isn't about taking turns, or fairness, it was a takeover of a benign christmas holiday. That's not hysteria, that is fact. Sure, he did it under the guise of free speech, but to ignore the intent behind it is ridiculous. It was petty and pathetic. Dix is essentially the Grinch and just stole the Whovillians Christmas tree. Congrats on the big victory.
Click to expand...

Except you're factually wrong.

The presence of the atheist displays did not stop the nativity display.

Try to get this through your head:

THE PUBLIC DISPLAY PLACE IS JUST THAT...PUBLIC. IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE NATIVITY GROUP OR THE ATHEISTS.

You are confusing loss of dominance and erosion of PRIVILEGE with "takeover" or real loss.


You seem to be missing two rather glaring points here:

1) The nativity display was up for around 60 years straight because no other party exercised their EQUAL right to request a display space (NOT because it belongs to the nativity group -- it DOESN'T-- and NOT because designation of the area as a "holiday" space confers any superior claim on the part of the nativity group --it DOESN'T) ;

2) Any and all speculations about intent of the atheists are completely irrelevant, because they don't owe it to you -- or to the nativity folks -- to have any particular specific intent in the first place. If they wanted to put up a bunch of displays of random objects, that would be every bit as legitimate (not just legally, mind you, but ethically) a use of the space as using it for a nativity scene. If you maintain the opposite -- that the nativity scene is owed some kind of deference, then that boils down to either rejecting the separation doctrine, or asserting supremacy of tradition-for-tradition's sake.
 
Last edited:
Can't necessarily blame anyone of faith for vandalizing the atheist's signs. Could have been other atheists for all we know. They clearly like to do things to be noticed why would an atheist post anti God signs? To what purpose other than to say "Look at me! I'm bold and progressive!"

but the simplest solution would be for the city to cancel Christmas altogether. No retail bump, no vacation days, everybody back to work. Just another day in California.
 
tech30528 said:
Can't necessarily blame anyone of faith for vandalizing the atheist's signs. Could have been other atheists for all we know. They clearly like to do things to be noticed why would an atheist post anti God signs? To what purpose other than to say "Look at me! I'm bold and progressive!"

but the simplest solution would be for the city to cancel Christmas altogether. No retail bump, no vacation days, everybody back to work. Just another day in California.
Click to expand...


Isn't that just special! :roll: So xians have the 'right' in your opinion to cause damage to private property if they feel offended by what they see? That is quite close to the argument used by some women haters who will excuse rape because the victim was "asking for it" by wearing sexy clothes or Pat Robertson saying we need to excuse Gen Petraeus behaviour because he's a man.

Step back from the keyboard and think about what you just posted.
 
cmakaioz said:
Except you're factually wrong.

The presence of the atheist displays did not stop the nativity display.

Try to get this through your head:

THE PUBLIC DISPLAY PLACE IS JUST THAT...PUBLIC. IT DOESN'T BELONG TO THE NATIVITY GROUP OR THE ATHEISTS.

You are confusing loss of dominance and erosion of PRIVILEGE with "takeover" or real loss.


You seem to be missing two rather glaring points here:

1) The nativity display was up for around 60 years straight because no other party exercised their EQUAL right to request a display space (NOT because it belongs to the nativity group -- it DOESN'T-- and NOT because designation of the area as a "holiday" space confers any superior claim on the part of the nativity group --it DOESN'T) ;

2) Any and all speculations about intent of the atheists are completely irrelevant, because they don't owe it to you -- or to the nativity folks -- to have any particular specific intent in the first place. If they wanted to put up a bunch of displays of random objects, that would be every bit as legitimate (not just legally, mind you, but ethically) a use of the space as using it for a nativity scene. If you maintain the opposite -- that the nativity scene is owed some kind of deference, then that boils down to either rejecting the separation doctrine, or asserting supremacy of tradition-for-tradition's sake.
Click to expand...

My my, who's being hysterical? I am not arguing about who owns what. I am not saying that the nativity scene was owed anything, or that the atheist owe me anything. What I am saying is the ruining a 60 year christmas tradition to put up anti-religious signs is a vindictive dick move and any person with any type of morals wouldn't do it. As an atheist, it makes me upset that this is how they chose to represent us.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
These atheist are what give us a bad name. You can't stand to see a nativity scene? Really? You going to get Christmas banned altogether? The whole holiday is based on pagan foundations, so to fight any part of the holiday is to effectively fight the entire holiday. It's silly, it's petty, and it's not what any decent atheist would/should do. Pathetic.
Click to expand...
Thank you from a Christian.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
It is my assumption that they were doing it because they dicks. Others think they were doing it to spread their message. Difference of opinion, that's how arguments get started.
Click to expand...

Perchance. Yet what I see here boarders on the self-loathing. Sure maybe the atheists were dicks. But it's a free country and it doesn't mean the rest of us must be as well. The issue here.was not some atheists running their mouths but rather the vandalism. Sure people are dicks sometimes, but in a free society that is to be expected.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
My my, who's being hysterical? I am not arguing about who owns what. I am not saying that the nativity scene was owed anything,
Click to expand...

Yes, you ARE implying that...because you are implying that the mere PRESENCE of the atheist display MAGICALLY and INEXPLICABLY "ruins" the nativity display.

Back to REALITY: the atheists followed the same process for getting a display space, and it is the atheists' displays, not the nativity scene, which were vandalized.

Chaddelamancha said:
What I am saying is the ruining a 60 year christmas tradition
Click to expand...

The atheists DIDN'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL to the nativity display. You keep posting as if they did.

You also keep posting as if the tradition part changes anything. It doesn't. That space doesn't belong to the nativity folks, any more than a certain seat on the bus or the train belongs to you just because you happen to get it most of the time on your commute. The holiday space belongs to the public, not to any particular constituency within that public.

Chaddelamancha said:
to put up anti-religious signs is a vindictive dick move
Click to expand...

This is ultimately the core of your case. In your mind, putting up signs critical of religious faith is apparently "a dick move" no matter what.

Never mind the fact that putting up signs doesn't prevent anyone from seeing the nativity scene. Apparently, those poor fragile Christians are just so incredibly sensitive and vulnerable that using two of the PUBLIC display spaces instead of their previous fourteen PUBLIC spaces sends their world spinning. Oh no! Whatever will they do! Wherever will they go!

Chaddelamancha said:
and any person with any type of morals wouldn't do it. As an atheist, it makes me upset that this is how they chose to represent us.
Click to expand...

They did not choose to represent us, and they do NOT represent us, for better OR for worse. Their displays represent THEM, not some grand global imaginary cabal of worldwide atheist-dom.
 
cmakaioz said:
It's your (and my, and anyone's) prerogative and ability to judge, but that doesn't mean we're owed anything according to that judgment.



The atheist display reflected what that atheist wanted to express during that holiday time. He is not obligated legally OR ethically to tiptoe around your completely arbitrary implication that religious messages have more of a right to that public space.



The atheist message is no more or less appropriate for a holiday display than anything else, including an ad for the local plumber, random art, or a birdfeeder.

This seems to be the sticking point...ONE of the following must be true of your position:

Either:
a) you maintain -- without explanation or warrant -- that the obviously religious nativity scene has some kind of special and superior claim to the use of public real estate for the holiday displays, such that it must be given special insulation from any contrary viewpoints or expression (which would run afoul of the separation doctrine);

or

b) you DON'T endorse special protection, in which case ANYONE else with ANY message (short of fighting words/open calls to break the law) must, by logical consistency, be afforded the same opportunity for using the display space.



Once AGAIN, stop with the hysterical bull****. There has been no evidence of any such takeover. If I sit next to someone on the bus or the subway, and keep my elbows in, I have not taken over THEIR seat.



On this point you are flat out wrong. Intolerance would be attempting to stop a religious symbol or message from even having a space at all. Ironically, it is YOUR position which is turning out to be intolerant. If we did it by your preference, the atheist display shouldn't be granted fair and equal opportunity for exposure (or at the very least, should be irrationally regarded as inappropriate or provocative despite its very mild content).



See above. Either you play fair -- without any special protection for religious messages and symbols -- or you are actually in favor of special exemptions and protections for religious expression.



No one is contesting the right to judge. The point is the glaring hypocrisy. You object to a very mild, tame, indirect critique of a religious symbol, but then you insist that the critique itself (the atheist display) must be open to judgement.



You keep repeating, over and over, the contention that the atheist display somehow constitutes "being a dick", and yet thus far you haven't made so much as a gesture towards explaining what appears to be a massive double standard.



REALITY CHECK: The atheists who set up their display did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop people from visiting the nativity display.

Do you realize that? NOTHING.

Your posts are becoming hysterical (not as in funny, but as in responding based upon raw emotion instead of facts).
Click to expand...

You have the patience of a saint.
 
Christians are angry that after 1500 years of hegemony they can't effect a sham trial and burn heretics at the stake anymore.

Due to a thing we call the Constitution.

Considering the deists among the founding fathers, that must really burn you.

Like Chief Justice Roberts.
 
Last edited:
cmakaioz said:
Yes, you ARE implying that...because you are implying that the mere PRESENCE of the atheist display MAGICALLY and INEXPLICABLY "ruins" the nativity display.

Back to REALITY: the atheists followed the same process for getting a display space, and it is the atheists' displays, not the nativity scene, which were vandalized.



The atheists DIDN'T DO ANYTHING AT ALL to the nativity display. You keep posting as if they did.

You also keep posting as if the tradition part changes anything. It doesn't. That space doesn't belong to the nativity folks, any more than a certain seat on the bus or the train belongs to you just because you happen to get it most of the time on your commute. The holiday space belongs to the public, not to any particular constituency within that public.



This is ultimately the core of your case. In your mind, putting up signs critical of religious faith is apparently "a dick move" no matter what.

Never mind the fact that putting up signs doesn't prevent anyone from seeing the nativity scene. Apparently, those poor fragile Christians are just so incredibly sensitive and vulnerable that using two of the PUBLIC display spaces instead of their previous fourteen PUBLIC spaces sends their world spinning. Oh no! Whatever will they do! Wherever will they go!



They did not choose to represent us, and they do NOT represent us, for better OR for worse. Their displays represent THEM, not some grand global imaginary cabal of worldwide atheist-dom.
Click to expand...

You are argument has nothing to do with my argument. It doesn't matter to me whether or not it was a nativity scene, if it was Santa and his reindeer, or some naked wood nymph celebrating her pagan holiday. The point I am arguing is this isn't free speech, it's not about giving the atheist the same rights as anyone else, but this is a bad atheist thinking that they are so ****ing entitled to the same thing as everyone else, they don't give a **** what they ruin.

I would be the first in line to protest if they wanted to change the motto of the USA to "Love Jesus or Else".

But what I won't do is ruin a traditional Christmas display because my ****ing feelers got hurt every time I walked by the park and saw a nativity scene. What next? Take a lollipop from a child because it's shaped like a cross.
 
Dittohead not! said:
and the war on Christmas begins! Just in time for the 2012 season. Bring up a lawn chair and watch the fireworks.

Current score: Christians, 0, Atheists, 0, but the Atheists have the ball. This one could be an exciting game.
Click to expand...

haters-gonna-hate-puffin.jpg
 
spanky said:
Christians are angry that after 1500 years of hegemony they can't effect a sham trial and burn heretics at the stake anymore.

Due to a thing we call the Constitution.

Considering the deists among the founding fathers, that must really burn you.

Like Chief Justice Roberts.
Click to expand...

Being not a Christian, this does not bother me. I very much respect our founding fathers. Bet they wouldn't get all up in a roar because of a nativity scene.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Being not a Christian, this does not bother me. I very much respect our founding fathers. Bet they wouldn't get all up in a roar because of a nativity scene.
Click to expand...

There was no uproar over a nativity scene. But it does appear there was an uproar over an atheistivity scene.
 
Some people just don't get it.

The founding fathers made us a Christian nation so we could require our children to say prayers in school so they would grow up to be good Christians.
 
Rainman05 said:
Oh look... atheists organizing themselves into taking a united stance... an ideological united stance against a religion, which is also an ideology. Much like a religion would. Amazing. Who would have ever perceived that atheism could start being dogmatic.

Me. That's who.
Click to expand...

Gawd, not this ridiculous stance again. Hey, look - I don't do drugs. That means I really do drugs because well.... no drugs = drugs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom