• 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:
But nothing. They don't owe you (or anyone) a damn thing. They don't need to tiptoe around anyone's entitlement issues, either.
Click to expand...

Never said they did. You can keep trying to push this, but I have never tried to make that point.

cmakaioz said:
Actually, that's not pretense. NEITHER of us knows their intent...but that's a moot point because their intent doesn't @#$@#%@ matter.
Click to expand...

Intent does matter when you are attempting to deliver a message.

cmakaioz said:
So, once again, the core premises of YOUR position boil down to the following:

Assertion of ill intent on the part of the atheists;
Assertion of nefarious machination on the part of the atheists (i.e. hoping for their display to be vandalized);
Misattribution of action (i.e. the CITY government responded to vandalism against the atheist display by shutting all the displays down...but you continue to frame this as a matter of problematic action by the atheists...)

Yeah...that's clear as mud.
Click to expand...

My premise is that they ruined a 60 year Christmas tradition just to promote their anti-religion message. That makes them dicks and terrible atheists. Had they just wanted to display non-religious seasonal greetings, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
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...

Similar, the dolts vandalizeing the Athiest signs make those against the athiests actions look dumb.

That said...I agree completely with you general idea here. How about, if you dislike the notion of a nativity up as a christmas display and you have your own section, that you use your section to celebrate the secular traditions of the holiday instead? What the **** does "anti-god" posters have to do, AT ALL, with celebrating Christmas...be it the traditional holiday or the secular one?

As part of the public that is not significantly religious, I would be FAR more receptive to someone using local public property to put up a nativity display during CHRISTMAS than I would a bunch of "anti-god" signs, because at least that actually corresponds to the reason the land is being open to public use....because of the celebratoin of December Holidays.
 
Monserrat said:
I have suggested none of that :cool:

Atheists do not believe in God, they do not have a collective creed to spread messages about they do not need to post messages about another religion which they do not believe in.
Click to expand...

True...but they have neither the need nor the obligation to REFRAIN from doing so, and those who ARE religious are NOT owed any special deference or insulation from critique.

It doesn't matter if the nativity had been on display for 6 years or 6 minutes or 6 centuries. It doesn't matter if little kids were involved or not. All that nonsense is completely irrelevant.

Monserrat said:
The fact that one atheist and those that he organized chose a time and a place where practicing Christians have a longstanding tradition of coming together to celebrate their faith with their families in peace, to place signs about that religion says a lot...
Click to expand...

It MAY, but (just as with the other hysterical speculations), it may simply be a matter of relevance. The use of the PUBLIC SPACE to host a nativity scene is no better or worse than using it to pose a question or challenge about the beliefs related to that scene.

Monserrat said:
He's an asshole. But like I said, he has a legal right to be one.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone arguing that it was illegal, so that too is irrelevant.

As for him being an asshole...what on earth is your basis for that assessment, if not your privileging of the religious folks who put up the nativity scene?

For example, if there was an atheist display put up first, and then some religious folks put up a nativity scene afterwards, would the folks who set up the nativity scene suddenly become the assholes?

The nativity scene isn't owed any special deference or veneration. The atheist display was quite mild. Folks in the U.S. often seem to have this completely unwarranted notion that no longer tiptoeing around religious displays is tantamount to aggressively mocking them or going out of one's way to provoke hostility.

If the atheist display was something genuinely obnoxious (like a sign saying "Mary was a whore! HAHAHAHA!"), then...MAYBE I could see calling him an asshole. But simply putting up a display inviting people to examine their views...how is that in any way ass-hole-ish?
 
Ray410 said:
There is no denying that atheists cannot stand for others to have the faith in God that the atheists lack. Actually, it's far beyond that, atheists are enraged that others have faith. Atheists are always on the attack. Much of that rage and hate appears to be the pathology of the homosexuals who have been demanding others not have faith for 40 years, but there is more.

Why would that be? Why wouldn't atheists simply mind their own business and keep their lack of beliefs to themselves and not worry about what others believe? Contrary to their constant braying, atheists are not inconvenienced by the fact that others display their faith. Often their mantra is separation of church and state or some other such terrible event that will happen if others are allowed to have faith in God.

Atheists are truly pitiful, doomed creatures with nothing of substance to offer civilized society. The rest of us thank God that we are not in those circumstances.
Click to expand...


Bull ****! The problem is the xians demanding special accommodations for their faith and when they are called out for this behaviour, they claim persecution. Bloody hell! Xians are the majority in this nation. In some places you can see a church on every block, (not in big cities but in some places) Why then do the xians demand that they and they alone be allowed to use public space for their specific faith? No one is blocking the various religions from putting up what ever display they wish - as long as it is not on land owned by the public.

Atheists are not on the "attack", they are finally after many years of staying quiet simply asking for equal rights - yet for some reason equal rights for atheists is seen as an attack on those all too often special rights that xians have claimed for years in this nation.

You and "others are allowed to have faith in God." No atheist, individual or group is saying you can't hold any faith and irrational belief you want but why should you be the only ones allowed to use public facilities for proselytization?

"Contrary to their constant braying, atheists are not inconvenienced by the fact that others display their faith." Really? It depends on what part of this country you live in. When state legislatures pass laws that allow a business owner to fire an employee simply because of the employee's faith or lack thereof, when bills are enacted that allow an employer to control the health decisions of their employees based on the employer's religious beliefs AND when those laws are used by an atheist to fire or control the actions of employees - THEN you will have a valid complaint.

and what do "homosexuals" have to do with atheism?
 
Zyphlin said:
Similar, the dolts vandalizeing the Athiest signs make those against the athiests actions look dumb.

That said...I agree completely with you general idea here. How about, if you dislike the notion of a nativity up as a christmas display and you have your own section, that you use your section to celebrate the secular traditions of the holiday instead? What the **** does "anti-god" posters have to do, AT ALL, with celebrating Christmas...be it the traditional holiday or the secular one?
Click to expand...

This is completely anecdotal, but in my hometown the city allowed other faiths to put up holiday displays alongside the christian nativity. Within the first week of the Wiccan pentagram being put up, local christian vandals ripped it down with a chain and pickup truck in the middle of the night. Then they complained that other religions wanted a war on Christmas. To me it seems very opposite, that the war is really a fight for exclusivity of christian religious displays on public property. If a municipality is going to selectively allow only certain religions to display their religious symbols on public property, then they shouldn't allow any.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I would argue it stops at good taste and this doesn't leave me with a good taste.
Click to expand...

Um...OK...so whenever someone, somewhere wants to put up some kind of a display...instead of consulting their city council (or similar), they should just call/email you?

Forgive me if that seems to me to be a bit...arbitrary and cumbersome.
 
JRog said:
This is completely anecdotal, but in my hometown the city allowed other faiths to put up holiday displays alongside the christian nativity. Within the first week of the Wiccan pentagram being put up, local christian vandals ripped it down with a chain and pickup truck in the middle of the night. Then they complained that other religions wanted a war on Christmas. To me it seems very opposite, that the war is really a fight for exclusivity of christian religious displays on public property. If a municipality is going to selectively allow only certain religions to display their religious symbols on public property, then they shouldn't allow any.
Click to expand...

I can agree with this. But the difference I see here is that the atheists weren't putting up a holiday display. Had it been a holiday display I wouldn't be arguing with the decision.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I can agree with this. But the difference I see here is that the atheists weren't putting up a holiday display. Had it been a holiday display I wouldn't be arguing with the decision.
Click to expand...

don't you get that to them Christmas is NOT a holiday to be celebrated, so this season is like any other ... except that they get to use it to frame their own message
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I can agree with this. But the difference I see here is that the atheists weren't putting up a holiday display. Had it been a holiday display I wouldn't be arguing with the decision.
Click to expand...

There's a deep disconnect going on here. Your posts repeatedly imply some sort of obligation to go along with a holiday message, or spread good cheer, or whatever.

Where, exactly, does this completely arbitrary obligation come from?
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I would argue it stops at good taste and this doesn't leave me with a good taste.
Click to expand...

It doesn't leave you with a good taste that public property shouldn't be used for christian proselytization to the exclusion of other faiths?
 
JRog said:
It stops at public property, paid for in part by athiest tax dollars.
Click to expand...

don't forget others with non-xian beliefs are also paying taxes for that public park. In other parts of the country where towns tried the balanced approach, some folks simply couldn't deal with it.

Here are a couple more of those infamous Atheist signs from the park in Santa Monica

a5_99.jpg

charlie1a.jpg


Yep - really hateful stuff :roll:
 
cmakaioz said:
Um...OK...so whenever someone, somewhere wants to put up some kind of a display...instead of consulting their city council (or similar), they should just call/email you?

Forgive me if that seems to me to be a bit...arbitrary and cumbersome.
Click to expand...


The whole premise of this debate isn't a legal one. We can all agree that what happened was exactly what should have happen. The atheists and christians both are allowed displays. The debate I am presenting is that the atheists pick a bad time and place to try and promote their message. The whole celebration of the season is about peace. The atheists decided that this was a great time to deliver a message of intolerance. IMO, it weakens their message just as much as whomever vandalized their display had their message weaken by that action.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I can agree with this. But the difference I see here is that the atheists weren't putting up a holiday display. Had it been a holiday display I wouldn't be arguing with the decision.
Click to expand...

Therein lies the problem with allowing religious displays. Athiests are sort of an enigma in that they don't have a common belief system. They are unified by not being religious. The only thing they have in common with all athiests is that they don't believe in god. But what about the random satanist, or muslim, or wiccan? When these groups put up religious displays, they are normally vandalized and torn down. The only reason the christian nativity doesn't normally suffer the same fate is because christians are the majority religion. If the christian faith ever becomes the minority, I bet we'll see a start reversal of their stances on religious displays on public property.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
The whole premise of this debate isn't a legal one. We can all agree that what happened was exactly what should have happen. The atheists and christians both are allowed displays. The debate I am presenting is that the atheists pick a bad time and place to try and promote their message. The whole celebration of the season is about peace. The atheists decided that this was a great time to deliver a message of intolerance. IMO, it weakens their message just as much as whomever vandalized their display had their message weaken by that action.
Click to expand...
tell us exactly, how does this (timing) weaken their message?
 
Somerville said:
Yep - really hateful stuff :roll:
Click to expand...

Well...CLEARLY "an abundance of joy and peace" is atheist code-speak for a week-long orgy of unprotected anal sex with communist job-stealing robots.

They should really crack down on hate groups like this. They're UnAmerican(TM)
 
Chaddelamancha said:
The whole premise of this debate isn't a legal one. We can all agree that what happened was exactly what should have happen. The atheists and christians both are allowed displays. The debate I am presenting is that the atheists pick a bad time and place to try and promote their message. The whole celebration of the season is about peace. The atheists decided that this was a great time to deliver a message of intolerance. IMO, it weakens their message just as much as whomever vandalized their display had their message weaken by that action.
Click to expand...

Vandalism I'd say is fairly intolerant. Wishing some one Happy Holidays as in Sommerviles post above is not intolerant.
 
JRog said:
It doesn't leave you with a good taste that public property shouldn't be used for christian proselytization to the exclusion of other faiths?
Click to expand...

Ruining a 60 year holiday tradition because you can stand the sight of a nativity scene doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth.
 
Yes we all need to learn to repect other people's shrine of resistance to modern revelations.
 
cmakaioz said:
Well...CLEARLY "an abundance of joy and peace" is atheist code-speak for a week-long orgy of unprotected anal sex with communist job-stealing robots.

They should really crack down on hate groups like this. They're UnAmerican(TM)
Click to expand...

You can pretend like all of them said Happy Solstice or joy and peace but it's just not truthful. It's the ones that were there solely as an anti-religious message that I have a problem with.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Because this is a petty fight. All that was accomplished was a nativity scene was taking down from a park.
Click to expand...

but only after those displays of the non-Christian representatives were trashed by vandals, right?
appears the vandals won
the atheists lost nothing
and the Christians are whining ... does that symbolize their victory?
 
Last edited:
Chaddelamancha said:
The whole premise of this debate isn't a legal one. We can all agree that what happened was exactly what should have happen. The atheists and christians both are allowed displays. The debate I am presenting is that the atheists pick a bad time and place to try and promote their message.
Click to expand...

It's not your place or mine to judge good or bad timing. Logically speaking, it makes perfect sense for someone who'd like people to examine their belief systems to set up such a display at the same time and place as an obvious symbol of such beliefs.

Chaddelamancha said:
The whole celebration of the season is about peace.
Click to expand...

The whole "season" and "holiday" crap is completely irrelevant. The nativity display (or ANY holiday display, for that matter) isn't owed any kind of special deference.

Chaddelamancha said:
The atheists decided that this was a great time to deliver a message of intolerance.
Click to expand...

They did no such thing. Since their display was NOT a message of intolerance in the first place, this is complete bull**** on your part.

Once AGAIN: calling upon people to examine their beliefs is not intolerance, or attack, or an infringement in any way upon them.

Chaddelamancha said:
IMO, it weakens their message just as much as whomever vandalized their display had their message weaken by that action.
Click to expand...

It's not your place to decide or judge their message or their intent in terms of it's alleged or imagined relationship to the nativity scene, because NONE of the parties involved owe any kind of special kid-glove treatment or deference in the first place.

Unless you subscribe (as you seem to) to some variation of the principle that religious displays and beliefs deserve special exemptions and protections with regards to speech, then the nativity display is no more (and no less) deserving of the protections and requirements demanded of any other publicly displayed content, whether it be a calmly reasoned but passionate opinion essay, an ad for the local plumber, a YouTube video of kittens doing something cute, or a random piece of abstract art.

In simplest terms: the nativity display is NOT special.
 
We feel the same way about the religious spreading thier message.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom