• 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

The crime is irrelevant to the comments until it is known who actually did the crime. Until then the only fact involved is that the atheists who put up the offensive signs were being dicks, period.

That's your opinion.
I may or may not share it.


There was nothing offensive at all in the religious displays, nothing.

And again whats your point. Or do you even have one beside "the atheist were being dicks".
Not reason enough to vandalize their displays.

And if they were dicks.so what?
Free Country,Blackdog,Free Country.
Like it or not that is just the way it is.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
I like living in a country were even speech that may be offensive to some is protected under the Law.
If you found what the atheists put up to be offensive that is both your right and your problem,not mine.
I really couldn't care less if you do or don't.
You again have shown a perfect example of what we are talking about. Thank you.

A proud American exercising his First Amendment Right to express his Opinion in a open forum whether you like it or not,whether you approve or not,whether it offends you or not,without needing your permission to do so.And I've broken no rules here in doing so.
You're welcome.
 
Last edited:
That's your opinion.
I may or may not share it.

OK.

And again whats your point. Or do you even have one beside "the atheist were being dicks".
Not reason enough to vandalize their displays.

Actually you probably did not see my initial post. Both sides were being asses as I see it. And again we don't know who vandalized the displays although I suspect it was most likely angry Christians. I can understand there anger, but not the vandalism if they indeed did so.

Again both sides escalated it to the point of being childish in the end. As for the crime itself. It is no more important than political signs being stolen in every election cycle. A misdemeanor crime of vandalism is far from serious.

And if they were dicks.so what?
Free Country,Blackdog,Free Country.
Like it or not that is just the way it is.
I wouldn't want it any other way.
I like living in a country were even speech that may be offensive to some is protected under the Law.
If you found what the atheists put up to be offensive that is both your right and your problem,not mine.
I really couldn't care less if you do or don't.

Then why do you care so much if people have a difference of opinion? I mean in one breath you say you don't care, then in another you say you are sick of it and people need to stop. So which is it?

A proud American exercising his First Amendment Right to express his Opinion in a open forum whether you like it or not,whether you approve or not,whether it offends you or not,without needing your permission to do so.And I've broken no rules here in doing so.
You're welcome.

Where did the proud American thing come from? And as for the rest, I have no idea where the needing permission came from as I said nothing even remotely applicable. I also have no idea where the rules being broken came from as again I said nothing even remotely related?

So I guess I will say again people don't have to be a dicks about religion, holidays or anything else people may or may not be or agree with.
 
In the Israeli City od Nazareth it is an offence to display anything in public relating to Christianity. This includes Christmas trees, nativity displays and crucifixes etc.

A rabbi visiting NY about a decade ago, complained about a Christmas tree being displayed at JFK airport, and authorities had to dismantle it.

These anti-Christian actions are very common in the USA

In many Isreli cities Jewish Orthodox followers burn copies of the Gospels in the streets.


Nice list of anti-Semitic claims with little substance

It wasn't in "NY about a decade ago" but in Seattle about six years past. And it was due to a misunderstanding
Christmas trees returned to Sea-Tac Airport

The Christmas spirit has returned to Sea-Tac Airport.

The Port of Seattle, which had been battered internationally for removing 14 Christmas trees last week in response to a rabbi's threat of a federal lawsuit, began reinstalling the displays Monday night.


In Nazareth, it is only Christmas trees that are banned and it appears to be the work of the Mayor and nobody else
Christmas Trees Are Still Banned in Nazareth Illit

That Christmas tree ban that Shimon Gapso, the mayor of the Israeli town of Nazareth Illit, enacted last year still stands. Around holiday time last year, Gapso proclaimed public display of the Christian symbol as provocative and banned the trees from public squares. "Nazareth Illit is a Jewish city and it will not happen -- not this year and not next year, so long as I am a mayor," he told the AFP. And he wasn't lying.

It is the 'ultra' Orthodox Jewish groups that refuse to join the 21st C, Hell they don't like many centuries after about the 10th
Israel: ‘Burn your iPhones’, warns ultra-orthodox rabbi

An influential ultra-Orthodox Israeli rabbi ordered his followers this week to burn their iPhones, the latest move in a campaign by the insular community to encourage its members to keep the outside world – and specifically the Internet – at bay.
 
Nice list of anti-Semitic claims with little substance

How do you know so much about these things?

Surely you are not suggesting that any discussion or criticism of Israel or Jewish practices is anti-semitic by definition?

So when extremist Islamic people speak or do things they are terrorists and derranged lunatics

But when a person highlights the actions of Orthodox Jews burning the Gospels etc (or God forbid not even recognising the state of Israel) then these people are merely Ultra Orthodox Jews and any mention of them violates the MORAL CRIME OF BEING ANTI-SEMITIC)

You are a very funny person
 
It stops with not putting any religious symbols in a public park.

Or if you do don't be surprised if others want to express their own opinions as well.
 
No one has an issue with exorcising one's rights. All we are saying is you don't have to be a dick about it. Especially during the holidays.

That is not all your saying. Is it that tough to recognize your own arguments? You blamed them for the.vandalism they endured and claim they are partly responsible for it. That's a bit more than saying they shouldn't be dicks. They exercised a right, nothing more. You do not like how they exercised it and call them dicks and claim they are responsible for the cancellation, which they were not. That's your argument. And it's complete BS.
 
No one has an issue with exorcising one's rights. All we are saying is you don't have to be a dick about it. Especially during the holidays.

If I exorcise your rights, can I still exercise mine?
 
Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court



Just so I get this right, these churches are suing the government claiming their rights to freedom of speech were violated because the government wouldn't provide them a soapbox and place in the park?

Found this gem lower down...



So the city ended the practice because the religulous were vandalizing the other displays.

Individuals are entitled to freedom of speech and expression, and individuals makeup the government.

Officially the government(s) cannot endorse a particular religion and they don't... If anything the government(s) are prohibiting individuals from their First Amendment right.
 
That is not all your saying. Is it that tough to recognize your own arguments? You blamed them for the.vandalism they endured and claim they are partly responsible for it.

I did not blame anyone for the vandalism. Please point out where I said anyone was responsible? In fact I have repeated over and over we don't know who is.

That's a bit more than saying they shouldn't be dicks.

If I had actually said that you would be correct, but I didn't.

They exercised a right, nothing more. You do not like how they exercised it and call them dicks and claim they are responsible for the cancellation, which they were not.

Yes I called them dicks, because they were. I said they were part of the reason yes, I did not say they were responsible. Again please point out where I said this?

That's your argument. And it's complete BS.

What you have stated is not my argument, it is your rebuttal that is flawed. It has nothing at all to do with my argument. That my friend is complete BS.
 
If I exorcise your rights, can I still exercise mine?

No. Because you cannot exorcise my rights, lol.

Seriously yes you can. As with all things though with freedom comes responsibility. Just because you have the freedom to do something, does not mean you should. If you do, and are a dick about, rest assured someone will say something about it.
 
No. Because you cannot exorcise my rights, lol.

Seriously yes you can. As with all things though with freedom comes responsibility. Just because you have the freedom to do something, does not mean you should. If you do, and are a dick about, rest assured someone will say something about it.

True, and, my little pun about your unfortunate misspelling aside, the fact is that either we all have rights, or none of us has rights.

So, if I did exorcise someone else's rights, I couldn't exercise mine either.
 
Just because you have the freedom to do something, does not mean you should.

But it's not up to you to force or decide what they do if they have the freedom and legality to do it.

If you do, and are a dick about, rest assured someone will say something about it.

Noone has a problem with saying some about it, but in this case, some people decided to vandalize instead. Exercising freedom of speech to voice against someone elses freedom of speech is not the problem, the illegal activity of vandalizing is and the vandals are the SOLE REASON this was cancelled. No fault is with the atheists when what they did was legal.
 
Guys, the point Blackdog and Zyphlin are trying to get across is simple. If a kid calls another kid a faggot, and the kid who got called a faggot decides to burn down the other kid's house, you can - through a lot of mental acrobatics - find a 'reason' to blame the mean kid. Ignore as much as you can that it takes sociopath-like behavior to have your beliefs questioned and react violently. Ignore that the forums used were open to the public. Ignore that vandalism in question is the only issue - you were mean and well, it's somehow your fault your house got burned down.

What else can we use that kind of logic for?

Dress seductively? It's 'part of the reason' you got raped.
Buy a nice watch? It's 'part of the reason' you got robbed and murdered.
Go to church? It's 'part of the reason' your kids got molested.
 
Last edited:
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.

The country couldnt afford to get rid of christmas...the economy, especially retail couldnt take that blow to its profits
 
Im not an overly religious person...I dont go to church and I dont push religion on anyone else...I find atheists repugnant...and I find them so because they try to force what they want down everyones throat while whining incessantly that religion is doing it to them...you dont like nativity scenes...then dont friggin look at them..
 
But it's not up to you to force or decide what they do if they have the freedom and legality to do it.

No one is advocating such nonsense.

Noone has a problem with saying some about it, but in this case, some people decided to vandalize instead.

Yes some did. We don't know who.

Exercising freedom of speech to voice against someone elses freedom of speech is not the problem, the illegal activity of vandalizing is and the vandals are the SOLE REASON this was cancelled. No fault is with the atheists when what they did was legal.

Again this does not excuse or change the fact the atheist was being a dick.
 
Guys, the point Blackdog and Zyphlin are trying to get across is simple. If a kid calls another kid a faggot, and the kid who got called a faggot decides to burn down the other kid's house, you can - through a lot of mental acrobatics - find a 'reason' to blame the mean kid. Ignore as much as you can that it takes sociopath-like behavior to have your beliefs questioned and react violently. Ignore that the forums used were open to the public. Ignore that vandalism in question is the only issue - you were mean and well, it's somehow your fault your house got burned down.

What else can we use that kind of logic for?

Dress seductively? It's 'part of the reason' you got raped.
Buy a nice watch? It's 'part of the reason' you got robbed and murdered.
Go to church? It's 'part of the reason' your kids got molested.

Yea because someone spray painting a sign is the equivalent of burning down the atheists house.

Fallacy and hyperbole, thanks for nothing.

You did make one good point though. If the kid who called the other a faggot and got punched in the nose, that would be a reasonably expected consequence of freedom of speech. Not burning someones house down.
 
Some people become so enamoured of one particular viewpoint in regards to controversial matters they evidently don't bother to read a bit about the situation.

AP article, 20 NOV 2012
The coalition of churches that had put on the life-sized, 14-booth Nativity display for decades argued the city banned it rather than referee a religious dispute that began three years ago when atheists first set up their anti-God message alongside the Christmas diorama.

The judge, however, said Santa Monica proved that it banned the displays not to squash religious speech but because they were becoming a drain on city resources, destroying the turf and obstructing ocean views. Churches can set up unattended displays at 12 other parks in the city with a permit and can leaflet, carol and otherwise present the Christmas story in Palisades Park when it is open, she said.
 
Some people become so enamoured of one particular viewpoint in regards to controversial matters they evidently don't bother to read a bit about the situation.

AP article, 20 NOV 2012

I don't think that really has anything to do with what we have been discussing in the last oh 20 pages or so?

We are talking about insulting signs being a dick move on the atheists part, and the counter is that it does not matter because it was freedom of speech.

Most of us did indeed read the article. :roll:
 
I don't think that really has anything to do with what we have been discussing in the last oh 20 pages or so?

We are talking about insulting signs being a dick move on the atheists part, and the counter is that it does not matter because it was freedom of speech.

Most of us did indeed read the article. :roll:

No, that's what YOU are talking about, no one else. Personally I'd like to pin a medal on the guy if for no other reason then the god fearin' tolerant christians might have found out where he lived and burned his house down.

You know, since they can't burn him at the stake anymore. They have a thing for fire...they believe it has a cleansing nature.
 
No, that's what YOU are talking about, no one else.

And yet they are responding to me. Go figure.

Personally I'd like to pin a medal on the guy if for no other reason then the god fearin' tolerant christians might have found out where he lived and burned his house down.

You know, since they can't burn him at the stake anymore. They have a thing for fire...they believe it has a cleansing nature.

More hyperbole, So that's all you got? Figures.
 
Some people become so enamoured of one particular viewpoint in regards to controversial matters they evidently don't bother to read a bit about the situation.

AP article, 20 NOV 2012

Touchdown.,... Christians!

yaaaaaay!

Waronchristmas bowl: Christians 7, Atheists, 0.
 
Geez. Call someone a dick for being a dick and apparently that means we must be anti-free speech for atheists and any one with a different opinion

Yea that makes a lot of sense.

(That was sarcasm, just to be clear) :cool:
 
Im not an overly religious person...I dont go to church and I dont push religion on anyone else...I find atheists repugnant...and I find them so because they try to force what they want down everyones throat while whining incessantly that religion is doing it to them...you dont like nativity scenes...then dont friggin look at them..

I'm not either.

Atheists are cool in my book, except for the ones who are assholes to other people for no reason...same goes for everyone else out there. I'm a live and let live sort of person.
 
Back
Top Bottom