• 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

Originally Posted by rocket88 But why should the government involve itself in saying "It's OK to celebrate this religious holiday, but not others?" The First Amendment does not require the government to build your church or give you a soapbox from which you can express your views.

I'm sure that the church has a front lawn they can display their nativity scene on, or at least one of the congregants does. Same is true of the atheists. Why does it have to be a public park?
Click to expand...

Why does it matter if it is in a public park or not? Christian Bible Camps and other such things take place at public beaches many times... should they be banned as well?
 
Cephus said:
That's completely false. The largest charities out there are completely secular. The Red Cross, for instance, the largest charity there is, has nothing to do with religion. The most prolific charitable givers are also atheists. Bill and Melinda Gates and Warren Buffet give billions to help others and don't believe in gods. Then you take many of the most wealthy religious public figures and they give essentially nothing.

It's a myth perpetuated by the religious that you have to be religious to be caring. It's a flat-out lie.
Click to expand...

It's not completely false, it's not even slightly false. I said "some of the largest charity organizations in the world are christian non-prof orgs."

World Vision, Food for the poor, Volunteers of America...they're all Christian based and all reached either close to or above 1 billion dollars in expenses in 2011. They are three of the top non-profit organizations in terms of size and money spent.

As far as who is the most giving in terms of contributing to charity it typically ends up being red states with Utah as a top giver which is actually based on the fact that they're Mormon. The top 10 according to philanthropy.com are actually mostly red states with Utah getting the top spot.

1. Utah

The Mormon tradition of tithing is a primary reason residents of this state well outpace those in every other place in America. The typical household claimed charitable contributions totaling 10.6 percent of discretionary income. That’s nearly 3.5 percentage points ahead of the number for its nearest rival. Utah is also the hands-down winner when it comes to the rate of volunteering. Forty-five percent of its residents volunteered in 2008. (Nebraska, at 40 percent, ranked No. 2.) The state is home to Salt Lake City, which tops the rankings of the 50 biggest metropolitan areas in terms of generosity. Sharing the Wealth: How the States Stack Up in Giving - How America Gives - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas
Click to expand...

You can look at how they got their results here: How The Chronicle Compiled Its Look at Giving Across America - How America Gives - The Chronicle of Philanthropy- Connecting the nonprofit world with news, jobs, and ideas
 
rocket88 said:
Ah, playing the Muslim card. I also wouldn't walk into an NFL locker room and spout off racist rants...there's a difference between cowardly and stupid.The "target" of vandalism was the atheist displays. Not the Nativity scenes. Whoever the child was that vandalized those ruined it for everyone. Not the atheists who put up the signs.
Click to expand...
The children are the atheists who started complaining with the snti-God comments in the first place... ;)
 
Bodhisattva said:
Why does it matter if it is in a public park or not? Christian Bible Camps and other such things take place at public beaches many times... should they be banned as well?
Click to expand...


Not necessarily, but if people show up to throw eggs at them, then they probably shouldn't.
 
Monserrat said:
It's not completely false, it's not even slightly false. I said "some of the largest charity organizations in the world are christian non-prof orgs."

World Vision, Food for the poor, Volunteers of America...they're all Christian based and all reached either close to or above 1 billion dollars in expenses in 2011. They are three of the top non-profit organizations in terms of size and money spent.
Click to expand...

And we can throw in the ACLU, Amnesty International, Goodwill Industries, UNICEF and Rotary International, all purely secular charities that do massive amounts of good. These are all groups that are supported by individuals, not by churches. In fact, charities which have traditionally identified as religious are realizing that labeling themselves as such is detrimental to their donations, that's a major reason Christian Children's Fund changed it's name to ChildFund in 2009. It's not really a Christian group, it's a charity which has little to do with religion.

As far as who is the most giving in terms of contributing to charity it typically ends up being red states with Utah as a top giver which is actually based on the fact that they're Mormon. The top 10 according to philanthropy.com are actually mostly red states with Utah getting the top spot.
Click to expand...

I listed individuals, not groups. Come up with a single wealthy Mormon that gives more than Bill Gates ($10 billion in 2010) and I'll concede you have something.
 
Originally Posted by Cephus
That's completely false. The largest charities out there are completely secular.
Click to expand...

Monserrat left off the Salvation Army and Habitat For Humanity... two HUGE charities. There are TONS of Christian Charities alone.
 
Cephus said:
Hey, they're running scared, non-belief is the fastest growing segment of the population, people are fleeing the churches, they're losing power, what else are they going to do now that their empty and pathetic beliefs have failed them?
Click to expand...

Thanks for perfectly illustrating my original point in regards to attitude give us atheists a bad name. Tolerance man, you heard of it? Your inability to get past your personal bias does nothing but hurt your argument.
 
Cephus said:
And we can throw in the ACLU, Amnesty International, Goodwill Industries, UNICEF and Rotary International, all purely secular charities that do massive amounts of good. These are all groups that are supported by individuals, not by churches. In fact, charities which have traditionally identified as religious are realizing that labeling themselves as such is detrimental to their donations, that's a major reason Christian Children's Fund changed it's name to ChildFund in 2009. It's not really a Christian group, it's a charity which has little to do with religion.



I listed individuals, not groups. Come up with a single wealthy Mormon that gives more than Bill Gates ($10 billion in 2010) and I'll concede you have something.
Click to expand...

Are you really asking for a mormon who has given more than Bill Gates, the second most wealthy man in the entire world?
 
Cephus said:
And we can throw in the ACLU, Amnesty International, Goodwill Industries, UNICEF and Rotary International, all purely secular charities that do massive amounts of good. These are all groups that are supported by individuals, not by churches. In fact, charities which have traditionally identified as religious are realizing that labeling themselves as such is detrimental to their donations, that's a major reason Christian Children's Fund changed it's name to ChildFund in 2009. It's not really a Christian group, it's a charity which has little to do with religion.
Click to expand...

Over 1/3 of donations in 2010 were given by religions or the religious. Also, do you yo uactually think that all other donations to non-religious institutions are given by non-religious people? That is, of course, ridiculous. I know many family members that are religious but give to non-religious organizations...


I listed individuals, not groups. Come up with a single wealthy Mormon that gives more than Bill Gates ($10 billion in 2010) and I'll concede you have something.
Click to expand...

Yeah... choose the wealthiest guy in the world... way to go. :lol:
 
Cephus said:
And we can throw in the ACLU, Amnesty International, Goodwill Industries, UNICEF and Rotary International, all purely secular charities that do massive amounts of good. These are all groups that are supported by individuals, not by churches. In fact, charities which have traditionally identified as religious are realizing that labeling themselves as such is detrimental to their donations, that's a major reason Christian Children's Fund changed it's name to ChildFund in 2009. It's not really a Christian group, it's a charity which has little to do with religion.



I listed individuals, not groups. Come up with a single wealthy Mormon that gives more than Bill Gates ($10 billion in 2010) and I'll concede you have something.
Click to expand...

Like Bodhisattva said I left off a lot of christian charities but it doesn't change the fact that at least 3 of the top 10 largest in 2011 were Christian non-prof-orgs (a list that the orgs you mentioned above didn't happen to make). Point being, my statement holds true that christian organizations are among the heavy hitters in the world when it comes to charitable organizations.

It wouldn't be accurate to pick out certain individuals who have a **** ton of money when we are talking about the type of people who give and who as a group gives more to charities (which studies indicate that it ends up being red states and more religious folk).
 
Bodhisattva said:
Over 1/3 of donations in 2010 were given by religions or the religious. Also, do you yo uactually think that all other donations to non-religious institutions are given by non-religious people? That is, of course, ridiculous. I know many family members that are religious but give to non-religious organizations...
Click to expand...

My mom is religious and she supports Planned Parenthood.
 
Cephus said:
In fact, charities which have traditionally identified as religious are realizing that labeling themselves as such is detrimental to their donations, that's a major reason Christian Children's Fund changed it's name to ChildFund in 2009.
Click to expand...

WRONG. It was China Childrens Fund from 1938 until the late 50's when they started getting more involved with the M.E. and started leaving China. The name changed to the Christian Childrens Fund then and only changed to ChildFund when the joined more than ten other charities of all types to form the ChildFund Alliance. It had nothing to do with worry about religion. They also created Child Alert.

ChildFund History


It's not really a Christian group, it's a charity which has little to do with religion.
Click to expand...

It never was... it was and always has been about helping children. From China and Korea to the USA to Africa and the Middle East.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Thanks for perfectly illustrating my original point in regards to attitude give us atheists a bad name. Tolerance man, you heard of it? Your inability to get past your personal bias does nothing but hurt your argument.
Click to expand...

Tolerance is only for the tolerable. You don't see people running around saying we ought to tolerate child molesters.
 
Cephus said:
Tolerance is only for the tolerable. You don't see people running around saying we ought to tolerate child molesters.
Click to expand...

We have never agreed on religious issues but man that was just wrong. You are now equating religious folk being as intolerable as child molesters etc? Come on man.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Are you really asking for a mormon who has given more than Bill Gates, the second most wealthy man in the entire world?
Click to expand...

I'm asking for any religious man who has given anywhere remotely in the same neighborhood, yes.

If we look at the most generous people of 2011, of the top 5, Paul G. Allen, William S. Deitrich II, George Soros and Margaret A. Cargill were non-religious. That's 80%.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Over 1/3 of donations in 2010 were given by religions or the religious. Also, do you yo uactually think that all other donations to non-religious institutions are given by non-religious people? That is, of course, ridiculous. I know many family members that are religious but give to non-religious organizations...
Click to expand...

Which would leave 2/3 given by... what?

Yeah... choose the wealthiest guy in the world... way to go. :lol:
Click to expand...

Second wealthiest, but yes, I'm aware. The fact remains, the richest people tend to be non-religious and also tend to give far more money away than the religious.
 
Bodhisattva said:
It never was... it was and always has been about helping children. From China and Korea to the USA to Africa and the Middle East.
Click to expand...

It used Christianity when it brought in more donations, now that it no longer does so, it dropped the name.
 
Cephus said:
I'm asking for any religious man who has given anywhere remotely in the same neighborhood, yes.

If we look at the most generous people of 2011, of the top 5, Paul G. Allen, William S. Deitrich II, George Soros and Margaret A. Cargill were non-religious. That's 80%.
Click to expand...

A few wealthy people who give money and are non-religious doesn't mean that non-religious people tend to be more giving. The facts show otherwise (which is what this off-topic discussion is about when you made the claim that "very few fail in those claims as badly as Christians." in reference to Christians expressing peace goodwill and charity). They don't "fail in those claims" when they are the ones shown to be more giving (again when it comes to donations to charities).



You seem to have a bone to pick with religious people, that's fine it's your business as to why you don't like them. It doesn't however change the facts in regards to this matter in that religious people and red states are more giving when it comes to non-profit charitable organizations.

Source:

On average, those in the most religious fifth donate $3,000 to charity annually. Those in the most secular fifth give approximately $1,000. The story is the same when we consider charitable giving as a fraction of household income: By this measure, religious Americans are four times as generous as their secular neighbors, even as they are a little less affluent than secular Americans. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703766704576009361375685394.html
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Blackdog said:
"Most likely" is not fact and as I said just a guess.



Again it is nothing but speculation on your part a guess. So no.
Click to expand...

It was celebrated before Christ. That's not speculation. Of course, they didn't call it Christmas, but December 25 was a religious holiday nevertheless.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It was celebrated before Christ. That's not speculation. Of course, they didn't call it Christmas, but December 25 was a religious holiday nevertheless.
Click to expand...

I know. Only talking about the US. I did mention earlier it's roots are from Rome, but December 25th was not a holiday that far back and meant little even before.

The extrabiblical evidence from the first and second century is equally spare: There is no mention of birth celebrations in the writings of early Christian writers such as Irenaeus (c. 130–200) or Tertullian (c. 160–225). Origen of Alexandria (c. 165–264) goes so far as to mock Roman celebrations of birth anniversaries, dismissing them as “pagan” practices—a strong indication that Jesus’ birth was not marked with similar festivities at that place and time.1 As far as we can tell, Christmas was not celebrated at all at this point. - How December 25 Became Christmas - Biblical Archaeology Review

I could be wrong but there seems to be nothing outside of maybe the Jewish holiday of Passover and the winter solstice around that date. Compared to the harvest celebration in November, those weren't all that, as far as we can tell historically speaking.
 
Monserrat said:
A few wealthy people who give money and are non-religious doesn't mean that non-religious people tend to be more giving. The facts show otherwise (which is what this off-topic discussion is about when you made the claim that "very few fail in those claims as badly as Christians." in reference to Christians expressing peace goodwill and charity). They don't "fail in those claims" when they are the ones shown to be more giving (again when it comes to donations to charities).
Click to expand...

You are aware that includes religious tithing given to their churches, used for operating expenses, right? When you get a bunch of people who are convinced that their imaginary friend in the sky wants 10% of their income (or whatever percentage), of course you're going to get a lot of people giving! It's a guilt trip!
 
Monserrat said:
I doubt that Christ's mass would still be celebrated today without Jesus since he is the Christ that it is based off of.

There were/are lot's of holidays centered around the winter solstice so I agree that we would probably be celebrating something if Christmas did not exist, it would have likely carried over from one culture to another (usually does).

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with atheists trying to derail a 60 year old christian tradition of celebrating Christmas in a park though.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, "Christ" is the title of the messiah, so had the people believed that someone other than Jesus were the Messiah and a religion built around that person, they would still be called "Christians" and the holiday would still likely be "Christmas" that celebrated his/her birth. Plus, since it is pretty well established that Jesus most likely was not actually born on Dec. 25th, or even December at all, but rather as others have mentioned, it was chosen to include more people and more easily convert people, it is not unthinkable to believe that we would still have Christmas during the same season as the winter solstice and Saturnalia, because the entire point was to try to combine those holidays to join more people.

And traditions are not sacred to me. Other people have their traditions too. I saw the pics of the nativity scene that was put it. It looked pretty flashy and cheap. It probably would benefit greatly by being put on private property, rather than the public park because people tend to care more when it is on their property or when a display might look bad. I am a firm believer in parks should be for playing and walking and picnics, not signs and displays that stay up for a month or more just for people to gawk at. Put those things on your own property.
 
Grant said:
Then go ahead and celebrate in your way and let others celebrate in theirs. I see "pushy" atheists rather than pushy Christians in this case. A tradition of 50 years is being lost because some poor atheists are offended. It's time they got a life.

In the city where I'm living at the moment there are Hindu festivals and Muslim festivals, as well as several others. Would these atheists try to break them up as well? I doubt they would have the balls. Nor would civilized people break up a Gay Pride parade or any number of rallies we allow in order that everyone get along.

This pettiness, the looking to be "offended" is just petty people trying to gain some fleeting importance and media attention they wouldn't otherwise have. They are a blister on society's backside and should be ridiculed at every opportunity. And they supply many opportunities.
Click to expand...

I'm not an atheist. I'm just not Christian.

And how I celebrate has nothing to do with this thread. Others were trying to celebrate or express themselves their way. Their displays were vandalized. The town considered that a liability, probably due to many reasons. They decided not to allow any more displays that would be left unattended so they could possibly be vandalized again or that could cause legal issues. That is their right to do it and it is a smart move. Now everyone can use private property to put up displays of whatever kind.
 
Monserrat said:
A few wealthy people who give money and are non-religious doesn't mean that non-religious people tend to be more giving. The facts show otherwise (which is what this off-topic discussion is about when you made the claim that "very few fail in those claims as badly as Christians." in reference to Christians expressing peace goodwill and charity). They don't "fail in those claims" when they are the ones shown to be more giving (again when it comes to donations to charities).

You seem to have a bone to pick with religious people, that's fine it's your business as to why you don't like them. It doesn't however change the facts in regards to this matter in that religious people and red states are more giving when it comes to non-profit charitable organizations.

Source:
Click to expand...

I think this is bull. I believe they are lumping together basically anyone who claims a religion at all, even if they really don't practice their religion or believe some things that are different.

I'm not atheist, but I also do not claim an actual religion. I have my own beliefs. I donated thousands every year to charity while I was single in the Navy. And I gave more money to my family. More than many of my peers, even the religious ones, by far. Even more than those making more than me. I consider charity to be a very good thing to do.

But, I am also not trying to buy my way into any positive afterlife. I honestly believe there are some who do. In fact, I can't think of any other reason for tithing. It isn't always voluntary, in particular for Mormons, who you mentioned earlier.

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/tithes-and-offerings?lang=eng

Note this:

Choosing to live the law of tithing will be a great blessing throughout your life. A tithe is one-tenth of your income. In order to enter the temple, you must be a full-tithe payer.
Click to expand...

In order to be a practicing Mormon, they must tithe. It isn't charity. It is like paying to be in a club, only it's a religion.
 
Last edited:
BEING SUPER LATE to this thread and im going to scan through im not reading it all but im sure this question was asked.


why is this the atheists fault?

seems to be its the vandals fault who ever they were :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom