• 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

I believe Ioh for chuck's sake this is exactly freedom of expression. Door goes both ways. Freedom has consequences, get used to it.


Sure everyone has the freedom to be a dick, doesn't mean all of us are.
 
This wasn't infringing on anybodies rights.
absolutely, this is what you are posting about
you want the Christians to have a super-priority in the public space
you appear to embrace the right of Christians to promote their nativity scene without its being subject to competing displays from those whose views are not in line with the Christian beliefs
and the government responded properly. because of such intolerance, no belief system gets to place their exhibit on public property

It was a church being allowed to display a nativity scene at a public park.
don't forget the displays by others who hold views other than that held by the Christians. they were (properly) able to display, too
at least until the vandals objected to their exhibits ... while not subjecting the nativity scene to the same vandalism. hope the vandals were not wearing their WWJD bracelets when they destroyed the property of others
Let's not turn this into a referendum on religion violating our constitutional rights.
that is exactly what this is about
and it is quite obvious you realize that, being able to zero in on it as you did
because you cannot dissociate your objective position from your emotional one on this topic does not mean others should allow government to tolerate one belief system to the exclusion of others



Yea, the atheists are the victims.
until you can demonstrate that the Christian nativity scenes were similarly vandalized then it is established fact that the atheists/those-of-other-belief-systems were the victims of such vandalism

They didn't get to protest the nativity scene. Boo hoo.
allow me to re-phase your comment 'they did not get the equal opportunity to exercise and promote their belief system'. you know, that right granted by the Constitution

What about the families that took their children down to that park for the last 60 years?
what about them? do they not go to church to enjoy the Christmas themes in that appropriate NON-public setting?
hell, go to the mall; no doubt that private setting will be overflowing with Christian themes while moneychanging. the spirit of Christmas you know
 
YO ATHEISTS - Why do you even care? You're not involved or affected. Why not just leave others alone?
 
absolutely, this is what you are posting about
you want the Christians to have a super-priority in the public space
you appear to embrace the right of Christians to promote their nativity scene without its being subject to competing displays from those whose views are not in line with the Christian beliefs
and the government responded properly. because of such intolerance, no belief system gets to place their exhibit on public property


don't forget the displays by others who hold views other than that held by the Christians. they were (properly) able to display, too
at least until the vandals objected to their exhibits ... while not subjecting the nativity scene to the same vandalism. hope the vandals were not wearing their WWJD bracelets when they destroyed the property of others

that is exactly what this is about
and it is quite obvious you realize that, being able to zero in on it as you did
because you cannot dissociate your objective position from your emotional one on this topic does not mean others should allow government to tolerate one belief system to the exclusion of others




until you can demonstrate that the Christian nativity scenes were similarly vandalized then it is established fact that the atheists/those-of-other-belief-systems were the victims of such vandalism


allow me to re-phase your comment 'they did not get the equal opportunity to exercise and promote their belief system'. you know, that right granted by the Constitution


what about them? do they not go to church to enjoy the Christmas themes in that appropriate NON-public setting?
hell, go to the mall; no doubt that private setting will be overflowing with Christian themes while moneychanging. the spirit of Christmas you know

So?


Or maybe they wanted wanted to express their opinion just like the Christians are.

Or maybe the Christians just wanted to spread a message of joy and the atheists wanted to be dicks because legally they could.
 
YO ATHEISTS - Why do you even care? You're not involved or affected. Why not just leave others alone?

Yo theists - you're not affected by an atheist display. You're not involved or affected. Why vandalize it?
 
Or maybe the Christians just wanted to spread a message of joy and the atheists wanted to be dicks because legally they could.

Even if true (and I don't think they wanted to dicks) so effing what? It is a free country with all having equality before the law. These Christians need to act like adults not bunch of cry babies.
 
absolutely, this is what you are posting about
you want the Christians to have a super-priority in the public space
you appear to embrace the right of Christians to promote their nativity scene without its being subject to competing displays from those whose views are not in line with the Christian beliefs
and the government responded properly. because of such intolerance, no belief system gets to place their exhibit on public property

The people in that area had a 60 year old tradition of celebrating a holiday in one park during one small time of the year.
Damon Vix, who stepped in on it and "organized" the other atheists was just being a dick. Plain and simple. Does he have a right to be a dick. Yes he does, also plain and simple. Did he have to step in on a tradition that families have been passing down to their children every year for the past 60 years, no absolutely not, he could have just as easily have picked another time of the year or another park when/where people weren't trying to celebrate with their loved ones and if he did that than he would also be exercising his freedom of expression without being a dick.
 
Last edited:
I am not arguing about what it was shut down. My argument is about the timing of the message. I completely understand why the city shut it down, but to put all of the blame on the vandalism is wrong.

Not when the cause is the vandalism. Your argument currently is that atheists should keep their traps shut else their freedom of.expression is infringed upon. Thanks for the Catch 22, but I have a better one. Free country. They may have put one or two jerk signs up, but that does not excuse vandalism particularly against free expression.x
 
Sure everyone has the freedom to be a dick, doesn't mean all of us are.

That's true. But it also means there will be dicks. Can't vandalize on that premise.
 
The atheists knew what they were doing. Theirs wasn't a message of good will, or of giving, but one of intolerance. Again, I am not saying that the vandals are excusable, but I am not letting the atheists off the hook.

Setting aside for a moment that you are simply making assertions about their intent...

On what planet do they owe you any specific intent?!?

You don't need to let the atheists "off the hook," because they were never ON it in the first place.

There's no obligation -- legal or moral or ethical -- for anyone to make some kind of "matching" message to "promote the season," GOT IT?

All of your nonsense about presuming intent, assuming intent, or even coming up with a perfectly reasonable and substantive analysis of intent is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, because they don't owe you any kind of obedience or compliance.

Got it? YOU ARE NOT OWED ANYTHING BY THEM.

Also, to be absolutely clear:

No longer enjoying the unearned PRIVILEGE of unchecked social dominance in a public space...is NOT a case of being victimized.

Much as with white nationalist narratives of U.S. history no longer enjoying unchallenged over-representation in classrooms, the mere presence of countering information and other views is not an infringement. So too with the (no-longer-unchecked) privilege of those pushing a religious display in a public park.
 
The people in that area had a 60 year old tradition of celebrating a holiday in one park during one small time of the year.
Damon Vix, who stepped in on it and "organized" the other atheists was just being a dick. Plain and simple. Does he have a right to be a dick. Yes he does, also plain and simple. Did he have to step in on a tradition that families have been passing down to their children every year for the past 60 years, no absolutely not, he could have just as easily have picked another time of the year or another park when/where people weren't trying to celebrate with their loved ones and if he did that than he would also be exercising his freedom of expression without being a dick.


yes, and we could choose now as the moment to go on record to oppose the romney candidacy for president in the 2012 election. but what would be the point of it?
 
yes, and we could choose now as the moment to go on record to oppose the romney candidacy for president in the 2012 election. but what would be the point of it?

Wrong post?
 
pointing out that the timing of one's opposition is actually important
Opposition? Atheists don't believe in God(s), it doesn't really make them the opposition...

I'm a fan of calling things what they are. Stepping in on a long standing community tradition that isn't hurting anyone but rather bringing together families is unnecessary and cruel, there's no point to it. The man was being a dick.
 
Setting aside for a moment that you are simply making assertions about their intent...

On what planet do they owe you any specific intent?!?

You don't need to let the atheists "off the hook," because they were never ON it in the first place.

There's no obligation -- legal or moral or ethical -- for anyone to make some kind of "matching" message to "promote the season," GOT IT?

All of your nonsense about presuming intent, assuming intent, or even coming up with a perfectly reasonable and substantive analysis of intent is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT, because they don't owe you any kind of obedience or compliance.

Got it? YOU ARE NOT OWED ANYTHING BY THEM.

Also, to be absolutely clear:

No longer enjoying the unearned PRIVILEGE of unchecked social dominance in a public space...is NOT a case of being victimized.

Much as with white nationalist narratives of U.S. history no longer enjoying unchallenged over-representation in classrooms, the mere presence of countering information and other views is not an infringement. So too with the (no-longer-unchecked) privilege of those pushing a religious display in a public park.

Damn them Christians for their want of spreading the joy of the season! You're right, the atheists there don't owe me anything, but when you are trying to present a message, when and how you do that affects the message.
You can pretend like you don't know the intent, but it is loud and clear. They were probably besides themselves with glee when their displays were vandalized. hell, i wouldn't put it past them to vandalize their own displays.
This was a pathetic display by the atheists and has done nothing but harm the families who enjoyed going to that park and filling themselves with Christmas cheer. Way to go atheists!
 
Damn them Christians for their want of spreading the joy of the season! You're right, the atheists there don't owe me anything, but when you are trying to present a message, when and how you do that affects the message.
You can pretend like you don't know the intent, but it is loud and clear. They were probably besides themselves with glee when their displays were vandalized. hell, i wouldn't put it past them to vandalize their own displays.
This was a pathetic display by the atheists and has done nothing but harm the families who enjoyed going to that park and filling themselves with Christmas cheer. Way to go atheists!

You have any proof or is it that your supposition and assumption are the only ones allowed?
 
You have any proof or is it that your supposition and assumption are the only ones allowed?


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.
 
Opposition? Atheists don't believe in God(s), it doesn't really make them the opposition...

I'm a fan of calling things what they are. Stepping in on a long standing community tradition that isn't hurting anyone but rather bringing together families is unnecessary and cruel, there's no point to it. The man was being a dick.

You really just don't seem to get it. The atheists putting up of their own display doesn't step on anything but the completely unwarranted sense of entitlement of a handful of people with a collective glass ego.

Perhaps you don't realize the premise you're implying (or at least going along with). You are effectively suggesting that the mere presence of a different or opposing view somehow damages or undermines the enjoyment of the nativity display. **IF** that's the case, that suggests a fatal weakness in the belief and personality of those setting up and visiting the nativity display, and nothing (for better or worse) about the display of the atheists (or the atheists themselves).
 
I completely understand why the city shut it down, but to put all of the blame on the vandalism is wrong.

Umm if they didn't vandalize the displays, then the city wouldn't have shut the whole thing down. So yes, the WHOLE blame lies with the vandals since ALL the displays would have been allowed otherwise.
 
Umm if they didn't vandalize the displays, then the city wouldn't have shut the whole thing down. So yes, the WHOLE blame lies with the vandals since ALL the displays would have been allowed otherwise.

check
&
mate
 
Damn them Christians for their want of spreading the joy of the season!
You're right, the atheists there don't owe me anything, but when you are trying to present a message,

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

when and how you do that affects the message.
You can pretend like you don't know the intent, but it is loud and clear.

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

They were probably besides themselves with glee when their displays were vandalized. hell, i wouldn't put it past them to vandalize their own displays.
This was a pathetic display by the atheists and has done nothing but harm the families who enjoyed going to that park and filling themselves with Christmas cheer. Way to go atheists!

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.
 
You really just don't seem to get it. The atheists putting up of their own display doesn't step on anything but the completely unwarranted sense of entitlement of a handful of people with a collective glass ego.

Perhaps you don't realize the premise you're implying (or at least going along with). You are effectively suggesting that the mere presence of a different or opposing view somehow damages or undermines the enjoyment of the nativity display. **IF** that's the case, that suggests a fatal weakness in the belief and personality of those setting up and visiting the nativity display, and nothing (for better or worse) about the display of the atheists (or the atheists themselves).

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. 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...

He's an asshole. But like I said, he has a legal right to be one.
 
Back
Top Bottom