I absolutely have the right to judge if it was good timing or not, that's my prerogative.
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.
It is the whole basis of the display so how can it be irrelevant.
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 city has been giving out these passes for 60 years just so holiday displays can be put up. Seems pretty relevant to me.
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.
Taking over a Christian nativity display
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.
just to spread your anti-religious message is not being tolerant of the other religion.
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).
There is a time and a place for everything.
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.
I have every right to judge. They put themselves out there in the public. By doing that, they allow themselves and their message to be judged by the public (i.e. me)
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.
I don't, I subscribe to not being a dick and ruining a special 60 year holiday tradition.
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.
Tell that to the people who have visited that nativity display for the last 60 years.
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).
