Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court

blackjack50 · Nov 20, 2012

spanky said:
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.

If a Church cannot do a nativity scene in the public park, then atheists should not be allowed to put up anti-god signs. It is that simple. This display is NOT a government enforcement of religion. It is not the government picking a church. Prohibiting the naitivity is a CLEAR violation of the first amendment. It reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Right of the people to peaceably assemble...yep...it is keeping the church from assembling in the free excersise of religion. It would be exactly as illegal to STOP atheists from displaying anti-god signs. Keep that in mind before you start trying to prohibit this.

Oh just another funny after thought: without us religous wackos...you atheists wouldn't be getting Thanksgiving and Christmas off lol (cause those are BOTH holidays that came about through Religion at some level or another).

American · Nov 20, 2012

I think it's great that atheists get their panties in a wad over a nativity scene.

Hatuey · Nov 20, 2012

Chaddelamancha said:
This is my point. They weren't there to spread a message about the season. They just wanted to upstage the nativity scenes. It's pathetic.

So... the.... ****.... what? Companies do it to each other ALL the time. However Coca-Cola doesn't go around vandalizing Pepsi ads.

Chaddelamancha · Nov 20, 2012

Hatuey said:
So... the.... ****.... what? Companies do it to each other ALL the time. However Coca-Cola doesn't go around vandalizing Pepsi ads.

I'm not arguing against that. The vandalism was unwarranted.

spanky · Nov 20, 2012

stonewall50 said:
If a Church cannot do a nativity scene in the public park, then atheists should not be allowed to put up anti-god signs. It is that simple. This display is NOT a government enforcement of religion. It is not the government picking a church. Prohibiting the naitivity is a CLEAR violation of the first amendment. It reads:

Right of the people to peaceably assemble...yep...it is keeping the church from assembling in the free excersise of religion. It would be exactly as illegal to STOP atheists from displaying anti-god signs. Keep that in mind before you start trying to prohibit this.

Oh just another funny after thought: without us religous wackos...you atheists wouldn't be getting Thanksgiving and Christmas off lol (cause those are BOTH holidays that came about through Religion at some level or another).

Okay Gilligan.

spanky · Nov 20, 2012

American said:
I think it's great that atheists get their panties in a wad over a nativity scene.

Maybe they're offended by sappy paintings on felt.

I got this one hanging in my wine cellar.

Ooops, that last one is a drug dealer...obviously.

winston53660 · Nov 20, 2012

American said:
I think it's great that atheists get their panties in a wad over a nativity scene.

And Christians get there panties in a wad over atheist wishing people a happy holiday so much so they vandalize

Hatuey · Nov 20, 2012

Chaddelamancha said:
I'm not arguing against that. The vandalism was unwarranted.

So then what are you warranting against? People displaying their ideas on a sign? Look buddy, if that piece of **** NYC anti-Muslim ad got support on this forum from such right winger religious members as:

Grim17 said:
Here's one of those stories that will expose who really respects freedom of speech and who doesn't.

Lutherf said:
She has every right in the world to disagree with the message presented on the poster but she is committing a crime by vandalizing the poster. In fct, in destroying the poster she is violating the free speech of whoever purchased the ad space.

Velvet Elvis said:
It's only vandalism if conservatives do it. She was "making a statement."

Wake said:
Your right to free speech ends where someone else's begins. You don't get to vandalize other's property and scream it's free speech. No, if you had common respect and basic human decency you'd put down your little can of spray and put up your OWN sign.

Hey, let's replace spraypaint with fire, arson. What do you think?

Harshaw said:
No, destruction of others' property is never free speech.

You're right that she isn't violating the First Amendment, but she isn't engaging in free speech, either.

Then this should have gotten the same response. However, it hasn't because you have served as the theists own little Trojan horse by getting on some holier than thou crusade against the atheists who did nothing illegal or even REMOTELY questionable. End of the story is:

1. Atheists did nothing wrong.
2. Theists vandalized their sign because they got their feelings hurt.

No matter how you cut it, at no point should the theists be cut any slack simply because they got their feelings hurt with words. As a matter of fact they should be rightfully laughed at as their actions ensured that not even their message would get a forum to be heard on.

blackjack50 · Nov 20, 2012

spanky said:
Okay Gilligan.

That is a rather pathetic response. Just like your statement that we Christians have a desire to burn people at the stake. As if you don't have an agenda and clear cut anti-Christian viewpoint? That statement you made about burning people at the stake was quite clearly an incendiary statement. I don't get my panties in a wad over that though. It didn't get my dander up. So don't mistake my quoting it. I want to point out that it was a LOW BLOW.

So let me ask you: how exactly can you claim some sort of "moral high ground" when you are clearly just as militantly anti-Christian as you seem to think ALL Christians are anti-Atheist? I am willing to bet that you couldn't tell the difference between Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Catholic if you were in each church right? Let alone the agendas of each right?

That being said: Do you agree or disagree that the prohibition of the PUBLIC SPACE for EITHER the Christian OR atheists is against the First Amendment?

Keep in mind you CANNOT punish a group that you don't know is responsible. That is also against the Constitution. BTW it would be very easy for an atheist to kick over their own signs for a little attention. I don't claim that is what happened, but given the nature of many people...I can't say I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Just like it wouldn't surprise me if a few dirt bag kids from one of the churches did the same thing.

American · Nov 20, 2012

winston53660 said:
And Christians get there panties in a wad over atheist wishing people a happy holiday so much so they vandalize

You mad, bro?

spanky · Nov 20, 2012

stonewall50 said:
That is a rather pathetic response. Just like your statement that we Christians have a desire to burn people at the stake. As if you don't have an agenda and clear cut anti-Christian viewpoint? That statement you made about burning people at the stake was quite clearly an incendiary statement. I don't get my panties in a wad over that though. It didn't get my dander up. So don't mistake my quoting it. I want to point out that it was a LOW BLOW.

So let me ask you: how exactly can you claim some sort of "moral high ground" when you are clearly just as militantly anti-Christian as you seem to think ALL Christians are anti-Atheist? I am willing to bet that you couldn't tell the difference between Methodist, Baptist, Presbyterian, and Catholic if you were in each church right? Let alone the agendas of each right?

That being said: Do you agree or disagree that the prohibition of the PUBLIC SPACE for EITHER the Christian OR atheists is against the First Amendment?

Keep in mind you CANNOT punish a group that you don't know is responsible. That is also against the Constitution. BTW it would be very easy for an atheist to kick over their own signs for a little attention. I don't claim that is what happened, but given the nature of many people...I can't say I wouldn't be surprised if that happened. Just like it wouldn't surprise me if a few dirt bag kids from one of the churches did the same thing.

Look, you obviously didn't read the linked article nor did you read the thread because your responses were, well, uninspiring. I could go through your post, line by line, and refute the idiocy inherent therein, but I just don't have the time nor the inclination.

Try cmakaioz, he has far more patience then I could ever summon.

head of joaquin · Nov 20, 2012

I really wish these pseudo-Christians would stop using my religion for political purposes. Why would any Christian want government sanctioning of its iconography or beliefs. It's bad for government and bad for Christianity. Secular government is good for religious freedom.

spanky · Nov 20, 2012

head of joaquin said:
I really wish these pseudo-Christians would stop using my religion for political purposes. Why would any Christian want government sanctioning of its iconography or beliefs. It's bad for government and bad for Christianity. Secular government is good for religious freedom.

You sound like my mom. And she's a pretty smart lady.

Chaddelamancha · Nov 20, 2012

Hatuey said:
So then what are you warranting against? People displaying their ideas on a sign? Look buddy, if that piece of **** NYC anti-Muslim ad got support on this forum from such right winger religious members as:

Then this should have gotten the same response. However, it hasn't because you have served as the theists own little Trojan horse by getting on some holier than thou crusade against the atheists who did nothing illegal or even REMOTELY questionable. End of the story is:

1. Atheists did nothing wrong.
2. Theists vandalized their sign because they got their feelings hurt.

No matter how you cut it, at no point should the theists be cut any slack simply because they got their feelings hurt with words. As a matter of fact they should be rightfully laughed at as their actions ensured that not even their message would get a forum to be heard on.

I have no idea what anti-muslim ad you are talking about so I can't weigh in.

My problem is that the atheist took a holiday celebration and turned it in a referendum on how God isn't real. Being an atheist, I understand the encroachment of religion on my rights, but this was a petty fight and gives atheists a bad name.

Hatuey · Nov 20, 2012

Chaddelamancha said:
I have no idea what anti-muslim ad you are talking about so I can't weigh in.

My problem is that the atheist took a holiday celebration and turned it in a referendum on how God isn't real. Being an atheist, I understand the encroachment of religion on my rights, but this was a petty fight and gives atheists a bad name.

Yawn, look - if you don't like the sign, say so. If the religious don't like their beliefs being questioned 365 days of the year and want an exception to be made on their hippie haired fairy's birthday. They don't have a right to that exception. As a matter of fact, they don't have a right to it for the same reason that allows them to even voice their opinion on the matter. You are essentially disregarding the fact that A) a crime was committed and B) at no point do you have a right to not get your feelings hurt, simply because you're on some holier than thou mission.

Chaddelamancha · Nov 20, 2012

Hatuey said:
Yawn, look - if you don't like the sign, say so. If the religious don't like their beliefs being questioned 365 days of the year and want an exception to be made on their hippie haired fairy's birthday. They don't have a right to that exception. As a matter of fact, they don't have a right to it for the same reason that allows them to even voice their opinion on the matter. You are essentially disregarding the fact that A) a crime was committed and B) at no point do you have a right to not get your feelings hurt, simply because you're on some holier than thou mission.

I fail to see where I am disregarding the crime and the only feelings that are hurt are those who don't get to see the nativity scene that has been there for 60 years.

blackjack50 · Nov 20, 2012

spanky said:
Look, you obviously didn't read the linked article nor did you read the thread because your responses were, well, uninspiring. I could go through your post, line by line, and refute the idiocy inherent therein, but I just don't have the time nor the inclination.

Try cmakaioz, he has far more patience then I could ever summon.

IS banning the spaces for Christian use a VIOLATION or not? If the Navity counsel can't get their spaces becuse the atheists groups enter a ton of people into the raffle for spaces, and the Nativity counsel doesn't put more offers in that is fine. Those spots are "first come first server" or in this case "luck of the draw." There is NOTHING wrong with that. I support the First Amendment. Do you?

SHOULD the city counsel be allowed to ban the display if it is Christian? What is the purpose of banning the Nativity scene? Give me a GOOD reason?

winston53660 · Nov 20, 2012

stonewall50 said:
SHOULD the city counsel be allowed to ban the display if it is Christian? What is the purpose of banning the Nativity scene? Give me a GOOD reason?

Because peoples participation in the occasion were vandalized.

blackjack50 · Nov 20, 2012

head of joaquin said:
I really wish these pseudo-Christians would stop using my religion for political purposes. Why would any Christian want government sanctioning of its iconography or beliefs. It's bad for government and bad for Christianity. Secular government is good for religious freedom.

YES it IS bad for BOTH. It isn't "secular" if the government chooses to back a specic side though. It IS backing a side by disallowing the Nativity counsel to post their scenes in THEIR spots that they got in the raffle. It isn't Christian to trash the atheist displays. That is not something I can condone. But you can't punish the Nativity counsel for the actions of a criminal. Then you set the stage for someone to "stage" destruction of property to get their opposition to lose out. This would be like Burger King getting vandlized by a NcDonalds employee, and then have the government state that McDonalds can no longer exist in a town. It was the actions of an individual that caused the problem. You can't punish an entire group for that.

shlunka · Nov 20, 2012

It's a good thing our American society is so egalitarian.......not......

winston53660 · Nov 20, 2012

stonewall50 said:
YES it IS bad for BOTH. It isn't "secular" if the government chooses to back a specic side though. It IS backing a side by disallowing the Nativity counsel to post their scenes in THEIR spots that they got in the raffle. It isn't Christian to trash the atheist displays. That is not something I can condone. But you can't punish the Nativity counsel for the actions of a criminal. Then you set the stage for someone to "stage" destruction of property to get their opposition to lose out. This would be like Burger King getting vandlized by a NcDonalds employee, and then have the government state that McDonalds can no longer exist in a town. It was the actions of an individual that caused the problem. You can't punish an entire group for that.

The government backed neither side.

blackjack50 · Nov 20, 2012

winston53660 said:
Because peoples participation in the occasion were vandalized.

So the actions of a few must punish the many? The actions of an individual (or individuals) must ban the right of the entire group? That is certainly not fair. If EVERYONE is banned from the park spaces...that is acceptable. Of course that STILL bothers me at some level. I think BOTH parties should be able to put up their "displays" because it is a public space. The action of a few punishes the many. Not to mention the "disallowment" of the displays ultimately HELPS one side, and punishes another. It doesn't HELP the Christian side to ban their tradition. It does however help the atheist side to say, "No displays in the park."

winston53660 · Nov 20, 2012

stonewall50 said:
So the actions of a few must punish the many? The actions of an individual (or individuals) must ban the right of the entire group? That is certainly not fair. If EVERYONE is banned from the park spaces...that is acceptable. Of course that STILL bothers me at some level. I think BOTH parties should be able to put up their "displays" because it is a public space. The action of a few punishes the many. Not to mention the "disallowment" of the displays ultimately HELPS one side, and punishes another. It doesn't HELP the Christian side to ban their tradition. It does however help the atheist side to say, "No displays in the park."

Apparently everyone is banned now.

blackjack50 · Nov 20, 2012

winston53660 said:
The government backed neither side.

But it did. By not allowing ANY displays to be posted...then it says that the atheist side "wins" because it got EXACTLY what was desired: no religous displays. Now THEY may not be able to use it as well, but that is irrelevant. They no longer have to protest those nativity scenes. Now they can just go to the park and hand out pamphlets against religion and heckle carrolers or plot the next move to get some other religous group disallowed from something they have done forever that is essentially harmless.

Both Sides Banned

Yes. I understand. and I will just reitterate that it isn't fair to the Christian group. I think BOTH groups should be allowed to display their signs. It doesn't matter what the message it is. I think it is YET ANOTHER restriction on the first amendment that is NOT acceptable.

justabubba · Nov 20, 2012

stonewall50 said:
But it did. By not allowing ANY displays to be posted...then it says that the atheist side "wins" because it got EXACTLY what was desired: no religous displays. Now THEY may not be able to use it as well, but that is irrelevant. They no longer have to protest those nativity scenes. Now they can just go to the park and hand out pamphlets against religion and heckle carrolers or plot the next move to get some other religous group disallowed from something they have done forever that is essentially harmless.

Yes. I understand. and I will just reitterate that it isn't fair to the Christian group. I think BOTH groups should be allowed to display their signs. It doesn't matter what the message it is. I think it is YET ANOTHER restriction on the first amendment that is NOT acceptable.

using your 'logic', a case could be made that the Christians won because by vandalizing the atheist exhibits they prevented that belief system from being exposed to the kids who would have otherwise viewed the belief system exhibits in the park

Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court

blackjack50

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Chaddelamancha

spanky

spanky

Attachments

winston53660

Hatuey

Rule of Two

blackjack50

American

Trump Grump Whisperer

spanky

head of joaquin

spanky

Chaddelamancha

Hatuey

Rule of Two

Chaddelamancha

blackjack50

winston53660

blackjack50

shlunka

Fourum Addmean

winston53660

blackjack50

winston53660

blackjack50

justabubba

long standing member