• 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

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.


So let's get this straight. Nopublic government sposored display of a religious holiday means "war on Christians!"

I'm a Christian, not an atheist. Stop making a perfectly good religion look like a bunch of whiny babies.

Saying "nobody gets it" seems the most sensible thing to do. The First Amedment does not require the government to give you a platform from which to speak.
 
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

No. Not at all. The "vandalizing" was a criminal act AND an unChristian message. It isn't "part of my logic" to say that "tit for tat" responses are acceptable or even LEGAL. I think the restriction of a public space inherently is unconstitutional. Not to mention why would the atheists NEED to put up displays in this park if there WAS no nativity scenes? They wouldn't. This action CLEARLY helps one side over the other. This Dix guy got EXACTLY what he desired...the free use of this space by a Christian group. His message was clear: stop the Nativity Counsel from using their space. He did JUST that. how is that fair?
 
No. Not at all. The "vandalizing" was a criminal act AND an unChristian message. It isn't "part of my logic" to say that "tit for tat" responses are acceptable or even LEGAL. I think the restriction of a public space inherently is unconstitutional. Not to mention why would the atheists NEED to put up displays in this park if there WAS no nativity scenes? They wouldn't. This action CLEARLY helps one side over the other. This Dix guy got EXACTLY what he desired...the free use of this space by a Christian group. His message was clear: stop the Nativity Counsel from using their space. He did JUST that. how is that fair?

both sides were able to construct exhibits responsive to their belief systems
only after one of those sides had its exhibits vandalized did the government step in and eliminate all such exhibits
both sides were treated equally; as it should be
notice that nothing the government did prevents the Christians from erecting their exhibits on private property, such as churches
 
In California, why do the whiners and freaks always win? What about the rights of Christians, what about the rights of decent people trying to raise their children? What about the rights of those who want a peaceful civilized, decent society? No chance there, it's always the homosexuals and liberal fringe that destroy others with their endless rage and hate.

Just stay in California. California is self destructing in order to allow your presence and abnormal behavior. Others have NO tolerance for you. You even make your own families ashamed of you.
 
In California, why do the whiners and freaks always win? What about the rights of Christians, what about the rights of decent people trying to raise their children? What about the rights of those who want a peaceful civilized, decent society? No chance there, it's always the homosexuals and liberal fringe that destroy others with their endless rage and hate.

Just stay in California. California is self destructing in order to allow your presence and abnormal behavior. Others have NO tolerance for you. You even make your own families ashamed of you.

so the Christians had their exclusive privilege taken away when it was found they could not play well with others (who were atheists)
and somehow you now claim they had "rights" taken away
please identify what "rights" were removed from them
 
This is crap. The atheists did not put up atheists holiday displays, they put up as far as I can tell anti-religion displays for the holidays. How wonderful of them. This does not excuse the vandalism, but it takes two sides.

I mean really "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." is a wonderful holiday message. I mean "Happy Solstice" is OK, but the other was just wrong.

The nativity scene is just that, a holiday tradition. The fables etc comment was the exact opposite and no more than an insult.

The atheist who did that is a childish moron as well as those who vandalized said signs.

PS: In the end everyone lost. Good job asshats!
 
Last edited:
This is crap. The atheists did not put up atheists holiday displays, they put up as far as I can tell anti-religion displays for the holidays. How wonderful of them. This does not excuse the vandalism, but it takes two sides.

I mean really "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." is a wonderful holiday message. I mean "Happy Solstice" is OK, but the other was just wrong.

The nativity scene is just that, a holiday tradition. The fables etc comment was the exact opposite and no more than an insult.

The atheist who did that is a childish moron as well as those who vandalized said signs.

Lol, cute. A Christian finding a way to blame both sides even though - nothing illegal, wrong, anti-constitutional etc was done by the atheists. No. It doesn't take two. Atheists didn't do anything other than what atheists normally do. Explain to people - 365 days of the year - that fairies and gods aren't real.

Who got their feelings hurt? The zealots.
Who committed a crime? The zealots.
Who got the displays banned? The zealots.
Who refused to accept that atheists have a right to tell ANYBODY of ANY religion that religion is illogical? The zealots.

But yes, putting up a sign was baaaaaaad.

I'm starting to realize how Conservatives in Washington find it easy to blame women for being raped and kids for committing suicide after being relentlessly bullied. They have a constituency that believes that no matter how at fault you are, the other side is to blame for your actions. So much for that personal responsibility bull****.
 
Holy crap, 19 pages already! Is the score still 0 - 0? If there was a touchdown, I must have missed it.
 
Gawd, not this ridiculous stance again. Hey, look - I don't do drugs. That means I really do drugs because well.... no drugs = drugs.

No, you are correct. No drugs =/= a different form of drug.

But if you read carefully, you will see that the notion that I am bringing forth is the idea of organized atheism as an organized ideological group which will form its own "church" (gatherings, conferences ,etc) in order to promote itself to the population as an alternative to religions... much like other religions do. All it needs is the correct types of people in large enough numbers-> which it already has; the correct setting -> working on it, and the right charismatic, almost religious like atheist in his devotion to atheism figure to take the helms -> which it yet hasn't had, but there are many who can fill that spot. Still, many more to come. Give it 30-40years.
 
Apparently everyone is banned now.

Nobody was banned, the City decided the only winning move was not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

WOPR
 
My brain told me to stop reading the nonsense here.

Probably for the best. very liberal brains need to be kept safe from reality. Especially if that very liberal brain is of the american variety.
 
You are argument has nothing to do with my argument. It doesn't matter to me whether or not it was a nativity scene, if it was Santa and his reindeer, or some naked wood nymph celebrating her pagan holiday. The point I am arguing is this isn't free speech, it's not about giving the atheist the same rights as anyone else, but this is a bad atheist thinking that they are so ****ing entitled to the same thing as everyone else, they don't give a **** what they ruin.

I would be the first in line to protest if they wanted to change the motto of the USA to "Love Jesus or Else".

But what I won't do is ruin a traditional Christmas display because my ****ing feelers got hurt every time I walked by the park and saw a nativity scene. What next? Take a lollipop from a child because it's shaped like a cross.

This is a crazy amount of bs
 
Isn't that just special! :roll: So xians have the 'right' in your opinion to cause damage to private property if they feel offended by what they see? That is quite close to the argument used by some women haters who will excuse rape because the victim was "asking for it" by wearing sexy clothes or Pat Robertson saying we need to excuse Gen Petraeus behaviour because he's a man.

Step back from the keyboard and think about what you just posted.

Get over yourself. Christians are not the only ones who would be offended by anti God signs. Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God regardless of what they call Him. It all goes back to Abraham. There is nothing to be achieved by atheists posting these signs. They aren't going to change anybody's mind, they are just seeking attention, and they got it.
 
This is crap. The atheists did not put up atheists holiday displays, they put up as far as I can tell anti-religion displays for the holidays. How wonderful of them. This does not excuse the vandalism, but it takes two sides.

I mean really "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." is a wonderful holiday message. I mean "Happy Solstice" is OK, but the other was just wrong.

The nativity scene is just that, a holiday tradition. The fables etc comment was the exact opposite and no more than an insult.

The atheist who did that is a childish moron as well as those who vandalized said signs.

PS: In the end everyone lost. Good job asshats!

Try reading the entire thread before posting or just read my post #88 in this thread

HOW has everyone lost? The taxpayers of Santa Monica no longer have to pay for the extra security and cleanup in the public park and all of the Xmas decorations can still be seen on the front lawns of the various churches in town. Seems like a win-win to me.
 
Get over yourself. Christians are not the only ones who would be offended by anti God signs. Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God regardless of what they call Him. It all goes back to Abraham. There is nothing to be achieved by atheists posting these signs. They aren't going to change anybody's mind, they are just seeking attention, and they got it.
there is nothing which says those Christians, jews and moslems have a right NOT to be offended
 
Probably for the best. very liberal brains need to be kept safe from reality. Especially if that very liberal brain is of the american variety.

Lol, what utter garbage. You stated that no drugs = drugs. Then went on some rant how an organized ideology = a religion. Failing to realize for the duration of that diatribe that the essence of a religion is a belief in some supernatural force. Which simply isn't present in atheism. Organization is not what makes a religion. It's belief in supernatural nonsense that makes it.
 
Last edited:
Get over yourself. Christians are not the only ones who would be offended by anti God signs. Christians, Jews and Muslims all pray to the same God regardless of what they call Him. It all goes back to Abraham. There is nothing to be achieved by atheists posting these signs. They aren't going to change anybody's mind, they are just seeking attention, and they got it.

Fine. They exercised their right to free speech. Why would Conservatives be bothered by that? I thought you guys were all about personal freedoms and such.

Maybe it's a dick move. Still their right, and it still doesn't excuse their sign being vandalized, most likely by a "Christian," despite your claims that they did it themselves.

Threads like this remind me of why I dislike the Republican Party. They talk all about their freedom of speech, then scream like a banshee when someone has a dissenting opinion.
 
Nobody was banned, the City decided the only winning move was not to play.

Which actually was the smartest move for them. Government should stay out of religion.
 
Probably for the best. very liberal brains need to be kept safe from reality. Especially if that very liberal brain is of the american variety.

and reality is that drugs are the same as no drugs.

"No, officer, that baggie is full of no drugs!"

maybe reality is that conservative = not conservative as well. Come to think of it, I've read that very philosophy before somewhere.
 
and reality is that drugs are the same as no drugs.

"No, officer, that baggie is full of no drugs!"

maybe reality is that conservative = not conservative as well. Come to think of it, I've read that very philosophy before somewhere.

I will simply not bother to reply to this if you don't have the common courtesy to view the entire scope of the discussion. I have simply replied to you here to give you the opportunity to view the significant part of the discussion.

Lol, what utter garbage. You stated that no drugs = drugs. Then went on some rant how an organized ideology = a religion. Failing to realize for the duration of that diatribe that the essence of a religion is a belief in some supernatural force. Which simply isn't present in atheism. Organization is not what makes a religion. It's belief in supernatural nonsense that makes it.

This is what I stated:

No, you are correct. No drugs =/= a different form of drug.

But if you read carefully, you will see that the notion that I am bringing forth is the idea of organized atheism as an organized ideological group which will form its own "church" (gatherings, conferences ,etc) in order to promote itself to the population as an alternative to religions... much like other religions do. All it needs is the correct types of people in large enough numbers-> which it already has; the correct setting -> working on it, and the right charismatic, almost religious like atheist in his devotion to atheism figure to take the helms -> which it yet hasn't had, but there are many who can fill that spot. Still, many more to come. Give it 30-40years.

=/= means NOT EQUAL. It doesn't mean EQUAL. I am also fluent in C, maybe you want me to use != . Hopefully that will be easier to understand.
Also, I used the term "religion" to describe an organized ideology, and I stated that it is by that regard that I used it in that context. I don't claim that atheism has the trademark of your average religion. But this is a brave new world we are living in and definitions will change. It is however an ideology, and like all things out there, it is prone to militancy and manipulation. And I believe, as evidence points out, that in our lifetime, we will see an organized, religious-like movement, with doctrines and congregation places (like conferences, meetings, presentations, etc) of atheists, coming together to praise their atheism. Just like religious people do in their respective locations.

And also, belief in a supernatural entity is not the basis of religion, it is the basis of theism. A religion can be based around anything that one develops a dogma around. Hence the phrase, brush your teeth religiously if you want to avoid tooth decay. If you substitute decay with Satan or Hell and replace brush your teeth with praying, you get a religious text :D.
 
I will simply not bother to reply to this if you don't have the common courtesy to view the entire scope of the discussion. I have simply replied to you here to give you the opportunity to view the significant part of the discussion.



This is what I stated:



=/= means NOT EQUAL. It doesn't mean EQUAL. I am also fluent in C, maybe you want me to use != . Hopefully that will be easier to understand.
Also, I used the term "religion" to describe an organized ideology, and I stated that it is by that regard that I used it in that context. I don't claim that atheism has the trademark of your average religion. But this is a brave new world we are living in and definitions will change. It is however an ideology, and like all things out there, it is prone to militancy and manipulation. And I believe, as evidence points out, that in our lifetime, we will see an organized, religious-like movement, with doctrines and congregation places (like conferences, meetings, presentations, etc) of atheists, coming together to praise their atheism. Just like religious people do in their respective locations.

And also, belief in a supernatural entity is not the basis of religion, it is the basis of theism. A religion can be based around anything that one develops a dogma around. Hence the phrase, brush your teeth religiously if you want to avoid tooth decay. If you substitute decay with Satan or Hell and replace brush your teeth with praying, you get a religious text :D.

OK, you're right. I was thrown off by this exchange:

Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey
Gawd, not this ridiculous stance again. Hey, look - I don't do drugs. That means I really do drugs because well.... no drugs = drugs.

No, you are correct. No drugs =/= a different form of drug.

It was Hatuey who said "no drugs = drugs." When you said, "No, you are correct", I interpreted that as agreement.
 
Lol, cute. A Christian finding a way to blame both sides even though - nothing illegal, wrong, anti-constitutional etc was done by the atheists. No. It doesn't take two. Atheists didn't do anything other than what atheists normally do. Explain to people - 365 days of the year - that fairies and gods aren't real.

I did not say anything was illegal, anti-constitutional etc was done by atheists. Nice try though. They were clearly wrong. Now no one can show or display anything because of dickheads who don't want good will and cheer. They want to further a political agenda fostered in hate. Your reply is a good example of such.

Who got their feelings hurt? The zealots.
Who committed a crime? The zealots.
Who got the displays banned? The zealots.
Who refused to accept that atheists have a right to tell ANYBODY of ANY religion that religion is illogical? The zealots.

Who started it? The rest is all true, and now no one gets anything. It was moronic and there is no defense for that.

But yes, putting up a sign was baaaaaaad.

It was an attack and in very poor taste. It was as I said moronic and pathetic at best. Nothing redeeming about either action in this.

I'm starting to realize how Conservatives in Washington find it easy to blame women for being raped and kids for committing suicide after being relentlessly bullied. They have a constituency that believes that no matter how at fault you are, the other side is to blame for your actions. So much for that personal responsibility bull****.

Way over the top now. That is nothing but blatant meaningless blanket statements and hyperbole. Partisan hackery at it's finest.
 
One one hand, Christmas is fun and ought to be celebrated. On the other hand, it's a public park and the public sphere needs to not involve itself in religion. If the park space is for rent, then the Christmas folks should be able to rent it and do what they like. If not, then I guess they'll have to find a place less governed by exacting rules for their celebration.

One important thing to keep in mind. It's not the Christmas celebrators whose actions are being restricted. It's the park's actions. I'm sure there are plenty of private venues that are available for Christmas celebrations.

There is no Christian vs atheist conflict there. There are merely the rules governing public spaces, determined by the First Amendment.
 
Try reading the entire thread before posting or just read my post #88 in this thread

My reply was to the OP, not the entire thread. I don't care what you or anyone else had to say as that was my opinion. Now I suggest you learn how a forum works and understand and understand I am not interested in your opinion unless I respond to you.

HOW has everyone lost? The taxpayers of Santa Monica no longer have to pay for the extra security and cleanup in the public park and all of the Xmas decorations can still be seen on the front lawns of the various churches in town. Seems like a win-win to me.

Yes because with all that's going on a little holiday cheer in a public park is just horrible. And the clean up costs must be overwhelming. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom