Your basic mistake is that you are privileging religious displays as having some kind of superior claim to "holidays" over nonreligious ones.
Not at all. But nice job making assumptions based on your own prejudices, one of which seems to be your assumption that because I think the athiests were acting like dicks in this case that I must somehow be biased towards the religious.
Religious people don't have a superior claim to "holidays" in general. I don't think any religion, for example, has any kind of privledge or superiority over Santa or Rudolph or Frosty. I don't particularly think there's any religion having a privledge over Kwanzaa. And I don't think there's any privledge of christians and the religious side of Christmas over Jews and Haunakkah or others that simply wish to celebrate the Solstace.
But I do think that if its deemed there's a public interest to have a public celebration of the holiday season on public land, that its reasonable and tactful to expect that those seeking to use said grounds in such instances are going to CELEBRATE A HOLIDAY.
If you simply just don't think holidays are worth celebrating, or don't like some holidays, that's fine...then voice your displeasure to your government or protet by not visiting the decorations. However, if you go out of your way to antagonize, disrupt, insult, belittle, or degrade another individuals holiday celebration at such a place than yes...DICK move.
Mind you, that's not just athiests. If someone had a decoration of the baby jesus blowing out a Menorah...Dick Move. If someone had Santa Claus ****ting upon a Kwanzaa mat...dick move. If someone had a bunch of people with pentagons dancing around a fir tree with Santa being burned upon it...dick move. It's not about religion or not. It's about purposefully commendeering the spot to specifically and purposefully place up a display antagonistic to the purpose of the event in the first place, and doubly so when its specifically belittling and antagonistic towards another individuals holiday celebrations.
This is why I had no issue with "reasoned greetings" or "happy holidays" or "happy solstace" but had issue with the one depicting Santa and jesus and declaring them Myths or signs simply belittling the following of religions.
I often see people push the notion that it is cruel to let small children know there is no Santa Claus. I take the opposite stance; I find it cruel and rather transparently manipulative and selfish to deceive children into belief in Santa Claus for the sake of effectively bribing them into decent behavior through promise of material gain.
And good for you feeling that way. I hope you raise your children in such a fashion. However, I would hope you'd have the common sense to understand the vast majority of people don't feel the same way as you and have the tactful respect for your fellow citizens to not commandeer an area meant for a celebration of the holidays to forcefully interject your views in a way to SPECIFICALLY condemn or belittle the other persons holiday views. If you don't feel that way...cool deal, more power to you, but understand I'd feel you're acting like a dick if you acted upon it.
In any case, as I pointed out to Chaddelamancha, if it is a "dick move" for a display expressing or urging a contrary view to be present, then logically this would mean it's every bit as much a "dick move" on the part of the folks promoting the nativity display to have a display knowing that there will be other displays present. This, I should hope, is clearly seen as a silly conclusion.
The only sillyness I see ir your arguments.
Posting a nativity is a postiive expression of ones own faith not specificially, in any fashion, making reference or being aimed at any other holiday celebration.
Posting a picture of Santa Claus and declaring it a myth is both a positive expression of ones own beliefs (that myths should be called out apparently), while at the same time is a negative expression AGAINST another persons beliefs regarding the celebration of the holidays. It is an action specifically being aimed at another persons views and celebrations and aimed in a negative and antagonistic way.
Yes, there is a DISTINCT difference between those. People "offended" by an athiest putting up a Santa Claus with "reasoned greetings" on his hat and perhaps a phrase of something like "The real meaning of Christmas is togetherness and family" would be idiotic. People "offended" by an Christian showing a manger scene with a sign going "He is who we should celebrate, not some red faced false idol with a beard" would be reasonable imho, because it's going out of its way to specifically belittle another persons holiday celebration.
The mere presence of contrary views is not dickish or mean or cruel.
My issue is not contrary views (though this highlights my point so well as you indicate PRECISELY my meaning about their attempts to turn something meant to be a celebratoin of the holidays into an ideological battle ground). My issue is purposefully targetted antagonistic views being placed in a locatoin they have no tactful basis for being in.
Yes to both...just as I'm free to point out what a glaring case of hypocrisy it is in your part to privilege the religious displays in that manner.
And you highlight again your own prejudice and bigotry by stereotyping me and using those stereotypes to leap to conclussions. No where was I advocating specifically for privlege to "religious displays" or any such things. Indeed, I've routinely stated a similar style of actoin by religious folks would ALSO be dickish and wrong and I've also advocated support for completely non-religious displays that are celebrating the holidays. My argument has nothing to do with "religious privledge" but due to your bigotry against religious folks you stereotype me as believing or arguing in favor of a certain thing simply because I disagree with you in terms of the actions of the athiests in this case.
