• 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

Chaddelamancha said:
These atheist are what give us a bad name. You can't stand to see a nativity scene? Really? You going to get Christmas banned altogether? The whole holiday is based on pagan foundations, so to fight any part of the holiday is to effectively fight the entire holiday. It's silly, it's petty, and it's not what any decent atheist would/should do. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

Atheists are not the ones who are attacking christianity

Don't you know who hates Jesus the most?

Think carefully they are right under your noses
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Because some parent was offended. They believe Halloween to be satanic and they didn't want their kid exposed to that.
Click to expand...

Ironically, probably the same parents who are horrified that there's no more public Nativity display.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Because some parent was offended. They believe Halloween to be satanic and they didn't want their kid exposed to that.
Click to expand...

That's really sad. Halloween was my favorite holiday, ghost stories, candy and dress up...can't go wrong there.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
You're obviously looking at this from completely biased glasses.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you call insistence that facts matter to be "completely biased."

Chaddelamancha said:
Some of us are dicks and don't mind canceling a nativity scene tradition
Click to expand...

For the upteenth time: the atheists involved didn't do ANYTHING AT ALL to the nativity scene, and the city government -- not the atheists -- canceled ALL the displays.

Anyone home? Are the facts getting through to you?

Chaddelamancha said:
that has been going on for 60 years,
Click to expand...

It was a simple accident of history and privilege which led to the nativity scene being on display for 60 years. NO ONE is under any obligation, legally or ethically, to refrain from bidding/applying for a display space just because some group has lucked out for such a long time.

Chaddelamancha said:
and some of us respect others enough to just ignore the scene as we walk by.
Click to expand...

Once again, massive hypocrisy. If atheists -- or even just the nonreligious and other-religious -- can be called upon to just ignore the scene, then kindly explain why those promoting the nativity scene are magically incapable of doing the same, hmm?!?

Chaddelamancha said:
I have no problem with the Happy Festivus signs and other seasonal signs the atheists put up. But to put a sign denouncing Christianity right next to a nativity scene is petty, pathetic, and something we as human being should be above doing.
Click to expand...

WHAT sign denouncing Christianity?!? I asked you for this before but you didn't give any specific. IF you are referring to a sign identifying the nativity story as a myth (along with several other narratives), then your objection is baseless. Identifying a myth as a myth is not an attack, any more than having a mythical religious display next to a display in favor of accurate identifications of myths is an attack.

"The nativity story is a myth" is not an attack, any more than saying "elephants are mammals" is an attack.

Chaddelamancha said:
What next? Follow Santa in the Macy's Thanksgiving Day parade with a big sign telling the children he isn't real?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant and speculative. Try focusing on the actual case under discussion.
 
cmakaioz said:
Yeah, if you call insistence that facts matter to be "completely biased."



For the upteenth time: the atheists involved didn't do ANYTHING AT ALL to the nativity scene, and the city government -- not the atheists -- canceled ALL the displays.

Anyone home? Are the facts getting through to you?



It was a simple accident of history and privilege which led to the nativity scene being on display for 60 years. NO ONE is under any obligation, legally or ethically, to refrain from bidding/applying for a display space just because some group has lucked out for such a long time.



Once again, massive hypocrisy. If atheists -- or even just the nonreligious and other-religious -- can be called upon to just ignore the scene, then kindly explain why those promoting the nativity scene are magically incapable of doing the same, hmm?!?



WHAT sign denouncing Christianity?!? I asked you for this before but you didn't give any specific. IF you are referring to a sign identifying the nativity story as a myth (along with several other narratives), then your objection is baseless. Identifying a myth as a myth is not an attack, any more than having a mythical religious display next to a display in favor of accurate identifications of myths is an attack.

"The nativity story is a myth" is not an attack, any more than saying "elephants are mammals" is an attack.



Irrelevant and speculative. Try focusing on the actual case under discussion.
Click to expand...

You are clearly showing the fact that you are biased. Kind of hard to argue objectively when you have your blinders on.
Can you prove the nativity story is a myth? If you can do that then I might listen to your argument. I say this as an atheist.

No one is saying the nativity scene had any privelage or were entitled to being the only display. But the atheist displays were not in the spirit of the season (not all of them), they were merely there to be inflammatory.

Explain to me how the atheist taking over a display celebrating the season to spread their myth message is not a dick move? Were they within their rights? Yes. Was their intentions good? No.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Because some parent was offended. They believe Halloween to be satanic and they didn't want their kid exposed to that.
Click to expand...

You sure it wasn't the atheist's fault?
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Legal rights are rights, doesn't always make it right. You dig?
Click to expand...

It is not wrong to exercise rights. I'm not sure why people all of a sudden have an issue with the exercise of rights.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
You are clearly showing the fact that you are biased. Kind of hard to argue objectively when you have your blinders on.
Can you prove the nativity story is a myth? If you can do that then I might listen to your argument. I say this as an atheist.

No one is saying the nativity scene had any privelage or were entitled to being the only display. But the atheist displays were not in the spirit of the season (not all of them), they were merely there to be inflammatory.

Explain to me how the atheist taking over a display celebrating the season to spread their myth message is not a dick move? Were they within their rights? Yes. Was their intentions good? No.
Click to expand...

What did that poor long dead horse ever do to you that you feel the need to continually flog it?
Blah,blah,blah,the atheists did a dick move blah,blah,blah.
So what?
I hope you are not using the "She was wearing a miniskirt,Your Honor,so she deserved to be raped" argument?

Doesn't really matter what the motivations of the atheists were,they weren't the ones who committed a crime.
The person or persons who vandalized the display did.

Which is more important,punishing people who express views YOU don't like,or punishing the vandals who committed a crime and ruined
it for everybody else?
 
Verthaine said:
What did that poor long dead horse ever do to you that you feel the need to continually flog it?
Blah,blah,blah,the atheists did a dick move blah,blah,blah.
So what?
I hope you are not using the "She was wearing a miniskirt,Your Honor,so she deserved to be raped" argument?

Doesn't really matter what the motivations of the atheists were,they weren't the ones who committed a crime.
The person or persons who vandalized the display did.

Which is more important,punishing people who express views YOU don't like,or punishing the vandals who committed a crime and ruined
it for everybody else?
Click to expand...

Um, did you miss where I said I shared the views because I AM an atheist? Their intentions is where I am saying they were wrong.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
Um, did you miss where I said I shared the views because I AM an atheist? Their intentions is where I am saying they were wrong.
Click to expand...
So what if their "intentions were wrong"?
That is matter of personal opinion,not fact.
As an atheist surely you can understand the inherent danger of labeling speech,"right or wrong"?

Lots of people (including myself) find the signs used by the Westboro Baptist Church in their "protests" to be highly offensive.
But no one has the right to walk up to them and rip the signs from their hands.

Their displays may have been in poor taste,but that isn't a crime.
Now,I am not accusing you personally of this,but there seems to be an undercurrent in this tread among some of the posters here of "making criticism of religion an illegal act".
 
Verthaine said:
So what if their "intentions were wrong"?
That is matter of personal opinion,not fact.
As an atheist surely you can understand the inherent danger of labeling speech,"right or wrong"?

Lots of people (including myself) find the signs used by the Westboro Baptist Church in their "protests" to be highly offensive.
But no one has the right to walk up to them and rip the signs from their hands.

Their displays may have been in poor taste,but that isn't a crime.
Now,I am not accusing you personally of this,but there seems to be an undercurrent in this tread among some of the posters here of "making criticism of religion an illegal act".
Click to expand...

I agree with this. It is my opinion and nothing else. I understand the danger of labeling speech "right or wrong", I am not trying to argue that in this case. It's merely my belief that this was an inappropriate time for the displays and it hurts the message that we as atheists are trying to relay. Again, just what I believe.
 
Verthaine said:
So what if their "intentions were wrong"?
That is matter of personal opinion,not fact.
As an atheist surely you can understand the inherent danger of labeling speech,"right or wrong"?
Click to expand...

There's nothing wrong with calling someone out on being an asshole. Just because it's within someone's legal right to do something doesn't mean that they should. There was absolutely no reason for Vix to invade a 60 year old tradition where religious people were trying to celebrate with their families in peace. If things were different and it was Muslims gathering in peace I wouldn't gather my friends to try to get spots in order to post posters saying that Islam was false. I may have the legal right to do so but I wouldn't do it because I'm not an asshole at least not to people just trying to practice their faith in peace.

Lots of people (including myself) find the signs used by the Westboro Baptist Church in their "protests" to be highly offensive.
But no one has the right to walk up to them and rip the signs from their hands.


Their displays may have been in poor taste,but that isn't a crime.
Now,I am not accusing you personally of this,but there seems to be an undercurrent in this tread among some of the posters here of "making criticism of religion an illegal act".
Click to expand...

I don't think I've seen any poster here in this thread who thinks criticism of religion should be illegal.
 
Ikari said:
It is not wrong to exercise rights. I'm not sure why people all of a sudden have an issue with the exercise of rights.
Click to expand...

No one has an issue with exorcising one's rights. All we are saying is you don't have to be a dick about it. Especially during the holidays.
 
The sense of entitlement by Christians is awesome.
 
Blackdog said:
No one has an issue with exorcising one's rights. All we are saying is you don't have to be a dick about it. Especially during the holidays.
Click to expand...

If you don't want any difference of opinion or even criticism, keep your mythological diorama performance art on your church lawns above the graves of your lawn jockeys and cotton pickin' slaves.
 
spanky said:
If you don't want any difference of opinion or even criticism, keep your mythological diorama performance art on your church lawns above the graves of your lawn jockeys and cotton pickin' slaves.
Click to expand...

This is exactly what people are talking about. Thanks for a perfect example.
 
In the Israeli City od Nazareth it is an offence to display anything in public relating to Christianity. This includes Christmas trees, nativity displays and crucifixes etc.

A rabbi visiting NY about a decade ago, complained about a Christmas tree being displayed at JFK airport, and authorities had to dismantle it.

These anti-Christian actions are very common in the USA

In many Isreli cities Jewish Orthodox followers burn copies of the Gospels in the streets.
 
Blackdog said:
No one has an issue with exorcising one's rights. All we are saying is you don't have to be a dick about it. Especially during the holidays.
Click to expand...
And saying it and saying it and saying it and saying it and saying it...
Fine, we get get it,we get it.
Some of you don't like people acting like dicks during the holidays.

In response to that it seems quite a few of us are saying that people don't have to be a bunch of whiny p-word for kitty-kats just because some people act like dicks during the holidays.
I would suggest ignoring the dicks instead of vandalizing their property.But that's just me.

Last time I checked,there was no law requiring people to be of "good cheer" between Thanksgiving and New Years Day.
Here's a novel idea.Instead of questioning the motives of the people who put up the displays they had every right to put up,how about the criminals who vandalized those displays be found and arrested?

Or does that just not matter to some of you?
 
Verthaine said:
I would suggest ignoring the dicks instead of vandalizing their property.But that's just me.
Click to expand...

You have no idea who did the vandalizing so that is neither here or there. Unless you maybe have psychic powers we don't know about?

Verthaine said:
Last time I checked,there was no law requiring people to be of "good cheer" between Thanksgiving and New Years Day.
Click to expand...

No one has suggested anyone should.

Verthaine said:
Here's a novel idea.Instead of questioning the motives of the people who put up the displays they had every right to put up,how about the criminals who vandalized those displays be found and arrested?
Click to expand...

Well since you seem to know who did the vandalizing. Why don't you call the police and let them know?

Verthaine said:
Or does that just not matter to some of you?
Click to expand...

Until someone knows who did it, it makes no difference now does it? For all we know it could have been atheists who sole intention was to sabotage the whole thing just to make religious people look bad. Now I don't believe that, but the fact is we don't know.

This is the end does not excuse people being dicks for no other reason than they don't like a display with religious connotations in a public park.
 
Blackdog said:
You have no idea who did the vandalizing so that is neither here or there. Unless you maybe have psychic powers we don't know about?
Click to expand...
My psychic powers tells me there seems to be people here who are more interested in calling atheist dicks then seeing vandals pay for their crime.

Blackdog said:
No one has suggested anyone should.
Click to expand...
The only things being suggested is that "atheists shouldn't be dicks during the holidays".
Over and over and over and over and over again
So whats the problem then.A bunch of displays got vandalized.A crime was committed.


Blackdog said:
Well since you seem to know who did the vandalizing. Why don't you call the police and let them know?
Click to expand...
I don't know who did it,but if I did,it would be more important for me to call the cops than constantly complain about atheists being dicks on this thread.

Blackdog said:
Until someone knows who did it, it makes no difference now does it?
Click to expand...
Maybe not to you,but to the victims of the crime it may be.

Blackdog said:
For all we know it could have been atheists who sole intention was to sabotage the whole thing just to make religious people look bad. Now I don't believe that, but the fact is we don't know.
Click to expand...
Lets not muddy the waters with tinfoil hat conspiracies,whether you believe it or not.
Plenty of religious people throughout history have made themselves look bad without help from atheists.
Pat Robertson has been a comedic goldmine for years.
Blackdog said:
This is the end does not excuse people being dicks for no other reason than they don't like a display with religious connotations in a public park.
Click to expand...
You keep saying that.
So what?
That's their right to have an opinion.Even if you don't like it.
Just as it is your right to have an opinion.
And nobody is required by law to like yours,
There's no excuse for a lot of human behaviour,but unless it crosses a line into being a criminal act that's just something people are going to have to deal with.
So what if they were being dicks about it.It still isn't a crime.
 
Verthaine said:
My psychic powers tells me there seems to be people here who are more interested in calling atheist dicks then seeing vandals pay for their crime.


The only things being suggested is that "atheists shouldn't be dicks during the holidays".
Over and over and over and over and over again
So whats the problem then.A bunch of displays got vandalized.A crime was committed.



I don't know who did it,but if I did,it would be more important for me to call the cops than constantly complain about atheists being dicks on this thread.


Maybe not to you,but to the victims of the crime it may be.


Lets not muddy the waters with tinfoil hat conspiracies,whether you believe it or not.
Plenty of religious people throughout history have made themselves look bad without help from atheists.
Pat Robertson has been a comedic goldmine for years.

You keep saying that.
So what?
That's their right to have an opinion.Even if you don't like it.
Just as it is your right to have an opinion.
And nobody is required by law to like yours,
There's no excuse for a lot of human behaviour,but unless it crosses a line into being a criminal act that's just something people are going to have to deal with.
So what if they were being dicks about it.It still isn't a crime.
Click to expand...

The crime is irrelevant to the comments until it is known who actually did the crime. Until then the only fact involved is that the atheists who put up the offensive signs were being dicks, period. There was nothing offensive at all in the religious displays, nothing.

You again have shown a perfect example of what we are talking about. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom