• 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

Grant said:
It seems that culture, traditions, and the joy of Christmas,which a message to atheists and all religions alike, must be muted because some atheists are offended.

It will be a meaner joyless world we'll live in when atheists, "the fastest growing segment of the population" , get their way.
Click to expand...

Well,you certainly are entitled to your opinion.

Personally,I think this world would be a much nicer place is both the religious and atheists would refrain from sticking their noses into each other's (and everybody else's ) business and stop getting their panties all tied up in knots just because the other side said something.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
What I am saying is that using a seasonal christmas display as a time to spout your anti-religious views is in bad taste. Its like standing next to a mall santa and telling the children that he isn't real. Why not put up season greetings messages? Why did that have to go with "religion is a myth"?
Click to expand...

No, it isn't. The mall is privateproperty and if the owners decide to have a Xmas Santa, just as a church may decide to have a nativity on their own lawn, is their decision and if the mall wanted to remove the anti-Santa from the premises it would be their right to do so.

This is something the pro-nativitiers just won't accept or understand...it was on PUBLIC property.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I'm rooting for common decency.
Click to expand...

Common decency or common sense? If the churches don't want differing opinions or even criticism then they should restrict their 120 foot life size nativity dioramas to their own lawns and property. Once you put it on public property you invite commentary since every other citizen has the same right to express their opinions as the christians.
 
spanky said:
No, it isn't. The mall is privateproperty and if the owners decide to have a Xmas Santa, just as a church may decide to have a nativity on their own lawn, is their decision and if the mall wanted to remove the anti-Santa from the premises it would be their right to do so.

This is something the pro-nativitiers just won't accept or understand...it was on PUBLIC property.
Click to expand...

I am public and I am okay with the nativity scene and I would wager if a vote had been taken, the majority of PUBLIC would have been okay with the nativity scene.
 
Chaddelamancha said:
I am public and I am okay with the nativity scene and I would wager if a vote had been taken, the majority of PUBLIC would have been okay with the nativity scene.
Click to expand...

If you took a vote in 1860 Georgia I'm sure a majority if the residents would have been okay with slavery.

That's why we have the constitution and laws, the protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority.
 
This sign was so offensive to christians it needed to be defaced.

a5_99.jpg
 
And this one! This CRAP has got to stop!

2011-Dec-Seasons-Greetings-350.jpg
 
This one is really offensive. No one should be allowed to attack anothers religious beliefs like this. It's being a dick and worse, bad timing.

article-2073879-0F28410B00000578-8_634x423.jpg
 
TheNextEra said:
Yes, LEGALLY, it does excuse the atheists for being a dick because being a dick is not illegal. However, vandalizing is. Therefore the only ones at fault are the idiots that vandalized.
Click to expand...

I will say again somehow you know who did the vandalism? Did not think so. So that has nothing to do with what I am saying. It has nothing to do with the vandalism or the law. It does not absolve them of the fact he was being a prick. End of story.
 
Blackdog said:
I will say again somehow you know who did the vandalism? Did not think so. So that has nothing to do with what I am saying. It has nothing to do with the vandalism or the law. It does not absolve them of the fact he was being a prick. End of story.
Click to expand...

Thou shalt not insult the prophet.
 
Blackdog said:
I will say again somehow you know who did the vandalism? Did not think so. So that has nothing to do with what I am saying. It has nothing to do with the vandalism or the law. It does not absolve them of the fact he was being a prick. End of story.
Click to expand...

On another forum I spent weeks debating with some devout catholics over priestly pedophilia. They insisted it didn't exist and all the accusers were money grubbing gold diggers.

Once you accept the gigantic, vengeful stay puft marshmallow man in the sky, all other cognitive dissonance and insanities become easier to swallow.

300px-Stay-puft-marshmallow-man.jpg
 
Blackdog said:
I will say again somehow you know who did the vandalism? Did not think so. So that has nothing to do with what I am saying. It has nothing to do with the vandalism or the law. It does not absolve them of the fact he was being a prick. End of story.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter who did the vandalism? According to the articles here and elsewhere, the city stopped the practice due to the vandalism issue. Being a prick has nothing to do with the issue, but in my view whoever did the vandalism was the prick. By your admission, we have no real evidence who that was
 
spanky said:
On another forum I spent weeks debating with some devout catholics over priestly pedophilia. They insisted it didn't exist and all the accusers were money grubbing gold diggers.

Once you accept the gigantic, vengeful stay puft marshmallow man in the sky, all other cognitive dissonance and insanities become easier to swallow.

View attachment 67138574
Click to expand...

Well Spanky, you have idiots among every group. Don't judge God by his fan club. You will get the wrong idea every time as we are all just human.
 
jimbo said:
Why does it matter who did the vandalism? According to the articles here and elsewhere, the city stopped the practice due to the vandalism issue. Being a prick has nothing to do with the issue, but in my view whoever did the vandalism was the prick. By your admission, we have no real evidence who that was
Click to expand...

That is what I have been saying. I don't care who did it, or why. My only point was the Christian group and the atheist group were being pricks. The atheists on this board seem to think because I don't care about that aspect, somehow I am wrong to say they are part of the problem or being pricks.

I don't even care about the city stopping it, not like the religious/atheist groups don't have other parks etc. So the city is well within their rights to do something about it no matter who is ultimately responsible for the vandalism. Makes both sides no less pricks and part of the problem.
 
while i absolutely disagree with your position on this topic, there is a lot of truth in that signature-worthy statement below
Blackdog said:
Well Spanky, you have idiots among every group. Don't judge God by his fan club. You will get the wrong idea every time as we are all just human.
Click to expand...
 
Blackdog said:
Well Spanky, you have idiots among every group. Don't judge God by his fan club. You will get the wrong idea every time as we are all just human.
Click to expand...

That's insane. It's like saying don't judge Hitler by the Gestapo.

For atheists, humanists and agnostics who may not believe in the Christian God, who believe the scriptures were written by men, all they have to go by is "the fan club".

For all practical purposes, your statement is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom