94 replies to this topic

[ranrod]

As a non-believer, I'm often surprised by the actions of others like me.  Here's one such example:
http://www.foxnews.c...go-to-court-to/

If Christians want to legally put displays for Christmas, who cares?  It's like someone taking me to court for putting my Halloween decorations of witches, ghosts, and zombies outside my home (or Easter bunny decorations for that matter).  It's just for fun and playing pretend for many.  Taking an activist position against someone showing their beliefs sounds intolerant and anti-atheist if you ask me.  We're not supposed to care, right?

Edited by ranrod, 18 November 2012 - 07:31 PM.

[voidla]

Because it isn't a Christmas scene they want. It's a nativity scene they want.

Christmas is decoration of trees, lights, and gifts. If a religious person wants their holy figures on display, do it in your own home.

[SUPERSquatch]

I agree with voidla. This nativity scene is in a park, where the separation of church and state should apply.

[Hilander]

Personally I think picking on something like this is a wast of time.  Christmas, although there may be presents and decorated trees, it is a symbol of the birth of Christ.

[Darkwind]

If Churches want to display nativities scenes, can't they do it on their own property.  Why do they have to use public property?

[Darkwind]

Hilander, on 18 November 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

Personally I think picking on something like this is a wast of time.  Christmas, although there may be presents and decorated trees, it is a symbol of the birth of Christ.

My Jehovah Witness neighbor calls it a Pagan holiday and she is right. The Christmas was put on the 25 of Dec, because there was a Pagan holiday already being celebrated, not because Christ was born on that day. Blessed Solstice all.

[freetoroam]

The church will be suing for  freedom of speech violation.
====================================================

can the church be sued for exactly the same reason ? After all, they have been doing the same thing to others for years.

Edited by freetoroam, 18 November 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[freetoroam]

Darkwind, on 18 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

My Jehovah Witness neighbor calls it a Pagan holiday and she is right. The Christmas was put on the 25 of Dec, because there was a Pagan holiday already being celebrated, not because Christ was born on that day. Blessed Solstice all.

Absolutely right!
And (halloween) Samhain and (Easter) Ostara and if i want to pedantic, (British summer time) the summer solstice and (British winter time) the winter solstice and a **** load of other things..........and the christians want to sue!!!!

[ouija ouija]

I'm an atheist but I wouldn't object to the display that is being planned, and Vix's stand next to it sounds perfectly reasonable too.

What I find objectionable and feel should be banned are depictions of the crucifixion in public places ...... and that would include inside churches too. (Probably some Halloween displays should be banned too ..... sorry ranrod!)

[Imaginarynumber1]

The state cannot make any endorsement of any religion. End of story. Christ has to obey the same laws that Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Ra, etc, do.

[freetoroam]

ouija ouija, on 18 November 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

I'm an atheist but I wouldn't object to the display that is being planned, and Vix's stand next to it sounds perfectly reasonable too.

What I find objectionable and feel should be banned are depictions of the crucifixion in public places ...... and that would include inside churches too. (Probably some Halloween displays should be banned too ..... sorry ranrod!)

I agree, I also have no qualms against a few decorations here and there, brightens the place up.

[ranrod]

Imaginarynumber1, on 18 November 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

The state cannot make any endorsement of any religion. End of story. Christ has to obey the same laws that Odin, Zeus, Mithra, Ra, etc, do.

That's not what's happening though.  The city of Santa Monica allows anyone to buy space for Holiday decorations.  Christians took some space for their nativity scene.  Atheists were also able to buy space.  It's fair.

As non-believers we see what they're doing akin to believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.  Why would we get offended by that?

[ranrod]

ouija ouija, on 18 November 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

some Halloween displays should be banned too ..... sorry ranrod!)

I actually agree that some Halloween decorations are going over-the-top.  When I was little were evil pumpkins, witches, frankenstein, ghosts, etc, but there no depictions of decapitations, torture, dismemberment, humans skinned alive, etc.  I think that kind of stuff has to stop.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I think the best solution to this is saying "yes you can have your nativity scene, however we will be getting in historians and other experts to ensure scientific and historical accuracy" and not allowing the display until it's representative of the closest historical approximation to what the scene would have been in the Dung Ages.

[Imaginarynumber1]

ranrod, on 18 November 2012 - 09:03 PM, said:

That's not what's happening though.  The city of Santa Monica allows anyone to buy space for Holiday decorations.  Christians took some space for their nativity scene.  Atheists were also able to buy space.  It's fair.

As non-believers we see what they're doing akin to believing in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy.  Why would we get offended by that?

The problem seems to be, from that article, that Atheists bought space as well and so this year, rather than have both, the city has decided to have none. The churches are the ones that are all butt hurt here, not the Atheists. If the city is going to allow any religious display, then they have to allow ALL religious displays, otherwise they are endorsing one over another, which the constitution prohibits. And of course faux news tries to make it the atheist's fault for freely expressing their beliefs as well.