Atheists' move halts Christmas tradition in Santa Monica, churches go to court to get it back
LOS ANGELES – Damon Vix didn't have to go to court to push Christmas out of the city of Santa Monica. He just joined the festivities.
The atheist's anti-God message alongside a life-sized nativity display in a park overlooking the beach ignited a debate that burned brighter than any Christmas candle.
Santa Monica officials snuffed the city's holiday tradition this year rather than referee the religious rumble, prompting churches that have set up a 14-scene Christian diorama for decades to sue over freedom of speech violations. Their attorney will ask a federal judge Monday to resurrect the depiction of Jesus' birth, while the city aims to eject the case.
"It's a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested," said Hunter Jameson, head of the nonprofit Santa Monica Nativity Scene Committee that is suing.
Missing from the courtroom drama will be Vix and his fellow atheists, who are not parties to the case. Their role outside court highlights a tactical shift as atheists evolve into a vocal minority eager to get their non-beliefs into the public square as never before.
National atheist groups earlier this year took out full-page newspaper ads and hundreds of TV spots in response to the Catholic bishops' activism around women's health care issues and are gearing up to battle for their own space alongside public Christmas displays in small towns across America this season.
"In recent years, the tactic of many in the atheist community has been, if you can't beat them, join them," said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and director of the Newseum's Religious Freedom Education Project in Washington. "If these church groups insist that these public spaces are going to be dominated by a Christian message, we'll just get in the game — and that changes everything."
In the past, atheists primarily fought to uphold the separation of church and state through the courts. The change underscores the conviction held by many nonbelievers that their views are gaining a foothold, especially among young adults.
The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study last month that found 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. Atheists took heart from the report, although Pew researchers stressed that the category also encompassed majorities of people who said they believed in God but had no ties with organized religion and people who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious."
"We're at the bottom of the totem pole socially, but we have muscle and we're flexing it," said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation. "Ignore our numbers at your peril."
The trouble in Santa Monica began three years ago, when Vix applied for and was granted a booth in Palisades Park alongside the story of Jesus Christ's birth, from Mary's visit from the Angel Gabriel to the traditional crèche.
Vix hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." The other side read "Happy Solstice." He repeated the display the following year but then upped the stakes significantly.
In 2011, Vix recruited 10 others to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays such as a homage to the "Pastafarian religion," which would include an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.
The atheists used half their spaces, displaying signs such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil and said: "37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?"
Most of the signs were vandalized and in the ensuing uproar, the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames, the City of the Christmas Story.
The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christians' right to free speech.
"If they want to hold an opposing viewpoint about the celebration of Christmas, they're free to do that — but they can't interfere with our right to engage in religious speech in a traditional public forum," said William Becker, attorney for the committee. "Our goal is to preserve the tradition in Santa Monica and to keep Christmas alive."
The city doesn't prohibit churches from caroling in the park, handing out literature or even staging a play about the birth of Jesus and churches can always set up a nativity on private land, Deputy City Attorney Jeanette Schachtner said in an email.
The decision to ban the displays also saves the city, which had administered the cumbersome lottery process used to award booths, both time and money while preserving the park's aesthetics, she said.
For his part, Vix is surprised — and slightly amused — at the legal battle spawned by his solitary act but doesn't plan anything further.
"That was such a unique and blatant example of the violation of the First Amendment that I felt I had to act," said the 44-year-old set builder. "If I had another goal, it would be to remove the 'under God' phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance — but that's a little too big for me to take on for right now."
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but also states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." That has been interpreted by courts as providing for separation of church and state, barring government bodies from promoting, endorsing or funding religion or religious institutions.
"Hindered by atheists". Wow, man. I guess that's one super-biased way to put it. I'm going to presume you're just paraphrasing the actual Fox title though.
Here's a timeline:
1.) Churches all apply for permits to put religious displays on taxpayer-funded public property.
2.) Atheists decide they also have the right to apply for displays of their own, and do so. They are well organized and win most of the display slots.
3.) Most of the atheists signs were vandalized.
4.) This year the city decides it's not worth the hassle.
Hence, it's the atheists fault. How do those things add up?
1. They're not. Their very angry very bitter robo bunnies.
2. The churches are suing the city, not the atheists. Thats important. The atheists were following the rules. The state was banning free speech.
Hence, it's the atheists fault. How do those things add up
Obviously because atheists aren't really people.
Actually its ok for atheists to place their own messages, but in their own time. Trying to drown our a nativity display is just trolling. Presumably they can declare their belief in no-God in June or September etc.
If for example Christians tried to hijack Eid or Diwali or Purim with their message I am sure everyone would be wagging fingers at them. Leave the churches in peace to do their traditional Christmas festiviities.
Orlanth wrote: Actually its ok for atheists to place their own messages, but in their own time. Trying to drown our a nativity display is just trolling. Presumably they can declare their belief in no-God in June or September etc.
Why can't the churches put up their displays of religion on public property during September? Why do they have more right to public property then the atheists - and that's not even getting into the fact that the churches don't pay any of the taxes used to maintain the damn park.
How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.
It's certainly better than 'most vocal minorities of both sides act like infants and spoil it for everyone.'
It is kind of trollish for atheists to behave that way and some of the quotes in that article are way beyond self-righteous.
I'm with the city though. This kind of gak just isn't worth it. A shame when a small group of aholes ruins what should be harmless celebration for everyone.
Why can't the churches put up their displays of religion on public property during September?
What Christian holiday exists in September?
and that's not even getting into the fact that the churches don't pay any of the taxes used to maintain the damn park.
Because the Atheist groups do?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
n0t_u wrote: There's no space to have it outside of the church itself?
Probably is space. I think the issue is that they've been putting the display up in the park for years and their sour that they didn't get to this year. EDIT: The park would also offer a large venue for the public.
Frazzled wrote: They do as much as the atheists. Both support the park through their members.
It's not the members who apply for the permits though.
It is trolling, and really lame. Evidently, atheists can't stand on their own two feet.
What?
Yeah, it's trolling. Sure. But in this case it's less "Bwhahaha!" and more "Neener neener neener".
The fact that the churches do not get to put up their displays in a public park is not really a big deal. As mentioned in the article, the church can set up their display on private land.
Frazzled wrote: They do as much as the atheists. Both support the park through their members.
It's not the members who apply for the permits though.
It is trolling, and really lame. Evidently, atheists can't stand on their own two feet.
What?
Yeah, it's trolling. Sure. But in this case it's less "Bwhahaha!" and more "Neener neener neener".
The fact that the churches do not get to put up their displays in a public park is not really a big deal. As mentioned in the article, the church can set up their display on private land.
If its not a big deal, why are they being trolled then?
I'm ok for limiting public land use IF EVERYONE IS NOW EXCLUDED. Separation of Church and State goes both ways.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
hotsauceman1 wrote: How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.
Its just thats sort of "hey quit being a jerk and lets just get along" type thinking that has no place in the USA young man!
You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?
Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.
You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?
Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.
Its like my high school, but with turbans!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
reds8n wrote: Everyone is being excluded, there's no spaces for rent/use this year.
And the churches can still carol sing, hand out literature and stage plays in the park.
How are they being unfairly excluded against then ?
They're not, if thats true. Thats my point. It has to be all or nothing. No one gets to display or anything, or everyone does. Its what Le Emperor would do.
You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?
Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.
And thats why I am a heavy church/state separate kind of guy actually.
hotsauceman1 wrote: How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.
This kind of smartassed logic has no place in a debate betwixt the religious and atheists. For shame.
The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
So, honestly, suck it up, eat the turkey, give gifts, be merry, watch gakky movies, fall asleep on the sofa after too much brandy, ignore you're obnoxious uncle leering at your older brother's girlfriend and celebrate as we have been for thousands of years.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
So, honestly, suck it up, eat the turkey, give gifts, be merry, watch gakky movies, fall asleep on the sofa after too much brandy, ignore you're obnoxious uncle leering at your older brother's girlfriend and celebrate as we have been for thousands of years.
Thats awesome. I didn't know that there were ancient druidic temples buried in Santa Monica. Venice Beach, now I could see that.
You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?
The state isn't paying for the display it pays for the park. It gets the money to pay for the park from taxes. Christians pay taxes. The church doesn't but they do. Your saying that they can not then use the park supported by their taxes for holiday festivities by the simple vitue of being Christians and wanting to publically display their faith? Sounds like being disenfranchised to me. Animal rights activists can go put up displays about what they believe and so can environmentalists, and even atheists. It's only equal if everyone really does have equal access regardless of personal opinions about the validity of thought.
Now obviously that's not the whole story here. No one has access because some atheists decided to do something a little trolly and Christians reacted very badly and the city like any responsible parent said "Fine then no one gets anything! There. See what you did now?" The difference here is that the atheists only did something trolly to troll. They don't really care if they can display what they think so long as the Christians can't. It's really very mean spirited.
Joking aside, how ardently would you guys be defending a Islamic display? Buddhists? What about one for Scientologists? Wiccans? Satanists? At what point do you guys want elected public officials deciding which religions get a shot? I mean, this is simply not a state role, at all, it never really should have been, and militant atheist douchebaggery aside; the current status quo - no one gets a public display and everyone's free to do what they want on their own property - is the legally and in my opinion morally correct one.
What about public land though? What if you want to get a group of 500 people together and there aren't any venues you can afford and your own land isn't enough? It does no violate the separation of church and space to grant a religious group access to public space (that their members do pay for).
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
So, honestly, suck it up, eat the turkey, give gifts, be merry, watch gakky movies, fall asleep on the sofa after too much brandy, ignore you're obnoxious uncle leering at your older brother's girlfriend and celebrate as we have been for thousands of years.
Thats awesome. I didn't know that there were ancient druidic temples buried in Santa Monica. Venice Beach, now I could see that.
I didn't know that the US was part of the Old World either. So, wait, what was the new world? Mars? Man, I'm going to go back and do a lot of re-reading of my history!
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
True story, and well said MGS. The idea that you can't have Christmas without Christ is laughable imho. That is to say, I think the holiday has out-grown it's beginnings in religious dogma. I am an athiest and I love Christmas, I love the gift-giving, I love the atmosphere, and I love the time spent connecting with distant family (mostly.) I enjoy the holiday so much more now than as a child, when Christmas was a solemn, (sober.. shudder) affair.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
True story, and well said MGS. The idea that you can't have Christmas without Christ is laughable imho. That is to say, I think the holiday has out-grown it's beginnings in religious dogma.
I am an athiest and I love Christmas, I love the gift-giving, I love the atmosphere, and I love the time spent connecting with distant family (mostly.) I enjoy the holiday so much more now than as a child, when Christmas was a solemn, (sober.. shudder) affair.
Yeah, I'm another Atheist who likes Xmas, though I used to have extreme antipathy towards it. It's just a nice time of year to get together with friends and family to eat, drink and be merry. I love walking home from the pub in the snow with a warm glow inside, I like turkey, booze, chocolate and parties. What's not to like about xmas? I don't even have a big problem with Jebus, just the 'son of God' stuff. Apart from that, I think he was was a revolutionary thinker who still has a lot to teach us about how to construct a 'good society'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cliff Richard can feth off though.
Yeah, I'm another Atheist who likes Xmas, though I used to have extreme antipathy towards it. It's just a nice time of year to get together with friends and family to eat, drink and be merry. I love walking home from the pub in the snow with a warm glow inside, I like turkey, booze, chocolate and parties. What's not to like about xmas? I don't even have a big problem with Jebus, just the 'son of God' stuff. Apart from that, I think he was was a revolutionary thinker who still has a lot to teach us about how to construct a 'good society'.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Cliff Richard can feth off though.
Whole-heartedly agree with both MGS' post, and this, right down to the Cliff Richard thing.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
True story, and well said MGS. The idea that you can't have Christmas without Christ is laughable imho. That is to say, I think the holiday has out-grown it's beginnings in religious dogma.
I am an athiest and I love Christmas, I love the gift-giving, I love the atmosphere, and I love the time spent connecting with distant family (mostly.) I enjoy the holiday so much more now than as a child, when Christmas was a solemn, (sober.. shudder) affair.
Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.
You can have winter solstice, winter shopping season or dance to Babushka goddess of winter Walmart Borscht. But no, you can't have actual Christmas without Christ.
Of course you can Frazzled. It's called having your cake and eating it to.
But then I don't really care what people do on Christmas It's become a commercial venture to the benefit of the US economy. My problem is only when people then demand it must be devoid of any religion because it was a pagan holiday 2000 years ago, or its no where near Christ's birthday. That's just hogwash. It's not the point for Christians and why should anyone give a gak when they celebrate his birthday?
The point of protesting is to get noticed and get your message out. How much would people really care if a group of athiests (note it is a group of them, not athiests as a whole ) put up signs and things protesting religious christmas or easter displays in the middle of summer?
They chose their time and method of protest to maximise the effect, and apparently they were well organised and well motivated, and got exactly the results they wanted (I find it entertaining their stalls/stuff was vandalised - talk about the christmas spirit! ).
I’m an atheist and to be honest the Atheist’s actions, whilst not technically wrong, strike me as pretty and spiteful. Putting up your own message during the other 10-11 months of the year seems perfectly reasonable, but specifically doing it at Christmas (by no means an exclusively religious festival) makes them seem to be going out of their way to be as dickish as possible.
Ironically this sort of thing only makes people see Athiests as the bad guys, which really is the last thing we should want.
LordofHats wrote: Of course you can Frazzled. It's called having your cake and eating it to.
But then I don't really care what people do on Christmas It's become a commercial venture to the benefit of the US economy. My problem is only when people then demand it must be devoid of any religion because it was a pagan holiday 2000 years ago, or its no where near Christ's birthday. That's just hogwash. It's not the point for Christians and why should anyone give a gak when they celebrate his birthday?
No you nattering nabobs of negativity! There is Christmas, which is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ - aka the birth of hope, then there's "happy holidays" which is all the commercial BS. Neither requires the other.
Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.
Actually the point is that I DO have Christmas without Christ. Annually in fact.
No you spend money in December. Christmas is a reliigious observance. If you're not Christian, you're doing it wrong. Now back to the 11th pit of hell (the DMV) form whenst you came demon!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: Of course you can Frazzled. It's called having your cake and eating it to.
But then I don't really care what people do on Christmas It's become a commercial venture to the benefit of the US economy. My problem is only when people then demand it must be devoid of any religion because it was a pagan holiday 2000 years ago, or its no where near Christ's birthday. That's just hogwash. It's not the point for Christians and why should anyone give a gak when they celebrate his birthday?
I guess maybe I don't see what the city had to referee. There was a lottery to spaces in a city park for an annual festival. If athiests, congaline enthusiasts, and christians all won the lottery and put up displays behind chain link fences what the problem is?
Was there a brawl in the park, fisticuffs using nativity scene weapontry.? What I really wonder is what kind of money the city made off of the deal, as in how much have they lost. I doubt it's significant.
HonorHarrington wrote: I guess maybe I don't see what the city had to referee. There was a lottery to spaces in a city park for an annual festival. If athiests, congaline enthusiasts, and christians all won the lottery and put up displays behind chain link fences what the problem is?
Was there a brawl in the park, fisticuffs using nativity scene weapontry.? What I really wonder is what kind of money the city made off of the deal, as in how much have they lost. I doubt it's significant.
I agree. They probably thought - with the vandalism et al "who needs this crap," and told everyone to bugger off. Again, personally I am ok either way, but it has to be the same for everyone.
And yes, their actions make atheists look like make genitalia.
Orlanth wrote:
Actually its ok for atheists to place their own messages, but in their own time.
So, you get to decide when those with beliefs that differ from yours get to display their beliefs? Interesting.
Trying to drown our a nativity display is just trolling.
Perhaps. And yet...
If for example Christians tried to hijack Eid or Diwali or Purim with their message I am sure everyone would be wagging fingers at them. Leave the churches in peace to do their traditional Christmas festiviities.
Wait, you mean the "traditional" pagan celebrations of Solstice (hijacked by Christians, turned into Christmas) or Ēostre (hijacked by Christians, turned into Easter). Yes, I'm sure everyone would be wagging fingers at them.
Frazzled wrote:
It is trolling, and really lame. Evidently, atheists can't stand on their own two feet.
Apparently, they can, and it's the Christians who are crying that they're doing so.
However, I'm ok with their putting up displays if everyone has the same shot at it. If its preferential for either, then I have a problem with it.
Yeah, that's my stance too.
hotsauceman1 wrote:How about this. The City Sets Asides certain plots of land for any displays, You can rent a plot and put up whatever you want, but you are limited to one plot per type of display(One Christmas, one Hunakkah, on Kwanza, one no affiliation)
That way everyone gets a shot.
I'm not even sure I follow this proposal. So, there's a max of one Christmas display? Because the Lutherans would want a Catholic Christmas display, and the Anglicans would want a Baptist Christmas display and the Russian Orthodox would totally be down with a Mormon Christmas.
LuciusAR wrote:I’m an atheist and to be honest the Atheist’s actions, whilst not technically wrong, strike me as pretty and spiteful. Putting up your own message during the other 10-11 months of the year seems perfectly reasonable, but specifically doing it at Christmas (by no means an exclusively religious festival) makes them seem to be going out of their way to be as dickish as possible.
Ironically this sort of thing only makes people see Athiests as the bad guys, which really is the last thing we should want.
It does, but it shouldn't. Atheists and the unaffiliated (according to the referenced article, a group now constituting 20% of the population) are forced to endure Christmas displays throughout December (and November - why does no one get upset about the War on Thanksgiving??) Most stores put up Christmas decor (and they're private institutions and have every right to, no complaints about this), and play Lawrence Welk, Bing Crosby and Burl Ives constantly (private institution or not, I will complain about this aural assault on my person). And those non-Christians just accept it and go about their business. But if an Atheist puts up their own display, they get called the bad guys, get called trolls, get their property vandalized and are accused of waging a war on your cult.
Get a grip people. If we can ignore the omnipresent Jesus stuff, you can ignore a sign that says he was just a man.
Frazzled wrote: And yes, their actions make atheists look like make genitalia.
But the atheists are the ones that got their signs vandalized
Thats because sometimes there is karma.
Oh and Eastern Orthodox would have a different day. Thier Christmas is a different time of the year IIRC.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SilverMK2 wrote: The point of protesting is to get noticed and get your message out. How much would people really care if a group of athiests (note it is a group of them, not athiests as a whole ) put up signs and things protesting religious christmas or easter displays in the middle of summer?
They chose their time and method of protest to maximise the effect, and apparently they were well organised and well motivated, and got exactly the results they wanted (I find it entertaining their stalls/stuff was vandalised - talk about the christmas spirit! ).
Whats your message: "we're a bunch of s"
What are you protesting: "no one cares about us."
I am an atheist and I like Christmas but not for any Christian reason more for getting along all the pretty decorations and such, I also like the look of the nativity scene and decorations around town, more as it looks nice feels festive and even tough I see the nativity scene as a story rather than a religious significance I would not want it to be taken away, lie in everything a few bad apples ruin the bunch.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Plus Hotsauce you had a good idea with the allocated rented plots that way everyone has a slot and it is paid for privately.
Wait what? Karma for what exactly? The athiest in this case followed all of the same rules that the church did. The church put up a big religious display and a counter-display was shown as well, in accordance to the rules. I don't think it's a case of "karma" that the athiest display was vandalized, seems more like a case of sour grapes. I don't think it's a big secret that religion does not like to be poked fun at. Is christmas off-limits when it comes to critisism or something? Nativities are a no-go zone?
I don't think it's a big secret that religion does not like to be poked fun at.
No one likes to be poked fun at. So yeah. It's kind of a dick move to then go out of ones way and poke fun at someone else. Especially on a day with special significance. It's sometimes called... Trolling :O
I don't think it's a big secret that religion does not like to be poked fun at.
No one likes to be poked fun at. So yeah. It's kind of a dick move to then go out of ones way and poke fun at someone else. Especially on a day with special significance. It's sometimes called... Trolling :O
SalamanderMarine wrote:I am an atheist and I like Christmas but not for any Christian reason more for getting along all the pretty decorations and such, I also like the look of the nativity scene and decorations around town, more as it looks nice feels festive and even tough I see the nativity scene as a story rather than a religious significance I would not want it to be taken away.
Interviewed a guy recently who is not a Christian, but is employed by a rather large Methodist church as a choral director. He said that he saw the Jesus story as a story of justice. That Jesus wasn't born to royalty in a fancy palace but in a barn, where animals gak. I don't have my notes nearby, but as a non-believer he neatly encapsulated the message of Christianity better than I have ever heard an actual believer.
LordofHats wrote:
No one likes to be poked fun at. So yeah. It's kind of a dick move to then go out of ones way and poke fun at someone else. Especially on a day with special significance. It's sometimes called... Trolling :O
Fair point. I mostly took exception to the Karma comment regarding the vandalism.
Trolling or not this guy had the right to express his beliefs on the same public land as the church. Just because he was being a dick doesn't mean he should've had his stuff trashed. I'd feel exactly the same if some athiest went out and trashed a nativity.
Well of course. That's why I'm with the city on this one. If the Atheists and Christians in Santa Monica want to be treated like adults they can go act like adults. Until then they can stay in their rooms.
I wonder: why is it called a nativity? Does it display Native American (henceforth referred to as indians due to Chris's navigational error) cultural items, or indian beliefs or what? Indians themselves?
If so, what indian tribe? Cherokee? Apache? Mohican?
And if I read the article right, it was only one atheist who started the whole thing, presumably to make a point. Apparently everyone was OK with this, so fair play to him.
And yes, the city made the right call. If neither party can behave, no one gets to make a display. And since no one is allowed to make an indian display, no one is singled out.
[sarcasm]
Except that the christians still get preferential treatment as they're allowed to conduct plenty of stuff in that park without having to pay tribute to the continent's original inhabitants.
So they're technically getting the better end of the deal, so why are they complaining?
[/sarcasm]
Except that the christians still get preferential treatment as they're allowed to conduct plenty of stuff in that park without having to pay tribute to the continent's original inhabitants.
Who? Coconut eating T Rexes?
In other news Rodney the wiener dog got trapped in a blanket again, while laying next to me, on the sofa.
Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.
You can have winter solstice, winter shopping season or dance to Babushka goddess of winter Walmart Borscht. But no, you can't have actual Christmas without Christ.
You're not in any real position to stop me. Sorry.
Christmas is a Christian holiday. We are fine with sharing it, but activly trolling it is disrespectful of our beliefs.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
I don't see Atheists trolling other religion's holidays. If they did there would be a huge uproar, but somehow its ok to try and push Christianity out of its own holiday?
Grey Templar wrote: Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Isn't that what they were doing? This particular group were mearly putting out some stalls as a counterpoint to the Christian ones (which were still there). How is that preventing anyone from celebrating a holiday however they please? If you are going to rant about anyone try starting with the individuals who vandalised the stalls which arguably is the real reason this whole thing was stopped.
Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.
You can have winter solstice, winter shopping season or dance to Babushka goddess of winter Walmart Borscht. But no, you can't have actual Christmas without Christ.
You're not in any real position to stop me. Sorry.
Actually, I'm not sorry. Merry Winterval!
And thats not Christmas. I guess you could celebrate TBone's first owner like I would Lincoln. But Christmas is a religious event. Unless you're a Christian, you kinda just don't get it.
LordofHats wrote:
No one likes to be poked fun at. So yeah. It's kind of a dick move to then go out of ones way and poke fun at someone else. Especially on a day with special significance. It's sometimes called... Trolling :O
Fair point. I mostly took exception to the Karma comment regarding the vandalism.
Trolling or not this guy had the right to express his beliefs on the same public land as the church. Just because he was being a dick doesn't mean he should've had his stuff trashed. I'd feel exactly the same if some athiest went out and trashed a nativity.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Santa Clause would like to have some words with you about the sanctity of your "christian" holiday.
edit: Sorry Frazz I'm work blocked and can't see the video I will check out later
Grey Templar wrote: Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Isn't that what they were doing? This particular group were mearly putting out some stalls as a counterpoint to the Christian ones (which were still there). How is that preventing anyone from celebrating a holiday however they please? If you are going to rant about anyone try starting with the individuals who vandalised the stalls which arguably is the real reason this whole thing was stopped.
Its not. thats why its ok. I want to see the Pastafarian one.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Santa Clause would like to have some words with you about the sanctity of your "christian" holiday.
edit: Sorry Frazz I'm work blocked and can't see the video I will check out later
I wouldn't. To spare a fellow Dakkaite, that video is now considered a war crime by the UN.
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas is a Christian holiday. We are fine with sharing it, but activly trolling it is disrespectful of our beliefs.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Actually, I've just become a druid and would like you to get your own damned holiday, not hijack Winter's Solstice, bringing foliage inside, gift giving or feasting. These are all ancient and pagan.
I'm sure you lot could do something suitably austere on an agreed date in September, say a day's fasting, working to enable the poor, wearing a crown of brambles and walking barefoot.
But I've decided you Christians can't have 'our day' any more. Quit trolling it.
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas is a Christian holiday. We are fine with sharing it, but activly trolling it is disrespectful of our beliefs.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Actually, I've just become a druid and would like you to get your own damned holiday, not hijack Winter's Solstice, bringing foliage inside, gift giving or feasting. These are all ancient and pagan.
I'm sure you lot could do something suitably austere on an agreed date in September, say a day's fasting, working to enable the poor, wearing a crown of brambles and walking barefoot.
But I've decided you Christians can't have 'our day' any more. Quit trolling it.
History is written by the winners, Jack!
You want your holiday back? Come take it! On a more serious note, some slightly less... cultured people in my life have become very up at arms about a few of the Pagan roots in Christmas' symbology while simultaneously being oblivious to the fact that nearly every holiday we celebrate has them.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't see Atheists trolling other religion's holidays. If they did there would be a huge uproar, but somehow its ok to try and push Christianity out of its own holiday?
Generally athiests will act against the dominant relgion in the place they live because that will be, surprisingly, the dominant religious influence on their lives. Generally that religion will be Christianity. When the next biggest religion has, what? 2% of the population following it, the chances of it having much impact on the majority of athiests is minimal.
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas is a Christian holiday. We are fine with sharing it, but activly trolling it is disrespectful of our beliefs.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Actually, I've just become a druid and would like you to get your own damned holiday, not hijack Winter's Solstice, bringing foliage inside, gift giving or feasting. These are all ancient and pagan.
I'm sure you lot could do something suitably austere on an agreed date in September, say a day's fasting, working to enable the poor, wearing a crown of brambles and walking barefoot.
But I've decided you Christians can't have 'our day' any more. Quit trolling it.
I don't know about German's. We bring trees inside and light them on fire because we're wussies and can't hang with being uncomfortable in any way. So push off! PLus as a Texas, every day is a feast day, and it better be fried and/or covered in cheese!
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas is a Christian holiday. We are fine with sharing it, but activly trolling it is disrespectful of our beliefs.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Actually, I've just become a druid and would like you to get your own damned holiday, not hijack Winter's Solstice, bringing foliage inside, gift giving or feasting. These are all ancient and pagan.
I'm sure you lot could do something suitably austere on an agreed date in September, say a day's fasting, working to enable the poor, wearing a crown of brambles and walking barefoot.
But I've decided you Christians can't have 'our day' any more. Quit trolling it.
Grey Templar wrote: I don't see Atheists trolling other religion's holidays. If they did there would be a huge uproar, but somehow its ok to try and push Christianity out of its own holiday?
Generally athiests will act against the dominant relgion in the place they live because that will be, surprisingly, the dominant religious influence on their lives. Generally that religion will be Christianity. When the next biggest religion has, what? 2% of the population following it, the chances of it having much impact on the majority of athiests is minimal.
I betcha thats not correct. I'm thinking there's remarkably little atheist activity in Saudi Arabia.
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas is a Christian holiday. We are fine with sharing it, but activly trolling it is disrespectful of our beliefs.
Get your own damn holiday Atheists and accept that Christmas is one of the major holidays of the worlds largest religion. Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Actually, I've just become a druid and would like you to get your own damned holiday, not hijack Winter's Solstice, bringing foliage inside, gift giving or feasting. These are all ancient and pagan.
I'm sure you lot could do something suitably austere on an agreed date in September, say a day's fasting, working to enable the poor, wearing a crown of brambles and walking barefoot.
But I've decided you Christians can't have 'our day' any more. Quit trolling it.
Hey man, if Christians are going to tell me that I'm going to hell, then I have the right to be a douche about my beliefs too. Its the 1st amendment yall.
Grey Templar wrote: Celebrate it your own secular way, but let others celebrate it in their own.
Isn't that what they were doing? This particular group were mearly putting out some stalls as a counterpoint to the Christian ones (which were still there). How is that preventing anyone from celebrating a holiday however they please? If you are going to rant about anyone try starting with the individuals who vandalised the stalls which arguably is the real reason this whole thing was stopped.
Yes, although anybody can see they were deliberatly crowding the Christian booths out of stall space. And this pressured the city into stopping the whole thing.
They're just being sneaky about it now. Which I think is even worse.
People enjoying a holiday differently than I do doesn't get me terribly bent out of shape.
Then why call the athiests "dicks?"
I shouldn't have to point out the fact it is the behavior of the individuals in question that made them dicks, not the manner in which they celebrate Christmas.
Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.
You can have winter solstice, winter shopping season or dance to Babushka goddess of winter Walmart Borscht. But no, you can't have actual Christmas without Christ.
You're not in any real position to stop me. Sorry.
Actually, I'm not sorry. Merry Winterval!
And thats not Christmas. I guess you could celebrate TBone's first owner like I would Lincoln. But Christmas is a religious event. Unless you're a Christian, you kinda just don't get it.
Of course I do. I'm not from the moon, I just don't believe in sky-friends. My country has Protestant Christianity as its state religion, for Christ's sake!
LoneLictor wrote: Hey man, if Christians are going to tell me that I'm going to hell, then I have the right to be a douche about my beliefs too. Its the 1st amendment yall.
But if you don't believe in hell, why the hell do you care?
Yea you pretty much can't have Christmas without Christ. Thats kind of the point.
You can have winter solstice, winter shopping season or dance to Babushka goddess of winter Walmart Borscht. But no, you can't have actual Christmas without Christ.
You're not in any real position to stop me. Sorry.
Actually, I'm not sorry. Merry Winterval!
And thats not Christmas. I guess you could celebrate TBone's first owner like I would Lincoln. But Christmas is a religious event. Unless you're a Christian, you kinda just don't get it.
Of course I do. I'm not from the moon, I just don't believe in sky-friends. My country has Protestant Christianity as its state religion, for Christ's sake!
I 'get' Christmas, Frazzled.
But you can't celebrate it. As I said, its a religious service. It faith, like a Texas believing in snow. Do you feels me broham? OK serious for one moment. You can enjoy the festivities etc. But Christmas is, at its heart, a very spiritual experience. UNless you are a believer, you literally won't get that part of it. Just like I won't get all the shades of deep meaning that a Hajj brings to the pilgrim. Unserious mode off.
I think I will celebrate the Great Pasta Being tonight, but observing the Ritual of Pizza. Mmmm. order fresh pizza. Walk big dog in cold and night. Pick up pizza at end of walk. Big Dog and I share pizza and watch BSG season 1. Excellent.
Frazzled wrote: I betcha thats not correct. I'm thinking there's remarkably little atheist activity in Saudi Arabia.
Although I betcha that athiests in Saudi Arabia aren't all that bothered about Christians putting up nativity scenes outside of their churches and in public spaces... what with being more concerned about not getting stoned to death/imprisoned/etc by followers of the state religion.
Oh, wait, that is entirely accurate and gels exactly with what I said!
The fact is that even in a "tolerant" society like that in the USA, athiest billboards which were there fairly after whatever lottery/bidding system allowed them to be there, were vandalised by, one can only assume, "turn the other cheek" Christians.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
Not just the old faith's places of Worship. They were doing it in the 15 through 17th centuries.
It's common to find ruins of Portuguese Jesuit missions underneath the Catholic Spanish missions in California and Mexico. The Spaniards demolished the "lesser" buildings to replace them with their own (Spanish Catholics and Portuguese Jesuits didn't get on).
Christmas in its current form is a Christian holiday, regardless of some elements being absorbed from other religions.
And hey, its still religious. Why are the Atheists trying to get in on it?
If Atheists truly wanted to be free of religion, they would have nothing to do with any established religious practices. They would go about their lives totally ignoring religion, and wouldn't care about what others think.
Because if Atheists are correct, it doesn't really matter what you believe, it all ends up in the same nothingness. So why do they keep trying to marginalize religion?
Our country was founded on Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas in its current form is a Christian holiday, regardless of some elements being absorbed from other religions.
And hey, its still religious. Why are the Atheists trying to get in on it?
You can appreciate the message without wanting the religious trappings. Besides, the initial campaign wasn't about Athiests "taking over" Christmas, it was about one particular group of athiests disagreeing with Christians taking over public spaces promoting their religious messages.
If Atheists truly wanted to be free of religion, they would have nothing to do with any established religious practices. They would go about their lives totally ignoring religion, and wouldn't care about what others think.
Harder to do when your public spaces are filled up with people promoting their religious messages
Because if Atheists are correct, it doesn't really matter what you believe, it all ends up in the same nothingness. So why do they keep trying to marginalize religion?
Apparently around 70% of Americans are part of some kind of Christian group - I'd hardly call that marginalised
Our country was founded on Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.
You also have something called seperation of church and state - as the article in the OP shows, athiests have every right to take up public spaces at the same time as religious festivals occur, just as religious groups do
LoneLictor wrote: Hey man, if Christians are going to tell me that I'm going to hell, then I have the right to be a douche about my beliefs too. Its the 1st amendment yall.
But if you don't believe in hell, why the hell do you care?
Because it hurts my feelings.
Also, I blame the Christians. They vandalized the atheist stuff, and then when everything got taken down they blamed the atheists.
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas in its current form is a Christian holiday, regardless of some elements being absorbed from other religions.
And hey, its still religious. Why are the Atheists trying to get in on it?
They are jealous of our Christmas hams and the awesome power of mistletoe. Wait what do you mean mistletoe is pag CURSE YOU DRUIDIC TREEHUGGERS!
If Atheists truly wanted to be free of religion, they would have nothing to do with any established religious practices. They would go about their lives totally ignoring religion, and wouldn't care about what others think.
Yep. I sure a great majority of them do. That requires being matured and having a centered sense of self worth. Its the ones that are stilld ealing with issues that have problems.
LoneLictor wrote: Hey man, if Christians are going to tell me that I'm going to hell, then I have the right to be a douche about my beliefs too. Its the 1st amendment yall.
But if you don't believe in hell, why the hell do you care?
Because it hurts my feelings.
Also, I blame the Christians. They vandalized the atheist stuff, and then when everything got taken down they blamed the atheists.
Buck up Khorne boy! If someone told me the fairy princess was going to eat all my shoes unless I repent, I wouldn't give it a second thought.
I sincerely hope this whole post is a blatant troll.
Ya think? Although I do have a warped sense of humour that doesn't quite gel with most people's.
Frazzled wrote:Who? Coconut eating T Rexes?
Indians.
Grey Templar wrote: Christmas in its current form is a Christian holiday, regardless of some elements being absorbed from other religions.
And hey, its still religious. Why are the Atheists trying to get in on it?
If Atheists truly wanted to be free of religion, they would have nothing to do with any established religious practices. They would go about their lives totally ignoring religion, and wouldn't care about what others think.
Because if Atheists are correct, it doesn't really matter what you believe, it all ends up in the same nothingness. So why do they keep trying to marginalize religion?
Our country was founded on Freedom of Religion, not Freedom from Religion.
Okay, now for some more serious points.
Try most elements of christmas.
As for your other points, that's just it. Most atheists *can't* go about their lives totally ignoring religion, although they'd love to. At least, I would. I'm making a pretty damn good effort, anyway.
Religions (christianity and islam especially, for some reason) tend not to look too kindly upon those that disagree with them, regardless of whether or not the dissenters are threatening or actively trying to subvert your beliefs. That right there is a very, very good reason to keep a very wary eye on any and all religious activity. But I think that's getting too in-depth and philosophical for this thread.
Now, I don't actually agree with what these atheists did - as said, it smacks of trolling, although as I mentioned earlier it started a couple of years ago with one man manning a stall/booth/whatever to make a counterpoint to all the christian imagery being thrown in people's faces in december. That I can respect and even agree with.
Getting organised to be appointed most of the booths just to block the churches - not so much.
Vandalising booths belonging to these atheists, because you got blindsided - also not cool.
Both parties were in the wrong, and I really do think the city was completely in the right when they said: "if neither of you can behave, then neither of you gets to have any stalls." That's just good parenting. Or governing, In this case, the two are pretty much synonymous.
I would call interfering with the celebration of a major holiday to be subverting my beliefs. I certaintly would not approve of vandalizing people's signs, but I think Atheists just need to accept that they live in a country with a Christian majority. And being the majority gives you some privilege in the ability to express your belief with a National Holiday.
Accept that Christians have this time of year for expressing their beliefs, and also Easter. And don't interfere with the expression of that belief.
If you don't like that, too bad. You can leave the country or just deal with it.
Grey Templar wrote:I would call interfering with the celebration of a major holiday to be subverting my beliefs. I certaintly would not approve of vandalizing people's signs, but I think Atheists just need to accept that they live in a country with a Christian majority. And being the majority gives you some privilege in the ability to express your belief with a National Holiday.
Accept that Christians have this time of year for expressing their beliefs, and also Easter. And don't interfere with the expression of that belief.
If you don't like that, too bad. You can leave the country or just deal with it.
Set up your own holiday if you want.
It was the Christians who interfered with the atheists in the news article. They vandalized the signs, and as a result all the religious stuff got banned.
However this is a situation of the Atheists provoking people into action.
Plus we don't know who exactly was responsible for the vandalizing. I can assure you that the Church's leadership didn't decide to go vandalize them. It was probably a younger member who was a little sick of the stupidness Atheists try to pull each year.
Thus its really is the Atheists fault for provoking such actions. Doesn't absolve the person who commited them of the sin, but the greater blame is on the person who provoked them.
Its like Hamas shooting rockets at Israel. They deliberatly provoke Israel into shooting back so they can cause civilian casualties to make Israel look like the bad guy.
So when Christians express their opinions it's fine.
But when atheists do it, they're provoking people and that's the same of shooting rockets at Israel? And that means its okay to vandalize and censor their opinions?
Grey Templar wrote: Thus its really is the Atheists fault for provoking such actions. Doesn't absolve the person who commited them of the sin, but the greater blame is on the person who provoked them.
The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.
The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.
People complaining about offensive things is basically saying, "I can't handle my own emotions, so I want you to handle them for me."
Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.
There are Indians in Santa Monica? Did they cross the land bridge?
Okay, now for some more serious points. Try most elements of christmas. As for your other points, that's just it. Most atheists *can't* go about their lives totally ignoring religion, although they'd love to. At least, I would. I'm making a pretty damn good effort, anyway.
Sure they can. Unless they work for a mosque it literally doesn't impact them.
Religions (christianity and islam especially, for some reason) tend not to look too kindly upon those that disagree with them, regardless of whether or not the dissenters are threatening or actively trying to subvert your beliefs. That right there is a very, very good reason to keep a very wary eye on any and all religious activity. But I think that's getting too in-depth and philosophical for this thread.
Yep. And? Thats why we have the Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment to protect us from evil doers. PLus the dark army that are lawyers.
Now, I don't actually agree with what these atheists did - as said, it smacks of trolling, although as I mentioned earlier it started a couple of years ago with one man manning a stall/booth/whatever to make a counterpoint to all the christian imagery being thrown in people's faces in december. That I can respect and even agree with. Getting organised to be appointed most of the booths just to block the churches - not so much.
Its childish but I am ok if they followed the rules.
Vandalising booths belonging to these atheists, because you got blindsided - also not cool.
Agreed. Unless you have proof those stinking churchers did it though, its just spurious allegations.
Both parties were in the wrong, and I really do think the city was completely in the right when they said: "if neither of you can behave, then neither of you gets to have any stalls." That's just good parenting. Or governing, In this case, the two are pretty much synonymous.
Thye Jesus freaks weren't wrong. They never said the I believe in nothing brigade couldn't put up stalls (unless I missed something).
Again, as a virulent Church/state speratist on the order of the French Republic I'm ok with government "YOU OFF MY LAWN!" I just want the law enforced equally now matter which way. I actually think the cross carriers will lose unless they can show not everyone has been treated the same.
The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.
The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.
People complaining about offensive things is basically saying, "I can't handle my own emotions, so I want you to handle them for me."
Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.
Were there signs saying "Atheists are going to HELL!"?
Or were there signs saying "Jesus is the reason for the season", "Jesus loves you", or something to that effect?
One is offensive, one is not. And I'm pretty sure the offensive one was not present.
I'd put an "Atheists are going to HELL!" sign up there in offensivness with the Myth sign.
The sign about myths was extremely provocative and offensive. Plus the Atheists taking up half the boothspaces.
The straw that broke the camel's back and stuff.
People complaining about offensive things is basically saying, "I can't handle my own emotions, so I want you to handle them for me."
Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.
Were there signs saying "Atheists are going to HELL!"?
Or were there signs saying "Jesus is the reason for the season", "Jesus loves you", or something to that effect?
One is offensive, one is not. And I'm pretty sure the offensive one was not present.
I'd put an "Atheists are going to HELL!" sign up there in offensivness with the Myth sign.
When did I claim we have a right to not be offended?
I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.
People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says
Grey Templar wrote:
Thus its really is the Atheists fault for provoking such actions. Doesn't absolve the person who commited them of the sin, but the greater blame is on the person who provoked them.
Sticks and Stones. So some atheists wrote some stuff. Why is it their fault that criminal damage resulted? Clearly the religious signs annoy some people but there aren't reports of them being vandalised.
People are responsible for their own actions. You can't seriously excuse the vandals of most of the blame because they saw something they didn't like and seemingly couldnt help but destroy it. Whoever they were made a conscious decision to do that damage. So no, the people who 'provoked' them do not take the greater blame for their actions.
I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.
People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says
So, you're arguing that it was offensive to you and that means that its okay that its censored?
I'm sorry, I don't completely grasp your argument.
I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.
People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says
That depends entirely on what offends people. Perhaps a sign saying "Jesus is the reason for the season" is offensive because some may see it as false. You can't really decide what is certainly inflammatory and certainly not.
I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.
People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says
That depends entirely on what offends people. Perhaps a sign saying "Jesus is the reason for the season" is offensive because some may see it as false. You can't really decide what is certainly inflammatory and certainly not.
Edited
Objectivly, one can demonstate the sign is correct. If Christianity didn't exist, we wouldn't have a Christmas season. So really, Jesus is the reson for the season is a 100% factual statement.
I mearely am showing that the Atheists sign was needlessly inflamatory(though perhaps not illegally) and that the Christian's signs were most certaintly not.
People offended by "Jesus loves you" signs are seriously sad people. Ironically they need exactly what the sign says
Would you be offended by a sign saying that everything you believe is wrong? Or a sign that says if you don't believe exactly the same things as the sign represents then you are a bad person? Or a sign which represents a system of belief which you find abhorent (such as one supporting slavery, or terrorism, or pro-life/choice)?
A sign doesn't have to be obviously offensive to be offensive. Personally I don't really give a monkies about the majority of Christmas displays that I see around the place but I can understand why some people might. Just as I personally am not offended by the bus ads that I have seen which say something along the lines of "There probably isn't a god, so why worry?", but I can understand why some people may find them offensive.
Incidentally, I don't need the love of Jesus to be happy, nor do I fell that I am somehow a lesser or "sad" person for being able to live my life without the teachings of whatever religion you belong to and I find the idea that people think that because I do not feel the need to have religion in my life I am somehow incomplete deeply offensive.
Would you be offended by a sign saying that everything you believe is wrong? Or a sign that says if you don't believe exactly the same things as the sign represents then you are a bad person? Or a sign which represents a system of belief which you find abhorent (such as one supporting slavery, or terrorism, or pro-life/choice)?
You mean like the atheist's signs were to the Christians?
Meh, troll the old faiths into the ground and let's get on with creating our sci fi future already. Take Mass Effect, one of your crew members come up to you and says she's a Christian in an atheist universe. You have the option of patting her on the head and saying, "d'aww", or telling her to keep it quiet. =/
Relegion gives people hope, but there's other, material things that give that too. ...Things that don't have documentation that charts their origins from one piece of silliness to the other. Hey at least the pagans get to dance naked in a field a couple of times a year.
Its just that there is blame on the Atheists for provoking the action as well.
I read it. Don't be disingenuous now, you didn't just say there is blame on the atheists, specifically you said that they take the greater blame for it.
Frazzled wrote: You mean like the atheist's signs were to the Christians?
If you note I made no mention of their signs not being offensive and indeed detailed how I can understand how such signs can be seen as offensive by some people.
incidentally, if you have any proof that any religion/god/supernatural being is anything more than a collection of myths, I'd be more than happy to hear it and submit it to peer review
Mattman154 wrote: I have no clue what exalting even does, but thanks!
Currently it does nothing visible, although its use is being tracked by Legoburner. I believe that once the data collection is complete he will decide if he is going to build in any features using it.
Mattman154 wrote: I have no clue what exalting even does, but thanks!
Currently it does nothing visible, although its use is being tracked by Legoburner. I believe that once the data collection is complete he will decide if he is going to build in any features using it.
The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
Bran Dawri wrote: Most atheists *can't* go about their lives totally ignoring religion, although they'd love to. At least, I would. I'm making a pretty damn good effort, anyway.
I have no problem totally ignoring what a good portion of todays generation calls music*, celebrities and their antics on paparazzi news sites and increasingly mainstream news, unintelligent television, seasonal fashion trends, "the next big thing" gadgets every friggin month, the newest breakthrough diet/workout (again every month), whatever new craze replaced Harry Potter, etc etc.
If I can ignore all of the icons, figureheads and propaganda that this secular, materialistic and atheistic society has erected (in place of religion) year round 24/7, atheists can do it a few times a year when religious icons are erected for a short time. Its not difficult, so stop whining.
As I read what I typed, I seem like a puritan of some sort. But I can assure you I do my best to live life to its fullest, but in keeping with my Catholic upbringing and beliefs while inhabiting this transient world.
Bran Dawri wrote: Religions (christianity and islam especially, for some reason) tend not to look too kindly upon those that disagree with them, regardless of whether or not the dissenters are threatening or actively trying to subvert your beliefs.
Neither do governments or institutions of any kind, regardless of religiosity. Tell your boss you are going to make your own schedule and rules, or if you happen to be your own boss, tell the state and federal government you'll pay your taxes when its more convienent for you. See what happens.
* Not to say all music is terrible nowadays, but Bieber, his contemporaries and his predecessors... we can all probably agree on.
Kilkrazy wrote: In what way was it "turning the other cheek" to vandalise the atheist stalls?
Didn't you hear? It was the athiests fault for being so provocative and making fun of our christmas beliefs in Santa Claus. This country was founded on gingerbread principles and the founding fathers (minus Franklin and Jefferson, etc..) were all proud fireplace stocking hangers. Now I'm not saying that rape is legal, but you can't just wear clothes like that in public and not expect sleeping tigers to wake up.
0.o I didn't realise that Santa Cluas was in the bible... Though seeing as how loosely sourced that stuff is I doubt it would be that difficult to work him in between the new testament and the author's notes.
LoneLictor wrote:
Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.
If people are telling you that you're going to hell as you stroll down the street we should probably explore the root of the issue. Which is probably unrelated to Jebus or you being and athiest. You should really sit on this couch so we can get to the bottom of the issue.
LoneLictor wrote:
Maybe I'm offended by your religion. According to Jesus, I'm going to hell for being an atheist. I'd like to be able to take a stroll down the street without being told I'm goin' to hell, thank you very much.
I poop myself everyday for attention.
You edited out the first part of my post, where I explained why getting offended isn't a valid reason to ban stuff. That part of my post you quoted is an example of how stupid being offended can be. In honor of editing posts, I edited yours.
Time to get all Freudian on each other... (or would that be better phrased as, "how did that make you feel, and what has that got to do with you wanting to kill your father?")
MeanGreenStompa wrote: The Old Faiths would like to remind you that all your Christian religious festivals were placed on top of druidic and pagan festival dates in order to troll the gak out of the original European celebrations. You Christians also stuck your churches on The Old Faith's places of worship in the Old World and turned it's Gods into your demons. Modern Christianity is a politically assimilating construct and Christmas is nowhere near Christ's believed birth date somewhen in September.
True story, and well said MGS. The idea that you can't have Christmas without Christ is laughable imho. That is to say, I think the holiday has out-grown it's beginnings in religious dogma.
I am an athiest and I love Christmas, I love the gift-giving, I love the atmosphere, and I love the time spent connecting with distant family (mostly.) I enjoy the holiday so much more now than as a child, when Christmas was a solemn, (sober.. shudder) affair.
Yeah, I'm another Atheist who likes Xmas, though I used to have extreme antipathy towards it. It's just a nice time of year to get together with friends and family to eat, drink and be merry. I love walking home from the pub in the snow with a warm glow inside, I like turkey, booze, chocolate and parties. What's not to like about xmas? I don't even have a big problem with Jebus, just the 'son of God' stuff. Apart from that, I think he was was a revolutionary thinker who still has a lot to teach us about how to construct a 'good society'.
The Brits (including the one who's living over here now, and apparently joining my church) have it.
As a kid growing up pagan, I found Christmas and the other overt signs of Christianity's dominance of our society oppressive and sometimes scary. Whether it was friends having their D&D books burned by crazy Christian parents or relatives, pagan acquaintances having their ceremonies disrupted by false police reports or their businesses vandalized by so-called Christian scumbags, or just thinking about the parts of the Bible where it sanctions followers burning down our sacred groves, or tells them not to suffer a witch to live (my mom was a witch before she was a druid; and I knew a lot of witches / wiccans).
I kind of appreciate and sympathize with the atheists a lot of the time, just for being outside of and uncomfortable with the pervasive influence of Christianity in our society. I appreciate that someone out there is standing up to it, even if they're sometimes dicks about it.
Thankfully as I've grown up into a reasonably secure and confident adult, I see less to fear in it and I have the reassurance of knowing some good and kind and generous and open-minded Christians. I'm also able to enjoy the day off with my family, (mostly) separating it from the religion, of which I'm not too fond, and enjoying the American secular holiday for what it is. Heck, when the winter Christmas holiday as a celebration started getting popular a couple of hundred years ago the stricter varieties of Christians often decried it as pagan idolotry. As they should; stealing our Solstice, our Yule tree, and our mistletoe. But that's okay. We can share them. I'm glad those traditions live on on the wider world, even if a bit distorted and mislabeled.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
AustonT wrote:This sort of lashing out is indicative of the aura of negatively you seem to be projecting. Let's explore this.
AustonT wrote:I pooped myself on a rollercoaster and the girl next to me threw up
By saying this, you're provoking a sleeping tiger. If I kill you, the blame is mostly on you. Mostly.
If you two are more interested in having a personal disagreement than in contributing in a positive way to the thread, you can both just stop posting in the thread.
If you want to keep posting in here, I recommend that you stop responding to one another.
Kilkrazy wrote: In what way was it "turning the other cheek" to vandalise the atheist stalls?
Considering we have no information on who did the vandalism, it doesn't matter.
Indeed, the only fact that can be gleaned from that is that the vandalism made it more hassle then it was worth to do the displays in the first place. We shouldn't assign blame to either faction for it since there is no evidence of any kind posted who did what. I'm also willing to say that it's just as unlikely that the church leadership organized it as it was the atheists vandalized their own - either idea is strictly tin-foil hat territory IMO. But, again supposition; we don't know and never will.
Kilkrazy wrote: In what way was it "turning the other cheek" to vandalise the atheist stalls?
Considering we have no information on who did the vandalism, it doesn't matter.
Indeed, the only fact that can be gleaned from that is that the vandalism made it more hassle then it was worth to do the displays in the first place. We shouldn't assign blame to either faction for it since there is no evidence of any kind posted who did what. I'm also willing to say that it's just as unlikely that the church leadership organized it as it was the atheists vandalized their own - either idea is strictly tin-foil hat territory IMO. But, again supposition; we don't know and never will.
You know who else is a big fan on state-sponsored religious displays?
The state isn't paying for the display it pays for the park. It gets the money to pay for the park from taxes. Christians pay taxes. The church doesn't but they do. Your saying that they can not then use the park supported by their taxes for holiday festivities by the simple vitue of being Christians and wanting to publically display their faith? Sounds like being disenfranchised to me. Animal rights activists can go put up displays about what they believe and so can environmentalists, and even atheists. It's only equal if everyone really does have equal access regardless of personal opinions about the validity of thought.
That's really not what I said at all, the italicized point. Like, not even a little. What I meant was referring to the first line - I agree that Christians as individuals have as much right to display as atheists as individuals do; and the churches have absolutely no right of access IMO since they pay no property taxes to upkeep it. In other words, I think a first-come first-serve lottery where 18/21 were religious would be fair as long as it was individual parishioners signing up to it, just as it was fair when it was 18/21 atheists. I think we actually agree on this judging by your last sentence. My preferred method remains no displays at all though, especially once it starts being a problem. Freedom of speech means you have the right to do what you want on your own property; not a guaranteed right to have the government subsidize broadcasting your message.
Freedom of speech means you have the right to do what you want on your own property; not a guaranteed right to have the government subsidize broadcasting your message.
I don't really see how the government was subsidizing the broadcasting of a message, it's a public park, if the took it down and set it up every morning and night it would still be legal, as it's only temporary.
Also, I would love to see what the townsfolk think of this, I would hazard a guess that they're on the Christians side on this one, and it's their park.
Ratbarf wrote: I don't really see how the government was subsidizing the broadcasting of a message, it's a public park, if the took it down and set it up every morning and night it would still be legal, as it's only temporary.
They're subsidizing the message because they're providing a space for it to be displayed (and a prominent one, I assume), which means that the religious groups do not have to obtain their own space for it. Therefore the government has to have a neutral position on the content of the message: either all reasonable messages must be accepted (and if space does not permit that, given equal access to whatever process is used to obtain the limited space), or no messages can be accepted.
Also, I would love to see what the townsfolk think of this, I would hazard a guess that they're on the Christians side on this one, and it's their park.
Who cares what they think? Whether something is constitutional or not does not depend on an opinion poll, and a poll certainly doesn't give the majority the right to violate the rights of the minority.
Kilkrazy wrote: In what way was it "turning the other cheek" to vandalise the atheist stalls?
Considering we have no information on who did the vandalism, it doesn't matter.
Indeed, the only fact that can be gleaned from that is that the vandalism made it more hassle then it was worth to do the displays in the first place. We shouldn't assign blame to either faction for it since there is no evidence of any kind posted who did what. I'm also willing to say that it's just as unlikely that the church leadership organized it as it was the atheists vandalized their own - either idea is strictly tin-foil hat territory IMO. But, again supposition; we don't know and never will.
It doesn't have to be the Church leadership. If the signs were vandalised by incensed Christians, then they were failing to live up to the religious values they were supposedly defending. Just makes the whole thing even more of a farce. Whilst it's possible that the vandalism was done by mischievous agnostics, it seems unlikely.
They're subsidizing the message because they're providing a space for it to be displayed (and a prominent one, I assume), which means that the religious groups do not have to obtain their own space for it. Therefore the government has to have a neutral position on the content of the message: either all reasonable messages must be accepted (and if space does not permit that, given equal access to whatever process is used to obtain the limited space), or no messages can be accepted.
And I would say that within the context of that event the Athiest's placards were not reasonable. It would have been entirely different had they set up signs for Father Winter like the Soviets did.
Who cares what they think? Whether something is constitutional or not does not depend on an opinion poll, and a poll certainly doesn't give the majority the right to violate the rights of the minority.
Oh I don't know, possibly the Atheists who are going to be blamed for the town no longer having a cool winter set up for their park? Hearts and minds people hearts and minds, you can't destroy religion if people hate you because you're the reason they can't have nice things.
Kilkrazy wrote: In what way was it "turning the other cheek" to vandalise the atheist stalls?
Considering we have no information on who did the vandalism, it doesn't matter.
Indeed, the only fact that can be gleaned from that is that the vandalism made it more hassle then it was worth to do the displays in the first place. We shouldn't assign blame to either faction for it since there is no evidence of any kind posted who did what. I'm also willing to say that it's just as unlikely that the church leadership organized it as it was the atheists vandalized their own - either idea is strictly tin-foil hat territory IMO. But, again supposition; we don't know and never will.
It doesn't have to be the Church leadership. If the signs were vandalised by incensed Christians, then they were failing to live up to the religious values they were supposedly defending. Just makes the whole thing even more of a farce. Whilst it's possible that the vandalism was done by mischievous agnostics, it seems unlikely.
Again, you're just bloowing smoke out your ass. Without proof I can as easily say that the atheists did it themselves.
They're subsidizing the message because they're providing a space for it to be displayed (and a prominent one, I assume), which means that the religious groups do not have to obtain their own space for it. Therefore the government has to have a neutral position on the content of the message: either all reasonable messages must be accepted (and if space does not permit that, given equal access to whatever process is used to obtain the limited space), or no messages can be accepted.
And I would say that within the context of that event the Athiest's placards were not reasonable. It would have been entirely different had they set up signs for Father Winter like the Soviets did.
Who cares what they think? Whether something is constitutional or not does not depend on an opinion poll, and a poll certainly doesn't give the majority the right to violate the rights of the minority.
Oh I don't know, possibly the Atheists who are going to be blamed for the town no longer having a cool winter set up for their park? Hearts and minds people hearts and minds, you can't destroy religion if people hate you because you're the reason they can't have nice things.
Frazzled wrote:Again, you're just bloowing smoke out your ass. Without proof I can as easily say that the atheists did it themselves.
That'd be convenient for the demonisation of the atheists, wouldn't it? Something bad is done, and it was probably done by disgruntled people who would call themselves Christians, but without proof we should ignore it entirely and only focus on the group that you don't like doing things you don't like. After all, maybe they did it too? Massive cop-out.
Frazzled wrote:Again, you're just bloowing smoke out your ass. Without proof I can as easily say that the atheists did it themselves.
That'd be convenient for the demonisation of the atheists, wouldn't it? Something bad is done, and it was probably done by disgruntled people who would call themselves Christians, but without proof we should ignore it entirely and only focus on the group that you don't like doing things you don't like. After all, maybe they did it too? Massive cop-out.
Horse gak. Again you're assuming facts not in evidence. Call me when you have proof of...anything.
Frazzled wrote:Again, you're just bloowing smoke out your ass. Without proof I can as easily say that the atheists did it themselves.
That'd be convenient for the demonisation of the atheists, wouldn't it? Something bad is done, and it was probably done by disgruntled people who would call themselves Christians, but without proof we should ignore it entirely and only focus on the group that you don't like doing things you don't like. After all, maybe they did it too? Massive cop-out.
Horse gak. Again you're assuming facts not in evidence. Call me when you have proof of...anything.
Of course I'm inferring from the situation without evidence. It's the most likely situation. You can huff all you want about 'no proof, not worth considering' but in the end you're just going to come across as being unwilling to admit any wrong-doing could have taken part on the part of the Christian populace. That, I'm afraid, is horse gak.
Frazzled wrote:Again, you're just bloowing smoke out your ass. Without proof I can as easily say that the atheists did it themselves.
That'd be convenient for the demonisation of the atheists, wouldn't it? Something bad is done, and it was probably done by disgruntled people who would call themselves Christians, but without proof we should ignore it entirely and only focus on the group that you don't like doing things you don't like. After all, maybe they did it too? Massive cop-out.
Horse gak. Again you're assuming facts not in evidence. Call me when you have proof of...anything.
Of course I'm inferring from the situation without evidence. It's the most likely situation. You can huff all you want about 'no proof, not worth considering' but in the end you're just going to come across as being unwilling to admit any wrong-doing could have taken part on the part of the Christian populace. That, I'm afraid, is horse gak.
No its not. Santa Monica is a diverse population. IN actuality its most liekly teenagers of your age group, just being dicks. Where were you at the time of the incident?
Frazzled wrote:Again, you're just bloowing smoke out your ass. Without proof I can as easily say that the atheists did it themselves.
That'd be convenient for the demonisation of the atheists, wouldn't it? Something bad is done, and it was probably done by disgruntled people who would call themselves Christians, but without proof we should ignore it entirely and only focus on the group that you don't like doing things you don't like. After all, maybe they did it too? Massive cop-out.
Horse gak. Again you're assuming facts not in evidence. Call me when you have proof of...anything.
Of course I'm inferring from the situation without evidence. It's the most likely situation. You can huff all you want about 'no proof, not worth considering' but in the end you're just going to come across as being unwilling to admit any wrong-doing could have taken part on the part of the Christian populace. That, I'm afraid, is horse gak.
No its not. Santa Monica is a diverse population. IN actuality its most liekly teenagers of your age group, just being dicks. Where were you at the time of the incident?
Haha, calling people of my age group teenagers would be a fairly major mathematical error. And resorting to stupid insults like that isn't going to convince me. But hey, if you're stuck on the issue then I'm not going to convince you. Just going to have to disagree with you on that one.
It's become a commercial venture to the benefit of the US economy. My problem is only when people then demand it must be devoid of any religion because it was a pagan holiday 2000 years ago, or its no where near Christ's birthday. That's just hogwash. It's not the point for Christians and why should anyone give a gak when they celebrate his birthday?
) put up signs and things protesting religious christmas or easter displays in the middle of summer?
s"
I will check out later 
