Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Did I say the Vandals had no blame? No, read my quote.

Its just that there is blame on the Atheists for provoking the action as well.


If I walked into a Jewish gathering and said "you know, Hitler wasn't such a bad guy" who's fault would it really be if I got beat up and assaulted?

*This is an OTT example to illustrate my point.


There would be assault and battery charges on my attackers, but it was my stupid action that led to it.

Don't poke a sleeping tiger.

So you really think that the people that beat someone for their opinion are less at fault than the person talking?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
What I find hilarious... is that Christmas is a pagan holiday.

B.. But Jesus is the reason for the season!

Mattman, I wish I could exalt that post more than once.

 LoneLictor wrote:
Mattman, I wish I could exalt that post more than once.

I have no clue what exalting even does, but thanks!

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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

Interesting, thanks for the info!

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.

I just came into this debate, and....Hear, hear.

In what way was it "turning the other cheek" to vandalise the atheist stalls?

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.

AustonT wrote:

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.

This sort of lashing out is indicative of the aura of negatively you seem to be projecting. Let's explore this.

"And how did that make you feel?"

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?")

 Wyrmalla wrote:
"how did that make you feel, and what has that got to do with you wanting to kill your father?"

He just keeps on provoking me!

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.

 Albatross wrote:

 Lint wrote:

 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.

 LoneLictor wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

Judge has denied
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/11/no-nativity-scene-in-santa-monica-this-year-judge-rules-.html

 LordofHats wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

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.

Let's try to keep it on-topic and friendly, please. -Mannahnin

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.

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.

God knows who did it.

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.

 htj wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ratbarf wrote:

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.

Dude its Santa Monica. No one really cares.

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.

 htj wrote:

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.