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.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lint wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

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?

All fair points.

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.

 AustonT wrote:
Sure you can you can have more Christmas without Christ.

No one is going to bite? Fine, I'll quote myself.
Christmas without Christ is mas. Mas presents, mas consumerism, mas decorations, and mas etc.

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

 AustonT wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Sure you can you can have more Christmas without Christ.

No one is going to bite? Fine, I'll quote myself.
Christmas without Christ is mas. Mas presents, mas consumerism, mas decorations, and mas etc.

That needs to be on a card for something

Jehovah Witness Christmas card?

 AustonT wrote:
Jehovah Witness Christmas card?

That would be like getting blood from a stone... then putting it into a different stone...

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
Jehovah Witness Christmas card?

That would be like getting blood from a stone... then putting it into a different stone...

You just blew my mind bro...

Mattman154 wrote:

 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.

 Frazzled wrote:


Thats because sometimes there is karma.

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

 LordofHats wrote:

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

exactly.

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]

Bran Dawri wrote:
I wonder: why is it called a nativity?

I sincerely hope this whole post is a blatant troll.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:


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!

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.

 Albatross wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


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.

Happy Festivus!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lint wrote:

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.

I think this is an important point about karma.

 Grey Templar wrote:

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

Palindrome wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lint wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Its not.

Whats not?