Nativity Scene Controversy in Central Texas

[Risottia]

Aww, cute...they want to evangelize too!
I would be very interested to see how many non-Christians really have a problem with nativity scenes.

I don't.
Then again, I do have problems with the government using public money on those.

[Tmutarakhan]

In Pittsburgh, where I lived in the late 80's early 90's, there was a fine annual tradition of Creche Litigation. One year, after a court ruled that the creche would be fine if accompanied by symbols from other religions and secular holiday decorations, we got a display with the creche, a menorah, a crescent with Salaam ("peace") in Arabic script, a tree (for the Wodenists, I assume), and a Santa sleigh (for the Capitalists), and a goofily-grinning Frosty the Snowman (for the believers in World Ice Theory?) The reindeer sort of clashed with the sheep, and the Magi's camels, and it was hard not to wonder how Frosty stayed unmelted in the Middle East.

Can I post this on great NSG quotes. Pretty Please...

You're Pretty Welcome!

[Bosiu]

I think as long as the city doesn't discriminate against other displays, then this should totally be allowed.

[Emenah]

You should value your separation between Church and State more. We didn't get ours until '96.

[West Failure]

Nativity scenes are a good source of free plastic camels.

This post cheered me up no end.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

But you should care! These manger scenes travel on government owned roads. They are produced by factories that, through one form or another, receive government money. Good God man, They are built to specifications outlined by federal safety standards! The government even unfairly creates for them their own special holiday, this 'Christ Mass.' How much more can the government support them before you are willing to take a dramatic stand against these clay figures of doom? Even the mere presence of them is a clear assault on our dearly held beliefs. Besides, not having their spiteful Christian faces staring back at us makes everyone happy (who doesn't like a cultural wasteland of conformity?).

lol what a troll

the issue is that the government is openly endorsing a religion by allowing it to be placed on public land

the government should be secular.

[Mike the Progressive]

But you should care! These manger scenes travel on government owned roads. They are produced by factories that, through one form or another, receive government money. Good God man, They are built to specifications outlined by federal safety standards! The government even unfairly creates for them their own special holiday, this 'Christ Mass.' How much more can the government support them before you are willing to take a dramatic stand against these clay figures of doom? Even the mere presence of them is a clear assault on our dearly held beliefs. Besides, not having their spiteful Christian faces staring back at us makes everyone happy (who doesn't like a cultural wasteland of conformity?).

lol what a troll

the issue is that the government is openly endorsing a religion by allowing it to be placed on public land

the government should be secular.

He makes a point though.

Who cares?

[The Soviet Technocracy]

lol what a troll

the issue is that the government is openly endorsing a religion by allowing it to be placed on public land

the government should be secular.

He makes a point though.

Who cares?

Evidently people who care about the whole separation of church and state thing.

[Neutraligon]

lol what a troll

the issue is that the government is openly endorsing a religion by allowing it to be placed on public land

the government should be secular.

He makes a point though.

Who cares?

People who are worried that the government seems to be endorsing a religion.

[Mike the Progressive]

He makes a point though.

Who cares?

Evidently people who care about the whole separation of church and state thing.

Right, because this -THIS- is tearing that apart. I can see it now: Crosses on public lands today, Gestapo-Inquisitors breaking down my door for looking at porn tomorrow. This must be the road to 1984, it's the end of the fucking world, I'm moving to Canada or Europe because they are so uber-sophisticated, blah blah blah.

Give me a break. I could see if they wanted to establish a state church, where you had to attend. Or if they made Christianity the state religion and required for citizenship. But how is this, in practical terms, violating the separation of church and state? There can never be a really absolute of anything.

Plus, guess what, it's not affecting you and it's not affecting me. So again, who cares?

[Neutraligon]

Evidently people who care about the whole separation of church and state thing.

Right, because this -THIS- is tearing that apart. I can see it now: Crosses on public lands today, Gestapo-Inquisitors breaking down my door for looking at porn tomorrow. This must be the road to 1984, it's the end of the fucking world, I'm moving to Canada or Europe because they are so uber-sophisticated, blah blah blah.

Give me a break. I could see if they wanted to establish a state church, where you had to attend. Or if they made Christianity the state religion and required for citizenship. But how is this, in practical terms, violating the separation of church and state? There can never be a really absolute of anything.

Plus, guess what, it's not affecting you and it's not affecting me. So again, who cares?

The idea is slippery slope and the belief that this is illegal. The problem is that the sources provided from the OP are biased. Apparently the atheist group did not ask for the nativity scene to be taken down and the banner be put in its place, only that the banner be put up alongside the scene. If this was denied this is a clear example of state endorsing religion(not necessarily a single religion but religion in general).

[Dyakovo]

Yeah, a case of the scrooges is when someone doesn't embrace Christianity.

More than 2/3 of America are Christians. A small minority of militant atheists always try to ruin it for the majority. The nativity isn't forcing anybody to convert. Honestly, if it is that big of a problem for them they should probably get out Texas.

Obeying the law is "ruining it for everyone"?

[Gauntleted Fist]

More than 2/3 of America are Christians. A small minority of militant atheists always try to ruin it for the majority. The nativity isn't forcing anybody to convert. Honestly, if it is that big of a problem for them they should probably get out Texas.

Obeying the law is "ruining it for everyone"?

Goddamn law ruining my theocracy.

[Dyakovo]

The Christians don't try to hijack the courthouse on those days. Why can't they put their creches up on their own property? It's not like they don't have any buildings.

really? I've seen state properties filled with witches and skeletons and devils on Halloween... you got the President going to church on Easter and Thanksgiving being shown on the news... yet nary a peep at those times. Television shows people praying around a roasted turkey during thanksgiving feasts... and the silence from these groups is really deafening.

Neither halloween nor thanksgiving are religious holidays.

[Dyakovo]

If it's not a publically owned lawn I couldn't care less.

Ah, so I can put it on your lawn?

If you want to get arrested for trespassimg, sure feel free to try.

[Neutraligon]

really? I've seen state properties filled with witches and skeletons and devils on Halloween... you got the President going to church on Easter and Thanksgiving being shown on the news... yet nary a peep at those times. Television shows people praying around a roasted turkey during thanksgiving feasts... and the silence from these groups is really deafening.

Neither halloween nor thanksgiving are religious holidays.

Add to that, the president, while a part of the government also has private time, and his attending church is exactly that, private time. In addition TV shows are not a part of the government and therefore do not need to be held to the same standards.

[Mike the Progressive]

Right, because this -THIS- is tearing that apart. I can see it now: Crosses on public lands today, Gestapo-Inquisitors breaking down my door for looking at porn tomorrow. This must be the road to 1984, it's the end of the fucking world, I'm moving to Canada or Europe because they are so uber-sophisticated, blah blah blah.

Give me a break. I could see if they wanted to establish a state church, where you had to attend. Or if they made Christianity the state religion and required for citizenship. But how is this, in practical terms, violating the separation of church and state? There can never be a really absolute of anything.

Plus, guess what, it's not affecting you and it's not affecting me. So again, who cares?

The idea is slippery slope and the belief that this is illegal. .

Please. Let's stop with this slippery slope bullshit. If we applied that to anything, we'd have nothing. Again, on philosophical grounds, I can understand. But in reality, this doesn't do any harm. When we start deriving our laws directly from the Ten Commandments, or making religious figures grand inquisitors, let me know, I'll be the first one to rise up against it.

[Neutraligon]

The idea is slippery slope and the belief that this is illegal. .

Please. Let's stop with this slippery slope bullshit. If we applied that to anything, we'd have nothing. Again, on philosophical grounds, I can understand. But in reality, this doesn't do any harm. When we start deriving our laws directly from the Ten Commandments, or making religious figures grand inquisitors, let me know, I'll be the first one to rise up against it.

Please read my second post.

[Mike the Progressive]

Please. Let's stop with this slippery slope bullshit. If we applied that to anything, we'd have nothing. Again, on philosophical grounds, I can understand. But in reality, this doesn't do any harm. When we start deriving our laws directly from the Ten Commandments, or making religious figures grand inquisitors, let me know, I'll be the first one to rise up against it.

Please read my second post.

Second post? Did you mean the rest of your comment?

[Neutraligon]

Please read my second post.

Second post? Did you mean the rest of your comment?

Sorry yes I did. I forgot I had not separated those out.

[Mike the Progressive]

Second post? Did you mean the rest of your comment?

Sorry yes I did. I forgot I had not separated those out.

Ah. But I'm saying that either way, it's not really a big deal.

[Sathera]

The way I see it, the Nativity scene is representing Christmas, not Christ, and the fact that some people are getting pissed about it just astounds me. To me, it's a symbol of family around Christmastime, loving and close together, and I'm amazed that people want to put up Propaganda around it to 'represent their side,' I mean my god people, it's not like they're putting up a giant cross that says "Conform or Die."

[Neutraligon]

The way I see it, the Nativity scene is representing Christmas, not Christ, and the fact that some people are getting pissed about it just astounds me. To me, it's a symbol of family around Christmastime, loving and close together, and I'm amazed that people want to put up Propaganda around it to 'represent their side,' I mean my god people, it's not like they're putting up a giant cross that says "Conform or Die."

The problem with that is that many people do not see Christmas as a secular holiday, despite the rampant commercialization. The nativity scene in particular is not seen as a secular part of the Holiday due to its close affinity with the Christian religion itself(that being the birth of Christ).

[Tekania]

I agree partially with those hypocritical fucktards from Wisconsin..... government property is no place for a nativity scene.

[Dyakovo]

I agree partially with those hypocritical fucktards from Wisconsin..... government property is no place for a nativity scene.

How are they hypocritical?