Nativity Scene Controversy in Central Texas

[Tekania]

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

How are they hypocritical?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is not just asking that the nativity scene come down. It’s now also asking that a banner go up.

If you thought the nativity was controversial, wait until you see the banner. It reads: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds.”

If they were demanding that their banner go up along side the existing scene... Or they just stopped short of just wanting the nativity scene down.... But wanting the nativity scene down AND putting their expressing in its place... That's hypocrisy. They're expressing that they be allowed expression they wish to deny others.... That's hypocrisy. Either both can express or neither.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

How are they hypocritical?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is not just asking that the nativity scene come down. It’s now also asking that a banner go up.

If you thought the nativity was controversial, wait until you see the banner. It reads: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds.”

If they were demanding that their banner go up along side the existing scene... Or they just stopped short of just wanting the nativity scene down.... But wanting the nativity scene down AND putting their expressing in its place... That's hypocrisy. They're expressing that they be allowed expression they wish to deny others.... That's hypocrisy. Either both can express or neither.

Why are you trying to make my head explode? What did I ever do to you?

[Dyakovo]

How are they hypocritical?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is not just asking that the nativity scene come down. It’s now also asking that a banner go up.

If you thought the nativity was controversial, wait until you see the banner. It reads: “At this season of the Winter Solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth & superstition that hardens hearts & enslaves minds.”

If they were demanding that their banner go up along side the existing scene... Or they just stopped short of just wanting the nativity scene down.... But wanting the nativity scene down AND putting their expressing in its place... That's hypocrisy. They're expressing that they be allowed expression they wish to deny others.... That's hypocrisy. Either both can express or neither.

Obviously you didn't bother reading to closely... Fox is lying. They want the nativity to come down or their banner to go up with it.

[Tekania]

Why are you trying to make my head explode? What did I ever do to you?

Why would your head explode?

[Risottia]

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

More than 2/3 of America are Christians non-Jews. A small minority of militant atheists Jews 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 der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika.

Fixed for more Godwin.

[Fionnuala_Saoirse]

Why are you trying to make my head explode? What did I ever do to you?

Why would your head explode?

I've repeatedly pointed out that the FOX writer isn't being honest about the whole replace one with the other thing.

[The Black Plains]

I mean, I think it's pretty... but if people want it so badly then they should have people donate to fund it. That way there can be no gripes.

[Dyakovo]

I mean, I think it's pretty... but if people want it so badly then they should have people donate to fund it and it should not be put up on government property. That way there can be no gripes.

Fixed.

[Bottle]

If they were demanding that their banner go up along side the existing scene... Or they just stopped short of just wanting the nativity scene down.... But wanting the nativity scene down AND putting their expressing in its place... That's hypocrisy. They're expressing that they be allowed expression they wish to deny others.... That's hypocrisy. Either both can express or neither.

Obviously you didn't bother reading to closely... Fox is lying. They want the nativity to come down or their banner to go up with it.

It's really horrifying how willing people are to swallow the bullshit from Fox. I guess it's easier to believe that the godless are nasty hypocritical jerks, than it is to believe that a network with a proven history of constantly and consistently lying is, well, lying again.

[Bottle]

I mean, I think it's pretty... but if people want it so badly then they should have people donate to fund it. That way there can be no gripes.

Why do religious people have such a hard time finding NON-GOVERNMENT PROPERTY on which to celebrate their religious traditions?

If, as I am constantly told, Christians are the dominant group in America, then why don't ANY of them own yards of their own? Why don't ANY of their churches have front lawns on which they can erect their religious monuments? Are there NO Christian property owners who are willing or able to display the nativity? Why must they constantly demand unwilling charity from tax payers, and insist that government space be granted to them in order to promote their sectarian beliefs?

[Bottle]

*sigh*
Intolerance is a problem...

I am tolerant towards other people's faiths and religions, why can't they be?
The courthouse was just trying to celebrate the holidays and these people are bending the issue into something it isn't.

It's not like the atheists would want something different on display?

I'd say laziness, ignorance, and arrogance are the real problems in this case. Maybe you should try actually learning about the topic BEFORE you presume to vomit your uninformed opinion all over our nice thread.

[Hydesland]

Are expressions of religious belief
Upset a number of people

The fact that they upset x amount of people is already taken as a given by the story, so what you're saying is entirely uninteresting and entirely irrelevant. Let's remember what this is about, the council okayed a group to erect a nativity scene in a public space. Some activist atheist group decided that because there is a nativity scene that means that the council must also okay their symbol, otherwise they're apparently hypocrites. This however rests completely on the premise that the two scenes are actually equivalent, otherwise the council can consistently reject their application without being hypocritical. Seeing as offensive messages to all theistic people does not promote community spirit, holiday cheer and is deliberately designed to piss a maximal amount of people off, and is not in any sense a traditional custom of the community, to say that the two are equivalent and that there are no grounds to oppose it other than religious is insane and you have not presented any compelling argument at all to show otherwise.

NSGspeak meaning, of course, "Something I refuse to try and refute".

Since NSGspeak is the very, utter antithesis of constructive and useful debate, it doesn't deserve to be respected, only chastised and ridiculed.

There's also nothing inherent to school prayers which says that non-Christians can't enjoy them.

You can't reasonably expect non religious people to enjoy a prayer, you can reasonably expect non religious people to enjoy some pretty traditional aesthetics or a school play.

The government is to be bound by rules that dictate it's actions. If a small town government thinks that pandering to it's community takes precedence over the rules, that small town government can get fucked.

That's a separate issue. The law is not benevolent, you can break the law without being a fucker. Sometimes (realistically always) people are inconsistent with their own rules, instead of being super moralistic and deciding deontologically that anyone that does this is always and everywhere evil, I actually look at the specific example and see what real (i.e. not meaningless generalised and abstract, NSGspeak) effects it has on people and the damage it causes. One of the reasons I don't believe you're being genuine is because you seem expressively opposed to deontological moralising, even apparently nihilistic. This is the approach an ethical pragmatist would take.

Pretty sure municipal governments have the power to enact statutes that affect people in a significant way.

This is not a municipal government or policy-maker enacting any statute.

Right, I'm pretty sure the moment you start supporting religious plays is the moment you can stop calling yourself secular.

You'd be wrong, British schools have had a long history of nativity plays with a long history of secular schools, without descending into these alleged slippery slope atheistic oppression dystopian scenarios that Americans like to pretend will happen if it does so. Last time I checked, it was US schools that teach creationism, not British.

[Farnhamia]

I'd say laziness, ignorance, and arrogance are the real problems in this case. Maybe you should try actually learning about the topic BEFORE you presume to vomit your uninformed opinion all over our nice thread.

That's not a large assumption, is it? /sarcasm
I read the article.
I support the expression of religion, just because atheism doesn't have something to express doesn't mean it is wrong to display things pertaining to religion.
The group supposedly supports freedom of religion, but does not support celebrating the diversity of religions? Doesn't make sense.

The government should never even appear to be promoting one religion, either at all or over any other. It's as simple as that. If the atheists involved have behaved as assholes, that proves nothing. I cannot believe that there was nowhere in that town where a Nativity scene could be put up that wasn't public property.

[Dyakovo]

*sigh*
Intolerance is a problem...

I am tolerant towards other people's faiths and religions (or lack there-of), why can't they be?
The courthouse was just trying to celebrate the holidays and these people are bending the issue into something it isn't.

It's not like the atheists would want something different on display?

The issue is government endorsement of religion, which is exactly what using tax-payer's money to put up a christian display on government property is...

[Desperate Measures]

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.

So, it doesn't matter if it's unconstitutional if most people just kind of agree that the act is harmless?

[Desperate Measures]

*sigh*
Intolerance is a problem...

I am tolerant towards other people's faiths and religions (or lack there-of), why can't they be?
The courthouse was just trying to celebrate the holidays and these people are bending the issue into something it isn't.

It's not like the atheists would want something different on display?

I wanna be judged at the non-religious courthouse, please.

[Farnhamia]

The government should never even appear to be promoting one religion, either at all or over any other. It's as simple as that. If the atheists involved have behaved as assholes, that proves nothing. I cannot believe that there was nowhere in that town where a Nativity scene could be put up that wasn't public property.

Why not promote all religions, as to promote freedom of religion? I would have no issues seeing the star of David on the courthouse too.
It is a good thing to have a reminder people have and share different faiths.

Keep in mind, it was a group of people that wanted to put the display up. The government didn't set it up.
As I've learned, a democracy is supposed to work for the people, is it not? I might criticize the government if it was bias to a religion, but it appears that the group doesn't really want representation and is more aimed toward slander.

You want to promote freedom of religion? Fine, you put up a display for every single faith and denomination in the US on that lawn, and then we'll see. But really, the government only has to say (which it does), "You are free to worship as you like." I don't see where freedom of religion needs promoting.

And again, the atheists in this case acting like assholes proves nothing except that they are assholes.

[The Black Plains]

Why not promote all religions, as to promote freedom of religion? I would have no issues seeing the star of David on the courthouse too.
It is a good thing to have a reminder people have and share different faiths.

Keep in mind, it was a group of people that wanted to put the display up. The government didn't set it up.
As I've learned, a democracy is supposed to work for the people, is it not? I might criticize the government if it was bias to a religion, but it appears that the group doesn't really want representation and is more aimed toward slander.

You want to promote freedom of religion? Fine, you put up a display for every single faith and denomination in the US on that lawn, and then we'll see. But really, the government only has to say (which it does), "You are free to worship as you like." I don't see where freedom of religion needs promoting.

And again, the atheists in this case acting like assholes proves nothing except that they are assholes.

I wonder if the wise men were stuffed with... straw?

[Farnhamia]

You want to promote freedom of religion? Fine, you put up a display for every single faith and denomination in the US on that lawn, and then we'll see. But really, the government only has to say (which it does), "You are free to worship as you like." I don't see where freedom of religion needs promoting.

And again, the atheists in this case acting like assholes proves nothing except that they are assholes.

I wonder if the wise men were stuffed with... straw?

They probably are. Or made of plastic.

[Flameswroth]

So I had this bright idea to go on google maps, look up Athens, Texas, and see if there was actually an open lot downtown other than the courthouse where the nativity could have been set up. Browsed all the way there, dragged the little yellow man onto the main street through town near the courthouse...and learned that my work computer doesn't have the latest version of Flash and can't view those pictures. Soclose.jpg

Anyone else about to do that and take a look at the main drag through town? I want to see if they could have like...moved the creche one block down and avoided all this headache.

[Desperate Measures]

"Hi! Courthouse Holiday Decorating Deptartment, this is Alice speaking!"
"Hi, Alice. I noticed you had a religious display on the Courthouse lawn. I don't celebrate the holidays and I thought maybe I could put up my own banner so that others that are like-minded in the town can see that our courthouse doesn't only represent Christians. It would also show a separation of church and state. All that."
"Okaaaaay... what would it say."
"There is no God. Religion is a myth. Something along those lines."
"That's not very in line with celebrating the holidays."
"What?"
"Maybe you can say Goodwill Towards Men. That's neutral."
"I... yes, that's nice. I like that but it's not my message."
"Why don't you want goodwill towards men?"
"What? No... no. This is something so that atheists won't feel shunned."
"OK. We'll make a banner that says, "Happy Holidays! Love, The Damned."
"That's... insulting... um. And we don't celebrate the Holidays - you can see the etymology of the word holiday really... easily..."
"You're not working with me. Oh, I get it. If you look behind the manger we have a little menorah for you people."
"...."

[Risottia]

Why not promote all religions, as to promote freedom of religion? I would have no issues seeing the star of David on the courthouse too.
It is a good thing to have a reminder people have and share different faiths.

Why not just save public money and do not have the gov't promote ANY religion?
It is a good thing to have a reminder the gov't has no business in religious issues.

[Farnhamia]

So I had this bright idea to go on google maps, look up Athens, Texas, and see if there was actually an open lot downtown other than the courthouse where the nativity could have been set up. Browsed all the way there, dragged the little yellow man onto the main street through town near the courthouse...and learned that my work computer doesn't have the latest version of Flash and can't view those pictures. Soclose.jpg

Anyone else about to do that and take a look at the main drag through town? I want to see if they could have like...moved the creche one block down and avoided all this headache.

Not right downtown but there's plenty of open space a little further out. The town's only 17 square miles, after all, it's not like anyone wishing to gaze upon the Nativity scene would have to drive for hours.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

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?

Europe and Canada institutionalise religious discrimination.

And I'd rather have the government actually be secular and separate from endorsing or denying any theological notion, instead of by default promoting Christianity, or irreligion, or whatever.

[NyxNyke]

Militant atheists are hated for no reason at all. They don't crash planes into skyscrapers or bomb abortion clinics, yet they're decried as some sort of boogeyman collective.[/quote]

Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, effectively Hitler, and the French Revolution are all examples of where militant atheism leads in the general mind. These are all more recent than Catholic jihadistic crusades and the US news dose not do a good job of covering the Islamic violence or even the Hindu conflicts. Thus when someone self identifies with any group that promotes violence (Islam, atheist, clan, drug gangs) I have the right to be concerned and reserved. If I identify myself as a Christian to a Wiccan (or Jew) I would expect to be viewed with the same concern as their frame of reference reinforces "burring time" and Pogrom.
The other reason they are hated is the wet blanket effect they have on a party. If I decorate for a Saturnalia and you tell me I have to take it down because you do not wish to party I am not going to be happy with you.