Nativity Scene Controversy in Central Texas

[Vestr-Norig]

This is dissapointing.

It's supposed to be the theists bitching about the athiests, not the other way around!

It is not so at all. I would say, that the role has (at least in Europe) been quite turned around, where Christians meets far more opposition for their fate than atheists do.

[Dyakovo]

Tragic. Just, tragic.

Yeah, it is tragic that some ignorant fuckwads want to break the law...
Unfortunately they've been allowed to get way with it for so long they think its okay.

[Vestr-Norig]

Tragic. Just, tragic.

Yeah, it is tragic that some ignorant fuckwads want to break the law...
Unfortunately they've been allowed to get way with it for so long they think its okay.

It is tragic that some atheist who do not live there, try to remove an ancient tradition, which the locals have done for quite a time, while replacing it with a clearly blasphemous and offensive propaganda poster, promoting their disbelief, while mocking religious belief.

[Hebalobia]

A couple of points.

1. They way I read the article the banner would be in addition to the Nativity Scene and not instead off. It's an alternative to taking the scene down (besides I'm familier with the FfRF and that's typical).

2. It sounds like the town, if the ONLY display it has is the Nativity Scene, is technically in violation of U.S. law. They could easily solve the problem by adding additional holiday displays such as snow men, reindeers, Santa etc.

3. I personally don't have any issues with Nativity Scenes as long as that's not the sole decoration. In other words, I stand by the Constitution and the law.

4. The townfolk, given their reaction, aren't acting very maturely. They are violating the law and refusing to address the situation. I bet they consider themselves patriots as well.

[Risottia]

You guys mentioned national holidays. Those are holidays for everyone. There are no specific atheist holy days.

So is Christmas in the USA. It's a national holiday, recognised as such by the government. Hence, not just for Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ho ... of_America

[Hebalobia]

Yeah, it is tragic that some ignorant fuckwads want to break the law...
Unfortunately they've been allowed to get way with it for so long they think its okay.

It is tragic that some atheist who do not live there, try to remove an ancient tradition, which the locals have done for quite a time, while replacing it with a clearly blasphemous and offensive propaganda poster, promoting their disbelief, while mocking religious belief.

Go back and read the article again.

1. The original complaint came from a local resident who's a member of the FfRF.
2. I don't believe they want to replace the creche with the banner, if the town puts up the banner then the creche can stay because it would no longer be by itself.
3. In the U.S. it's not blasphemy, it's free speech.

[Dyakovo]

Yeah, it is tragic that some ignorant fuckwads want to break the law...
Unfortunately they've been allowed to get way with it for so long they think its okay.

It is tragic that some atheist who do not live there, try to remove an ancient tradition, which the locals have done for quite a time, while replacing it with a clearly blasphemous and offensive propaganda poster, promoting their disbelief, while mocking religious belief.

It's clear that you didn't bother reading. The Freedom From Religion Foundation does not want to replace the nativity scene with their banner. They want the town to take down the nativity scene because it being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. Also, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has gotten involved at the request of residents of the town.

[Dyakovo]

A couple of points.

1. They way I read the article the banner would be in addition to the Nativity Scene and not instead off. It's an alternative to taking the scene down (besides I'm familier with the FfRF and that's typical).

2. It sounds like the town, if the ONLY display it has is the Nativity Scene, is technically in violation of U.S. law. They could easily solve the problem by adding additional holiday displays such as snow men, reindeers, Santa etc.

3. I personally don't have any issues with Nativity Scenes as long as that's not the sole decoration. In other words, I stand by the Constitution and the law.

4. The townfolk, given their reaction, aren't acting very maturely. They are violating the law and refusing to address the situation. I bet they consider themselves patriots as well.

1: That would be correct.
2: Again you are correct.

[Flameswroth]

Dude, they could just put up Santa and reindeer and whatnot and still be good?! How is this even a problem then!? I'd be putting snowmen all up in that bitch anyways, regardless of the FfRF requests. Deck ALL the halls!

[Vestr-Norig]

It is tragic that some atheist who do not live there, try to remove an ancient tradition, which the locals have done for quite a time, while replacing it with a clearly blasphemous and offensive propaganda poster, promoting their disbelief, while mocking religious belief.

It's clear that you didn't bother reading. The Freedom From Religion Foundation does not want to replace the nativity scene with their banner. They want the town to take down the nativity scene because it being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. Also, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has gotten involved at the request of residents of the town.

Why shouldn't the townsfolk decide themselves what to decorate their town with? Isn't that just local democracy, thus, true democracy, and freedom ? Why should this one person, and a bunch of foreign atheists or agnostics or what youl'd call it, decide how the town should look at Christmas?

[Farnhamia]

It's clear that you didn't bother reading. The Freedom From Religion Foundation does not want to replace the nativity scene with their banner. They want the town to take down the nativity scene because it being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. Also, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has gotten involved at the request of residents of the town.

Why shouldn't the townsfolk decide themselves what to decorate their town with? Isn't that just local democracy, thus, true democracy, and freedom ? Why should this one person, and a bunch of foreign atheists or agnostics or what youl'd call it, decide how the town should look at Christmas?

The national constitution applies to every level of government.

[Dyakovo]

It's clear that you didn't bother reading. The Freedom From Religion Foundation does not want to replace the nativity scene with their banner. They want the town to take down the nativity scene because it being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. Also, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has gotten involved at the request of residents of the town.

Why shouldn't the townsfolk decide themselves what to decorate their town with? Isn't that just local democracy, thus, true democracy, and freedom ? Why should this one person, and a bunch of foreign atheists or agnostics or what youl'd call it, decide how the town should look at Christmas?

Because government endorsement of a religion is illegal in the US.

[Sathera]

It's clear that you didn't bother reading. The Freedom From Religion Foundation does not want to replace the nativity scene with their banner. They want the town to take down the nativity scene because it being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. Also, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has gotten involved at the request of residents of the town.

Why shouldn't the townsfolk decide themselves what to decorate their town with? Isn't that just local democracy, thus, true democracy, and freedom ? Why should this one person, and a bunch of foreign atheists or agnostics or what youl'd call it, decide how the town should look at Christmas?

You would call them Atheists. Atheism is completely different from Agnosticism.

[Neutraligon]

It's clear that you didn't bother reading. The Freedom From Religion Foundation does not want to replace the nativity scene with their banner. They want the town to take down the nativity scene because it being displayed on government property is unconstitutional. Also, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has gotten involved at the request of residents of the town.

Why shouldn't the townsfolk decide themselves what to decorate their town with? Isn't that just local democracy, thus, true democracy, and freedom ? Why should this one person, and a bunch of foreign atheists or agnostics or what youl'd call it, decide how the town should look at Christmas?

???

[Vestr-Norig]

Why shouldn't the townsfolk decide themselves what to decorate their town with? Isn't that just local democracy, thus, true democracy, and freedom ? Why should this one person, and a bunch of foreign atheists or agnostics or what youl'd call it, decide how the town should look at Christmas?

???

people that do not live nor come from the town, and has therfore nothing there to or say about this issue. I mean that the issue should be left to the townsfolk.

[Neutraligon]

???

people that do not live nor come from the town, and has therfore nothing there to or say about this issue. I mean that the issue should be left to the townsfolk.

I thought the interference was done at the request of a resident of the town. Also why shouldn't people be able to protest about something they disagree with the the country they live in.(Very badly sated but I'll leave it)

[Vestr-Norig]

people that do not live nor come from the town, and has therfore nothing there to or say about this issue. I mean that the issue should be left to the townsfolk.

I thought the interference was done at the request of a resident of the town. Also why shouldn't people be able to protest about something they disagree with the the country they live in.(Very badly sated but I'll leave it)

They could protest about issues where they live themselves, not go around the country interfering with locel buisnesses they have nothing to do with at all. And as I understood it, there was one person from some anti-religious organization that protested. Most, or in fact, nearly all of the townfolk suppoerted the local authorities.

[Farnhamia]

I thought the interference was done at the request of a resident of the town. Also why shouldn't people be able to protest about something they disagree with the the country they live in.(Very badly sated but I'll leave it)

They could protest about issues where they live themselves, not go around the country interfering with locel buisnesses they have nothing to do with at all. And as I understood it, there was one person from some anti-religious organization that protested. Most, or in fact, nearly all of the townfolk suppoerted the local authorities.

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

[Vestr-Norig]

They could protest about issues where they live themselves, not go around the country interfering with locel buisnesses they have nothing to do with at all. And as I understood it, there was one person from some anti-religious organization that protested. Most, or in fact, nearly all of the townfolk suppoerted the local authorities.

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

I am clear, yes, though, that do not mean I agree with your constitution. Local democracy should be a human right, the very fundation of a civilized and democratical nation, which, if what you say is true, is denied by your constutution. This, I believe, is wrong.

[Occupied Deutschland]

They could protest about issues where they live themselves, not go around the country interfering with locel buisnesses they have nothing to do with at all. And as I understood it, there was one person from some anti-religious organization that protested. Most, or in fact, nearly all of the townfolk suppoerted the local authorities.

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

I Agree with the underlined, but lets not forget the important qualifier here.
"After ______ group requested they be allowed to put up a display and were denied (in this case, atheists) it violates the Constitution."

I don't think anyone can argue that people having religious displays on public ground is unConstitutional. The government stepping in and only allowing one religion to do it, however, is.

[Ceannairceach]

Yeah, it is tragic that some ignorant fuckwads want to break the law...
Unfortunately they've been allowed to get way with it for so long they think its okay.

It is tragic that some atheist who do not live there, try to remove an ancient tradition, which the locals have done for quite a time, while replacing it with a clearly blasphemous and offensive propaganda poster, promoting their disbelief, while mocking religious belief.

Ancient tradition? If I recall correctly, putting up a nativity scene in front of a courthouse in Texas isn't ancient, by fact of Christians not being in Texas long enough for the "tradition" to be considered "ancient".

[The Island]

They could protest about issues where they live themselves, not go around the country interfering with locel buisnesses they have nothing to do with at all. And as I understood it, there was one person from some anti-religious organization that protested. Most, or in fact, nearly all of the townfolk suppoerted the local authorities.

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

We are not clear. While everyone seems to be take for granted that a Nativity scene somehow violates the Constitution, I am not familiar with a single Supreme Court case that has ever decided the issue. Could someone please give the case name that has settled this? BTW, don't bother giving me cases about the Ten Commandments, it's a completly separate issue.

Incidentally, there is something delicisously ironic about leftists appealing to the Constitution.

[Ceannairceach]

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

I am clear, yes, though, that do not mean I agree with your constitution. Local democracy should be a human right, the very fundation of a civilized and democratical nation, which, if what you say is true, is denied by your constutution. This, I believe, is wrong.

Until the Constitution is nulled, however, the state and local governments must play by its rules. There is no leaving the game because you don't like it at the moment.

[The Island]

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

I Agree with the underlined, but lets not forget the important qualifier here.
"After ______ group requested they be allowed to put up a display and were denied (in this case, atheists) it violates the Constitution."

I don't think anyone can argue that people having religious displays on public ground is unConstitutional. The government stepping in and only allowing one religion to do it, however, is.

I'd be happy to argue it.

[Hittanryan]

Here's the deal. It doesn't matter if the person protesting comes from the town in question or from Alaska or Maine of Hawaii. He or she is entitled, as an American citizen, to do so. Nor does it matter if everyone in the town supported the display. Strictly speaking, it violates the Constitution, which, as I pointed out before, applies to everyone every where in the US. Okay? Are we clear?

I am clear, yes, though, that do not mean I agree with your constitution. Local democracy should be a human right, the very foundation of a civilized and democratical nation, which, if what you say is true, is denied by your constutution. This, I believe, is wrong.

Let me tell you something about local government: it can be much worse than state and national governments. Local officials in my hometown literally consisted solely of people on power trips, none of them qualified to really run anything. Many ran unopposed because no one else wanted to. The town supervisor dropped out of 10th grade for fuck's sake. Glorification of local government is stupid.