"Christian" war on non-theists holiday celebrants

[Conserative Morality]

Mythology?!

That's what I wrote. May I inquire as to why you're repeating it?

[Der Teutoniker]

It's mythology. It's ignorance incarnate. Pardon me for being offended that a government building is allowing this.

I won't pardon such a ridiculous offence, actually. I think that government has a responsibility to all of it's citizens. Let religious symbols (or non-religious symbols) flourish, and let our country be tolerant of people who aren't mindless drones of the exact thing we believe in.

It's funny how zealots of every stripe seem to look exactly alike, dispite the differences they claim, isn't it?

[Conserative Morality]

I agree with everything that you are saying. I have no objection to Jewish symbols during their religious festivities, nor do I have an objection to other religious (or non-religious) statements or symbols. The problem with the athiest sign listed in the article is that it is not merely a positive support for their belief, but a direct, and open criticism of other people's beliefs.

The first half of the sign seems pretty fine "Hey, celebrate a non-religious Winter Solstice!" that sounds great, put the sign right on up there, next to the Nativity why not? But if this sign should be allowed to remain, let's let the Christian fundamentalists decry all non-Christians, otherwise we're not promoting equality here.

Also, for the record, I am very in favor of seperation of Church and State, as I think Jesus was.

Except the Christian fundamentalist in question was trying to stop the sign from being seen. I believe he, and anyone who supports him, deserves to be verbally decried. And no one is saying 'Stop the fundies from their guaranteed rights'.

One more thing: Separation of Church and State /=/ Allowing a nativity scene, a Jewish symbol, or any other religious/non-religious icons.

[Conserative Morality]

I won't pardon such a ridiculous offence, actually. I think that government has a responsibility to all of it's citizens. Let religious symbols (or non-religious symbols) flourish, and let our country be tolerant of people who aren't mindless drones of the exact thing we believe in.

It's funny how zealots of every stripe seem to look exactly alike, dispite the differences they claim, isn't it?

I think that the government has the responsibility of not appearing to support any religion, at all. Let religious and non-religious symbols flourish... On private property. Let the country be tolerant, and the government be silent.

[Great Faolan]

You can't say "you atheists" either because I am sure there are some atheists who really don't care.

As for the Christian dude... Yeah...

[Der Teutoniker]

Except the Christian fundamentalist in question was trying to stop the sign from being seen. I believe he, and anyone who supports him, deserves to be verbally decried. And no one is saying 'Stop the fundies from their guaranteed rights'.

One more thing: Separation of Church and State /=/ Allowing a nativity scene, a Jewish symbol, or any other religious/non-religious icons.

You're right, the idea of Seperation of Church and State suggests nothing about that equation. Rather it merely says that the Church (any church/religious belief) cannot take control of the government, nor can the government take control of any afforementioned religious institutions. It's profound, and amazing, but much more limited than a lot of people think today.

As to your first paragraph, you are not arguing on the same plane as I am. I am saying that the sign was innapropriate, due to it's naturally (and intentionally) offensive nature. The foundation that put the sign up, said itself that the sign was supposed to be offensive. The Nativity scene is not inherently, nor intentionally offensive, that is the difference.

[The Archiepelago]

The nativity scene expresses a belief in Christianity. By having the scene there, the government is supporting a display of Christian mythology on their property while having no opposing symbols other than the sign put up by the atheist group. Perhaps I need to pull out a few quotes from one of the founding fathers to convince you that Church and State are meant to be separated, and that the State isn't supposed to support any religion (Or lack thereof)?

I agree with everything that you are saying. I have no objection to Jewish symbols during their religious festivities, nor do I have an objection to other religious (or non-religious) statements or symbols. The problem with the athiest sign listed in the article is that it is not merely a positive support for their belief, but a direct, and open criticism of other people's beliefs.

The first half of the sign seems pretty fine "Hey, celebrate a non-religious Winter Solstice!" that sounds great, put the sign right on up there, next to the Nativity why not? But if this sign should be allowed to remain, let's let the Christian fundamentalists decry all non-Christians, otherwise we're not promoting equality here.

Also, for the record, I am very in favor of seperation of Church and State, as I think Jesus was.

Did the sign have a 2nd part?

[Der Teutoniker]

Did the sign have a 2nd part?

Read the article. Or, my first post, in which I quoted from the article where it stated that the second half of the sign was intended to be directly offensive to non-athiests.

[Wutaco]

My logic in defeating him applies to you as well. The Nativity merely expresses a positive belief, but does not call out any non-Christians, as the athiest sign did. You may try again as well, of course.

The nativity scene expresses a belief in Christianity. By having the scene there, the government is supporting a display of Christian mythology on their property while having no opposing symbols other than the sign put up by the atheist group. Perhaps I need to pull out a few quotes from one of the founding fathers to convince you that Church and State are meant to be separated, and that the State isn't supposed to support any religion (Or lack thereof)?

Mythology?!

Yes, mythology. It either didnt happen or is blown WAY out of porportion. Next?

[Matthew Ommert]

The sign definately has no business being posted on the state capitol.

The sign is nothing more than intolerant religious zealotry, as would be a sign that mocks athiests for their lack of belief.

That sign is no less valid a piece of religious expression than the explicitly Christian nativity scene it was posted next to.

They are atheists they don't have a religion for us to be intolerant of!

[Conserative Morality]

You're right, the idea of Seperation of Church and State suggests nothing about that equation. Rather it merely says that the Church (any church/religious belief) cannot take control of the government, nor can the government take control of any afforementioned religious institutions. It's profound, and amazing, but much more limited than a lot of people think today.

*sigh* It seems I will need those quotes, as you seem to be unaware of the meaning of the phrase.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

As to your first paragraph, you are not arguing on the same plane as I am. I am saying that the sign was innapropriate, due to it's naturally (and intentionally) offensive nature. The foundation that put the sign up, said itself that the sign was supposed to be offensive. The Nativity scene is not inherently, nor intentionally offensive, that is the difference.

I'm saying that the sign, while it may have been offensive, it should not be interfered with until the nativity sign is taken down. The legitimacy of freedom of speech is not in how offensive it is, if it were, then the phrase would cease to have any meaning. The nativity scene may not be inherently offensive to you, or to Christians, but there are some out there (Such as myself) that are offended by it.

[Der Teutoniker]

*sigh* It seems I will need those quotes, as you seem to be unaware of the meaning of the phrase.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.

Thank you for providing a quote that seems to support exactly what I said, while providing no evidence for the point that you are trying to make, that you haven't explained yet. Enter confusion.

I'm saying that the sign, while it may have been offensive, it should not be interfered with until the nativity sign is taken down. The legitimacy of freedom of speech is not in how offensive it is, if it were, then the phrase would cease to have any meaning. The nativity scene may not be inherently offensive to you, or to Christians, but there are some out there (Such as myself) that are offended by it.

See, now you are intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying (I can only assume you must be.) The sign was intentionally meant to be directly offensive, that is why it is wrong for a place in the state capitol. If the sign just promoted an non-religious celebration, then I could have no argument against it. The sign, however, did not stop there, but went on to directly criticize anyone who was religious in any way. This is not equivalent to the Nativity scene, and if you cannot see the difference, then there is nothing more I can do to help you understand.

[Der Teutoniker]

They are atheists they don't have a religion for us to be intolerant of!

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, so I will address it seriously. Merely because athiest "aren't" religious does not mean that they don't have religious beliefs, or that they don't have religious expression, and the inherent right to religious expression.

[Conserative Morality]

Thank you for providing a quote that seems to support exactly what I said, while providing no evidence for the point that you are trying to make, that you haven't explained yet. Enter confusion.

The State has no authority to support religion of any kind.

See, now you are intentionally misunderstanding what I am saying (I can only assume you must be.) The sign was intentionally meant to be directly offensive, that is why it is wrong for a place in the state capitol. If the sign just promoted an non-religious celebration, then I could have no argument against it. The sign, however, did not stop there, but went on to directly criticize anyone who was religious in any way.

And that somehow lessens it's legitimacy as free speech?

This is not equivalent to the Nativity scene, and if you cannot see the difference, then there is nothing more I can do to help you understand.

I'm not saying it is. I am saying, however, that both can be offensive. Not only that, I'm saying both support (Or oppose) religion, and thus neither have any place in state-owned property.

[Linker Niederrhein]

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, so I will address it seriously. Merely because athiest "aren't" religious does not mean that they don't have religious beliefs, or that they don't have religious expression

Wait. If I'm an atheist, which is to say, I reject the idea of one, or several deities, or related entities (Spirit of the Earth or whatever, I dunno)...

How can I have religious believes? I reject the very concept!

[Der Teutoniker]

The State has no authority to support religion of any kind.

I guess I don't see allowing positive reinforcements of religion on state properly (if equally done) as against said seperation clause. In this case, I suppose it comes down to opinion/interpretation of the idea itself. I definately understand, now, what you mean.

And that somehow lessens it's legitimacy as free speech?

My argument to this: On state property, yes. If they would like to hang this sign from private property, then they should feel free to have at. It is the discrimination against a given religious belief here, that I oppose. I would be similarly opposed to a sign that attacked non-members of a certain school of belief.

I'm not saying it is. I am saying, however, that both can be offensive. Not only that, I'm saying both support (Or oppose) religion, and thus neither have any place in state-owned property.

Fair enough, I suppose. If people insist on acting childish, and without respect/tolerance for others, then maybe the law should be amended, and everyone (unfortunately) should lose their rights to such a display on public property. It's unfortunate, but a lot of people have a severe capacity for douchebaggery. (To be clear, that last statement wasn't targeted at anyone personally, not even any specific group, and is definately not aimed at CM).

[Der Teutoniker]

Wait. If I'm an atheist, which is to say, I reject the idea of one, or several deities, or related entities (Spirit of the Earth or whatever, I dunno)...

How can I have religious believes? I reject the very concept!

That is your belief abour religious topics: Religious beliefs.

Easy huh?

[OMGeverynameistaken]

I do have to agree that the placement of the sign was inappropriate and the message inflammatory. While it is true that a nativity scene could be considered as 'calling out' non-Christians, nobody had an actual sign up that said "CONVERT, HEATHENS", which, to my mind, is a bit different from a standard religious scene. Nobody'd put up a sign like that in front of, say, a Jewish Hanukkah scene, if only because Israel would send people to kill them (www.instantrimshot.com)

All things considered, both sides have assholes on them. The Freedom from Religion foundation vice president sounds like a smug asshole, at least from his quote in the article.

[New Mitanni]

Christian activists attacks non-theists holiday signage, has to be escorted out by police.

http://cbs2chicago.com/politics/capitol ... 87754.html

Anyone who believes there's a war on Christmas in the US instead of the other way around, stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. If atheists (that "non-theist" euphemism isn't fooling anyone) deliberately provoke believers, as this bunch was clearly doing, then they can expect a reaction.

And there certainly is a war on Christmas. But eventually it will fail

[Milks Empire]

No endorsement of religion of any kind - be it Christian, Buddhist, Baha'i, Wiccan, atheist, or anything else - have any place being on display on public property outside of any given official's assigned personal space.

[Daistallia 2104]

ONE Christian moron turned a sign around. It doesn't mean all of us are intolerant assholes.

With all the "war on Christmas" BS certain people push, I just felt this illustrated the point that their BS is just that.

Didn't know one person's actions constituted a war...

Also, didn't know wars were fought by playing around with stupid signs.

Twas more violent than any act of the "war on Christmas" that certain Xians claim is happening.

Do those guys Actually think the Nativity scene is offensive? Or are they just looking for an excuse to post their signs up?

Letme put it this wise. Last week, I was at a theme park here in Japan where an Xmas pagent was put on that offended me deeply - because it was patently sacreligious and offensive to Christianity. I find the political usage of a nativity scene at a state capital equally offensive and sacreligious. I may be a non-theist Buddhist, and not Xian, but scoring cheap political points, or worse, by putting your religion on display in such a manner is offensive.

1) Respect your own religion.

2) Respect others as well.

On the other hand, that sign is clearly offensive to pretty much any theist. I wonder if they think the Nativity scene is representative of the oppressive Christian regime that dominates society..

The separation of church and state exists for a very specific reason. And that is to avoid X believers from imposing belief X on others politically. A nativity scene at the state capital is a step down the road of imposition.

Oh, wait.. Those statements are false.

Do you really want to try and claim conclusieevidence for theism? Go for it. In another thread, please.

Please, atheists, let me know if you're offended by the Nativity scene, I'll be sure to write an apology letter to you and the rest of the world for offended you So sorry.

Nativity scene's are not offensive in the least - when they're not state sponsored. If you want to transgress the separation of church and state with a state sponsored nativity, the non-theists and non-Xians are right to ask for equal non-separation.

quote="SpanishCleric";p="1195244"]When in Rome, do as the Romans. (Roman Catholics, even.) Or at least respect their traditions instead of trying to make a majority Christian society conform to your views because you think Theism is foolish..[/quote]

The problem isn't societies conforming, but government's complete caving in to one faction.

[Conserative Morality]

Fair enough, I suppose. If people insist on acting childish, and without respect/tolerance for others, then maybe the law should be amended, and everyone (unfortunately) should lose their rights to such a display on public property. It's unfortunate, but a lot of people have a severe capacity for douchebaggery. (To be clear, that last statement wasn't targeted at anyone personally, not even any specific group, and is definately not aimed at CM).

It's nothing to do with acting childishly, or without respect or tolerance. No one has ever had any 'right' to display their religion on public property, and the law has no need to be amended, only examined with the First Amendment of the US Constitution in mind.

[Der Teutoniker]

It's nothing to do with acting childishly, or without respect or tolerance. No one has ever had any 'right' to display their religion on public property, and the law has no need to be amended, only examined with the First Amendment of the US Constitution in mind.

See, and I would argue that an environment of equal tolerance would allow for universal display of such symbolism. I guess it comes down to interpretation.

If I may ask, what are your personal beliefs?

[Daistallia 2104]

The sign definately has no business being posted on the state capitol.

Qualified agreement, see what follows.

The sign is nothing more than intolerant religious zealotry, as would be a sign that mocks athiests for their lack of belief.

It's not religious zealotry, as non-theism is not religion.

The Nativity scene is not directly critical of other religions, a sign advocating a non-religious celebration of the Winter Solstice (which seems odd, removed from any religious context, given the Christian/Pagan history) is fine, but to dismiss all other religions, and religious people as idiots, is something that I don't think the state should support.

The stateshouldn't be supporting any religious advocation, period. Doesn't matter if it's a nativity scene pushing Xianity or a non-theists sign. BUT if they allow the nativity scene, no one should object at all to the atheists sign, and especially the apparent violence demonstrated by a asspirant to state office should absolutely not be tolerated!

Freedom of Expression, but you atheists are going too far. The nativity scene isn't even offensive.

A nativity scene isn't offesive in and of itself. A state supported nativity scene is. And a nativity scene bent towards political or commercial purposes offends me even more deeply.

[Linker Niederrhein]

Wait. If I'm an atheist, which is to say, I reject the idea of one, or several deities, or related entities (Spirit of the Earth or whatever, I dunno)...

How can I have religious believes? I reject the very concept!

That is your belief abour religious topics: Religious beliefs.

Easy huh?

That's not easy, that's retarded. I severely doubt that any atheists have something approaching 'Religious' feelings about the concept of 'So, you guys believe in an invisible man in the sky. Alright then... Which asylum did you break out of?'.

And if they do, they're doinitwrong. Frankly, atheists could be insulted (Though, they're more likely to just laugh at you) by the idea that they could, as an atheist, have 'Religious Believes'. Bullshit. I don't. That's the point of atheism. That's why I say flat-out 'Your deities don't exist', and not 'I don't like this deity, I like that other one, equally-nebulous deity over there better, I'm going to change my faith'.

Atheism. Is. Not. A. Religion. It's the absense of it.

It's not that hard a concept to grasp - it's in the name, really.

Your logic is akin to saying that if I'm not a member of a political party, I'm a member of the not-a-political-party-party, despite the not-a-political-party-party not being on any ballots, having no leader, secretaries, accredited members, lobby, funds, list goes on.

It's stupid.