Atheists Strike At The Heart of Xmas

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ Atheists Strike At The Heart of Xmas
Strapping Young Lad's avatar

Strapping Young Lad

Senior Member

2,453 posts
Dec 16, 2009 10:11 AM
An anti-religion signs have been placed next to nativity scenes across the country. This story is from Olympia, 2008, but I saw a story on O'Reilly last night in which it happens again, this holiday season.

Is this okay with you??? Many can understand symbols of organized religions decorationing buildings at this time of year. Is it okay to have a sign recognizing the Winter Solstice and condemning organized religion sitting next to a nativity scene???

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html
Dec 16, 2009 10:11am
Glory Days's avatar

Glory Days

Senior Member

7,809 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:14 PM
technically there isnt anything wrong with it. should they have used the words they did, probably not.
Dec 16, 2009 12:14pm
T

Tinkertrain

Senior Member

407 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:17 PM
Glad they did it.
Dec 16, 2009 12:17pm
derek bomar's avatar

derek bomar

Senior Member

3,722 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:19 PM
they're within their rights to do it - so it's fine by me
Dec 16, 2009 12:19pm
Strapping Young Lad's avatar

Strapping Young Lad

Senior Member

2,453 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:24 PM
Is it in bad taste to put a sign that basically calls religion and the religious nonsensical, right next to a nativity scene, during Xmas???
Dec 16, 2009 12:24pm
M

Manhattan Buckeye

Senior Member

7,566 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:25 PM
Bunch of dumbasses, I'm an atheist but there's a difference between being polite, and being an asshole. These folks are assholes.
Dec 16, 2009 12:25pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:30 PM
Even as a Bible believing Christian, technically they did nothing wrong.

Was it in poor taste? Maybe, but find me any organization, even Christians, who don't do things in poor taste sometimes.
Dec 16, 2009 12:30pm
derek bomar's avatar

derek bomar

Senior Member

3,722 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:35 PM
I don't even think it's in poor taste. The nativity scene and all religious displays basically are promoting something without spelling it out...there isn't an atheist nativity scene so you need words...at least they didn't say "hey fuckholes...there's nothing out there, we checked"
Dec 16, 2009 12:35pm
G

GeneralsIcer89

Senior Member

281 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:45 PM
Confused about the thread title. I thought the majority of Americans considered Christmas to be all about presents, decorations, parties, egg nog, and big dinners. How exactly do atheists strike at the "heart" of Christmas in this case, when the "heart" of Christmas hasn't been Christianity since Merchantmas became the norm?
Dec 16, 2009 12:45pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:57 PM
derek bomar wrote: I don't even think it's in poor taste. The nativity scene and all religious displays basically are promoting something without spelling it out...there isn't an atheist nativity scene so you need words...at least they didn't say "hey fuckholes...there's nothing out there, we checked"
Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?

That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.

Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.
Dec 16, 2009 12:57pm
B

bman618

Senior Member

151 posts
Dec 16, 2009 12:57 PM
If you are going to allow public displays on the public square or inside public buildings then you have to open it up to various groups, including atheists. I think you could separate them so each has their own portion of the public place in the building. I don't care for it personally but we can't allow something and not a counter.
Dec 16, 2009 12:57pm
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Dec 16, 2009 1:03 PM
jmog wrote:
Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?

That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.

Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.
They put the sign up at the statehouse, not on church property. I do think it was in poor taste, but your analagy was a little off.
Dec 16, 2009 1:03pm
derek bomar's avatar

derek bomar

Senior Member

3,722 posts
Dec 16, 2009 1:26 PM
FatHobbit wrote:
jmog wrote:
Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?

That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.

Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.
They put the sign up at the statehouse, not on church property. I do think it was in poor taste, but your analagy was a little off.
Yea, the analogy doesn't really work. The nativity scene was put up on public ground, so unless they were threatening or vulgar (which they weren't) with their sign, I don't see how it's in bad taste
Dec 16, 2009 1:26pm
majorspark's avatar

majorspark

Senior Member

5,122 posts
Dec 16, 2009 1:32 PM
Unless you live in the state of Washington, what does anyone care what the people of Washington allow on their state's property.
Dec 16, 2009 1:32pm
C

Con_Alma

Senior Member

12,198 posts
Dec 16, 2009 1:34 PM
In life there are many things that just because we can do doesn't mean we necessarily should do.
Dec 16, 2009 1:34pm
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Dec 16, 2009 1:38 PM
Strapping Young Lad wrote: An anti-religion signs have been placed next to nativity scenes across the country. This story is from Olympia, 2008, but I saw a story on O'Reilly last night in which it happens again, this holiday season.

Is this okay with you??? Many can understand symbols of organized religions decorationing buildings at this time of year. Is it okay to have a sign recognizing the Winter Solstice and condemning organized religion sitting next to a nativity scene???

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html
It's a religious holiday. If they want to protest it, how about they give their presents back and go to work that day?

Yeah...that's what I thought. Dickheads.
Dec 16, 2009 1:38pm
G

GeneralsIcer89

Senior Member

281 posts
Dec 16, 2009 1:43 PM
Yes, because mega sales and consumerism are clearly religious!
Dec 16, 2009 1:43pm
ts1227's avatar

ts1227

Senior Member

12,319 posts
Dec 16, 2009 1:47 PM
Though it may not be the most tactful thing to do, they are within their rights.
fish82 wrote: It's a religious holiday. If they want to protest it, how about they give their presents back and go to work that day?

Yeah...that's what I thought. Dickheads.
Government made it secular as well by recognizing it as a federal holiday.
Dec 16, 2009 1:47pm
E

eersandbeers

Senior Member

1,071 posts
Dec 16, 2009 2:08 PM
fish82 wrote: It's a religious holiday. If they want to protest it, how about they give their presents back and go to work that day?

Yeah...that's what I thought. Dickheads.
You are correct its a religious holiday. When are Christians going to stop acting like it has to do with the birth of Jesus and start carrying out pagan traditions?



And yes, I believe the display(s) are a violation of the constitution and should all be removed. The government is not in the business of religion. There should be no religious decorations whatsoever on government property.


But I fail to see how this is really striking at the heart of Christianity.
Dec 16, 2009 2:08pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Dec 16, 2009 3:12 PM
FatHobbit wrote:
jmog wrote:
Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?

That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.

Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.
They put the sign up at the statehouse, not on church property. I do think it was in poor taste, but your analagy was a little off.
Nah, that's why i said sidewalk, public property for the most part just like the statehouse :).
Dec 16, 2009 3:12pm
CenterBHSFan's avatar

CenterBHSFan

333 - I'm only half evil

6,115 posts
Dec 16, 2009 5:36 PM
I don't know which is worse.

Hyper-zealous Christians OR Hyper-zealous Atheists

= Two sides of the same coin to me.

I think it's funny how people from either side like to point fingers at each other. The Atheists are JUST AS GUILTY as the people their pointing fingers at.

Plenty of posts here on this site the proves that fact, jack!!!
Dec 16, 2009 5:36pm
Captain Cavalier's avatar

Captain Cavalier

Senior Member

208 posts
Dec 16, 2009 8:25 PM
eersandbeers wrote:And yes, I believe the display(s) are a violation of the constitution and should all be removed.
How?

If congress doesn't make a law forcing you to abide by a certain religion, they are honoring the constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Freedom OF religion not FROM religion.

I feel that they have a right to display it but they did in poor taste. IMO, to say displaying it next to the Nativity wasn't a "shot" at the Nativity, is naive.
Dec 16, 2009 8:25pm
J

jmog

Senior Member

6,567 posts
Dec 16, 2009 9:21 PM
eersandbeers wrote:




And yes, I believe the display(s) are a violation of the constitution and should all be removed. The government is not in the business of religion. There should be no religious decorations whatsoever on government property.

Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.
Dec 16, 2009 9:21pm
B

bigmanbt

Senior Member

258 posts
Dec 16, 2009 9:24 PM
Freedom of religion means that there should be no displays of religion on government property. By allowing a religious display on government property, you open yourself up to scrutiny from other religions. If you want to put a nativity scene on your property or a church property, you have that right. But when it comes to government, we have no formal country religion, and any displays of religion on government property are unconstitutional.
Dec 16, 2009 9:24pm
B

bigmanbt

Senior Member

258 posts
Dec 16, 2009 9:28 PM
jmog wrote:
Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.
Wrong. Freedom of religion does not allow for religious displays on government grounds. It implies that NO religion should be displayed when it has to do with the government and you can practice any religion you want. This display is as unconstitutional as displaying the ten commandments in a court room.
Dec 16, 2009 9:28pm