Strapping Young Lad
Posts: 2,453
Dec 16, 2009 10:11am
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
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
Glory Days
Posts: 7,809
Dec 16, 2009 12:14pm
technically there isnt anything wrong with it. should they have used the words they did, probably not.
T
Tinkertrain
Posts: 407
Dec 16, 2009 12:17pm
Glad they did it.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Dec 16, 2009 12:19pm
they're within their rights to do it - so it's fine by me
Strapping Young Lad
Posts: 2,453
Dec 16, 2009 12:24pm
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???
M
Manhattan Buckeye
Posts: 7,566
Dec 16, 2009 12:25pm
Bunch of dumbasses, I'm an atheist but there's a difference between being polite, and being an asshole. These folks are assholes.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Dec 16, 2009 12:30pm
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.
Was it in poor taste? Maybe, but find me any organization, even Christians, who don't do things in poor taste sometimes.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Dec 16, 2009 12:35pm
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"
G
GeneralsIcer89
Posts: 281
Dec 16, 2009 12:45pm
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?
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Dec 16, 2009 12:57pm
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?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"
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.
B
bman618
Posts: 151
Dec 16, 2009 12:57pm
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.
FatHobbit
Posts: 8,651
Dec 16, 2009 1:03pm
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.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.
derek bomar
Posts: 3,722
Dec 16, 2009 1:26pm
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 tasteFatHobbit wrote: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.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.
majorspark
Posts: 5,122
Dec 16, 2009 1:32pm
Unless you live in the state of Washington, what does anyone care what the people of Washington allow on their state's property.
C
Con_Alma
Posts: 12,198
Dec 16, 2009 1:34pm
In life there are many things that just because we can do doesn't mean we necessarily should do.
fish82
Posts: 4,111
Dec 16, 2009 1:38pm
It's a religious holiday. If they want to protest it, how about they give their presents back and go to work that day?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
Yeah...that's what I thought. Dickheads.
G
GeneralsIcer89
Posts: 281
Dec 16, 2009 1:43pm
Yes, because mega sales and consumerism are clearly religious!
ts1227
Posts: 12,319
Dec 16, 2009 1:47pm
Though it may not be the most tactful thing to do, they are within their rights.
Government made it secular as well by recognizing it as a federal holiday.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.
E
eersandbeers
Posts: 1,071
Dec 16, 2009 2:08pm
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?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.
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.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Dec 16, 2009 3:12pm
Nah, that's why i said sidewalk, public property for the most part just like the statehouseFatHobbit wrote: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.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.
.
CenterBHSFan
Posts: 6,115
Dec 16, 2009 5:36pm
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!!!
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!!!
Captain Cavalier
Posts: 208
Dec 16, 2009 8:25pm
How?eersandbeers wrote:And yes, I believe the display(s) are a violation of the constitution and should all be removed.
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.
J
jmog
Posts: 6,567
Dec 16, 2009 9:21pm
Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.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.
B
bigmanbt
Posts: 258
Dec 16, 2009 9:24pm
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.
B
bigmanbt
Posts: 258
Dec 16, 2009 9:28pm
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.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.