Atheists plan protest of nativity display

[RedEarth]

MILFORD (AP) -- A group of atheists is planning a protest near a nativity scene on public property in Milford.

City officials say they haven't put up a nativity scene in the Parsons Government Center, ending a holiday tradition going back several years. However, there is a larger creche set up on the Milford Green that is owned and maintained by a local family.

Dennis Himes, Connecticut state director of American Atheists, says the protest is scheduled for 11 a.m. Sunday near the Nativity scene.

Himes says the Nativity display is unconstitutional and that a Milford atheist filed a complaint sparking the protest. Mayor James Richetelli says the Nativity scene will remain.

The mayor says he wrote Himes informing him that the creation, maintenance and erection of the Nativity scene was not done by the city. For several years the Hyatt family has placed the Nativity on the Green

http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=2699870

[demnan]

1. You know I think they are doing themselves a disservice here

I'm more concerned with the actual problems caused by religious zealotry than I am worried about a Christmas display. Let the atheists work to help us keep abortion legal and prayer out of schools. Let people have their mangers and stuff.

[arwalden]

4. Where Shall We Draw The Line?

How much creeping is too much?

[lastliberalintexas]

47. Draw the line at government *support*

The government should be *neutral* in terms of religion, not anti- or pro-. If tax dollars truly aren't funding this, and if Atheists, Jews, Pagans, etc. would be free to erect their own tribute in the park, and if a group would be free to erect a tribute to the non-religious celebration of Kwanzaa, then it's probably not unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't require that the government be hostile to religion, only that it not promote one religion or sect over another (or over "irreligion" for that matter, hence the Kwanzaa reference).

[arwalden]

65. So Privately Owned Religious Symbols All OverThe Courthouse Would Be Fine?

Keeping church and state separate is not "hostile" to religion. It is merely keeping it separate. What part of separate don't you understand?

I draw the line at this type of endorsement of religion. Keep it on the church lawn and private lawns!

[elemnopee]

70. I disagree

The subject of an individuals free expression should have no bearing on their right to express themselves.

When private citizens, acting on their own, put up a nativity scene I have absolutely no problem with it. When tax dollars purchase a nativity scene, that's when I start to have a problem.

Public property is just that, public. An atheist, jew, christian, hindu, msulim, buddhist, diest, or whatever should be able to express their belief under the protection of the first amendment.

[prolesunited]

73. So you would be fine

if I put my satanic display up next to the nativity scene?

[lastliberalintexas]

77. I would

But in all honesty, it doesn't matter whether I am personally ok with it. All that matters is that the government allow it and remain neutral in such situations.

[elemnopee]

82. of course

You have just as much of a right to express your believe as the people with the nativity scene.

The town would have to allow you to put it up or else they would be showing preferential treatment, and de facto endoresement of a religion.

[arwalden]

78. You're trying to equate this as being the same as

someone standing there on a soap-box in the public square preaching the scriptures.

The state is giving this display space to them RENT FREE. It doesn't matter who actually owns the items.

Why can't THEY just shut up about it? Why can't THEY stop pushing the envelope? Why can't THEY just move it back to private property where it belongs?

To see all these people who want to continue to blur the line that's supposed to SEPARATE church and state just SICKENS ME! It's disgusting!

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[arwalden]

86. Elemnopee ... that's not nice.

Your personal opinion of me is of little consequence to me and it does not change how I feel about this matter. Pity you must resort to personal attacks.

[elemnopee]

89. It's a reference to the last line of your post

I'm not mad at you. I'm actually enjoying this, but you are making me feel like I am arguing for the fundies.

[arwalden]

90. I Did Not Attack You.

Here's what I actually said:

>> To see all these people who want to continue to blur the line that's supposed to SEPARATE church and state just SICKENS ME! It's disgusting! <<

[elemnopee]

97. r u referring to me in that statement?

[arwalden]

101. U-R Joking, Right?

I may as well be talking to a toaster. :eyes:

[elemnopee]

106. Wow, good job on not making it personal

you are leaving me convinced that you can not refute the idea that this is protected under freedom of expression?

[arwalden]

111. That's All I've Been Doing

I simply cannot convince you. And you cannot convince me. We are also at an impasse. --- Nothing is getting through. I may as well be talking to a toaster. It's like talking to a brick wall.

What did you take personally? Where did I insult you?

[Just Me]

139. Hey,...being "human" is being A-O-K

I am verily guilty of projecting my "human" experiences upon others more times than I care to admit.

It's,..okay.

[aikido15]

163. I agree...

I am sick to death of these religious nuts shoving their beliefs down my throat..they are past testing my gag reflex! If you give in to them one little bit, they will run over you, so again, no religious displays on anything but privately owned land! Even then there shouldn't be allowed to be a 100 ft. Cross...ugh! Sickening.

[lastliberalintexas]

74. Not necessarily

A courthouse hasn't been treated by the courts as a public forum or public soapbox. Parks have been.

There are different types of regulations which can be imposed by the government on speech- basically boiled down to time, manner, location and content. Almost always, the government must remain content neutral with regard to speech.

However, the courts have allowed regulation of the time, manner and location of speech. For example, a student may not disrupt Chemistry class by standing in the middle of exam time and reciting the Lord's Prayer OR the Gettysburg Address. The government's regulation of that speech has nothing to do with the *content* of same, but merely the time and location as being inappropriate- s/he is there to learn Chemistry, after all. If the government were to allow the prayer but not the address, then it would be discriminating based on content.

It's the same here. So long as the government treats ALL speech/expression the same and/or reasonably regulates it based on factors other than content, then there has been no violation- even if some of that speech is religious in nature. There are sometimes more considerations than these and it has been a while since I took Con Law, but that's the gist of most 1st amendment cases anyway.


And I'm assuming that the "Green" described in the article is a park or commons of some sort, which have historically been treated as public soapboxes. If it isn't and is something else peculiar to the NE that I've not heard of, then my points might not be applicable.

[arwalden]

79. That's Not Speech... It's Government Endorsement Of Religion

Where does it stop? Why stop with just the nativity scene? Let's plant three big-ass crosses as well. Hey! The atheists and Jews can put up something... if they WANT TO... but for now, the crosses stay.

No matter how you try to twist it, it's still government's endorsement of religion. It's wrong.

[lastliberalintexas]

83. It is speech or expression

which is protected by the 1st amendment just the same as burning the US flag. The Court long ago decided that "speech" protected by the 1st is not only the written or spoken word. And one can't say that the 1st amendment prevents the government from interfering with its citizens' right to expression, except if that speech is religious and then it can discriminate all it wishes.

Personally, I would prefer that displays such as this stay off public properties. But the state of 1st amendment law today, much of which was written by the liberal Warren court, determines that this is probably not unconstitutional so long as *all* have access or the same rights. You're certainly free to disagree with that assessment. But the current Court is certainly not going to limit religious speech/expression/display on public property any more than the Warren court did, and they might even take the opportunity to rewrite the law to dampen true free speech and access. I'd rather not give them that opportunity, personally.

[arwalden]

87. We are at an impasse... You May Have The Last Word

Nothing else you say will convince me otherwise. I believe that this type of display on government property is not a protest, it's not free speech, it's endorsement of this religion.

[aikido15]

164. yup!

[elemnopee]

88. We're not twisting anything

You are so anti-religous expression that you are taking away the rights of other people. Do you want governemt regulating what speech/expression is appropriate?

[arwalden]

91. You Presume Too Much About Me..

[elemnopee]

100. Not exactly

"Why can't THEY just shut up about it? Why can't THEY stop pushing the envelope? Why can't THEY just move it back to private property where it belongs?"

That seems like someone wanting to restrict religious expression to me.
I am not assuming anything, about your religious beliefs. It would be funny if you found out what mine actually are.

To me this is not a separation of church and state issue, religious expression in the public sphere is a civil liberty that all of us enjoy.

[arwalden]

105. It Belongs In Church... Keep It There

Permitting this display is an endorsement of religion. Just as allowing them to build a church on the city park would be an endorsement of religion. Just as allowing them to plant three huge crosses in the public park is an endorsement of religion.

Christians are NOT being victimized here. They are taking advantage.

[elemnopee]

110. that's funny

It's not an endorsement if other people are free to do it as well, it allowing "free exercise."

I'm done, you just don't get it, I am against restricting the rights of free individuals, even when they say or do things I disagree with.

[arwalden]

It IS An Endorsement.

[aikido15]

165. Oh my...

I had this same argument earlier today. My editor thought the 11 Christians arrested in Philly were wrongly arrested because it violated their right to free speech...ugh..he couldn't see the crime because he was so hung up on the rights of the Christians. Unbelievable.

[Just Me]

144. Is this "division" worth the "investment"?

No.

I don't think the radicals are worth investment of our energy.

We are better off reaching out to the 90+% humanity that wants a peaceful existence among one another.

FUCK the radical power-mongers. Don't invest an ounce of yourself in those people.

I mean it.

Don't be sucked into their predatory appeal to defense since they are still operating upon the stronghold of "guilt" and "utopia".

[Anakin Skywalker]

141. I Am Sorry I Commented

on this. Way too divisive.

[Sugarbleus]

157. I agree....... this is a wee bit over the top...

Where is this place anyway? A Park? What?

I'd say that "pushing" Christian symbols on people in PUBLIC/government Venues AT TAX PAYERS EXPENSE is not okay...privatly funded displays away from government sites should be left alone.

Whether I believe in it or not, most of the WORLD celebrates Christmas. It's a tradition now. There's a "Christ-mas" Tree in NYC and one at the White House......Get over it.

In any case, if the thing is paid for with private $$, let 'em alone.

I encourage ALL the faith, pagan, or historical groups to set up their symbols too...don't let it be JUST a Christian holiday...

Don't atheists like holiday lights either? I love them. Don't like to have winter "parties"? I love them. Should we just ignore all holidays and turn out the lights, turn off the music and put away the Eggnog?...how boring.

If Atheists chose not to believe in anything "religious" then don't celebrate it. Leave others alone. It's suppose to be a FREE country.

[leftofcool]

2. Don't these nitwits

have better things to worry about than a nativity scene on the commons????????? We have soldiers getting their body parts spread all over the Middle East, the US economy has gone to hell in a handbasket, AIDS is running rampant, there's a dictator in the Oval Office, Usama and Company hates our guts, but we're supposed to care because a few non-believers are being offended by some piece of mythology? I wish these idiots would just shut the fuck up and practice what ever they want to.

Left of cool

[GOPBasher]

6. I agree. Who cares?

I say as someone who is a Christian now, but was an atheist at one point in my life. Even when I was an atheist, I wouldn't give two shits if there's some nativity display somewhere.

I'm a believe in Taoist philosophy, so am I supposed to be terribly offended if I see a statue of Kant? Who cares?

[VegasWolf]

24. As someone who is now an athiest but was once a christian i say

that a statue of Kant would not offend me and
statues of Neitze and Sartre would please me very much.

[arwalden]

11. I Care. --- It's More That Just Being "Offended BySome Piece Of Mythology"

... it's just one more example of how how religion is creeping into government. Exactly how much religion in government is too much? Where would you suggest that we draw the line?

I'd argue that many of the things you mentioned (our dictator, our economy, world hatred of us) can be directly linked to too much religion in our government. It's creeping in all over the place, if you give an inch, they'll take a mile.

>> I wish these idiots would just shut the fuck up and practice what ever they want to. <<

Me too. But they can take their privately-owned display and have it privately-maintained on PRIVATE property. The ownership and maintenance of the display are not a free pass to display them on public property.

[leftofcool]

33. Atheism is also a religion

You have fundies on all sides of the coin, and worrying about a "manger scene" is taking it to the extreme. When Chistian fundies worry about some 14 year old wannabe Wiccan wearing a pentagram to school, that is extreme. When Atheists worry about mythological scenes on common grounds, that is extreme. Both sides need to shut up. I don't see our pissant dictator, world hatred of us, or the crumbling economy linked all that much to religion. I see it more linked to downright greed. You don't really believe that the Christian Right crowd are really Christians do you?

Left of Cool

[arwalden]

34. Complete Horseshit!

Do you even know what the word "atheist" means?

>> When Chistian fundies worry about some 14 year old wannabe Wiccan wearing a pentagram to school, that is extreme. <<

Yes, that's extreme because a 14 year-old Wiccan's person, her body, her clothes are NOT owned by the state, nor are they the property or the province of the "Chistian" fundies.

>> When Atheists worry about mythological scenes on common grounds, that is extreme. <<

HORSESHIT! We're talking about a religious display on public property. Opposition to this isn't "extreme"... it's making certain that the line between church and state are maintained.

>> Both sides need to shut up. <<

You first. They second. But since neither is likely to happen, I'm not goint to just sit back and let people run roughshod all over the constitution.

Exactly what part of the separation of church and state do you disagree with?


>> I don't see our pissant dictator, world hatred of us, or the crumbling economy linked all that much to religion. <<

That's a very naive statement and belief... clearly aren't paying very much attention.

>> You don't really believe that the Christian Right crowd are really Christians do you? <<

Whether they are or are not living up to what you believe "true Christians" ought to be is of little consequence.

[leftofcool]

42. Milford Green that is "owned and maintained" by a local family.

This NOT public property, it is common grounds used by all at the leisure of the owners. It is privately owned property, not funded by tax payers, not owned by the state or the city or the government thus, your separation of church and state does not apply. Like I said, all extremists need to shut up.

Left of cool

[Ediacara]

56. Uh...

The wording in the article strongly suggests that what is owned and maintained privately is not the Green, but the scene...

As does the wording in this article in the Hartford Courant:

"Whether or not we agree with that, the law is it is our responsibility to uphold the law, and it prevents us from putting the creche up in the Parsons complex," Richetelli said. "However, we support the Hyatt family's First Amendment rights as we support the atheists First Amendment rights to use the Milford Green."

Himes praised the city for not placing the Nativity scene at the Parsons center but said that if the city does not remove the it from the Green, he is contemplating legal action.

www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-ap-milford-nativity-1216,1,664812.story?coll=hc-headlines-local
--------

The Green is pretty clearly public property.

[arwalden]

60. This Has Been Addressed Further Down In This Thread...

The display ITSELF is owned and maintained by a local family. But it's on PUBLIC PROPERTY.

[Ediacara]

52. You don't?

I don't see our pissant dictator, world hatred of us, or the crumbling economy linked all that much to religion.

Everything he does is permiated by his religious beliefs. His wars in Afghanistan (justified) and Iraq (unjustified) were described in his own words as a crusade many times, even after being advised never to let the word 'crusade' leave his mouth again for the rest of his life. I'm not sure if you understand the connotation of crusade and why that may be offensive, but believe me, the people we're fighting understand what he means. He's psychotic, he believes he talks to God (not prays to God, but has conversations with God), and God chose him to be President. He believes that God is on our side in these crusades and that God wouldn't allow there to be any casualties on the American side.

He actually said, "There won't be any casualties."

His religious nutjobbery permiates his social policy. He's decidedly anti-science: anti-stem cell, anti-global warming, anti-evolution. He's anti-abortion, and he thinks that giving federal funds to religious charities doesn't violate the seperation of church and state. He refuses federal funding to NGOs that even mention BIRTH CONTROL, not to mention abortion! His DoJ recently filed a breif in support of posting the Ten Commandments on public property.

He also adheres to a set of religious beliefs, that although not "Christian" in nature, are just as much articles of faith as virgin birth. These include tax cuts, supply sidism, weak dollar policy, and go-it-alonism. Because his Christian religiousity permiates his thinking with an anti-science mindset, he refuses to change his mind when he sees the fruits of his belief system wither on the vine, and our economy falters, the dollar plunges, our allies hate us, and our enemies are emboldened as they see us alone and hated in the world.

I see it more linked to downright greed. You don't really believe that the Christian Right crowd are really Christians do you?

Of course they're Christians. They say they're Christians, so they are Christians (unless you believe there is a systematic conspiracy among evangelicals to lie to everyone in the world). Just because they're not your brand of Christian, and just because they give Christians a bad name, doesn't mean they're not Christians.

[Tansy_Gold]

93. Excellent post, DinoBoy

:thumbsup:

You saved my fingers some typing.



Tansy Gold, planning some LTEs

[progressivebydesign]

107. "creeping in"??? Where've you been? It's just coming back..

I'm thinking you must be pretty young.. because nativity scenes, up until the 80's were a standard decoration for City Halls all over the Country. It was WAY more religious in public schools in the 60s and 70s. I honestly think that the COuntry is swinging back a bit toward that, to counter the complete sweep of any religious references in schools and government offices.

[arwalden]

155. Good Grief!

>> ""creeping in"??? Where've you been? It's just coming back.." <<

Obviously you ascribing a meaning to my words *other* than what reasonable people easily understand. Tell me... is there anything INACCURATE about what I said? Did I say "creeping in for the very first time". --- No? I thought not.

Your snotty little question asking where I've been suggests that you think I'm "out of touch". That's wrong, and insulting. --- But that was your intention, wasn't it? Nice.

Your little history lesson wasn't necessary.

>> I'm thinking you must be pretty young.. <<

Then you would be wrong... AGAIN.

>> because nativity scenes, up until the 80's were a standard decoration for City Halls all over the Country. It was WAY more religious in public schools in the 60s and 70s. <<

REALLY?? WOW! Gee thanks! You're so smart! One day I hope that I can be smart as you. :eyes:

>> I honestly think that the COuntry is swinging back a bit toward that, <<

And that would be a mistake. The pendulum analogy of "swinging back" implies that we've got FURTHER to go, and that it's going to get WORSE. --- That may be okee-dokee with you, but I plan to speak out against it every opportunity that I get.

It's the Christian fundies who are in charge and the fundie policies that are the reason we're in this bucket of shit right now.

>> to counter the complete sweep of any religious references in schools and government offices. <<

You're fooling yourself if you think that there was a "complete" sweep of anything. Might I ask where YOU have been?

[Name removed]

169. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DavidDvorkin]

3. Good for American Atheists

They're fighting the good fight.

Every aspect of separation must be defended, no matter how small and unimportant it might seem to some. Every government display of religion removes another brick from that wall.

[elemnopee]

72. what are you talking about?

THat is not a government display of religion.

Privately owned scence on public property, property that everyone can use to express themselves, not just people we agree with

[hickman1937]

5. This is stupid

The nativity scene is on private property. There is nothing unconstitutional about it. I wouldn't be surprised if this douch bag is being funded by Pope JerryPat.

[HuffleClaw]

7. "...planning a protest near a nativity scene on public property..."

[hickman1937]

8. They discontinued the one on pub property

City officials say they haven't put up a nativity scene in the Parsons Government Center, ending a holiday tradition going back several years. However, there is a larger creche set up on the Milford Green that is owned and maintained by a local family.

[noamnety]

9. The creche is owned and maintained privately

Not Milford Green.

[hickman1937]

14. Sorry

I mis-read it. In that case they just need to move it to a private property, in a prominant place. I've noticed it happening in Michigan. Churches and funeral homes seem to be the property's of choice here.

[msmcghee]

12. It says the creche is owned . .

. . and maintained by a private family - but it is on public property.

They are forcing all taxpayers whose taxes support that commons to support the Christian religion - and are sending the message that Christianity is the favored religion of the state.

That's wrong.

[noamnety]

15. The reporter's writing skills are questionable

It was written in an ambiguous way. Maybe the protestors could find an extra half hour to protest the news station for bad writing.

[msmcghee]

22. I disagree . .

. . I have never heard of anyone protesting the legality of erecting a religious display on private property. It may happen but would certainly fall in the "man bites dog" category.

It would be logical for anyone to understand that the green is a commons. Especially if you lived in that area - and this is obviously written as a local story.

[noamnety]

30. local story or not, the writing is poor.

"However, there is a larger creche set up on the Milford Green that is owned and maintained by a local family." <-- says that the Green is owned by the family, which (logically) isn't the case.

However, there is a larger creche, owned and maintained by a local family, that is set up on the Milford Green. <-- unambiguous.

[BiggJawn]

35. What do you expect from the Media these days?

They don't write shit. They just regurgitate the "Talking Points" that magically appear out of the top of their fax machines every night...

[tx_dem41]

23. I was thinking the exact same thing. n/t

[Mari333]

10. This is confusing.

If the creche is on public property, which is maintained by city taxes, then they have a beef. If the creche is on private property, and maintained by private funds, they dont have a beef.
Nonetheless, it might bode better for the atheists if they go to court and demand an atheist symbol be put up , (if the creche is on public property), which usually ends up in court, and the non theists usually win. Anyway, thats how I would do it.

[arwalden]

13. How About A Big Nylon Inflatable SATAN?? Lit From Inside...

just like those inflatable snowmen and santas!

[Mari333]

17. well, atheists dont believe in satan lol

Satan is a christian concept.. heh..anyway, if you want a creche on public land, you have to allow for all the religions and non religions to put one there too..
sigh..this crap happens every year.

[arwalden]

18. I Know.... It's Still An Excellent Test Of Their Sense Of Fair Play...

and equal representation for all.

[nickshepDEM]

16. These attacks on Christmas and Religion are killing the Democratic party

[arwalden]

19. What HORSESHIT!!

[nickshepDEM]

41. They most definitley aren't helping.

Average American's who are Christian and do attend church, regardless of political affiliation see this particular Athiest movement as anti-Christian AND anti-American. If you dont believe this come back from NEVER-NEVER land and get for real. Bottom line, I wish they would'nt affiliate this situation with Democrats, period.

on edit: messed up my wording

[arwalden]

43. So How Much Are You Willing To Take?

How much intrusion of religion into our government is "too much"? Where would YOU suggest that the line be drawn? What part of the separation of church and state is unclear?

>> The average American's who are Christian and do attend church regardless of political affiliation see this athiest movement as not only anti-christian but anti-american. <<

Anti-American? So we should just "shut up" and let Christians run roughshod all over the constitution so as not to offend "average" Americans? Do they have MORE rights than I have? Are they more special because they are Christians?

>> I wish they would affiliate us, period. <<

I don't understand what you meant by that. "They"-who? Atheists? Christians? -- "Affiliate us"? HUH? Is that the word you meant to type?

[nickshepDEM]

44. LOL, I messed up my wording re-read my post, sorry.

[arwalden]

46. I See You Decided To Include A Personal Slam As Well

... Well, Nick... I don't live in "Never Never Land" and I already am "for real".

I'm not about to give in on this simply because someone decides to try and cast it as being "un-American" when it fact it's VERY AMERICAN and VERY PATRIOTIC to fight this type of intrusion of religion into government.

[nickshepDEM]

49. ....

[arwalden]

53. Thank You. It's Already Forgotten.

I know you didn't mean anything by it.

I think that to allow this kind of thing to go unchecked is WORSE for our country than any "image" problems it may be for the party.

You guys will just have to kick me out of the party, cause I'm not shutting up about it. "Separation of church and state" actually MEANS something to me. What does it mean to you?

[nickshepDEM]

58. It means alot to me.

When I think about the situation I think about it like this. I am only 20 so I dont have any kids yet but, when I do, would I like the public school system and the government shoving a particular relgion down my son or daughters throat? No, of course not. The only thing I am worried about is the reputation of the party. I think affiliating the Democratic party with this movement is extremley bad for the party. We alredy have the media painting a bad picture about us with the protesting of the war and the president. The average American who isnt as politcaly aware as most of us (republican or democrat) is taking all of this pretty offensive. At least I think so. I believe they see it as a PERSONAL attack on their religion and country.

[nickshepDEM]

45. Im not saying they have more rights than you.

But, some of the things going on this year to attack Christmas are just ridiculous. Asking for Nativity scenes to be removed, use the word X-mas instead of christmas, removing christmas songs from schools etc. Its ridiculous. Spread what YOU believe dont tear down what others believe just becasue you do not agree.

[arwalden]

48. You Most Certainly ARE Advocating They Have More Rights Than I

>> But, some of the things going on this year to attack Christmas are just ridiculous. <<

Oh My Goodness!

Such hyperbole and exaggerations... let's take a look at how we're "attacking" Christmas.

>> Asking for Nativity scenes to be removed, <<

Yes... from PUBLIC or government property. Absolutely. Yet you behave as though people are going from lawn to lawn and church to church demanding that these displays be destroyed.

That's simply not the case.

>> use the word X-mas instead of christmas, <<

That seems to be a personal decision for some people, don't you think? I know of nobody who is seriously advocating that Xmas must be used instead of Christmas. (And there have been MANY interesting discussion on DU regarding the origins of the "X" in Xmas. Look it up sometime. You might be surprised.)

>> removing christmas songs from schools etc. Its ridiculous. <<

From PUBLIC schools, yes. This is NOT ridiculous... this is a public government institution. It's not a church. It's not someone's home.

Where do you draw the line? How much intrusion are you willing to stand THIS year?

>> Spread what YOU believe dont tear down what others believe just becasue you do not agree. <<

You obviously do not understand what my objection is. It has nothing to do with what I believe or don't believe. It has to do with the fact that it's not the place for our government or public schools to endorse these types of religious activities and religious displays.

[nickshepDEM]

51. Im sorry for the previous comment.

The only point Im trying to make is this particular attack on christmas and the christian religion is bad for Democrats and Liberals, period. I am extremley angry because the media is associating this movement with Liberals and Democrats.

[arwalden]

55. My Reply Above...

Your message moved... but I'll just leave my reply where it is.) :-)

[nickshepDEM]

59. Im all over the place, sorry.

[Sterling]

176. X mas is a Christan term anyway.

There are threads in the archive about it. It's not offensive to Christains. Now get off the fucking cross already, no one is persecuting Christan's. Trust my if that was a possibility I would be opening up a hippodrome to feed them to the lions at this point given who fucking evil the organized religion of Christianity has become in my lifetime.

The Christianity I see promoted as mainstream looks nothing like the religion I was raised in. In fact there seem to be two Churches these days. One is the church of Jesus , It gets little exposure these days, the other is the satanic cult that Bush and his followers belong to.

I think it is important to fight the satanists. That is almost a separate issue from separating church and state.

[Ediacara]

63. Regular Church-goers are a minority among Americans

And they don't vote for us anyway because they get their regular tax-exempt brainwashing about how bad the Democrats are.

[RedEarth]

113. A minority, but barely..........44% of Americans attend church once a week

The University of Michigan

News and Information Services
News Release 412 Maynard
Ann Arbor, Michigan
48109-1399


December 10, 1997 (17)

Study of worldwide rates of religiosity, church attendance

EDITORS: A table, "Percentage of Adult Population that Attends Church at Least Once a Week," follows this story.

ANN ARBOR---Even though some Americans worship only once a year, weekly church attendance is higher in the United States than in any other nation at a comparable level of development, according to a worldwide study based at the University of Michigan.

Fully 44 percent of Americans attend church once a week, not counting funerals, christenings and baptisms, compared with 27 percent of people in Great Britain, 21 percent of the French, 4 percent of Swedes and 3 percent of Japanese.

Moreover, 53 percent of Americans say that religion is very important in their lives, compared with 16 percent, 14 percent, and 13 percent, respectively, of the British, French and Germans.


http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/1997/Dec97/r121097a.html

[Cheswick2.0]

128. yeah every one else goes a couple of times a year

85 percent of people believe in God and consider themselves religious whether they go to church, Temple, Mosque or not. Half of them vote for democrats.

[LanternWaste]

131. This regular church-goer voted Democratic

This regular church-goer voted Democratic, as I have since '92. On the other hand, most of our brain-washing has less to do with politics and more to do with handling snakes, forcing heathens to submit and pining away for the good old days when we could just put the unbelievers in irons and cast them into the dungeons for their own good... :eyes:

[progressivebydesign]

112. I agree with you COMPLETELY!!!!

I just posted down further about this. I am a LONG TIME DUer (since 2001), so they can't accuse me of being anything but a solid DUer... BUT.. I'm starting to see the light. I'm starting to see why we're losing ground over stupid shit like this. And it IS stupid. We should save the energy for the REAL attacks on our religious freedom, NOT look like politically-correct Grinches!!

[Walt Starr]

121. Tell me, when did the Democratic Party endorse this protest?

Then your bullshit argument that this is killing the Democratic Party might be valid.

[Name removed]

170. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[RetroLounge]

177. Bullshit.

RL

[Walt Starr]

20. Best way to protest this is to put up their own stuff

:shrug:

Private sponsorship makes it okay. No government funds are expended, thus nothing is wrong so long as any group can choose to put up whatever they want.

So get three naked women statues, one about 18ish, the second about 28ish, and the final one about 58ish, put a baby with goat feet and horns into a manger, and have a naked guy with a huge erect penis and deer antlers to formulate a Saturnalia Nativity scene.

If it's good for one religion, it's good for everybody. If they complain about the Saturnalia Nativity and force it to come down, the Christian Nativiity must also come down or the government would be engaged in establishing religion.

[lastliberalintexas]

50. Somebody who understands that the Constitution

requires the government to be neutral (ie, open to all or none) towards religious practices or the lack thereof. Thank you Walt, you've made my day.

[Walt Starr]

104. Yeah, I'm also the guy who suggests a graphic depiction of the Pagan

Goat Footed Horned God in coitus with the Pagan Goddess for the entire month of April on public land as well in order to celebrate Beltaine.

Hey, if one religion gets to put up its symbols for Holy Days, all religions should be afforded the same consideration.

[lastliberalintexas]

114. Works for me

I personally think that is the better strategy against these displays than lawsuits. It would be much more effective at getting the fundies to agree that public displays of worship should be discontinued than a mere lawsuit.

[elemnopee]

76. sounds like a plan

[DownNotOut]

21. When I drive by

all of these lights and displays I feel like Im being yelled at by fundies. Its about time we started yelling back!



DownNotOut

[AtTheEndOfTheDay]

25. As an atheist I can say

I like Christmas paraphernalia whether it's Christian or just Santa Claus. I grew up with the stuff and see no harm whatsoever. These type protests make atheism look stupid. Atheism is a belief. It's in your head. It isn't threatened by what others believe. If you don't like Christmas decorations look elsewhere.

[GCP]

26. Sorry, the atheists are falling into the trap being set for them

Christmas and its celebration has become the latest example of the manipulation of public opinion by the right.
There's a whole article on it in today's Salon. This is O'Reilly's latest crusade - I choose that word deliberately. He 's made it into an entire "Us, the Folks (Die Volk) against Them (Atheists, secularists, socialists yada yada yada".
Personally I couldn't give a flying fuck who puts what up where - in all aspects of life, unless it's a symbol of hatred such as a burning cross, swastika, rebel flag etc. But by protesting stuff like this, we're giving them even more sticks to beat us up with.
We should be screaming about all the other stuff, not this chicken-shit.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/12/16/grinch/ - you may need to watch an ad to get a day pass.

[arwalden]

40. Gays: Trap. Keep mouth shut.

Christmas: Trap. Keep mouth shut.
Prayer: Trap. Say nothing.
Evolution: Trap. Stay Quiet!

>> We should be screaming about all the other stuff, not this chicken-shit. <<

This isn't something to be dismissed so lightly. This is how it starts. Exactly how much religion in your government is okay? Where should we draw the line? Let's just repeal that nasty old separation of church and state ammendment!

I've had enough intrusion into my life, thanks. People can try to scare me into silence with their nervous tittering "it's a trap"... but I won't be silent about it.

[progressivebydesign]

115. "This is how it starts"??????

Umm... Christianity was MUCH MUCH more prevalent in our schools and government until the 1980's and 90's, when we tried to make the schools and offices religion-neutral. Frankly, this is just a swing back to where we were.. BUT nowhere NEAR what it was in the past. People are more religious now, absolutely, then they were in the 80's and 90's. 9/11 scared the hell (literally) out of people, and religion is gaining importance again in our society. This is a backlash to what was probably a too-far reaching attempt to completely sanitize American life from relgion, for the sake of political correctness.

I'm agnostic. I don't spend my life being offended by other people's relgious symbols. I like to spend my time on IMPORTANT issues.

[arwalden]

153. I Realize You Don't Think That This Is Important...

... so feel free to focus on your "important" issues, and I'll focus on mine. How's that? Does that suit you?

>> I don't spend my life being offended by other people's religious symbols. <<

Apparently you joined the conversation in mid stream, or you just like to make dismissive assumptions about people that you don't know. I AM NOT OFFENDED BY THE RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS.

What I find offensive is that when our government starts endorsing religion in this manner. If you give an inch, they will take a mile.

>> Christianity was MUCH MUCH more prevalent in our schools and government until the 1980's and 90's, when we tried to make the schools and offices religion-neutral. <<

Yes, that's true...

>> Frankly, this is just a swing back to where we were.. BUT nowhere NEAR what it was in the past. <<

WHY WOULD WE WANT TO GO BACK? Why should I accept this regressiveness simply because "it-could-be-worse"? That's an idiotic proposition!

This is the EXACT SAME TACTIC that they use with Roe v Wade... creeping-creeping-creeping... a little bit here, a little more there. Each time it's such a small amount that the defenders of such "minor" concessions try to make folks like me look "foolish" or "unreasonable" for being steadfastly against the small concessions.

A concession here, a concession there... and before you know it, they all add up to a MAJOR FULL BLOWN concession and we're back in the 1950's. Lovely!

So you continue on with what's important to you and continue to trivialize this fight that I and others take seriously. If that's what it takes to make you feel important, then by all means, have at it pal.

-- Allen

[progressivebydesign]

171. Hey "pal", I have never actually seen you post here before...

are you always attacking people? Must be a lonely life. Take a chill pill.. pal.

[RetroLounge]

178. You miss the irony of your own post

Please go back and reread your own posts above, unless they've already been deleted.

In one you call him an A**hole, and in another a Jerk.

are you always attacking people? Must be a lonely life. Take a chill pill.. pal

RL

[AngryOldDem]

27. It's not public property, it's private....

As far as I'm concerned, those who participate in this protest had best stay off said property or else face trespassing charges.

This road runs both ways. Christians have a right to express their religious beliefs as much as any other group has the right to express theirs. This would be a different matter entirely if this were on public property, and no other displays were allowed.

[Ediacara]

67. It's not private property

It's public property. The wording in the article is obtuse, but it is not private property.

From the Hartford Courant:

"Whether or not we agree with that, the law is it is our responsibility to uphold the law, and it prevents us from putting the creche up in the Parsons complex," Richetelli said. "However, we support the Hyatt family's First Amendment rights as we support the atheists First Amendment rights to use the Milford Green."

www.ctnow.com/news/local/hc-ap-milford-nativity-1216,1,664812.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

------------

I don't think the Mayor of Milford would support, "...the atheists First Amendment rights to use the Milford Green" were it not public property.

[VegasWolf]

28. All these people praying to jesus would make old Constantine the Great

smile as he made christianity a religion for the masses but refused
himself to be converted on his death bed.

[Cheswick2.0]

29. silly protest

there are much bigger problems in the world than a Nativity scene that most people are happy to have up.

This reminds me of that stupid law suit where the man made a big deal about his christian daughter saying the pledge of allegience. She wanted to say it with the words under God, but that didn't stop him.
The Atheists could have won that battle if they had brought it in support of someone who was actually harmed. They couldn't have found an atheist family?

Some people sure are good at shooting themselves in the foot.

[Righteous9]

36. Another Atheist here.

I was just going to weigh in, but the subject is a little complicated, and I've lost my opinion.

I want to say get over it...that it's tradition and let it be. I like the stuff myself(to an extent anyway). It's a staple part of the holidays..etc. But I guess holding onto tradition is a dangerous platform.

Tradition should not make something sacrosanct. I'm reminded of the short story "the lottery"(so that I don't have to think of a real example off the top of my head), as to the absurdity of holding onto tradition for tradition's sake.

With exception to any nativity scenes, I will say that christmas for the most part has taken on an American life of its own, on a secular level(including any heart that it brings out, which, heh, is secular in my estimation). Most christmas displays can be considered without having to have any religeous connotation. Santa is no longer a Saint... he's a a jolly fat man that brings presents to kids. There should be no conflict.

As to religious symbology, this is really tough. On a community level, can majority rule? Wouldn't it be somewhat fair to allow a nativity scene on public land for instance? assuming it was funded privately? Or is there an ugly melding of church and state when this happens?

Religion is a part of most american's lives. Here's a thing. Jesus and everything about him, if nothing else, is a story, with characters, and that story is told at a certain time of year. I see no problem with people wanting to tell it, even on public property. I see no problem with other religionists wanting to tell their stories, or atheists wanting to hold a darwin day, etc. More than that, I would be interested in all of these things. The more I think about it, I wonder is there really a conflict here? The government should not fund religious activity, but nor should it stifle it, and one man's right to expression should probably be stronger than another's right to be 'unoccausted' by it, I think.

If there's a conflict in celebrations regarding the callendar that becomes an issue and I'm not sure how that could be resolved.

But one thing is certain to me about this case. I'll echo other posters...

With all the shit going on with religion and other things in the world you want to take on this? This is sooooooooo grey, and other issues are sooooo black and white, and they need to be adressed urgently. What about the contract the government is awarding to christian insurance companies that don't allow abortions or birth control, etc. under their plan? What about creationism being taught in schools? What about Scolia saying that the melding of church and state would be a good thing? the president having his people look into the constitutional implications of such a change? Those things are scary....Railing against a nativity scene is an unwinable stance in this day and age and only fuels the christian right with bullshit stories about us secularists trying to get rid of Christmas. Why do them this service? Why mobilize the christian movement with something so petty to us, that will be so huge to them?

[arwalden]

39. Oh Good Grief, Cheswick!

>> Some people sure are good at shooting themselves in the foot. <<

And some people sure are good at missing the point entirely.

Can't you see? It's not the physical presence of the nativity scene. If it were the mere "physical presence" of the scene, then affronted atheists would be protesting every instance of it no matter WHERE it is.

Here's the problem... When such religious displays are permitted on public property, then it's the same as government endorsement of that religion. What part of the separation of church and state DON'T you understand?? :eyes:

How much intrusion is too much, Cheswick? Where would YOU draw the line? What else don't you object to?

>> there are much bigger problems in the world than a Nativity scene that most people are happy to have up. <<

Indeed... and many of these problems can be traced back to religious fundamentalists being in charge of our government and policies made by them (or to placate them).

[lastliberalintexas]

57. Sorry, sweetie, but you're wrong on this

"Here's the problem... When such religious displays are permitted on public property, then it's the same as government endorsement of that religion. What part of the separation of church and state DON'T you understand??"


That's not the way it works. The government can't discriminate based on the content of the speech. Once they've opened up a public place as a public forum (and most parks are considered as such), all who wish to speak must be heard by the government. So long as the city allows all who wish to erect some sort of display to do so as well as these Christians, then it's constitutional. The article said that no tax dollars were expended for this project, and until another sect or religion is refused access, there was no violation.

This group has a very bad lawyer giving them bad advice or else they're disrupting for the sake of disrupting.

[arwalden]

61. "Sweetie?"

:eyes:

[lastliberalintexas]

64. Sorry

I lapse and post in "Southern" at times. It certainly wasn't meant as derogatory, but I guess you can take it any way you like.

So, what about the Constitutional law analysis which was provided along with the unintended insult? Any other comment?

[arwalden]

68. I take it as passive-aggressive...

...just as you intended it.

I guess that will be for the courts to decide if it's "free speech" or "endorsement".

These are uncomfortably similar to the arguments used to justify prayer in classrooms, displaying the Ten Commandments in class or in courthouses, and for NOT teaching evolution.

"It's just all free speech"... HORSE SHIT! It's endorsement of religion, promotion of religion, and religious endoctrination, and they are doing it on the government's dime. It's wrong!

Take it back to the churches and homes!

[lastliberalintexas]

81. But it isn't on the government's dime

The article stated that the display was privately funded. It would be different if the government was footing the bill.

You would be correct that it would be an endorsement of religion if a non-religious display or group were refused access, a la Kwanzaa. Then the government is discriminating based on the *content* of the speech, rather than the forum or location. Otherwise, if all who seek it are given access, then the government is staying neutral, as it should.

School issues are completely distinct from other free speech cases. There one has a captive audience of impressionable youth with state agents forcing the child to act in a manner which favors religion over irreligion, and usually one sect over another as well. And that is exactly what the government must not do.

[arwalden]

85. Rent Free Is On Our Dime

The constitution doesn't say anything about the government being "neutral". These types of displays are an encroachment on the SEPARATION of church and state. There are no two ways about it. It's blurring the line. Keep it separate!

The Christians are not victims here. They are being given prime real-estate to display their wares at NO CHARGE.

[lastliberalintexas]

95. Rent?

It's a park, is it not? That means it's open to all free of charge.

The Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the government should remain neutral in those exact words, but it comes closer than saying that there should be a wall of separation between the church and the state. That phrase was in a letter written by Jefferson, and likely expresses Madison's intent when preparing the Bill of Rights, but is not found in the actual document. But the 1st does state:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It is from the first phrase, known as the Establishment Clause, that the Court has determined that the government must remain neutral in terms of religion. That has been the Court's interpretation of that Clause, and has stood for many years now. The government should neither promote nor inhibit the religious practices of its people.

And I didn't see anything about their "wares" in the article. Are they using the area to actually sell merchandise?

[arwalden]

99. Sigh

>> And I didn't see anything about their "wares" in the article. Are they using the area to actually sell merchandise? <<

You appeared to be someone who wouldn't stoop to picking nits and hyper-parsing commonly understood expressions. Wares. Bill-of-goods. Hooey. Nonsense. They are PROMOTING Christianity. (Of course you knew what I meant... you're smart.)

What they are doing is wrong.

Please see my other thread about being at an impasse.

[lastliberalintexas]

109. Gotcha

I didn't mean that comment as any kind of nit. I wouldn't have put it past some fundie group to try to actually use the opportunity to sell those Left Behind "books" or some other such grabage. I just thought you might know more about the situation than what was written in the article! Every now and then that happens here (I was able to provide more details than an article contained about that horrible incident in Spurger where some fundie woman fought their dress up day :eyes:) Sorry if my question came across as something else.


That's the wonderful thing about liberals- we can agree to disagree and not think of the other as evil or want to kill each other, something the right has still to learn. :-)

[Tansy_Gold]

117. I agree with arwalden, 100% through this thread

Religion has its place and places. It has a secure place in the places of worship -- temples, mosques, churches, what have you. It has a secure place in the private property/homes of the believers.

It should never be granted a place in the public sphere. And I mean never. I don't think it has any place whatsoever on U.S. currency, in the pledge of allegiance, in school concerts, in the courthouse, or on public property such as parks, greens, commons, utility poles, etc.

If the owners of a shopping mall want to put up holiday decorations to remind shoppers that it's that time of year, and if those holiday decorations include evergreen trees and candy canes and stars and bright lights, fine. It's private property. If someone wants to buy a couple of acres along the interstate highway and put up a 100-foot-high illuminated crucifix that doesn't violate any safety laws, I may not like waking up to it during a cross-country drive (hubby was behind the wheel; I was napping in the passenger's seat) but I have no right to interfere with the owner's right to do what he wants with his property.

But when it comes to public property and/or public funds being used to support one religion over another, I draw the line.

If we don't draw the line there, where do we draw it? After christian prayers -- "In Jesus' name we pray, amen." -- have been brought back into the schools and our children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, whatevers are embarrassed and shamed and ridiculed and persecuted until they give in and join the crowd? Where's the "freedom of religion" in that?

Do we draw it after "minority" faiths are shut out by "majority" rule? What do you do in a community where the population is 35% Southern Baptist, 25% Roman Catholic, 20% Reform Jewish, and 20% "other" -- but the city council is 100% "christian"?

Do you draw the line after the Catholics put up one nativity scene and the Baptists put up another and the Mormons put up another and the Presbyterians put up another and the Methodists put up another and the Nazarenes put up another and the Lutherans (Missouri Synod) put up another and the Disciples of Christ put up another and the Church of Christ puts up another and the Assembly of God on Fourth Street puts up another and the Assembly of God on Ninth Avenue puts up another and there's no fucking room left for the Temple Beth Israel's Menorah or the United Druids' illuminated electric yule log? Or does someone decide which "christians" get to do the nativity scene this year, shutting out some other group that claims "those people" aren't real christians but "we" are? What if there are Reform, Traditional, and Orthodox Jewish communities?

There's no way to please all these groups. There's always someone who will say "my group got slighted." Either there weren't enough African-Americans in the Southern Baptist Church's creche or there were too many Hispanic-looking figures in the Catholic Church's version or too many gay-looking shepherds in the Unitarians' tableau. It would be soooooo much easier if these communities were homogeneous!

Oh, wait, that's what churches are for! And mosques! and temples!

Great solution -- we'll relegate the holy-day displays to private property -- homes, businesses, malls, churches, funeral homes, fundie florists, Muslim-owned motels, Jewish-owned pharmacies, Lutheran-owned bookstores, whatthefuckever.

And we will keep ALL RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION OUT OF THE PUBLIC SPHERE.


Tansy Gold, atheist who would kinda like to see her right-wing screwed up community with that pagan thing with the three women and the guy with the . . . . . .

[arwalden]

156. Hi Tansy!

:loveya:

[Forkboy]

71. nope...great protest!

[Cheswick2.0]

92. nope.......stupid protest

it is meaningless and childish. No one is being hurt by a nativity scene. No tax dollars are paying for it and no one is forcing anyone to attend church.

[Forkboy]

94. we disagree

:shrug:

[Mad_Dem_X]

98. I'm with you, Cheswick

It's public property, no one's tax dollars are paying for it. It's the CHRISTMAS season, People. This is what CHRISTMAS is all about. Let them display the nativity. If it upsets you, don't go near it.

I know I'm gonna get flamed for this, but oh well. :hi:

[Cheswick2.0]

135. And I think Darwin Day on the square would be a lot of fun

kids with science projects etc.... a real blast.
Being a Christian I wonder if I would be welcome.

[maxsolomon]

31. agitate for your right

to put up an "seasonal" atheist display.

what would that look like, anyway?

[VegasWolf]

32. Personally, I would have Madonna and Paris curling up in a sweet

embrace.

[Cheswick2.0]

136. that makes no sense

Since Mary is a myth according to Atheists, why would putting a represention of her be symbolic of atheism? Sounds more like defending your desire to be offensive.

[VegasWolf]

154. Who said that atheists don't believe in Mary. It's the idea of a

virgin birth and her offspring being a deity that
stretches credulity. BTW, Madonna wasn't referring to Mary.

[Walt Starr]

38. Precisely, what's good for one group is good for all groups

If the atheists wanted to, they could put up a banner stating all religion is a lie right next to the nativity scene and the local goverment would have to allow it. If the local government refused, then they would have grounds for a lawsuit.

[VegasWolf]

120. Well, actually religion is not a lie per se, but rather a foolish

mis-belief. Sort of like when people worshiped lightening.

[Swamp Rat]

37. One way to put out a fire is to blow it up.

Why not demand equal representation?

[NorthernSpy]

62. I agree

Demand equal treatment, and then put up whatever you want.

If Christians are allowed to use public property for the display of religious tableaux, then pagans should build tableaux of their own and park 'em right next to the manger scene.

When Christians insist upon government-sponsored prayer before town meetings and public school assemblies, don't get mad -- just demand equal treatment. After a few pagan-led prayers, the custom will die out faster than fast.

Alternatively, one could lead the "congregation" in explicitly non-Trinitarian prayer, or in prayers that petition saints. Both are anathema to most Protestants.

Doing this would remind the public -- both Christian and nonChristian -- that strict separation of church and state is in everybody's interest.

[Walt Starr]

118. Yep, tell me how long they'll open up the meeting with a public prayer

after hearing this:

"Oh great mother Goddess who has opened her womb to the God, We praise the blessings and the fruit of thy womb!

Oh Great Horned One, we praise the blessings of the fruit of thy loins which hath fertilized the womb of thy Consort the Great Mother!"

In thy names we pray, so mote it be!"

[Swamp Rat]

172. Ori Ye Ye O! Oh great Oshun! The great Goddess Oracle!

Oshun is brass and parrot
feathers in a velvet skin.
Oshun is white cowrie
shells on black buttocks.
Her eyes sparkle in the forest,
like sun on the river.
She is the wisdom of the forest
She is the wisdom of the river.
Where doctors fail,
she cures with fresh water.
Where medicine fails,
she cures with fresh water.
She feeds the barren woman
with honey, and her dry body
swells up like a juicy coconut.
Oh, how sweet, how sweet
is the touch of a child’s hand.

-Yoruban chant to Oshun

[Demos]

54. Government & Religion

I'm sure to be flamed for this but every community is different, and I see no problem if a local school district or village council wants to adopt a nativity scene or put on a Christmas program so long as no one in the community objects to it. I grew up in a small fairly homogeneous rural community and this was and still is fairly common. Many years ago when I was a youth this was a "liberal" thing for communities to do because it helped bring protestants and catholics together and helped overcome the bigotries and prejudices those groups had for each other. It may have outlived its usefulness but it certainly does no harm and is a traditional holiday activity that many communities look forward to and enjoy.

[leftofcool]

69. I think you are right on target.

Many of us, self included, spend way to much time worried about what the "other guy is doing with his religion" and not enough time being good tolerant people. I have never heard of a child or an adult being harmed psychologically or emotionally by a Christmas Tree, or a nativity scene. Perhaps the athiests, pagans and Christians could all get together and agree on some decor that would not offend anyone.

Left of Cool

[Shakespeare]

66. The atheists and fundies are BOTH pissing me off.

Christmas is a holiday that blends pagan AND Christian ideas. In recent decades, we've acknowledged that it goes beyond a Christian holiday by broadening our celebration to a more inclusive "happy holidays" or "season's greetings."

This is a good thing, right? So why bitch about Christmas trees or saying "happy holidays" instead of or in addition to "merry Christmas?"

Why in the hell can't BOTH sides just chill the hell out and enjoy the season? This is the ONE holiday that has truly evolved, and is inclusive of all, if you let it.

x(

[elemnopee]

75. totally agree

atheists are not as bad as the fundies, but they push too hard

[Griffy]

80. serperation of church and state is in danger.. thats the issue! nt

[Cheswick2.0]

96. it is not in danger from a Christmas display

This is nothing new and we have survived for hundreds of years while our communities have displayed Christian symbolism. No one is being forced to attend church to buy property or be a christian to run for office.
Pick your battles. This one is silly.

[progressivebydesign]

102. Why liberals are unpopular right now...

.. ah. I've here at DU since nearly its beginning. I have logged almost 7,000 posts. I was a Dean alternate delegate in my area.. and a lifelong democrat. I consider myself a practical liberal. I refuse to go along blindly with any group...

Today, when I read in the Seattle paper that an athiest couple in Bellevue is trying for force the City of Bellevue to remove their Christmas tree (which is a GIVING tree, generating 25k in gifts for needy children), I came to a realization. Liberals are shooting themselves in the foot, CONSTANTLY.

I grew up in L.A., where nativity scenes and Christmas decorations were part of the official civic displays, we had Christmas parties and songs in school. Guess what? Though I was not actually what you'd call a Christian, It didn't offend me, nor have any fucking effect on my life.

I see why the mainstream voters are tiring of shit like this. I'm a liberal, and I'm tired of it. If people walk around their whole lives waiting for things to offend them, they'll spend their whole lives being offended. Just as gay marriage has no bearing on my own marriage, a nativity scene on public property does not have any effect on my life. What some people are trying pass off as tolerance and diversity, are quickly becoming narrowminded, mean-spirited exercises in political correctness.

If people that the mainstream voters consider "left" continue these trite, whiney, tirades.. then we will never see another Democratic president elected. THIS is the shit that makes the term liberal, to mainstream voters, a liability.

[leftofcool]

108. Excellent Post!

Well said and dead on.

Left of cool

[progressivebydesign]

116. Thank you.. : ) N/T

[GCP]

119. Thank you, you put it perfectly

I'm sick of liberals being pilloried because of this kind of stuff. It's getting to re-goddam-diculous, to quote the late John Wayne.

[shrike]

143. Loved your post

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[really annoyed]

162. I Do Agree

I don't use the term "political correctness." I never cared for it. But I do agree with you. This protest is just silly to me, really.

I am non-religious. My city has a nativity scene. So does the city next to mine. It does not offend me. Nobody in the city is telling me to believe in it, so I don't care. Christmas is about the birth of Jesus Christ, but I can celebrate the spirit of the season. It's about family to me. But that won't change the fact that most people celebrate Christmas as a religious holiday. And that is OK with me.

There are bigger threats to the First Amendment. Besides, isn't a nativity scene an expression of religion? Isn't this nativity scene on private property?

And the sad thing about all this? It WILL get linked to liberals and the Democratic party.

I'm sorry, but I never cared for American Atheists. I support the concept of freedom from religion, but I just never cared for these type of groups.

[Cheswick2.0]

103. Faith based charities are getting food stamps to hand out

pretty soon it will be hard to get food stamps without going to some church group for them.

But by all means, go protest a Holiday display.

[Tansy_Gold]

151. Well, why shouldn't faith based groups be entrusted with

distribution of food stamps? They have the government's stamp /pun intended/ of approval. They get to put up religious displays in the courthouse square or on the common green. They're a-ok with the government. edited to add /sarcasm off/

I think we're really fighting the same battle, Cheswick, but from different sides of the battlefield. The faith-based welfare thing is bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, but when the general public sees a.) nothing wrong with public displays of religion and b.) no one protesting said public displays, the general (lazy, uninformed) public doesn't see anything wrong with those good christians handing out the food stamps.

The two go hand in hand. Whether it's tax-funding of religious charter schools (bad) or faith-based determinations of welfare recipients (bad) or telling kids the candy canes are made out of Jesus' blood (bad) or putting manger scenes on the public green (bad) or recalling elected officials because they don't want to say "under God" in the pledge (bad), it's all part of the creeping fundamentalism that is taking over this country as sure as Islamist fundamentalism took over Iran in 1979.

We all have lots of battles to fight. We have the pro-birthers who want to make sure every unwanted child takes its first breath outside the womb and then will abandon it before it takes its second. We have the blood-thirsty avengers who want to annihilate every Muslim for their vicarious participation in 9/11. We have the rapturists who are just itching to cut down every last fucking tree on the planet and bring on the second coming by the end of next week. But I think we have to fight all of them, and each of us has to pick the battle we feel strongest about and are the best equipped to fight.

I don't know much about welfare rights and wrongs. It's not my field. So I will leave that fight to you and to the others who are best able to fight that fight. I can only speak from the gut and the heart on the environment, so I'll leave the details to the ecologists.

This is the time of year when nativity scenes are a common sight. This is the time of year when we who oppose the public funding of religious displays have to speak out. It makes no sense for us to do so in June or September. There aren't many governmental displays of religious symbols at other times of the year. So we're taking advantage of this narrow window of opportunity, because it's the only one we have.

when the season is over, when we've won or lost for this year, many of us will join you in the on-going battles for welfare rights and reproductive rights and gay rights and human rights. But this is the one season when we can make this an issue.

Please, don't ask us to be silent. We would never do the same to you.


Tansy Gold

[ChickMagic]

122. Look at what happened to our poor solstice sign

We protested the nativity scene put up in front of the courthouse. In the group shot, I'm the one in the Santa hat and Derby is to your left. It's a pretty interesting saga.

http://www.metroplexatheists.org/solsign.htm

[Tansy_Gold]

125. I read the whole thing with great interest

loved the pix, too!

:thumbsup:

[ChickMagic]

127. We nearly caused wrecks

The entire police force of Weatherford, TX showed up (all 4 cars) because some nut called in to say we were fighting. It was pretty fun.

[Tansy_Gold]

132. Weatherford is just outside Fort Worth, isn't it?

I think we drove through there on the interstate when taking daughter to and from college.

She liked the school but couldn't handle the plethora of fundies.

[LanternWaste]

138. My gosh, man... it's Weatherford, TX

You expected a different resolution to the scenario? My gosh, man... it's Weatherford, TX! Even household pets are branded with G.O.P so they're not mistaken as hippies....

:P

[VegasWolf]

123. How about a giant panoramic display of all the deities that people

have worshiped over time. We could put a collection
plate in front of each deity and the one who has the most
money come Jan 1st wins.

[hollowdweller]

147. THAT'S how this issue can be countered, other religions insisting on

Putting their stuff up there too.

[livinginphotographs]

159. Good idea.

What does the winner get?

[VegasWolf]

174. The winning deity gets all expense paid trip to Disney World. n/t

[VegasWolf]

124. If there really was a god he would strike me dead while I am ty

[Tansy_Gold]

126. ROFLMAO!

Tansy Gold, mother goddess who brings wolves back to life after they've been struck down by silly father god's lightning.

[VegasWolf]

129. Wow, that was close. Thanks Tansy Gold mother goddess. I saw

dead people.

[Tansy_Gold]

134. You're quite welcome, VegasWolf

Tansy Gold, mother goddess who wishes she really could bring some of those dead people back to life. . . they didn't deserve to die just because one disgusting human being thinks he can play god. . . . . .

[LanternWaste]

130. ...and sooner or later

...and sooner or later, there will be a protest of the word "Christmas" in all public places (it's got the word 'Christ' in it, ya know) and a protest to ban Christmas trees in all public places (because the Christians very effectively co-opted the symbology from pagans).

Sheesh. Wile E. Coyote strikes again....

On Edit: Hoo-boy. Just read deeper into the thread that a WA couple is suing their municipality to remove a Chrsitmas tree (oops, sorry, "Giving" tree). Life imitates satire, I guess :)

[shrike]

133. 132 posts on a nativity scene. This is the DU I know and love

But seriously, I'd need more information on this situation.

I'm a Catholic who strongly believes in the separation of church and state. Do MOST citizens in the town like it? Are there lots of objections? How long has this family been putting up a nativity scene? Is it a recent phenomenon? It might be a little local tradition, above and beyond the religious meaning. Maybe the family believes they're doing a civic service -- or maybe they're zealots.

I'd have to know more before weighing in.

[Tansy_Gold]

140. I'm not sure, but I think one of the basic tenets of the founding

of the United States was to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. So yeah, we still get "majority rules" when it comes to things like elections, but just because a majority of the citizens in a community want to use public funds to support a particular religion and shut the non-believers out doesn't make it okay.

The majority of a community may be Southern Baptist, but that doesn't give them the right to put Southern Baptist prayers in the public schools.

The rights of the minority -- in the Connecticut case and the Weatherford, TX, example posted later -- should be protected. If the public commons or courthouse square (I can imagine what's going on in Prescott, AZ or Auburn, IN, right about now) or other public assets, as distinct from "funds," are used to promote one particular religion, then those same assets must be made equally available to the adherents of any and all other religions or belief systems.

It seems to me, crazy person that I am, that it is much easier and saner and simpler and fairer to say to all concerned: "Sorry, folks, but the courthouse square and the common parkland in the middle of town belong to everyone and we can't possibly devise a fair way to divide it amongst you all. That would be kinda like ol' King Solomon wantin' to chop the baby in half to suit both its mothers, 'cept we'd have to chop the park into seven or eight or twenty parts to accommodate everyone. So why don't we all take our nativity scenes and menorahs and yule logs back to our homes and churches and synagogues and privately-owned oak groves and sacred springs and wherever else we worship and we can all celebrate in peace and happiness. And we'll save the park for picnics and the Fourth of July carnival and the day we welcome home all the troops from that awful business in Iraq."

Why, after all, does a group want its religious message set in a government/public setting? Because it wants to convey the idea that the government approves of it, IMHO. Because it wants to tack itself onto the authority of government. Religion doesn't belong there, and any religion that wants to do so is, in my opinion again, trying to claim domination. I understand that there are many christian sects that thrive on proselytizing, that see conversion of others as an obligation laid upon them by their god. I fear religions like that, truly I do. And I also fear those who would shrug off the threat with the "We have bigger battles to fight."

IMHO, the battle to keep religion out of government and out of the lives of those who don't want it is one of the biggest battles we face. The non-christians are under assault, and even many non-evangelical christians. I do believe it's a slippery slope.

Call me crazy,

or call me

Tansy Gold

[shrike]

142. Well, I guess I just can't get my panties in a knot over this

I know very few people who attend church, and while they probably wouldn't consider themselves strict atheists they don't call themselves religious, either. Yet they enjoy all aspects of the season, everything from Santa Claus to manger scenes.

I lived in New England for years, and unless it's changed drastically it's hardly a hotbed of fundamentalism. Most people I knew there, even Catholics, were strictly secular. Christmas, and Christmas decorations, are an important part of New England in winter, and I have the feeling that this nativity scene is just that -- a decoration.

[Tansy_Gold]

148. I'm not sure it's a question of whether or not this particular

community is a "hotbed of fundamentalism." I think it's more a case of some of "us" feeling a bit more threatened in the current national climate. Things that used to be seen as harmless seasonal displays are now becoming symbols of a growing oppression.

A city councilmember who doesn't want to say "under God" in the pledge is threatened with recall. He's not a good christian. He's not fit to govern in his community.

Maybe there are folks in that little quaint Connecticut community who feel the nativity scene is just one more symbol of the fundamentalist trend in this country and they've decided to take a stand before it gets worse.

Just because you don't feel threatened doesn't mean they don't.

And remember, they aren't trying to outlaw Christmas or even the display of nativity scenes. They just don't want them on public property. It seems to me they aren't asking for very much, but they're being asked to give up a great deal.

[shrike]

149. Well ...

Not all atheists are threatened by it. I'm married to one, and he says, "If they don't like the thing, then don't look at it. There are more important things to worry about."

[Tansy_Gold]

150. So you're saying that since your atheist isn't bothered by it

no atheist should be?

I'm an atheist and I'm bothered by it.

Once again, as others have said before, the private practice of religion isn't an issue. Commercialization of "Christ"mas isn't the issue. If people want to cover their lawns with bigger-than-life manger scenes and run up their electric bill with 42,567 lights, that's fine. If Wal-mart wants to hawk pre-lit 6-foot artificial blue spruces for $79.97, that's fine. If the mall wants to install a Santa and play Christmas carols from now until January, that's fine, too.

The issue is the appearance of official government support. The issue is drawing the line. It has to be drawn somewhere, doesn't it?

[MisterCompletly]

137. Sounds like these heathen brethren have too much spare time

Why hunt for hornet nests and then poke at them with sticks when they could be out doing something constructive to help those in need.

[Tansy_Gold]

145. Surely the same could be said of the christian folks

who seem to have so much money to spend on nativity scenes.

could they not be using that money to do some good for the less fortunate in their community? Buying blankets for the homeless shelter or new shoes for the poor children?

It cuts both ways.

edited to add:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1078416

seems the christians have too much time and money on their hands, too, or else pushing their "washed in the blood of the lamb" message on fourth-graders is far more important than ensuring we all have freedom of religion.

[arwalden]

158. Is Your Head In A Bucket? Are You Living Under A Rock?

>> Why hunt for hornet nests and then poke at them with sticks when they could be out doing something constructive to help those in need. <<

Of course... it's "only" one nest. One little nest. Whaaaat's it going to hurt? Whyyyy make such a biiiig deal over this ONE liiiittle thing. Riiiight?

Each time it's just "one little thing" that by itself "doesn't really matter" when we could be doing "something constructive" and helping "those in need"... is that about it? Is that your take on it?

Why let the hornets continue to build nest after nest after nest after nest after nest after nest after nest after nest. Why let each nest grow and grow and grow and grow and grow and grow. Only to make more and more and more and more.

It's this creeping creeping creeping phenomenon that eventually leads to things like THIS:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1075621&mesg_id=1075621

... where a duly elected official faces a RECALL because he won't say the words "under God" in the Pledge Of Allegiance. The wacko Christians just get more and more BRAZEN every fucking day! When do YOU think would be a good time to put the brakes on, sir? How much Christian-Activism will be TOO MUCH for you? Where would YOU like to draw the line?

This IS constructive, sir. Feel free to dismiss my concerns. When I hear people make comments like yours I have to wonder if they are being naive, or if they are just apologists who actually believe that our government should be promoting religion. It's hard to tell, but it's likely one of those choices.

Do what you want. Look the other way. Make excuses for them. Ridicule me if you want. I choose to face these Christian bullies head on.

The more we permit these fundie Christians to blur (AND ERASE) the line that separates church and state, the WORSE it will get.

The cesspool we're sinking in right now is a DIRECT result of TOO MUCH CHRISTIANITY IN OUR GOVERNMENT. It's wrong and it must stop.

[MisterCompletly]

161. Why the recent attempts to ban Nativity scenes and plays in schools?

I recall there being no problem for decades and I was even in three elementary school Nativity plays. It just seems to be a recent crusade to ban such harmless celebrations of Christmas.

Who were the troubadours of the Nativity crackdown and when did they begin their mission?

[aikido15]

167. Our country wasn't...

under the attack of the neocon evangelicals at that time, we are now. I'm serious folks, you'd better listen to folks like Arwalden because this is serious stuff. THE NEOCONS AND THE EVANGELICALS HAVE LAUNCHED A MASSIVE FASCISTS MOVEMENT IN THIS COUNTRY...
WAKE UP!

[aikido15]

166. Arwalden...

:toast: I totally agree with you!

[RetroLounge]

146. I say let them put it up

and then go over at night and smash the fucking thing to bits with a baseball bat.

That's my exercise of free expression on public property.

Deal with it, fundie asshats

RL

[geniph]

152. You know what I don't get?

How come they feel they're so damn victimized and oppressed if they're not allowed to have their mythological paraphernalia EVERYWHERE IN THE FUCKING WORLD? Why aren't they happy putting their nativity scenes on their lawns and churches and parochial schools? Why does that crap have to be on the town square, in the public park, and in the public schools too? I'm not putting science displays on the church lawns.

Public property is owned by all of us. Private displays of private faith - ANY faith - have no business on public property.

Why is it that they feel oppressed if they ever see anything that isn't Christian-themed, if they're not allowed to plaster the world with Jesus Junk(tm)? Why can't we have public property for ALL the public? Who gave them the right to proselytize the world?

[ResistTheCoup]

160. Right on, geniph!!

I'm with arwalden and Tansy Gold and you 100%! :yourock:

What's not surprising to me is how many Du'ers are like, "ho-hum - so the Christians are doing something unconstitutional? So what? How does that affect you?"

As my teenaged son would say, "Duh!"

What part of a group protesting something that's unconstitutional don't you people get?

So, it's not a big deal to you? You don't really care? Fine. Then why are you telling other people who do care that it shouldn't matter to them either? That doesn't sound very "democratic" or "liberal" I'm afraid.

www.positiveblasphemy.blogspot.com

[aikido15]

168. Score!

:toast:

[0rganism]

173. Urgh... This is an ill-conceived protest

Even if the principle is 100% spot on, the timing is all wrong and playing directly into the hands of the rightwing pundits making a stink about "liberal secularists taking Christ out of Christmas". Never mind that the actual goal is to unravel and excessive entanglement of religion and government; this is going to come back to haunt us in 2006 and 2008, big time. Right idea, poor tactics.

Something can be absolutely correct in the sense of current caselaw and still be incredibly stupid in the sense of practical advancement of one's position.

[BernieBear]

175. The founders never said there SHOULDN'T BE religion

They said there shouldn't be a state mandated religion. No one is mandating these people to go look at the nativity and believe. I don't believe in the Food Pyramid, but I don't go nuts every time I see it in a government cafeteria.

These guys are not helping anything IMHO. :nopity:

[Sterling]

180. I nominate this for the stupidest post in the thread.

And that says a lot since there are a lot of ignorant rants on here.

I think you should take up a case against the government in an effort to separate nutritional information and the state.

Public property, private religious display, constitutional separation of church and state,do the fucking math.

[Robbien]

179. This guy is almost acting on his own.

According to his website, he has only held one protest before and that was during Summer weather conditions. He was able to get four other atheists to join him. They protested the words "under God".

Wonder how many other atheists he will be able to scare up during the holidays to stand out in the cold for this protest.