Atheists Strike At The Heart of Xmas

• Strapping Young Lad

  

  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
• Glory Days

  

  technically there isnt anything wrong with it. should they have used the words they did, probably not.
• Tinkertrain

  Glad they did it.
• derek bomar

  

  they're within their rights to do it - so it's fine by me
• Strapping Young Lad

  

  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???
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Bunch of dumbasses, I'm an atheist but there's a difference between being polite, and being an asshole. These folks are assholes.
• jmog

  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.
• derek bomar

  

  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"
• GeneralsIcer89

  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?
• jmog

  derek bomar wrote: I don't even think it's in poor taste. The nativity scene and all religious displays basically are promoting something without spelling it out...there isn't an atheist nativity scene so you need words...at least they didn't say "hey fuckholes...there's nothing out there, we checked"

  Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?
  
  That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.
  
  Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.
• bman618

  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

  

  jmog wrote:
  Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?
  
  That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.
  
  Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.

  They put the sign up at the statehouse, not on church property. I do think it was in poor taste, but your analagy was a little off.
• derek bomar

  

  FatHobbit wrote:

  jmog wrote:
  Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?
  
  That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.
  
  Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.

  They put the sign up at the statehouse, not on church property. I do think it was in poor taste, but your analagy was a little off.

  Yea, the analogy doesn't really work. The nativity scene was put up on public ground, so unless they were threatening or vulgar (which they weren't) with their sign, I don't see how it's in bad taste
• majorspark

  

  Unless you live in the state of Washington, what does anyone care what the people of Washington allow on their state's property.
• Con_Alma

  In life there are many things that just because we can do doesn't mean we necessarily should do.
• fish82

  

  Strapping Young Lad wrote: An anti-religion signs have been placed next to nativity scenes across the country. This story is from Olympia, 2008, but I saw a story on O'Reilly last night in which it happens again, this holiday season.
  
  Is this okay with you??? Many can understand symbols of organized religions decorationing buildings at this time of year. Is it okay to have a sign recognizing the Winter Solstice and condemning organized religion sitting next to a nativity scene???
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461424,00.html

  It's a religious holiday. If they want to protest it, how about they give their presents back and go to work that day?
  
  Yeah...that's what I thought. Dickheads.
• GeneralsIcer89

  Yes, because mega sales and consumerism are clearly religious!
• ts1227

  

  Though it may not be the most tactful thing to do, they are within their rights.
  

  fish82 wrote: It's a religious holiday. If they want to protest it, how about they give their presents back and go to work that day?
  
  Yeah...that's what I thought. Dickheads.

  Government made it secular as well by recognizing it as a federal holiday.
• eersandbeers

  fish82 wrote: It's a religious holiday. If they want to protest it, how about they give their presents back and go to work that day?
  
  Yeah...that's what I thought. Dickheads.

  You are correct its a religious holiday. When are Christians going to stop acting like it has to do with the birth of Jesus and start carrying out pagan traditions?
  
  
  
  And yes, I believe the display(s) are a violation of the constitution and should all be removed. The government is not in the business of religion. There should be no religious decorations whatsoever on government property.
  
  
  But I fail to see how this is really striking at the heart of Christianity.
• jmog

  FatHobbit wrote:

  jmog wrote:
  Let's say there was a "church" or building where atheists congregated to discuss their beliefs. If I put up a nativity scene on their "church" property, wouldn't that be in "poor taste" basically putting it up in their face?
  
  That's what sort of they did, they put it right in the "face" of the Christian groups display.
  
  Like I said, they weren't wrong in what they did, but it was in poor taste.

  They put the sign up at the statehouse, not on church property. I do think it was in poor taste, but your analagy was a little off.

  Nah, that's why i said sidewalk, public property for the most part just like the statehouse .
• CenterBHSFan

  

  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!!!
• Captain Cavalier

  

  eersandbeers wrote:And yes, I believe the display(s) are a violation of the constitution and should all be removed.

  How?
  
  If congress doesn't make a law forcing you to abide by a certain religion, they are honoring the constitution.
  
  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
  
  Freedom OF religion not FROM religion.
  
  I feel that they have a right to display it but they did in poor taste. IMO, to say displaying it next to the Nativity wasn't a "shot" at the Nativity, is naive.
• jmog

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

  Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.
• bigmanbt

  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.
• bigmanbt

  jmog wrote:
  Only someone who doesn't really understand what the Constitution says about religion would say the displays there are violations of the Constitution.

  Wrong. Freedom of religion does not allow for religious displays on government grounds. It implies that NO religion should be displayed when it has to do with the government and you can practice any religion you want. This display is as unconstitutional as displaying the ten commandments in a court room.