‘Holy War’: Thousands Against Atheists’ "Attack" on Nativity

[Skwim]

"The battle over a nativity scene in Athens, Texas, reached new heights this weekend when up to 5,000 supporters flooded the town square. Their purpose? To stand firmly opposed to the attacks a prominent atheist group has waged on the religious display.

As the Blaze reported earlier this month, the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group that frequently targets the presence of faith and religion in the public square, is demanding that a nativity scene be removed from public property.

Supporters of the nativity scene claim that there’s an attack on Christianity in America. ”It’s time for us to stand together and protect the very principles that made this nation great from its birth,” said Pastor Nathan Lorick, a nativity scene supporter. ”We‘ve become so busy with our lives that we’ve forgotten our first love.”

Critics though — mostly atheists — believe that the scene is offensive and that it should not be present on government property (the nativity is currently positioned in front of the Henderson County Courthouse)."

[youtube]oLvqkVo_K-Q[/youtube]
Pathetic Christian rant from the Athens' Courthouse steps.
​

source

​

Don't know about you, but stuff like this, particularly the numskull in the video, makes me sick to my stomach.

 

[godnotgod]

"....take America back to spiritual health, etc......"

Yes, like when Christian America ripped off the original inhabitants of their rightful homes, slaughtered and/or herded them like animals because they 'stood in the way' of of their agenda known as "Manifest Destiny', burned women as witches in Salem, kidnapped Africans to be used as slaves, and then held lynching picnics as entertainment for the white racist community, deliberately instigated war with Mexico for the express purpose of stealing over 1/3 of her northern lands to expand slavery, locked up the Japanese in concentration camps, and then sent out her missionaries into India, Africa, South America to first scare the BJeezuz out of the natives, to prepare the way for the monied interests to then come in and exploit their land, resources, and human labor to serve the Christian Nation's wealthy. Yes, indeed. Let's return to those 'spiritually healthy' conditions, why don't we? Hmmmm?

 

[Madhuri]

While I don't exactly approve of the Christian mentality so often displayed, I also think it's extreme and stupid for people to be against a display of a nativity scene at Christmas time.

But I also support the display of many cultures and religions and traditions rather than the exclusive exposure of one particular demographic. And so I do not support the freedom FROM religion group.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm not a big fan of either side on this one ...

 

[Revoltingest]

While I don't exactly approve of the Christian mentality so often displayed, I also think it's extreme and stupid for people to be against a display of a nativity scene at Christmas time.

The issue here is about the display being on public property.
This singular religious display smacks of government support, which would violate the Constitution.
Some would excuse it as de minimis. Others see something more.
It hasn't been that long since religious oaths were required in public schools & courts.
I remember it.

 

[godnotgod]

While I don't exactly approve of the Christian mentality so often displayed, I also think it's extreme and stupid for people to be against a display of a nativity scene at Christmas time.

But I also support the display of many cultures and religions and traditions rather than the exclusive exposure of one particular demographic. And so I do not support the freedom FROM religion group.

Out of context, yes, it is extreme and stupid to be against a nativity scene. But when displayed on public property supported by tax monies, it is illegal, at least in America, as it violates the separation of church and state doctrine. This is extremely important, as it was implemented to protect the larger populace from any one religious group thinking to gain political power. The colonists had just fled from state sponsored religious oppression in Europe. They wanted to insure against its repetition in their new homeland.

If only Christians understood this law better, they would see that it is actually to their advantage to support separation of church and state. But because of the superficial nature of Christianity, they pursue the path that they do. I honestly think they harbor a persecution complex sparked by feelings of emotional insecurity.

 

[Revoltingest]

If only Christians understood this law better, they would see that it is actually to their advantage to support separation of church and state. But because of the superficial nature of Christianity, they pursue the path that they do.

I know Xians who do understand how the 1st Amendment benefits them.
They've expressed how they don't want some other corrupted flavor of
their faith becoming the state religion.

 

[godnotgod]

I know Xians who do understand how the 1st Amendment benefits them.
They've expressed how they don't want some other corrupted flavor of
their faith becoming the state religion.

Exactly!

 

[Twilight Hue]

Just how in the world is Christianity under attack? That what I want to know. Christians are perfectly free to display the nativity scene to the public on church or religious owned property. They don't and shouldn't run or dictate goverment policy based soley on Christian views, of which in response conveniently snubs off any who happen to differ from the Christian faith by exclaiming their religion is under attack due to a faith based display that not everyone is partial to. Total BS.

 

[Penumbra]

While I don't exactly approve of the Christian mentality so often displayed, I also think it's extreme and stupid for people to be against a display of a nativity scene at Christmas time.

But I also support the display of many cultures and religions and traditions rather than the exclusive exposure of one particular demographic. And so I do not support the freedom FROM religion group.

I don't lose sleep over these sorts of displays nor have I ever bothered to protest them, but I feel they are legally wrong.

Putting a display of a religious scene on government property is a pretty strong symbolic mix of state and religion. It seems to violate the very first amendment to the US constitution. I could foresee a scenario where a non-Christian views that courthouse as less objective, or less fair to them, after having witnessed religion-specific decorations on this government property. The only time I'd be ok with any sort of religious display on government property would be if it honored multiple religions, like an acknowledgement to religion in general, rather than a nod to a specific religion. Even that seems unnecessary and it's better to just not go there in my view.

Something similar could be said for, "In God We Trust" appearing on US money. It wasn't on original US money; they added it at one time on coins and another time on paper money. It's basically an official government recognition of theism, and particularly monotheism over polytheism.

There are instances of the 10 commandments appearing on US courthouse walls as well.

Then, of course, there are laws that acknowledge only certain types of marriage and not others (with the only common arguments against such being religious arguments).

There's sort of a spectrum from not harmful to harmful that goes something like:
-general nod to monotheism on government-backed money
-acknowledgment of Christianity on courthouse property
-acknowledgement of Christian/Jewish commandments on courthouse property
-laws regarding marriage with clear religious background that seriously affect people's lives

And when one sees thousands of people gather and agree on sending a "clear message that it is time to bring America back to the place in which all things are centered on God" (emphasis in original), one could see why there is a consistent and very real breach of the separation of state and religion.

When the battle is occurring over some of the less harmful breaches, it's because it's better to fight there than to fight at some of the more harmful ones (some of which are unfortunately breached as well). Apparently most people in the country constantly need reminders that there is a separation. Those less harmful breaches are the lines in the sand that keep being crossed.

 

[Madhuri]

Thanks Pen and Rev. I do understand this importance.

What do you think about government representing symbols of all different cultures and religions as a way of embracing multiculturalism? Or should such areas be entirely stripped of cultural displays?

 

[Revoltingest]

Thanks Pen and Rev. I do understand this importance.
What do you think about government representing symbols of all different cultures and religions as a way of embracing multiculturalism? Or should such areas be entirely stripped of cultural displays?

A problem: There are so many different religions, that some would be necessarily excluded.
I prefer simplicity & rigorous application of the law, ie, support no religion. It saves money too!

 

[Penumbra]

Thanks Pen and Rev. I do understand this importance.

It's also worth noting or reminding that the US is among the most heavily religious of developed countries, and has a rather significant percentage of conservative Christians that do wield considerable political power. This fact may play a role in determining how big of an issue something like this appears to be.

What do you think about government representing symbols of all different cultures and religions as a way of embracing multiculturalism? Or should such areas be entirely stripped of cultural displays?

This was from my last post. It was a rather small part so it might have been missed, but I addressed that topic:

The only time I'd be ok with any sort of religious display on government property would be if it honored multiple religions, like an acknowledgement to religion in general, rather than a nod to a specific religion. Even that seems unnecessary and it's better to just not go there in my view.

So basically I view the acknowledgment of multiple religions on government property as being significantly less of an issue than putting Christian imagery on government property in a country where conservative Christians wield significant political power and where the separation between religion and state is breached. Personally I think it's not necessary and potentially complex, but it's not a huge issue. Not a political problem.

 

[Madhuri]

Sorry for missing that P!
Thanks for your responses.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry for missing that P!
Thanks for your responses.

You be welcome!

 

[Valjean]

Odd how the Christian right so vociferously defends a Christian religious display on public property while so vehemently opposing a Muslim community center, on private property, a few blocks away from the World Trade Center site.

Those who perceive their values, in this case symbolized by a creche, being undermined by forces like science and reason, will react like cornered animals when they lack the intellectual armament to defend themselves intellectually.

 

[JacobEzra.]

Don't know about you, but stuff like this, particularly the numskull in the video, makes me sick to my stomach.

I don't know, Christmas attacks in Nigeria make me even more sick then a pathetic ******* contest between Atheist and Christians

A lot of people in America are wussies (and I am not talking about you Skwim, but about the Atheist and Christians whining over a stupid nativity scene)

 

[Me Myself]

It is so fundamentally wrong that that video happened, in manyoh so many ways that I ruly oh sincerely don´t know what I can say so I can pretend it will make United States not go backwards centuries of human ideological development if they are ***** enough to actually be a state of religious rule.

Ultimately, let´s be simple:

theocracy.

 

[godnotgod]

The First Amendment is a two-pronged restriction. On the one hand, it prevents the Federal government from creating a state-run religion of its own: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...." while at the same time preventing it from interfering with any privately-run religious institutions: "...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This is a reflection of the Founding Father's wisdom in writing this Amendment.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

*sigh*, Texas...