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

[Copernicus]

Personally, when I read about this or watch that video...the stupidity of it all almost hurts me. Honestly, there are simpler ways. If someone takes issue with the Nativity scene on government property, there are easier ways to handle it. Make a formal request for a display of another religion to be put up alongside it. Maybe even a few different religions. If any of them are denied, then the Nativity would legally have to be removed...

Draka, the problem with this solution is that you want people to make this request to the government, yet the government has no authority to grant such a request. That authority is explicitly denied it in the First Amendment. If the local government needs a holiday display, it has many non-religious options. Very few people (except maybe Revoltingest ) are going to oppose putting Frosty the Snowman on the courthouse lawn. The reason for the nativity scene is that it is an overt religious symbol, not just a simple holiday display.

...Now honestly, think about it, if the people up in arms about supporting the Nativity are all about Christianity then do you think they are willing to have displays belonging to several other religions around it? Probably not. The point is, instead of just harping on about removing the Nativity, the opposing side should have requested other displays. If those were denied, then they had legal ground for removal and cause for complaint. If the other displays were put up...then there is no real issue and just shut up.

This solution has actually been tried, and it really gets messy. Instead of having a nice public space, you end up with battling signs. In the state of Washington last year, they allowed any religious message to be displayed on public property in the capitol. Atheists put up a sign that was intended to offend Christians. Christians stole it and threw it in a ditch. The government had no business in wading into that kind of fight in the first place.

Here's the important thing. There are churches all over the place. How many of them put up nativity scenes on their property? A friend of mine in Virginia went out in his neighborhood to photograph displays. He had to pass two churches with no displays at all on their property before he got to the local municipal park, where there were all kinds of religious and anti-religious displays. There was an atheist sign wishing everyone peace, prosperity, and a great holiday. There was another one that explicitly mocked Christianity. It was a real circus. There is a reason why the First Amendment bans government endorsements of religious belief. It does no one any good to have the government endorsing any religious message. Move the religious displays onto private property, where they belong.

 

[Apex]

I saw this a while ago and just remembered about it. A supreme court ruling that could be taken into consideration when considering religious displays on public property.

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The goal of avoiding governmental endorsementdoes not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm. A cross by the side of a public highway marking, for instance, the place where a state trooper perished need not be taken as a statement of governmental support for sectarian beliefs. The Constitution does not oblige government to avoid any public acknowledgment of religion’s role in society.

Link

 

[Revoltingest]

I saw this a while ago and just remembered about it. A supreme court ruling that could be taken into consideration when considering religious displays on public property.

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Link

While that's quite reasonable, the peril lies further down that slippery slope.

 

[Apex]

While that's quite reasonable, the peril lies further down that slippery slope.

Care to explain?

 

[Revoltingest]

Care to explain?

If inoffensive things like crosses mark places where a death occurred, then other types of markers must be allowed.
Before long, officials would want to prevent symbols they found Satanic, ferrin or otherwise threatening.
Preferences would always be trying to creep in, particularly in more homogeneous communities.
I don't say the USSC decision was right or wrong....only that things will get messy as boundaries are pushed.

 

[Apex]

If inoffensive things like crosses mark places where a death occurred, then other types of markers must be allowed.
Before long, officials would want to prevent symbols they found Satanic, ferrin or otherwise threatening.
Preferences would always be trying to creep in, particularly in more homogeneous communities.
I don't say the USSC decision was right or wrong....only that things will get messy as boundaries are pushed.

And you don't see similar problems with legislating every public appearance of religion out of existence?

 

[Willamena]

If inoffensive things like crosses mark places where a death occurred, then other types of markers must be allowed.
Before long, officials would want to prevent symbols they found Satanic, ferrin or otherwise threatening.
Preferences would always be trying to creep in, particularly in more homogeneous communities.
I don't say the USSC decision was right or wrong....only that things will get messy as boundaries are pushed.

Ferrin! The holy religion of the ferrets - I love that. Thing is, that these other symbols are allowed does not imply they'll occur. Perhaps the ferrets don't consider vehicular deaths sufficiently commemorable.

 

[Revoltingest]

And you don't see similar problems with legislating every public appearance of religion out of existence?

Mere public appearance isn't the problem.
Religious displays appear in public (on private property) without objection regularly.
It's a question of whether there's governmental support for any religion.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ferrin! The holy religion of the ferrets - I love that. Thing is, that these other symbols are allowed does not imply they'll occur. Perhaps the ferrets don't consider vehicular deaths sufficiently commemorable.

Even if other symbols are allowed but don't occur, that could create an appearance of government favoring one over others.
That seems a problem too.

 

[Willamena]

Mere public appearance isn't the problem.
Religious displays appear in public (on private property) without objection regularly.
It's a question of whether there's governmental support for any religion.

Ostensibly, the answer's quite simple: if the government funded it, then there's support. If not, not.

 

[Willamena]

Even if other symbols are allowed but don't occur, that could create an appearance of government favoring one over others.
That seems a problem too.

Appearance isn't reality, unless you're a mystic.

Then again, a lot of people are wanna-be mystics.

 

[Revoltingest]

Appearance isn't reality, unless you're a mystic.
Then again, a lot of people are wanna-be mystics.

Appearances have effects though, & they become reality.
Analogy:
I can be found in violation of Federal Fair Housing Laws & fined if I act in any way which even
gives the appearance of discriminating against a protected group, even if there is no discrimination.
Their reasoning is that such appearances have a chilling effect.

Ostensibly, the answer's quite simple: if the government funded it, then there's support. If not, not.

That seems reasonable. But one wrinkle is the definition of "funding".
If a church erects a display at their own cost on a courthouse door, then does the government
providing the property & maintenance thereof at no cost to the church constitute funding?

 

[Willamena]

Appearances have effects though, & they become reality.

Yeah, that's what I mean by "wanna-be mystic".

That's why courts of law are usually so precise and concise.

That seems reasonable. But one wrinkle is the definition of "funding".
If a church erects a display at their own cost on a courthouse door, then does the government
providing the property & maintenance thereof at no cost to the church constitute funding?

The definition is of "funding" is rather clear, because each fund is given a funding code in order to be recorded. Further breakdown in coding (project, program, account, etc.) make the payment even more specific.

That reminds me, it's time to update my spreadsheets on Tuesday (blah).

 

[Copernicus]

And you don't see similar problems with legislating every public appearance of religion out of existence?

I can't answer for Revoltingest, but I do have a problem with your implication that government neutrality on religion somehow legislates religion "out of existence". All it does is require that the government not express an opinion pro or con. How does that legislate religion out of existence?

 

[Kathryn]

As a Christian, and one who lives thirty minutes from where all this brouhaha took place, I am:

1) Very much aware and appreciative of the importance of the separation of church and state

2) Opposed to this or any nativity scene being placed on this or any government-owned property

3) Not aware of any local churches who are supporting this protest

4) Apparently not one of the "insider Christians" (even though I am a regular churchgoer) because if it wasn't for media coverage, I wouldn't ever have heard a word about this issue, which happened thirty minutes from my house. No one I know is even remotely interested in it one way or the other.

 

[Willamena]

2) Opposed to this or any nativity scene being placed on this or any government-owned property

Why? ..

 

[riley2112]

As a Christian, and one who lives thirty minutes from where all this brouhaha took place, I am:

1) Very much aware and appreciative of the importance of the separation of church and state

2) Opposed to this or any nativity scene being placed on this or any government-owned property

3) Not aware of any local churches who are supporting this protest

4) Apparently not one of the "insider Christians" (even though I am a regular churchgoer) because if it wasn't for media coverage, I wouldn't ever have heard a word about this issue, which happened thirty minutes from my house. No one I know is even remotely interested in it one way or the other.

I too am a Christian but i agree

 

[godnotgod]

The Christians who are involved in this sort of thing seem to be saying: "We're tired of being pushed around, and we're not gonna take it anymore!" The attitude has changed from turning the other cheek to aggression and even militancy, in some cases. I suspect both a persecution complex and a deep sense of insecurity are at the root of this. Otherwise, why do they feel so strongly about it? Jesus himself was 'pushed around' quite a bit, but never took the stance these pushy Christians do. Well, I can tell you why, at least in part, and that is that Yeshua was taught and practiced the spiritual principles of Eastern wisdom, (unbeknownst to most orthodox Christians) which understood the interplay of opposites. He himself said: 'resist not, evil', because he knew that by forming a concept of The Good, one automatically has created a concept of Evil. Having done so, one must now fight Evil, as dictated by The Good. In fighting Evil, one only makes Evil stronger. Therefore, the Taoist sage tells us, "the wise man never does [moral] good', and 'the soft overcomes the hard, by non-action'. Now, that is NOT to say that if you are being physically attacked that you do not defend yourself; it's just that you are not attached to either attack or defense in any personal way. In practicing peace, Yeshua employed the passive feminine principle, as did the Buddha, in achieving his goal. To react the way these Christians do indicates a superficial understanding of the spiritual world. They are religious zealots and not spiritualists. Yeshua was a man of the spirit. He saw what the religionists were doing, and criticized them for their hypocrisy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that's what I mean by "wanna-be mystic".
That's why courts of law are usually so precise and concise.

If I didn't know better, I'd say we're in agreement.

The definition is of "funding" is rather clear, because each fund is given a funding code in order to be recorded. Further breakdown in coding (project, program, account, etc.) make the payment even more specific.

I see a more complicated application of the word "funding", one which includes indirect & unaccounted subsidy.

 

[Kathryn]

Why? ..

I am opposed to it because I think the government has better things to do with it's money than promote one specific religion. I wouldn't want the government to spend money on displays for Islam, Judaism, or Buddhist religious holidays either.

I do not believe our government should push any one particular religion or support any one particular religion monetarily.