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

[Apex]

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.

But who says the gov has to spend money on them? If anything, the gov could make money off of them if it really wanted too.

 

[Kathryn]

But who says the gov has to spend money on them? If anything, the gov could make money off of them if it really wanted too.

It's the promotion of any particular religion that is the sticking point with me.

The deal is - these same people who are rallying would be aghast if a Muslim led a prayer at a public event and used the term "Allah" or ended it with "Allah akbar!" They wouldn't have any of that.

They'd also be ticked off if the courthouse erected a giant Virgin of Guadalupe shrine, or started observing Shinto traditions.

But if we're going to put up nativity scenes, we should be completely fair, right?

There's not enough room on the courthouse lawn to equally observe all the religions represented within 30 miles of Athens' town square!

 

[Revoltingest]

But who says the gov has to spend money on them? If anything, the gov could make money off of them if it really wanted too.

A revolting proposal:
Instead of supporting religion, make them pay for use of public property.
Auction off display lots to the highest bidders, letting the money decide.

 

[Skwim]

A revolting proposal:
Instead of supporting religion, make them pay for use of public property.
Auction off display lots to the highest bidders, letting the money decide.

Then the richest religion always wins. :no:

 

[Revoltingest]

Then the richest religion always wins. :no:

Or.....the the religion (or non-religion) most willing to spend money to get their message out in this venue.
It could possibly pass constitutional muster.

(Note...I never said it was a good idea.)

 

[Me Myself]

Care to explain?

One thing is to use one religious symbol to mean something (cross= death or tomb) another is to recreate a whole friggin scene of religious significance that serves no purpose in such public property besides the point of being religious.

The only purpose of that scene is to be religious and any other purpose derives explicitly and directly from it´s religious interpretation.

 

[Copernicus]

A revolting proposal:
Instead of supporting religion, make them pay for use of public property.
Auction off display lots to the highest bidders, letting the money decide.

An even better idea would be to make them pay property taxes so that the rest of us can pay lower taxes. There is no reason why religious groups should get a free ride when it comes to taxes. They need police, fire, and sanitation services, too.