Nativity Scenes Vs Atheism

[selek1]

I find it odd that you are so quick to call me fascist.

I did nothing of the sort.

What I called "fascist" was the impulse to censor other people's words and thoughts- the implied right to use government authority to arbitrarily veto other people's beliefs and banish their ideas from the public square.

And even a passing familiarity with history will demonstrate that the comparison is accurate.

I asked a question. Did I ever suggest that the nativity scene be censored? Nope.

And yet the banning of Nativity scenes is precisely the context in which you attempted to jusitfy such censorship.

If someone wants to put a nativity scene in their yard, I have no problem with that. i have no problem with Christmas trees, crosses on hills, or any other cultural icon that someone wants to nail up because they think it has some significance. Even lies are covered under free speech, to a certain extent.

Thank you for oh-so-graciously acknowledging rights that you can neither bestow nor legally deny.

No atheist is trying to establish a monopoly on thought.

The unrestrained war on Christian thought in the public square (instead of just Nativity displays) gives the lie to that statement.

Atheist groups have long been coordinating their assault on public Christian displays by means of vandalism, sending threatening letters, and harassing private citizens and local governents with frivilous lawsuits (or the threat thereof) unless they self-censor such displays.

Since those tactics are losing ground as more and more people begin to stand up for the Constitution, the latest tactic is to game the system to crowd out Christmas and other religious displays. Atheist groups have begun flooding local governments with requests for permits for holiday displays and messages- only to leave the land silent and fallow instead.

Despite the lofty rhetoric, the goal has been to freeze out Christian religious displays rather than offer competing viewpoints.

Now, that is their right.

I, however, find the intrinsic dishonesty and hyprocrisy to be distasteful.

If it never actually happened, could you see how some people might perceive it as having someone else's incorrect beliefs shoved down their throat?

No- quite frankly, I cannot.

In a pluralistic society with a robust marketplace of ideas (which, for the most part, we currently enjoy), no one is forced to believe anything.

Despite the whinging, caterwauling, and effeminate shrieking from the radical athiest quarter, a simple statement of belief, or commemoration of belief harms no one.

You might just as easily (and coherently) argue that Haagen-Daaz billboards are a violation of fat people's civil rights.

My understanding is that the manger scenario never happened.

And you are entitled to that belief. Your opinion, however, does not trump my First Amendment rights.

Lachry, calling people names who dare not toe the line is almost stauts quo around her, particarly from selek.

As has demonstrated, I did nothing of the sort.

So while you did not call for censorship

The call for- and justification of- censorship was implicit in his argument.

your comments did not toe the line selek wants you to tow, you dared pose a reasonable question.

There are two problems with this line of reasoning.

First, lachrymolotov raised his "question" in an implicit attempt to justify censorship. His reasoning was that since the manger scene is "based on a lie", radical atheists are somehow justified in censoring them.

Bluster and weasel all you like, but that was his argument- and no amount of caviling will erase that fact.

Of course, it is worth noting that "religious" lies are the only sort he seems to believe justify this treatment- as by his own admission, other lies are protected on First Amendment grounds.

That, of course, is prima facie evidence of religious discrimination- which is explicitly prohibited by law.

Second, the phrase is "toe the line" from the old nautical habit of mustering aboard ships and lining the men up along a seam on the deck. Your usage was correct in the first instant, and wrong in the second.

Perhaps if you posted more like bill hamblin and ridiculed others then you would be better recieved here.

The slur against Hamblin was gratuitous and wholly unnecessary- but perfectly in character nonetheless.

But speaking of oppressive governments which trample rights, history is repleat with examples of self annoited religious governments which oppress others in the name of religion.

This is quite true. Unfortunately, you've yet to produce any evidence that OUR government is guilty of such abuses without redress.

I can readily point to a half-dozen or assaults against religious practices and the First Amendment rights of religious believers that are currently underway.

You, by contrast, offer only vague allegations about an postulated (but not demonstrated) American theocracy.

The Founders of the United States knew this and did their best to keep it from happening.

True- but those same Founders also endorsed, supported, and funded Christian religious study and education.

They were very, very explicit that no law should be passed recognizing a State religion or authorizing religious tests for political office or discourse. They were equally explicit that no law should be passed prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Yet it is the free exercise that atheists are most incensed about today.

[selek1]

Unfortunately it is Christianity in the United States which has done itself the most harm by forcing itself in to the lives of people whose right it is to not be subjugated by religion.

Call For References, please. Please demonstrate where non-believers in the United States of any stripe have been subjugated by religion.

And when people exercise their freedom from religion it is religionist wailing and knashing teeth demanding that the non- religious government by design force religion.

This statement is so counter-factual as to be a paragon of parody.

Call For References: where, precisely, is the Freedom FROM religion articulated in the Bill of Rights or the Constitution of the United States? Where, precisely, is the article which guarantees Americans freedom from exposure to ideas with which they disagree?

Both you (Francis) and Lachrymolotov have argued- both explicitly and implicitly- that atheists have the right to expunge Christian religious displays and ideas from the public square.

I want to know: from where in the Constitution does that authority derive?

Not too long ago a coworker loudly commented that only Christians should be allowed to work the job we have and that it was hypocritical of nonchristians to work for our employer, mind you our job is public and has nothing to do with religion.

And (based on your characterization of the work) your co-worker was wrong.

But his being wrong doesn't make your position right.

In short public monies should not used for the promotion of religion.

In your opinion. Historically, others- including our Founding Fathers- disagree.

That having been said- the battle over public moneys promoting religion has either 1) already been won, or 2) merely a straw man.

In the first case, the athiests are agitating to ban even privately-erected Nativity scenes if they are on, near, or can be seen from public lands, properties, or streets.

In the second case, those athiests agitating most loudly to remove Christian displays from the public arena are remarkably silent when California schools (and others) call on students to simulate a/o emulate Muslim and pagan religious practices in school and on school time.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, the feigned outrage and "hurt feelings" over religion in the public square tend to be remarkably arbitrary and specific.

[thesometimesaint]

From before the days of Patrick Henry the Christians in this country have been trying to establish a State Church.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/StateConstitutions.htm

[selek1]

From before the days of Patrick Henry the SOME Christians in this country have been trying to establish a State Church.

There. Fixed it for ya.

Edited January 4, 2012 by selek1

[thesometimesaint]

Selek1:

It is always the minority that makes trouble for the rest of us. Spoken by a member of a religious minority.

[LeSellers]

From before the days of Patrick Henry the some Christians in this country have been trying to establish a State Church.

There. Fixed it for ya.

Most, if not all, of the colonies had an established church, and it was not until 1832 that Maryland disestablished hers. Nearly all European nations had an established church (and many still do, technically). The idea of a state without a church is very new, and, for most of history, the state was the church and visa versa.

The colonies were English, and the Church of England was the established Church of Britain. However, since many colonies were created to allow religious freedom (as long as your religion was that of those who created them—it meant freedom from the Church of England), the state church was Catholic in Maryland, Congregationalist/Puritan in Massachusetts, etc., or Anglican/Church of England in Virginia. When the Founders gave us the I Amendment, we note that nothing was said about existing state-controlled churches: it was only the federal government that had a prohibition on promoting or restricting any religion. This was to prevent the federal government from overriding any state's choice as to which, if any, church to establish. All of those churches were Christian, so, while we may interpret the translation of the Treaty of Tripoli as meaning that the united States were never a Christian nation, the fact is that this phrase means little or nothing because, the united States were never a "nation" at all, but a federal republic of nation/states, most of which had established Christian churches and that these nations were, most definitely Christian.

The phenomenon of the interconnection of religion and politics is far from abnormal throughout the modern world, although, frequently, that religion is atheism, as in North Korea.

Lehi

[Sethbag]

The religion of North Korea is Kimism, and it has (so far) a bona fide trinity: Il-Sung, Jong-il, and Jong-un.

[Stargazer]

How come atheists always look angry even if they are being agreeable and kinda funny?

It's a help when you want to be taken seriously, I guess. Pat used to be a stand-up comedian. Maybe he still is.

[Stargazer]

For that matter, watch more of Pat Condell's videos and you'll think "um, nevermind" about that "silent on the practices of any religion save Christianity" bit.

There's an understatement, for sure. Pat has one video rant where he lashes out at Mormons -- because a couple of FT missionaries came to his door and (assuming he reported their behavior accurately -- which I have no reason to doubt) acted like jerks. Don't remember which video it was.

He does however, reserve his most strenuous excoriations at Muslim "scholars" (air quotes as spoken in videos -- he's quite good at it).

[Stargazer]

Strawman alert. Show me one statement from atheist that says that nativity scenes "intimidate" them.

Did you watch the video? Condell asserts this, not I.

The only relevant question is whether the nativity scenes violate the Constitution.

Agreed.

A British atheist hardly can be expected to understand what motivates the ACLU to advocate an expansive 1st amendment, anymore than he could understand what motivate the gun right advocates seeking an expansive interpretation of the second amendment.

Oh, they've got similar organizations in the British Isles, don't doubt that.

And again, if you were to listen to a few (or a lot) of this guy's videos you would see that he covers lots of ground. Ground-zero mosque, for example.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Stargazer

[frankenstein]

Selek your zealotry to find offense makes respond uninteresting.

Mandatory church attendance

Scopes monkey trial

Mandated prayer in public school

Kitzmiller v Dover

Blue laws

Race based laws (racism by religious positions)

Santa Fe ISD v Doe (lawsuit filed by mormons to stop prayer at public school events)

[Jeff K.]

Would making it illegal for an individual to pray at school also count in that group.

[frankenstein]

Jeff K what law or court case makes it illegal for an individual to pray in school. The school can not sponsor prayer, and inthe same vein schools can not prevent an individual from praying. But you already know it is not illegal for an individual to prayer in school, you already know the line is drawn at the actions of the state actor concerning religion and prayer.

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

Actually it is the main body of the Constitution that prohibits any religious test for public office at the local, state, and national level.

Yes most of the Founders were religious, a notable exception was Thomas Paine, There were also Deists, not exactly what they or I would call Christians. That is the wonder of the Constitution.These were largely religious men who were well aware of the sectarian strife, and war that had riven Europe for nearly a millenia. Yet they chose to deliberately make We The People the supreme authority. They made a secular government while allowing the individual citizen the right to believe anything they wanted.

Edited January 5, 2012 by thesometimesaint

[Sethbag]

There's an understatement, for sure. Pat has one video rant where he lashes out at Mormons -- because a couple of FT missionaries came to his door and (assuming he reported their behavior accurately -- which I have no reason to doubt) acted like jerks. Don't remember which video it was.

He does however, reserve his most strenuous excoriations at Muslim "scholars" (air quotes as spoken in videos -- he's quite good at it).

Apparently our own Kerry Shirts is

. I may be assuming too much here, because Kerry Shirts gushing over something doesn't necessarily mean he's a huge fan, because he gushes over just about anything.

[selek1]

Selek your zealotry to find offense makes respond uninteresting.

No one is forcing you to continue to embarass yourself in this manner.

Mandatory church attendance

What, when, and where?

Scopes monkey trial

And yet Darwinism is almost universally taught as fact, rather than as scientific theory. Religious conscience and conviction were ridiculed and dismissed. Clearly, a triump of materialistic atheism over religious conviction.

Mandated prayer in public school

Again- what, when, and where? Where precisely is this the norm or even practice?

Kitzmiller v Dover

And yet the atheistic catechism of Darwin is taught exclusively. Competing ideas are not allowed. Clearly, a triump of materialistic atheism over freedom of thought and inquiry.

Blue laws

Which were based almost exclusively on community standards rather than specific religious prohibition. Sorry, you're going to have to be a bit more specific than that. Besides, even were one to concede this extremely dubious charge, blue laws are passe and on their way out. So....who won that

Race based laws (racism by religious positions)

Gratuitous race-baiting and mud-slinging not withstanding, you're going to have to be a bit more specific. The forced sterilization of "undesirables"- particularly minorities and the mentally retarded- of the last century were championed by noted athiests such as Margaret Sanger.

Santa Fe ISD v Doe (lawsuit filed by mormons to stop prayer at public school events)

Yep- that lawsuit dealt with voluntary student-led and student-initiated prayers. No one was forced to participate, though they were expected to respect other peoples' rights to do so. But in yet another triumph of materialistic atheism over freedom of thought and inquiry, the students are now DENIED that choice.

Not a single one of your examples shows a single person being subjugated or forced to practice a particular religion.

Each of your "examples of religious tyranny" is either haplessly overblown or wildly out of date- and not a single one has demonstratred specific, lasting harm to the poor, persecuted atheist.

As usual, the greivance list of "wronged" and affronted atheists turns out to be a manifesto for narcissism, petty tyranny, and the cult of the terminally offended.

Just to add other views into the mix (and to see the poor, dear atheist martyrs further unhinged by speech and ideas they cannot censor or control):

http://townhall.com/...ristmas_whiners

http://townhall.com/...ly_of_goddenial

http://townhall.com/...ion_part_1_of_2

http://townhall.com/...ion_part_2_of_2

http://townhall.com/...ry_is_it_anyway

There isn't much about which I agree with Pat Buchanan: but in this case, he's right on the money:

People who indulge in such conduct invariably claim to be champions of the First Amendment, exercising their right of free speech to maintain a separation of church and state.

They are partly right. The First Amendment does protect what they are doing. But what they are doing is engaging in hate speech and anti-Christian bigotry. For what is the purpose of what they are about, if not to wound, offend, insult and mock fellow Americans celebrating the happiest day of their calendar year?

Consider what this day means to a believing Christian.

It is a time and a day set aside to celebrate the nativity, the birth of Christ, whom Christians believe to be the Son of God and their Savior who gave his life on the cross to redeem mankind and open the gates of heaven.

Even if a man disbelieves this, why would he interfere with or deny his fellow countrymen, three in four of whom still profess to be Christians, their right to celebrate in public this joyous occasion?

Edited January 5, 2012 by selek1

[LeSellers]

Actually it is the main body of the Constitution that prohibits any religious test for public office at the local, state, and national level.

For the federal government, yes, but it did not apply to the states at the time (nor should it now), and obviously not to local elective office, either.

The Constitution was, with rare exception, a limit on the federal government. Those exceptions were explicit, so we have no need to theorize as to what they were—this was not one of them.

Further, the "religious test" they were speaking of was one that would be in parallel with one requiring an official to be a Quaker in Pennsylvania, a Catholic in Maryland, etc., on the federal level. Since there was no established church for the united States of America, meaning there was no official Christian denomination, such a religious test would be a non sequitor.

It is of utmost import to recognize that the Constitution was a charter, granted by the states, establishing the federal government, and that the states ceded only a very few, limited powers of sovereignty to the federation (notably those that involved interfacing with the outside world: tariffs, war, treaty, ambassadors, etc., and that would have otherwise existed between the sovereign states: tariffs, internal, common weights and measures, etc.). The individual states retained all other powers, as noted in the IX and X. We have seen a disastrous tendency to eliminate the federal nature of the government (see, e.g., the XVII) in favor of an integrated central machine. This would (and is doing so now), as the Founders predicted, destroy the freedoms of the people, including freedom of religion.

Yes most of the Founders were religious, a notable exception was Thomas Paine, There were also Deists, not exactly what they or I would call Christians. That is the wonder of the Constitution.These were largely religious men who were well aware of the sectarian strife, and war that had riven Europe for nearly a millenia. Yet they chose to deliberately make We The People the supreme authority. They made a secular government while allowing the individual citizen the right to believe anything they wanted.

Exactly: sectarian strife, among the various schisms of Christianity, as typified by the scene PaPa brought us in The Restoration Of The Gospel…One Church (No Fighting Here)?. Jefferson, arguably the most "rigid" deist of the lot, still considered himself a Christian even while rejecting His divinity. (Nonetheless, he was among those who petitioned Wilford Woodruff to have his Temple ordinances done, so I do not fear for him.)

That, having a secular government, is a very different proposition from requiring it to ignore or even restrict the celebration of holydays. Further, even though I am opposed to taxation for any but the most basic functions of government (domestic and external defense), if we're going to spend money on superfluities, I'd much prefer it be done on harmless ways, like setting up a Catholic crêche, than enabling children to get abortions or paying them to bear ba$tards. The former does no one any injury aside from the coercive confiscation of individuals' lives as represented by the money they earned during the time it took to get as much as the state grabbed, while the former adds to that injury one the cripples both the young mother and her posterity.

Lehi

P.S.: BTW, the word you wanted is "millennium". You used (and misspelled) the plural. LS

Edited January 5, 2012 by LeSellers

[frankenstein]

Selek , I am quite sure you know how to use google. So have at it. what ever I provide you will deny. Mandatory school prayer has a

At least you admit harm; harm is harm and even if it does not meet your preference for duration, you admit harm was done. The duration of the harm was shortened by The System working I.e. the courts ruling that the actions of religionist violated the US Constitution.

What I find interesting is that in all your fist waging you can see that State promotion of so called christianity would be to detriment of your religious beliefs because as a LDS you are not Christian, and any law/policy/rule in favor of Christians would not include you.

And Selek before you start quoting Matt barber, chuck Norris, and other miscreants at town hall you might want to evaluated their manner of speech and their positions with those of the LDS church.

Selek and Frankenstein have left the building.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Minos

[Calm]

as a LDS you are not Christian

Are you not LDS yourself?

Do you expect to be taken seriously with a comment like this on this board?

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K what law or court case makes it illegal for an individual to pray in school. The school can not sponsor prayer, and inthe same vein schools can not prevent an individual from praying. But you already know it is not illegal for an individual to prayer in school, you already know the line is drawn at the actions of the state actor concerning religion and prayer.

I know it is illegal for me to pray or lead a prayer in school. I could be fired for it. Even if I pray alone I could be fired if a student sees me pray. So your point isn't quite as accurate as you portray it to be. On another note, the question wasn't one of legality, or not, but whether or not denying someone the ability to pray in school should be in that group.