- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 10,566
- Reaction score
- 7,961
- Location
- So. California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
And what principle is that? The one where they shouldn't have to walk done the street and see anything remotely religious because it offends them? Look, I am an atheist also, but I fight when religion actually encroaches on my rights. When they try and do away with evolution in school and replace it with creationism. That's a fight. Raising a stink about a nativity scene in a public park? That's just petty and pathetic.
I'm not holding your hand through this conversation.
easy question deserves an easy answerNever said that, my point is where does it stop?
but it is much more fun to blame the victimSo because they followed the law, their stuff got vandelized and the city cancelled the practice it's their fault? Sorry, don't see that.
As much as you want to blame the atheists, it's the fault of those that decided to vandelize.
All they did was exercise their constitutional right to freedom of expression, the same as the churches. But people, I'm assuming backers of the churches, didn't like their message so they defaced their displays. No church displays were vandalized. The City cancelled the displays because it just didn't want to deal with the BS.
It was the vandalism that predicated the action. The people who committed the vandalism have no one to blame but themselves.
These atheist are what give us a bad name. You can't stand to see a nativity scene? Really? You going to get Christmas banned altogether? The whole holiday is based on pagan foundations, so to fight any part of the holiday is to effectively fight the entire holiday. It's silly, it's petty, and it's not what any decent atheist would/should do. Pathetic.
The fact that they flooded the city for spaces in the park, while not illegal, is ridiculous. Their message isn't one of christmas cheer, or in any way supporting the season, it was merely an anti-religious message. They turned what used to be a nice trip for a family to take to get in the spirit and turned it into a spectacle. It's a park, it's a Christmas display, have a damn heart.
easy question deserves an easy answer
it stops when there is no more governmental participation/endorsement
but it is much more fun to blame the victim
Did you read this? This was shut down because people didn't like the atheists display. The theists vandalizes the atheists displays and that's why this was shut down.
Now.I think that religious displays on public property are fine, I don't have a problem. But.that door swings both ways. I don't see the point of making a display to mock religion over Christmas, but it's not my place to stop it. It's a free country. But this one ain't our fault. Lay blame where blame is due.
Free ****ing country!!!:
I'm not holding your hand through this conversation.
The atheists knew what they were doing. Theirs wasn't a message of good will, or of giving, but one of intolerance. Again, I am not saying that the vandals are excusable, but I am not letting the atheists off the hook.
Explain that to the children who don't get to enjoy the nativity scenes down at the park anymore.
Atheist Action Halts Calif. Nativity Display; Churches Go to Court
Just so I get this right, these churches are suing the government claiming their rights to freedom of speech were violated because the government wouldn't provide them a soapbox and place in the park?
Found this gem lower down...
So the city ended the practice because the religulous were vandalizing the other displays.
Prove it was a theist.
I am not saying that the atheists were legally wrong, but morally they are.
Freedom of.expression. This isn't hard. Theists as well as atheists have it. Just be cause atheists voice their beliefs does not mean others may encroach. And that is 100% what's going on here.
Well, let's take a look at those hateful displays.
View attachment 67138304
View attachment 67138305
View attachment 67138306
View attachment 67138307
A quote from Jefferson and Kennedy and wishing people a happy solstice. Now the last one was a little in your face but it still is just expressing an opinion about myths. There's no constitutional right against being offended.
This is messed up. The most likely answer is that it was vandalized for its message and that would mean theists. Regardless, it is that act of vandalism that shut this down, not atheists voicing an opinion. For chuck's sake.
This isn't about freedom of expression. It goes beyond that. You have a Happy Solstice sign, and the rest don't do anything to promote the season. They are just there to be a nuisance. What's next, going around telling children that Santa isn't real? I am all about people expressing themselves, but when you're a dick about it, it just hurts your message.
There is no denying that atheists cannot stand for others to have the faith in God that the atheists lack. Actually, it's far beyond that, atheists are enraged that others have faith. Atheists are always on the attack.
Why would that be? Why wouldn't atheists simply mind their own business and keep their lack of beliefs to themselves and not worry about what others believe? Contrary to their constant braying, atheists are not inconvenienced by the fact that others display their faith. Often their mantra is separation of church and state or some other such terrible event that will happen if others are allowed to have faith in God.
Atheists are truly pitiful, doomed creatures with nothing of substance to offer civilized society. The rest of us thank God that we are not in those circumstances.
Damon Vix, an atheist who led the non-believers' cause but is not a party to the lawsuit, has denied he was seeking to drive the church displays out of the park. He said in a local radio interview last year that his aim "was to try to create what is called equal protection under the law."
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?