See, I disagree a bit. I think, as a society, we need to be reasonable and understand a bit when people are celebrating stuff that is a tradition and something that a majority of people enjoy, instead of acting like everythings about us.
This topic isn't for/against religion IMO,just so you know. It's an ethical dilemma to me.
If you apply that same reasoning to the secular display, why would so many people be outraged at it, to the point of you hearing about it and posting your displeasure? It’s not about Christians so why do Christians care? The secular message wasn’t about you, so why do you care? If you can’t apply your moral rule to both sides equally, it’s not a valid reason, is all I’m pointing out.
Look, like it or not, the vast majority of people in this country celebrate christmas, and an even larger amount celebrate at least SOME form of a holiday during that particular season. You dislike religion, fine. You dislike the notion of having something related to a religion displayed on a local piece of property that allows any of its citizens to put up things and does not specifically endorse it. Fine. No problem. Fight the constitutionality of it afterwards. But be at least tactful and respectful to your fellow citizens in realizing that your view of dislike or displeasure for the holiday and how wrong it is is a minority thing and stop trying to **** on peoples fun just to make it about yourself.
Exactly. Your entire position rests on the majority creating ethics excluding the minority (which is bad).
A. The Christians who put up a clearly Christian display of exclusionary beliefs/religion, offended some individuals for *some reason*.
B. The follow-on winners of the public spot put up something that is clearly a display of the belief in the support of sep.state/religion, and this offended some individuals for *some reason*.
You claim that because A. was done for a long time, and is supported by the majority, it’s appropriate. And B., being new, and in the minority, isn’t. My claim is that to be consistent you need to choose:
1. Either both are offense and both are acceptable.
2. Both are offensive and neither are acceptable.
However, if we live our life worrying that we're going to be offending random tiny minority we're literally go crazy because the only answer would be to do nothing
That’s a philosophical cop-out, first. But let’s accept it for the sake of showing where it leads:
1. The Christians would be absolved because they couldn’t be concerned about who it might offend
2. The Follow-on display people would be absolved likewise, because they couldn’t be concerned about who it might offend.
Which you’re not yet agreeing to…
Lastly, even though it’s strawman, it’s false anyway. The use of the public square for clearly religious displays is a well known issue of dispute. It’s not based on aesthetics or whim. It’s based specifically on the fact that it’s an exclusionary religious statement made on public grounds. This at the least comes close to violating sep. state/religion, which is a well established point of ethical, cultural, political debate. Or as you might put it,
it has a tradition of being contested. It’s not something you have to worry about, because it’s quite well known. Similar to say, handicapped facility accommodation. Yeah, you have to worry about that when you design a bulding. Yes, as a representative of the state you may have to worry about sep. religion/state periodically.
You don't want to do that? Fine. You know what, you're absolutely free to. Just like I'm free to look at the girl with the hooked nose, droopy eye, and strange walk and say to a friend "My god, that woman's a troglodyte? I wouldn't touch her with a 10 foot pole". Guess what, you can still be a jackass and a dick while being "right" in your ability to act like it.
Bad analogy for so many reasons. The most obvious reason being such drastic personal conditions are not chosen, but genetic, and this was a personal attack. The OP is clearly discussing impersonal behavior that is based on well known discussions of religion/state, and Christianity, that are engaged in entirely by choice. It’s strange you made the earlier point about “it’s not about them personally”, but you chose an analogy that was a clear personal attack. Are you lying about it “not being about them”? Or was that just an honest error.
But even we ran with that, it runs into the same brick wall:
1. Accept that in the public square, promoting a personal, exclusionary beliefs, will necessarily annoy some people who don't share your belief.
2. Accept that in the public square if you are going to promote your own, exclusionary beliefs, that you ethically would then need to support anyone else doing the same (as you are doing) - even if you accept the fact that you are intentionally annoying others.
We already both agree that the behavior is offensive to someone else! The question is not if both are offensive, we agree it is.
Bob remarks in private to someone that Betty is ugly, annoying, and frightening. Offensive to some? Yes.
Betty remarks in private to someone that Bob is shallow, ignorant, and unintelligent. Offensive to some? Yes.
The question is, why are you supporting Bob’s offensive remarks, while actively opposing Betty’s remarks. (ignoring for a minute that those are still very personal attacks).
A consistent view would one of these:
Both should be discouraged. (Hey, let’s just all get along)
Neither should be discouraged. (Sticks and stones, kids will be kids, freedom of speech, let’s us know who the dicks are, etc.)
You keep supporting the notion that it's OK of the majority does it. That's blatant discrimination.
