If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Kansas.com)   "It's a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested"   (kansas.com) divider line 449
    More: Sad, christmas, god, Los Angeles, Flying Spaghetti Monster, nativity, images of Jesus, christmas tradition, Freedom From Religion Foundation  
•       •       •

12880 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Nov 2012 at 7:59 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



449 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-11-19 01:48:13 AM
Welcome to the People's Republic of Santa Monica. You are not wanted.

/love my old home city
 
2012-11-19 02:45:36 AM
"...something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested."

Wat
 
2012-11-19 02:49:00 AM
When did we become such pussies?

/Christianity did fine without public nativity scenes.
 
2012-11-19 03:11:06 AM
You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land
 
2012-11-19 04:13:03 AM
Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.
 
2012-11-19 05:01:36 AM

Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land


I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes
 
2012-11-19 05:41:50 AM

SnarfVader: Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.


Ffs. We're still waiting for Thanksgiving.
 
2012-11-19 05:42:14 AM
This going to be one of those "there's no such thing as an evangelistic atheist" smirkfests, isn't it. I'm gonna get some sleep.
 
2012-11-19 06:27:15 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


You see, there wouldn't be an issue if the Christians hadn't vandalized the displays that Atheists, also expressing their very equal first amendment rights, put up. It's a public space. The Christians do not get special privileges for their displays over those of other faiths or lack thereof.

But since the Christians went and vandalized the other displays, the city decided to cancel the whole thing rather than have the same kind of trouble this year. Now, the city's decision to try to avoid conflict may not be the correct decision, but don't blame the atheists for putting them in the position they were in to make such a decision.
 
2012-11-19 06:43:07 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


This.

No different than the anti-drugs and anti-drinking crowd. They just want other people to be miserable. Worthless, the lot of them.
 
2012-11-19 07:06:09 AM

Happy Hours: You militant atheists are assholes


And he is not one of them, asshole. Plus- f you , n00b .
 
2012-11-19 07:08:28 AM
i escalated that quickly . jpg
 
2012-11-19 07:15:59 AM

Happy Hours: I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


"Scenes" are not speech, you retard. You want to hand out leaflets or preach in the park, go ahead. If you want to act out the nativity with live people, feel free. But if you want to put up a scene and then leave it, you need a permit, just as if you were putting up a billboard.

And as someone pointed out earlier, they'd have continued permission if someone hadn't chosen to vandalize the atheists' display last year.
 
2012-11-19 07:25:15 AM

mamoru: Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

You see, there wouldn't be an issue if the Christians hadn't vandalized the displays that Atheists, also expressing their very equal first amendment rights, put up. It's a public space. The Christians do not get special privileges for their displays over those of other faiths or lack thereof.

But since the Christians went and vandalized the other displays, the city decided to cancel the whole thing rather than have the same kind of trouble this year. Now, the city's decision to try to avoid conflict may not be the correct decision, but don't blame the atheists for putting them in the position they were in to make such a decision.


Okay, you got me to read the rest of the article. I only read about half of it the first time around. So some shiat got vandalized. That seems to me to be a criminal matter, but to say there wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for that vandalism is somewhat dishonest. Activist atheists obviously saw an issue which is why they trolled the Christians with their displays of Poseidon and Flying Spaghetti Monsters - and that's their right of free speech to do so too.

I find it sad, I'm not religious but I'm not against religion either. If you want to celebrate your god or even multiple gods I'm not going to show up at your celebration just to shiat all over it. If you want to protest a religion, let's be specific about it. Protest the Catholic church sheltering pedophiles if you want. That's something even Catholics can support.


But you just look like assholes when you show up to mock those who have different beliefs than you do - even though that is your right. The First Amendment does protect your right to be an asshole and to make a fool of yourself. I'm suggesting that it might be wiser not to do so.
 
2012-11-19 07:26:31 AM
And people wonder why we Americans are so divided. We are more content with pissing in everyone's coffee instead of live and let live
 
2012-11-19 07:27:36 AM

doglover: They just want other people to be miserable.


No, that would definitely be the religious folks. Religion is pretty much a system for inducing misery while making your victims feel like they deserve it and should be enjoying it. But that has nothing to do with this thread.
 
2012-11-19 07:29:19 AM
I want to put up a scene about the conception, but the city wouldn't let me.

They were all like, "Mary was a virgin, she wouldn't do double penetration on her first time." I still think God could have talked her into it.

Do get me started on my portrayal of Jesus crowning, the didn't want that scene either. The Jesus the stupid Catholics use looks like a three month old, not a newborn. You'd think they'd know what one looks like with the way the shiat them out.
 
2012-11-19 07:33:13 AM
Kansas City newspaper whining about California town. Mind your own business, red state asswits.
 
2012-11-19 07:39:03 AM

Generation_D: Kansas City newspaper whining about California town. Mind your own business, red state asswits.


Its an AP article that will be found on pretty much every AP member's website
 
2012-11-19 07:40:48 AM

Babwa Wawa: Happy Hours: I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

"Scenes" are not speech, you retard. You want to hand out leaflets or preach in the park, go ahead. If you want to act out the nativity with live people, feel free. But if you want to put up a scene and then leave it, you need a permit, just as if you were putting up a billboard.

And as someone pointed out earlier, they'd have continued permission if someone hadn't chosen to vandalize the atheists' display last year.


Spot on.
 
2012-11-19 07:42:24 AM

Happy Hours: Activist atheists obviously saw an issue which is why they trolled the Christians with their displays of Poseidon and Flying Spaghetti Monsters - and that's their right of free speech to do so too.


That is not trolling. That's getting equal time. Poseidon is as legitimate a deity as any other, and we have equal reason to believe in him as we do the judeochristolamic deity. If the state gives one religious group space, then they must give everyone space. That's the best reason for keeping government away from religious holidays.
 
2012-11-19 07:43:56 AM
Everyone above this post is an asshole, everyone below this post is an idiot.

/barometer of outrage
 
2012-11-19 07:48:54 AM
Want someone think of the tiny sect of poor oppressed Christians?
 
2012-11-19 07:57:50 AM

t3knomanser: That's the best reason for keeping government away from religious holidays.


There are plenty of other, better, reasons.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-11-19 08:02:50 AM
Sixty years of something is not a tradition. It's a fad.
 
2012-11-19 08:03:55 AM
Just pray harder. If your efforts fail, it's clear that god never cared about your idols. Oh wait, that's already in the instruction manual.
 
2012-11-19 08:06:02 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


How is "pray all you want, wherever you want, to whom ever you want, just don't use public money or land" against the 1st amendment or asshole behavior?
 
2012-11-19 08:07:34 AM
I like x-mas. You spend time with your family, you buy everyone gifts. decorate the house. Its nice.

That christian holiday on the same day can shove it though.
 
2012-11-19 08:07:59 AM
www.patentspostgrant.com
 
2012-11-19 08:08:59 AM
The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christian's right to free speech.

But apparently the Christians' right to speech trumps the atheists as they were the ones who vandalized the atheist displays after the atheists applied for the display locations under the exact same system and using the exact same rules as the Christians. Hypocrisy at its finest.
 
2012-11-19 08:09:00 AM
I enjoy christmas, but not for the religious reasons.
 
2012-11-19 08:12:01 AM
The thing that religionists who are up in arms about holiday display equality fail to realize is that a universal ban on public displays actually works in their favor.

Think about it: If all displays are banned, that includes the other religious/non-religious displays. Churches, on the other hand, are free to display on their own property.

There are thousands of churches everywhere. And that means lots of real estate for religious displays.

It's unlikely that there will be many explicitly atheistic displays on private property, so the religious scenes will far outnumber the rest.
 
2012-11-19 08:12:15 AM
Missing from the courtroom drama will be Vix and his fellow atheists, who are not parties to the case. Their role outside court highlights a tactical shift as atheists evolve into a vocal minority eager to get their non-beliefs into the public square as never before

Oh goodie. The militant atheists have all left the bar and are hitting the streets.

/you're not helping

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


The question becomes: are these churches putting up their religious stuff on government property (i.e., city hall grounds)? Then it runs afoul of a government purporting to favor one religion (or non-religion) over another. Hence, why the atheists have put up their OWN displays.

It's still not helping, though. Sometimes, just let the baby have its bottle.
 
2012-11-19 08:12:31 AM
What a douche. I'm an Atheist, I have never believed, never went to church outside of a couple of weddings and a baptism. fark this guy. I like seeing the decorations. I like seeing lit up menorahs in windows. I put up 3 full sized trees in my house. Why stop someone else from doing something? Turn your head for a month if you don't like it. Public land is just that, for everyone. So in the summer, you Lib's have your dirty hippies playing folk music on the lawn while you funk up the fresh air, in winter you have a nativity scene, see, it's fair.

/I also decorate big for Halloween, another holiday celebration fake spirits, so suck it.
 
2012-11-19 08:12:58 AM

t3knomanser: Happy Hours: Activist atheists obviously saw an issue which is why they trolled the Christians with their displays of Poseidon and Flying Spaghetti Monsters - and that's their right of free speech to do so too.

That is not trolling. That's getting equal time. Poseidon is as legitimate a deity as any other, and we have equal reason to believe in him as we do the judeochristolamic deity. If the state gives one religious group space, then they must give everyone space. That's the best reason for keeping government away from religious holidays.


No, it would be different if these people actually believed in Poseidon. It's still trolling. And yes, trolling is protected free speech (at least for now), but let's be clear about this. Certain atheists set up displays for the sole purpose of pissing off some Christians.That is trolling. That is evidence that it was an issue before the vandalism took place.

They weren't really promoting Poseidon. They were making a point - which is their right, but it was still very trollish of them especially because they didn't actually believe in Poseidon.

Personally, I don't see religion as such a threat that I have to troll religious folks. I can comfortably ignore religion.

People complain about "free speech zones" for political protests but at the same time they want free speech when it comes to religion to be off of any public property. I think we should be a little more tolerant of speech and allow it and promote it even when we disagree with the message.
 
2012-11-19 08:13:26 AM

andersoncouncil42: Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

How is "pray all you want, wherever you want, to whom ever you want, just don't use public money or land" against the 1st amendment or asshole behavior?


Militant atheists are the ones who dare to admit it, OUT LOUD. And politely requesting that the law is followed makes us assholes.
 
2012-11-19 08:13:58 AM

Babwa Wawa: And as someone pointed out earlier, they'd have continued permission if someone hadn't chosen to vandalize the atheists' display last year.


Because some people are apparently too insecure in their faith.

/FIGHT *ALL* THE DIFFERENCES!!!
 
2012-11-19 08:14:10 AM

Happy Hours: Okay, you got me to read the rest of the article. I only read about half of it the first time around. So some shiat got vandalized. That seems to me to be a criminal matter, but to say there wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for that vandalism is somewhat dishonest.


Actually, it's not. The only reason the city isn't doing it again this year is because of the vandalism. If the nutjob Christians could accept the fact that their supernatural superstition is just as valid as every other form of supernatural superstition and learn to live with the fact that occasionally people are going to point that out to them when they try to broadcast their beliefs for all the world to see then there wouldn't be a problem.
 
2012-11-19 08:14:18 AM

doglover: No different than the anti-drugs and anti-drinking crowd. They just want other people to be miserable. Worthless, the lot of them.


The last time I looked, it wasn't the atheists who went round telling everybody that there are poor, miserable sinners destined to burn in hell for all eternity because someone ate an apple.
 
2012-11-19 08:15:15 AM

Happy Hours:
I find it sad, I'm not religious but I'm not against religion either. If you want to celebrate your god or even multiple gods I'm not going to show up at your celebration just to shiat all over it. If you want to protest a religion, let's be specific about it. Protest the Catholic church sheltering pedophiles if you want. That's something even Catholics can support.


But you just look like assholes when you show up to mock those who have different beliefs than you do - even though that is your right. The First Amendment does protect yo ...


"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus."
- Thomas Jefferson

We specifically mocking the belief in gods.
 
2012-11-19 08:15:51 AM
Hmm. In 2011, Vix recruited 10 others to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays such as an homage to the "Pastafarian religion," which would include an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

pffffchchchchch....


Ok, NOW you're helping.

/dude still looks like a hipster douche, though...
 
2012-11-19 08:16:07 AM

Happy Hours: I can comfortably ignore religion.


I can- right up until religious beliefs invade government. Which is all. the. farking. time.
 
2012-11-19 08:16:34 AM

hbk72777: I like seeing the decorations. I like seeing lit up menorahs in windows. I put up 3 full sized trees in my house.


You do know that the trees have originally nothing to do with Christian mythology. Just sayin', because I like putting up a tree too, but I don't have to feel like I'm being dishonest about it because I'm celebrating it in its original context.
 
2012-11-19 08:17:00 AM

Happy Hours: Personally, I don't see religion as such a threat that I have to troll religious folks. I can comfortably ignore religion.


Perhaps religion isn't trying to stop you getting married?
 
2012-11-19 08:18:11 AM
*sniff* he he he he he he *sniff* *snnniifff* he he he he he he *sniff* he he he he he
 
2012-11-19 08:19:07 AM

orbister: Perhaps religion isn't trying to stop you getting married?


Or decide what gets to set up shop in your uterus? Or define regressive social roles based on gender? Or promote the physical, sexual and psychological abuse of children?
 
2012-11-19 08:19:08 AM

Happy Hours: They weren't really promoting Poseidon. They were making a point - which is their right, but it was still very trollish of them especially because they didn't actually believe in Poseidon.


Would it be very trollish of me if all the world smoked cigarettes and I and a few others knew the truth that they cause you to die of terrible, delibilitating cancer and so we set about putting up signs depicting diseased lungs on national have a smoke day?
 
2012-11-19 08:19:21 AM

StrangeQ: But apparently the Christians' right to speech trumps the atheists as they were the ones who vandalized the atheist displays...


No. Let's stop for a second and be honest with ourselves. The atheists' "display" wasn't exactly a display of something meaningful and valuable that they wanted to showcase about a seasonal holiday they celebrate; it was a Big ol' "Fark you" to the christians -the equivalent of a big farking middle finger sticking up in the air, so don't go all martyr on this by saying that your beliefs were attacked when someone "vandalized" said display.
 
2012-11-19 08:19:44 AM
The atheists should go ahead and change the city's name to something a little more secular, too, no?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Monica
 
2012-11-19 08:19:58 AM

t3knomanser: Happy Hours: Activist atheists obviously saw an issue which is why they trolled the Christians with their displays of Poseidon and Flying Spaghetti Monsters - and that's their right of free speech to do so too.

That is not trolling. That's getting equal time. Poseidon is as legitimate a deity as any other, and we have equal reason to believe in him as we do the judeochristolamic deity. If the state gives one religious group space, then they must give everyone space. That's the best reason for keeping government away from religious holidays.


EQUAL time? The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??

And that's how Vamon Dicks is "not helping."
 
2012-11-19 08:20:35 AM

xanadian: Babwa Wawa: And as someone pointed out earlier, they'd have continued permission if someone hadn't chosen to vandalize the atheists' display last year.

Because some people are apparently too insecure in their faith.

/FIGHT *ALL* THE DIFFERENCES!!!


Yeah they're all love and tolerance until you express anything opposing their faith. Had several Darwin fish ripped off my car because of that.
 
2012-11-19 08:20:56 AM

orbister: Happy Hours: Personally, I don't see religion as such a threat that I have to troll religious folks. I can comfortably ignore religion.

Perhaps religion isn't trying to stop you getting married?


I wish it would have...
 
2012-11-19 08:21:04 AM

StrangeQ: The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christian's right to free speech.

But apparently the Christians' right to speech trumps the atheists as they were the ones who vandalized the atheist displays after the atheists applied for the display locations under the exact same system and using the exact same rules as the Christians. Hypocrisy at its finest.


Just like 19 terrorists on 9/11 represents the whole one billion Muslim world, amirite?

Blaming the actions of a few on the whole is pretty idiotic
 
2012-11-19 08:21:08 AM
Poor oppressed Christians. Whatever will they do? If only those danged atheists hadn't had the nerve, the NERVE, to put up a display. It's clearly their fault for not shutting up and being quiet like the worthless little sinners they are.

/Everyone who believes in this "war against Christmas/Christianity" nonsense should be fired out of a canon into space. Or into a brick wall.
 
2012-11-19 08:21:36 AM

Happy Hours: mamoru: Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

You see, there wouldn't be an issue if the Christians hadn't vandalized the displays that Atheists, also expressing their very equal first amendment rights, put up. It's a public space. The Christians do not get special privileges for their displays over those of other faiths or lack thereof.

But since the Christians went and vandalized the other displays, the city decided to cancel the whole thing rather than have the same kind of trouble this year. Now, the city's decision to try to avoid conflict may not be the correct decision, but don't blame the atheists for putting them in the position they were in to make such a decision.

Okay, you got me to read the rest of the article. I only read about half of it the first time around. So some shiat got vandalized. That seems to me to be a criminal matter, but to say there wouldn't be an issue if it wasn't for that vandalism is somewhat dishonest. Activist atheists obviously saw an issue which is why they trolled the Christians with their displays of Poseidon and Flying Spaghetti Monsters - and that's their right of free speech to do so too.

I find it sad, I'm not religious but I'm not against religion either. If you want to celebrate your god or even multiple gods I'm not going to show up at your celebration just to shiat all over it. If you want to protest a religion, let's be specific about it. Protest the Catholic church sheltering pedophiles if you want. That's something even Catholics can support.


But you just look like assholes when you show up to mock those who have different beliefs than you do - even though that is your right. The First Amendment does protect yo ...


I see where you are coming from - but tha fact is that atheists were not necessary to bring this outcome about. Had people of other, unpopular faiths ( such as Wicca, Islam, Scientology) exercised their "right" to put up displays, the same thing would have happened. using public space fro the expression of private religious views never works out, except in places where there is one official, goverment maddated faith.
"Militant Atheists" make a handy scapegoat, but here, people of faith are essentially blaming them for their own mischief.
 
2012-11-19 08:21:50 AM

t3knomanser: Happy Hours: I can comfortably ignore religion.

I can- right up until religious beliefs invade government. Which is all. the. farking. time.


Which is why I can't really BLAME the militant atheists. You gotta push against those who would love to turn this country into a Christian version of Iran.

Why people cannot find a balance between faith and reason is beyond me. And to shut the fark up about it. Guess you gotta root for your team!

/GO GIANTS
 
2012-11-19 08:22:08 AM
If you believed a little harder that you were worshipping the right God you might be a little more secure in your beliefs and the promise of happiness and eternal life and wouldn't let a bunch of low-grade pranksters get the best of you.

And 60 years is not a tradition. I appreciate that you live in California and anything older than 21 is old and used up. However in most parts of the world there are national treasures that provided a historical link to their embryonic beginning that were under rubble for ten times as long as that and they managed to figure out a way to make it through the day.

Suck it up. Hang some lights. And understand that taking the high road often times may lead you to the satisfaction of unifying EVERYONE unless you're just a small-minded twunt who gets up every day with nothing else but the chip on their shoulder that they've managed to show up regularly somewhere on Sunday mornings.
 
2012-11-19 08:22:13 AM

StrangeQ: The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christian's right to free speech.

But apparently the Christians' right to speech trumps the atheists as they were the ones who vandalized the atheist displays after the atheists applied for the display locations under the exact same system and using the exact same rules as the Christians. Hypocrisy at its finest.


I'm not a Constitutional law dog, but how is Santa Monica not allowing churches to put up Christmas displays a violation of freedom of speech if Santa Monica has to give permission to put up the displays?
 
2012-11-19 08:22:50 AM

bunner: This going to be one of those "there's no such thing as an evangelistic atheist" smirkfests, isn't it.


Yeah, let me know when they're beating on your door at 9 AM on Sunday morning and dropping off literature. Otherwise, shut the f*ck up.
 
2012-11-19 08:23:01 AM
Am I the only one who is wondering why a Kansas newspaper is so worried about Christmas displays in California?
 
2012-11-19 08:23:02 AM

cassanovascotian: No. Let's stop for a second and be honest with ourselves. The atheists' "display" wasn't exactly a display of something meaningful and valuable.


Really? Trying to emphasize the truth and honest impiricism over blind faith and superstition isn't meaningful and valuable? That seems a bit frightening to me.
 
2012-11-19 08:23:13 AM
I feel like I'm looking at the command deck of Spaceball One when I read this article - nothing but Assholes with a capital A. Atheists trying to provoke the Christians, Christians dicking out on the atheists for provoking them, just sounds like they're all just miserable pricks who hate each other.

I'm a lapsed Catholic. I admit I don't really like going to church, pretty much because it doesn't do anything for me anymore and I feel like I know when I'm doing good and when I'm being a dick. But when we're talking about a frickin' religious holiday, it's hard to sit there and say "you know what? I don't think that nativity scene belongs there." I understand how someone can not believe and all, but when Christians get one month out of the twelve of the year to be proud of their religion, it just seems petty to be sitting there and antagonizing them for it. I'm sure if the atheists lost their extra day off in December they'd be pissing and moaning about working too much, too.

Why do we all have to be a bunch of pricks to each other? Why do we have to spend the last two months of every goddamned year treating each other like pricks because of what we believe? Maybe it's because my best friend is Wiccan and another good friend's wife is a Reiki priestess, and I was taught by very ecumenical-minded people even at a Catholic college, but it just seems like a waste and a denouncement of Christian principles to be so dickish about religion or a lack thereof. Especially when it comes to the time of year that's supposed to be about family, about acceptance, about good will towards all, and just generally not being a dick.
 
2012-11-19 08:23:22 AM

StrangeQ: xanadian: Babwa Wawa: And as someone pointed out earlier, they'd have continued permission if someone hadn't chosen to vandalize the atheists' display last year.

Because some people are apparently too insecure in their faith.

/FIGHT *ALL* THE DIFFERENCES!!!

Yeah they're all love and tolerance until you express anything opposing their faith. Had several Darwin fish ripped off my car because of that.


We had douchebags ripping down the "Yes on 1" pro-gay marriage signs up in Maine. Some were even caught on camera. Blows my mind why they feel so threatened by 2 guys (or 2 gals) who love each other. Because Jesus.

/while Jesus didn't say word one about it, but had a LOT to say about hypocrisy
 
2012-11-19 08:24:19 AM

xanadian: EQUAL time? The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??."


They applied the same as the Christian groups and were awarded based on a random draw. How is that not fair?
 
2012-11-19 08:24:20 AM
bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com

/ know who ELSE wants to force their religion on everyone ?
 
2012-11-19 08:24:32 AM

saint1975: Am I the only one who is wondering why a Kansas newspaper is so worried about Christmas displays in California?


It's an AP article.

Christ, folks
 
2012-11-19 08:25:10 AM

mamoru: Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

You see, there wouldn't be an issue if the Christians hadn't vandalized the displays that Atheists, also expressing their very equal first amendment rights, put up. It's a public space. The Christians do not get special privileges for their displays over those of other faiths or lack thereof.

But since the Christians went and vandalized the other displays, the city decided to cancel the whole thing rather than have the same kind of trouble this year. Now, the city's decision to try to avoid conflict may not be the correct decision, but don't blame the atheists for putting them in the position they were in to make such a decision.


How do you know the vandalism was done by christians? Plenty of people have vandalized their own homes/businesses/religious buildings to get sympathy or start trouble.
 
2012-11-19 08:25:15 AM
A 60-year-old tradition like back-alley abortions?
 
2012-11-19 08:25:28 AM

orbister: Perhaps religion isn't trying to stop you getting married?


or trying to stop you from stealing, lying and murdering

i say we ban religion, it takes all the fun out of life
 
2012-11-19 08:25:46 AM

cman: StrangeQ: The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn't trump the Christian's right to free speech.

But apparently the Christians' right to speech trumps the atheists as they were the ones who vandalized the atheist displays after the atheists applied for the display locations under the exact same system and using the exact same rules as the Christians. Hypocrisy at its finest.

Just like 19 terrorists on 9/11 represents the whole one billion Muslim world, amirite?

Blaming the actions of a few on the whole is pretty idiotic


... Who's blaming what now? Are you saying the atheists vandalized their own signs to get the city to cancel the whole thing?
 
2012-11-19 08:25:50 AM

FriarReb98: but it just seems like a waste and a denouncement of Christian principles to be so dickish about religion or a lack thereof. Especially when it comes to the time of year that's supposed to be about family, about acceptance, about good will towards all, and just generally not being a dick.


"Love God with all your heart and all your soul. And the other is like it, to love your neighbor as you love yourself. All the laws and the Prophets hang on these commandments."

It's the Bronze Age equivalent of the Law of Wheaton: Don't be a dick.
 
2012-11-19 08:26:19 AM
It is odd that so many people of faith delight as describing atheism as "just another religion" - and yet, when atheists publicly declare and display their "faith", they want to suppress it - even going as far as vandalism. Strange.
 
2012-11-19 08:26:26 AM
After long rtfa... Yeah, Christians need to spend less time getting poutraged about stupid shiat and more time actually reading their bible and understanding its message.

Hint: the farking Jesus freaks are the one that caused this by their vandalism. That and their sense of entitlement. Maybe if the Christians in the area weren't farking violent Neanderthals, they might still have their display.

All that being said: you churches bilk your people out of shiatloads of money and don't farking pay a dime in taxes, so here is an idea.. Use that money to put a display up at your church, on your church land.

None of this would have been an issue if the Christians could tolerate free speech that isn't their own, but nope, their answer to other views is to smash them.
 
2012-11-19 08:26:30 AM
Wait a second, some of you people actually think atheists don't believe in god because we want everybody else to be miserable? Jeese all this time I thought I was an atheist because I actually think for myself and refused to believe in quite obvious fairy tales.
 
hej
2012-11-19 08:26:48 AM

PreMortem: "...something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested."

Wat


Awww. Your poor, poor all powerful deity :(
 
2012-11-19 08:26:53 AM

StrangeQ: Actually, it's not. The only reason the city isn't doing it again this year is because of the vandalism. If the nutjob Christians could accept the fact that their supernatural superstition is just as valid as every other form of supernatural superstition and learn to live with the fact that occasionally people are going to point that out to them when they try to broadcast their beliefs for all the world to see then there wouldn't be a problem.


Interesting perspective. So any minor vandalism should be enough to quash free speech? Do you really think most Christians were in favor of vandalizing the displays of others? That's almost like saying all Muslims are terrorists because a handful of them commit acts of terrorism.

Should free speech be stopped whenever it appears on public property? If a gay rights organization wants to hold a protest in public, should they be stopped because it would be a government endorsement of their views?

I say let the people - no matter what their religion, race or whatever gather peaceably and protest in favor of or against whatever they want.
 
2012-11-19 08:27:10 AM
Both sides are big babies.

The Atheist organizations for trolling instead of demonstrating their rights in an adult manner. Something like "We believe in the freedom not to believe,", with some kind non-religious, perhaps science oriented mural or picture (Maybe that old pic of Einstein and all the other scientists gathered for a picture) would have demonstrated their attitude toward religion, and the fact that there are other things to find interest in, while still remaining mature and sensitive toward the other people putting up displays. Maybe with some quotes from philosophers that aren't blatantly mocking our hostile toward religious people, but are more about people's right to be non-religious.
Instead they put up a bunch of meme's and trollworthy pictures and quotes, which makes us atheists that just want to keep to ourselves and be free to avoid religious activities look like a bunch of farking intolerant assholes.

The Christians groups are a bunch of big babies, because their religious freedoms aren't being quashed by not being able to put up a nativity scene in a public park. IMO, none of the groups should be putting up blatantly religious themed displays in public areas, and they are still left free to practice their religion without being able to do so. Saying "This is a shame that not everyone could act in a mature and adult manner," is one thing, but going to court as if they're being persecuted is ridiculous. And comparing the nativity scene to Jesus having nowhere to go? They are PLASTIC statues. Dramatizing much?

As far as the vandalism, is there even any proof the Christian groups did it? Kids vandalize shiat all the time, and they probably knew they'd get more flack if they were caught vandalizing Jesus, than some random internet memes. Or maybe they knew the Christian groups would get pointed at and blamed, and they could sit back and watch the hilarity that ensued. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the atheists did it themselves for that reason, the same way religious people have been caught vandalizing their own stuff to make it look like some hate group did it. This atheist group seems like a bunch of trolling assholes, so why not assume that?
 
2012-11-19 08:27:52 AM

veedeevadeevoodee: [bulletinoftheoppressionofwomen.com image 450x325]

/ know who ELSE wants to force their religion on everyone ?


With the possible exception of Zen Buddhists and Quakers, practically everybody who has one.
 
2012-11-19 08:28:14 AM

I drunk what: orbister: Perhaps religion isn't trying to stop you getting married?

or trying to stop you from stealing, lying and murdering

i say we ban religion, it takes all the fun out of life


Attempting to ban or eradicate religion leads to really horrible things. Just let them throw their temper tantrums. Evolution in action.

/Case in point, in 2000 85% of Americans identified with Christianity. in 2010, 75% did.
//Christians are their own worst enemies. So unlike their Christ.
 
2012-11-19 08:31:15 AM

StrangeQ: xanadian: EQUAL time? The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??."

They applied the same as the Christian groups and were awarded based on a random draw. How is that not fair?


In the same volume, though? Or did they inundate the city with applications? Oh wait, it's right there in TFA. It's all mathematics. Of 100 applications, if you submit 10, and they only accept 10, you'll probably get 1 approved. But if you've submitted 80 out of 100, you'll get a lot more.

Math is hard.

I'm not saying atheists are WRONG. Science and reason would side with them. But it's still dickish. And it seems that Vix has had displays in the past: simple ones with a simple message. He must've had approval in the past with no problem, so was there really a need to "inundate the city with applications?" He just suddenly decided to dial it up to 11.
 
2012-11-19 08:31:17 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: Both sides are big babies.

The Atheist organizations for trolling instead of demonstrating their rights in an adult manner. Something like "We believe in the freedom not to believe,", with some kind non-religious, perhaps science oriented mural or picture (Maybe that old pic of Einstein and all the other scientists gathered for a picture) would have demonstrated their attitude toward religion, and the fact that there are other things to find interest in, while still remaining mature and sensitive toward the other people putting up displays. Maybe with some quotes from philosophers that aren't blatantly mocking our hostile toward religious people, but are more about people's right to be non-religious.
Instead they put up a bunch of meme's and trollworthy pictures and quotes, which makes us atheists that just want to keep to ourselves and be free to avoid religious activities look like a bunch of farking intolerant assholes.

The Christians groups are a bunch of big babies, because their religious freedoms aren't being quashed by not being able to put up a nativity scene in a public park. IMO, none of the groups should be putting up blatantly religious themed displays in public areas, and they are still left free to practice their religion without being able to do so. Saying "This is a shame that not everyone could act in a mature and adult manner," is one thing, but going to court as if they're being persecuted is ridiculous. And comparing the nativity scene to Jesus having nowhere to go? They are PLASTIC statues. Dramatizing much?

As far as the vandalism, is there even any proof the Christian groups did it? Kids vandalize shiat all the time, and they probably knew they'd get more flack if they were caught vandalizing Jesus, than some random internet memes. Or maybe they knew the Christian groups would get pointed at and blamed, and they could sit back and watch the hilarity that ensued. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the atheists did it themselves for that rea ...


Maybe. I am deeply suspicious of "false flag" explanations - their track record of turning out to be true is very poor. I'm not saying it never happens, but the vast majority of the time it is just deflection.
 
2012-11-19 08:31:43 AM

Happy Hours: You militant atheists are assholes


i560.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 08:31:53 AM

StrangeQ: Happy Hours: They weren't really promoting Poseidon. They were making a point - which is their right, but it was still very trollish of them especially because they didn't actually believe in Poseidon.

Would it be very trollish of me if all the world smoked cigarettes and I and a few others knew the truth that they cause you to die of terrible, delibilitating cancer and so we set about putting up signs depicting diseased lungs on national have a smoke day?


Not if that's what you really believed, but do you think these people really believed in Poseidon? If you did it just because you hate smokers then yes, it would be trollish.
 
2012-11-19 08:32:06 AM

StrangeQ: Trying to emphasize the truth


Truth as you see it. You don't have all the answers and neither does anybody else. These people believe in some shiat that you don't believe in. You disagree about what the "truth" is, and nobody really knows for sure.

The difference is that, unlike you, they have a holiday they want to celebrate by putting up some decorations and making something pretty to look at.

You have a problem with that.

Why?
 
2012-11-19 08:32:19 AM

Skarekrough: And 60 years is not a tradition.


That's no the right route to take here. 60 years can by all means be a tradition. It is long enough for an entire generation to have grown up knowing nothing else.

fruitloop: I'm not a Constitutional law dog, but how is Santa Monica not allowing churches to put up Christmas displays a violation of freedom of speech if Santa Monica has to give permission to put up the displays?


It's not a violation because they've stopped the displays for everything, religious and nonreligious.
 
2012-11-19 08:32:20 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


Let's see if I get this right:

Telling me I'm going to burn in a fiery pit for all of eternity = free speech

Putting up a picture of the flying spaghetti monster = asshole
 
2012-11-19 08:32:27 AM

Babwa Wawa: t3knomanser: That's the best reason for keeping government away from religious holidays.

There are plenty of other, better, reasons.


I thought posting gore was a ban? why is this pic still here? brb free cat.jpg.
 
2012-11-19 08:34:13 AM

Uncle Tractor: Happy Hours: You militant atheists are assholes

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]


Oh great. Now we get to see fifty pics of Stalin, Mao , and Hitler.
 
2012-11-19 08:34:23 AM
It never ceases to amaze me that some people think "We've been violating the Constitution for 60 years and nobody complained before" is a valid defense.

/ You know what would be awesome? If Christians who understood the importance of secular government went after these sorts of displays so as not to make it an "Evil atheist vs. poor suffering Christians" issue.
 
2012-11-19 08:36:15 AM

Martian_Astronomer: It never ceases to amaze me that some people think "We've been violating the Constitution for 60 years and nobody complained before" is a valid defense.

/ You know what would be awesome? If Christians who understood the importance of secular government went after these sorts of displays so as not to make it an "Evil atheist vs. poor suffering Christians" issue.


Actually, it would be OK with me if people of different faiths (or lack thereof) expressed their views in public space - as long as they could play nice. But they never can
 
2012-11-19 08:36:15 AM

jso2897: Maybe. I am deeply suspicious of "false flag" explanations - their track record of turning out to be true is very poor. I'm not saying it never happens, but the vast majority of the time it is just deflection.


The track record isn't that poor. Like the recent case where the Lesbian cut herself up to try and make everyone think she was attacked by vicious homophobes.
There are MANY cases of such things.

I'm not saying that was necessarily the case here, just that there's no proof that the Christians did it either, from what I can see, so it's just as ludacris to go blaming them.

IMO, most likely it was just regular old vandalism with no agenda at all. It's a major city and kids fark shiat up. Even fairly non-religious kids may have issues in the back of their mind with vandalising Jesus, so the atheist displays were a better target. Doesn't mean some kind of Christian anti-atheist agenda is automatically to blame. 

Without proof, it's just a way for both sides to point fingers at each other, no matter who did it.
 
2012-11-19 08:36:25 AM

sigdiamond2000: Yeah, let me know when they're beating on your door at 9 AM on Sunday morning and dropping off literature. Otherwise, shut the f*ck up.


So, yeah. And a hearty witless insult to you, too, tough guy. : )
 
2012-11-19 08:37:41 AM

Happy Hours: Interesting perspective. So any minor vandalism should be enough to quash free speech? Do you really think most Christians were in favor of vandalizing the displays of others? That's almost like saying all Muslims are terrorists because a handful of them commit acts of terrorism.


You're trying to turn this into an inquisition when it is nothing of the sort. Ever heard the expression one bad apple ruins the bunch? It doesn't matter that most people are probably perfectly fine with the displays, religious or not. What matters is that the city knows that if the displays are allowed to be erected again this year there will likely be more vandalism with the possibility of escalation to the point that the police need to be involved. In lieu of this they have decided to cancel the whole thing and avoid the hassle. It has absolutely nothing to do with persecuting the poor Christians.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:06 AM
This is what started the fight last year. Christians were angry they didn't get to monopolize the displays as they had for nearly 60 years.

"Officials used a lottery to dole out spots in the prime location along Ocean Avenue. The atheists turned out to be the lucky ones: Of the 21 plots in the park open for displays, they won 18. The Nativity story that once took 14 displays to tell - from the Annunciation, continuing to the manger in Bethlehem and onto infant Jesus' journey to Egypt and back to Nazareth - had to be abridged to three and crammed into two plots."

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/12/atheists-hijack-christm a s-nativity-display-in-santa-monica-critics-say.html

Yes, the Christians were trolled big time, and it was their stupid fault they reacted by vandalizing the other displays. Now, no one gets to play.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:11 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: jso2897: Maybe. I am deeply suspicious of "false flag" explanations - their track record of turning out to be true is very poor. I'm not saying it never happens, but the vast majority of the time it is just deflection.

The track record isn't that poor. Like the recent case where the Lesbian cut herself up to try and make everyone think she was attacked by vicious homophobes.
There are MANY cases of such things.

I'm not saying that was necessarily the case here, just that there's no proof that the Christians did it either, from what I can see, so it's just as ludacris to go blaming them.

IMO, most likely it was just regular old vandalism with no agenda at all. It's a major city and kids fark shiat up. Even fairly non-religious kids may have issues in the back of their mind with vandalising Jesus, so the atheist displays were a better target. Doesn't mean some kind of Christian anti-atheist agenda is automatically to blame. 

Without proof, it's just a way for both sides to point fingers at each other, no matter who did it.


In an immense socirty like ours, there may be "many" cases of such things - but they are alleged many, many more times than they actually happen. i tend to look to Occam's razor in matters of this nature. That which looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck rarely turns out to be a penguin.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:19 AM

xanadian: StrangeQ: xanadian: EQUAL time? The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. The two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??."

They applied the same as the Christian groups and were awarded based on a random draw. How is that not fair?

In the same volume, though? Or did they inundate the city with applications? Oh wait, it's right there in TFA. It's all mathematics. Of 100 applications, if you submit 10, and they only accept 10, you'll probably get 1 approved. But if you've submitted 80 out of 100, you'll get a lot more.

Math is hard.


Is there something in the Bible that prevented the Christians from doing the same?
 
2012-11-19 08:39:21 AM
Not flame bait - true fact:

www.atheistmemebase.com
 
2012-11-19 08:39:24 AM

jso2897: Actually, it would be OK with me if people of different faiths (or lack thereof) expressed their views in public space - as long as they could play nice. But they never can


Bingo.

And this is why the city stopped it altogether. Not because they're persecuting Christians, but because you can't put a bunch of different faiths and beliefs in one place without someone being an asshole. That's why it's a bad idea to have religious displays of any kind in public areas. SOMEONE is going to get butthurt.

Humans are intolerant and stupid. That is never going to change.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:34 AM

jso2897: Oh great. Now we get to see fifty pics of Stalin, Mao , and Hitler.


Not necessarily Hitler (who was rather ambiguous), but yes, anytime anyone says "Ideological atheists have never committed mass atrocities" you should expect to see pics of Mao, Stalin, Pol-pot, etc.
 
2012-11-19 08:39:54 AM

Uncle Tractor: Happy Hours: You militant atheists are assholes

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]


You gotta admit, though...mega-trolling is a lot more benign than what the other militant types like to do...

jso2897: Uncle Tractor: Happy Hours: You militant atheists are assholes

[i560.photobucket.com image 475x336]

Oh great. Now we get to see fifty pics of Stalin, Mao , and Hitler.


I'll start.

mikeely.files.wordpress.com
 
hej
2012-11-19 08:40:12 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


TFA:
"Missing from the courtroom drama will be Vix and his fellow atheists, who are not parties to the case."
 
2012-11-19 08:41:18 AM
I think getting butthurt over Nativity scenes is immature.

But it isn't like this guy is suing the city, costing it money, or trying to say other people can't use public places for traditional christmas stuff.

Good for him.
 
2012-11-19 08:42:03 AM

cassanovascotian: jso2897: Oh great. Now we get to see fifty pics of Stalin, Mao , and Hitler.

Not necessarily Hitler (who was rather ambiguous), but yes, anytime anyone says "Ideological atheists have never committed mass atrocities" you should expect to see pics of Mao, Stalin, Pol-pot, etc.


Oh, believe me - I do.
 
2012-11-19 08:42:57 AM

StrangeQ: It has absolutely nothing to do with persecuting the poor Christians.


It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.

Being a dick is being a dick, even if you happen to sympathize with their non-beliefs.
 
2012-11-19 08:42:59 AM
I could add abortion clinic bombings but that's more of a 40-year tradition.
 
2012-11-19 08:43:34 AM

Happy Hours: StrangeQ: Happy Hours: They weren't really promoting Poseidon. They were making a point - which is their right, but it was still very trollish of them especially because they didn't actually believe in Poseidon.

Would it be very trollish of me if all the world smoked cigarettes and I and a few others knew the truth that they cause you to die of terrible, delibilitating cancer and so we set about putting up signs depicting diseased lungs on national have a smoke day?

Not if that's what you really believed, but do you think these people really believed in Poseidon? If you did it just because you hate smokers then yes, it would be trollish.


What if I believe that superstitious nonsense does nothing for the betterment of mankind and has in fact led in several instances to the stagnation and loss of social and scientific advancement?
 
2012-11-19 08:44:21 AM

StrangeQ: Is there something in the Bible that prevented the Christians from doing the same?


Nope. The religious people got trolled super hard. Still doesn't make what Vix did any less dickish.

/actually, there IS something in the Bible, which is why I'm surprised why the Christians didn't think of it sooner
//like I said, Jesus had a LOT to say about the religious establishment of the time
///Christians would probably be the ones to crucify him today :P
 
2012-11-19 08:44:41 AM
Two stupid groups arguing about something that doesn't matter.
Awesome.
 
2012-11-19 08:45:46 AM
Old tradition: kind of cute, even if you don't believe in it.

New tradition: angry and irritating.

What a win for society at large!
 
2012-11-19 08:45:57 AM

hej: TFA:
"Missing from the courtroom drama will be Vix and his fellow atheists, who are not parties to the case."


Well, yeah, he did what he needed to do. Unfortunately, if the religious types can re-install the annual Christmas display tradition, you can bet your bottom dollar they'll try what Vix did.

Goddamitsomuch. :/
 
2012-11-19 08:46:32 AM

cassanovascotian: StrangeQ: It has absolutely nothing to do with persecuting the poor Christians.

It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.
.


yeah, because they can't put up their displays on their own property or anything. . .
 
2012-11-19 08:46:41 AM

cassanovascotian: StrangeQ: It has absolutely nothing to do with persecuting the poor Christians.

It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.

Being a dick is being a dick, even if you happen to sympathize with their non-beliefs.


Anger is an anchor to the material plane, and an impenetrable barrier to enlightenment.
i18.photobucket.com

No Water, No Moon

When the nun Chiyono studied Zen under Bukko of Engaku she was unable to attain the fruits of meditation for a long time.

At last one moonlit night she was carrying water in an old pail bound with bamboo. The bamboo broke and the bottom fell out of the pail, and at that moment Chiyono was set free!

In commemoration, she wrote a poem:

In this way and that I tried to save the old pail
Since the bamboo strip was weakening and about
to break
Until at last the bottom fell out.
No more water in the pail!
No more moon in the water!
 
2012-11-19 08:47:18 AM

cassanovascotian: The difference is that, unlike you, they have a holiday they want to celebrate by putting up some decorations and making something pretty to look at.


Then celebrate the original secular intent. Put up wreaths. Put up garland. Adorn evergreen boughs with ornaments in a celebration of the turning of the season and the return of spring. Because that is what it was and that is what is happening.
 
2012-11-19 08:47:23 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: jso2897: Maybe. I am deeply suspicious of "false flag" explanations - their track record of turning out to be true is very poor. I'm not saying it never happens, but the vast majority of the time it is just deflection.

The track record isn't that poor. Like the recent case where the Lesbian cut herself up to try and make everyone think she was attacked by vicious homophobes.
There are MANY cases of such things.

I'm not saying that was necessarily the case here, just that there's no proof that the Christians did it either, from what I can see, so it's just as ludacris to go blaming them.

IMO, most likely it was just regular old vandalism with no agenda at all. It's a major city and kids fark shiat up. Even fairly non-religious kids may have issues in the back of their mind with vandalising Jesus, so the atheist displays were a better target. Doesn't mean some kind of Christian anti-atheist agenda is automatically to blame. 

Without proof, it's just a way for both sides to point fingers at each other, no matter who did it.


So pretty much the only time in the long history of this tradition that vandalism became a big problem, just happens to coincide with Christian poutrage over having to share space with atheists, but to you that spells "random vandalism".

Wake up and smell the burning crosses. It's documented atypical Christian behavior whenever anything nonchristian notices "hey, the Constitution protects US TOO"!

By and large a violent cult, few of which exhibit any of the virtues Jesus felt we're important. Boy they love the fire and hate of Paul though.
 
2012-11-19 08:47:49 AM

cassanovascotian: It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.


Uh, I got the impression the conflict was escalated by the christians who vandalized the trollery displays. Blaming the atheists for this seems a bit off the mark.
 
mhd
2012-11-19 08:48:34 AM
Couldn't they just limit the exhibits to actual nativity scenes? Sure, there's freedom of speech, but if they were doing a gardening exhibit they'd probably be within their rights to prohibit anything by actual plants - or just tulips. No big chance of someone putting a Bolivian pan flute band in one of the lots.

Or were these general booths that just happened to be used for nativity scenes for 60 years?
 
2012-11-19 08:49:21 AM

StrangeQ: Happy Hours: StrangeQ: Happy Hours: They weren't really promoting Poseidon. They were making a point - which is their right, but it was still very trollish of them especially because they didn't actually believe in Poseidon.

Would it be very trollish of me if all the world smoked cigarettes and I and a few others knew the truth that they cause you to die of terrible, delibilitating cancer and so we set about putting up signs depicting diseased lungs on national have a smoke day?

Not if that's what you really believed, but do you think these people really believed in Poseidon? If you did it just because you hate smokers then yes, it would be trollish.

What if I believe that superstitious nonsense does nothing for the betterment of mankind and has in fact led in several instances to the stagnation and loss of social and scientific advancement?


Yes, religion has had it's moments where evil was all over. But, without religion, culturally we would not be where we are. The great masterpieces of art in our past have a religious background. From the sphinx in Egypt to the statutes of Buhda (can't spell, sorry) in Asia, to the Stonehenge in England to the Sistine chapel, to the great mosques of Saudi Arabia to the Native American burial grounds, religion is what has been the biggest guide for us in our history.

To cast off with such ease and disrespect our past sickens me. I am an agnostic, but even I show respect for others beliefs
 
2012-11-19 08:49:36 AM

Uncle Tractor: cassanovascotian: It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.

Uh, I got the impression the conflict was escalated by the christians who vandalized the trollery displays. Blaming the atheists for this seems a bit off the mark.


It's also a typical excuse of wiife-beaters - "The biatch MADE me do it! She PROVOKED me!"
 
mhd
2012-11-19 08:49:41 AM

mhd: anything but actual plants


/dang my Germanic sausage fingers
 
2012-11-19 08:49:52 AM

jso2897: That which looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck rarely turns out to be a penguin.


But the fact is nothing looks like anything here. Doesn't seem anyone knows who did it, and I'd say more kids vandalize shiat just to vandalize it out of boredom than people vandalizing stuff due to intolerance.
To me then, the duck would just be random vandalizing.
But like I said, everyone has a different idea of who would be the likely culprit, so the finger is just going to get pointed at whoever they dislike most.

And to add to my last post, the Christian displays in public areas weren't an issue 60 years ago because it was largely a Christian nation, with some Jews, and very few other religions mixed in. Plus those groups were mostly segregated to different localities.
Now, Christians are still a majority but becoming a smaller group, and other beliefs are becoming a much larger percentage of the population, not to mention everyone (regarding religious belief anyway) is more evenly dispersed due to having less family ties and staying in one area. So displaying religious items in any public area is going to cause someone to get their feelings hurt.
 
2012-11-19 08:50:18 AM

BronyMedic: I drunk what: orbister: Perhaps religion isn't trying to stop you getting married?

or trying to stop you from stealing, lying and murdering

i say we ban religion, it takes all the fun out of life

Attempting to ban or eradicate religion leads to really horrible things. Just let them throw their temper tantrums. Evolution in action.

/Case in point, in 2000 85% of Americans identified with Christianity. in 2010, 75% did.
//Christians are their own worst enemies. So unlike their Christ.


I just wish it was happening faster.
 
2012-11-19 08:51:02 AM

cassanovascotian: StrangeQ: It has absolutely nothing to do with persecuting the poor Christians.

It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.


Really? So they can't enjoy the holiday unless they get to monopolize a swath of city property in order to proselytize their superstition to as many people willing and unwilling as possible?
 
2012-11-19 08:51:43 AM

jso2897: I see where you are coming from - but tha fact is that atheists were not necessary to bring this outcome about. Had people of other, unpopular faiths ( such as Wicca, Islam, Scientology) exercised their "right" to put up displays, the same thing would have happened. using public space fro the expression of private religious views never works out, except in places where there is one official, goverment maddated faith.
"Militant Atheists" make a handy scapegoat, but here, people of faith are essentially blaming them for their own mischief.


I would have no problem with less popular faiths putting up displays or demonstrating in public. Sure, some people might have a problem with it,but they are wrong. If I wanted to start a protest movement against yellow cars where could I demonstrate? On my own property I guess - as long as my HOA didn't get in my face. So what if I moved it to a public park? If the local government didn't stop me would that be an endorsement of my stance against yellow cars? I wouldn't actually expect to be able to protest such a thing on private property owned by others - unless they shared my hatred of yellow cars, but how am I supposed to convince people that yellow cars are evil unless I have a public forum to protest against them?
 
2012-11-19 08:53:11 AM

cman: StrangeQ: Happy Hours: StrangeQ: Happy Hours: They weren't really promoting Poseidon. They were making a point - which is their right, but it was still very trollish of them especially because they didn't actually believe in Poseidon.

Would it be very trollish of me if all the world smoked cigarettes and I and a few others knew the truth that they cause you to die of terrible, delibilitating cancer and so we set about putting up signs depicting diseased lungs on national have a smoke day?

Not if that's what you really believed, but do you think these people really believed in Poseidon? If you did it just because you hate smokers then yes, it would be trollish.

What if I believe that superstitious nonsense does nothing for the betterment of mankind and has in fact led in several instances to the stagnation and loss of social and scientific advancement?

Yes, religion has had it's moments where evil was all over. But, without religion, culturally we would not be where we are. The great masterpieces of art in our past have a religious background. From the sphinx in Egypt to the statutes of Buhda (can't spell, sorry) in Asia, to the Stonehenge in England to the Sistine chapel, to the great mosques of Saudi Arabia to the Native American burial grounds, religion is what has been the biggest guide for us in our history.

To cast off with such ease and disrespect our past sickens me. I am an agnostic, but even I show respect for others beliefs


However one feels about religion, it is foolish to pretend that it is not deeply entertwined in human culture. At some point in the future, it may not be - but we don't live in the future. And in a inter-human dealings, mutual respect is usually the way to go. Of course, people of faith could also use to improve their track record in that regard. Everybody could.
 
2012-11-19 08:53:46 AM

xanadian: The question becomes: are these churches putting up their religious stuff on government property (i.e., city hall grounds)? Then it runs afoul of a government purporting to favor one religion (or non-religion) over another. Hence, why the atheists have put up their OWN displays.


If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date. Putting Poseidon or FSM displays up right next to those of the Christians is just juvenile behaviour. Almost as if the best way to protest that they could come up with was similar to the kid with his finger hovering an inch from your forehead while claiming "I'm not touching you!" Just let them have their fun for a month or two and pick another period of similar length to put up your own display. But no one is interested in doing that because the drama would only be half of what can be generated in December.
 
2012-11-19 08:53:58 AM

StrangeQ: cassanovascotian: The difference is that, unlike you, they have a holiday they want to celebrate by putting up some decorations and making something pretty to look at.

Then celebrate the original secular intent. Put up wreaths. Put up garland. Adorn evergreen boughs with ornaments in a celebration of the turning of the season and the return of spring. Because that is what it was and that is what is happening.


Even more fun is how the original original intent of Christmas was the pagan holiday known as Yuletide. It's just that, once again, a bunch of old white guys got their hands on it and tied Jesus's birth to it to make Christianity more palatable to the pagans.

Uncle Tractor: cassanovascotian: It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.

Uh, I got the impression the conflict was escalated by the christians who vandalized the trollery displays. Blaming the atheists for this seems a bit off the mark.


A little of both. So Santa Monica had to put both of them in time-out.

See now, if it were me, and I had been in Vix's place, I would've made a display about the REAL origins of Christmas as we know it. Educate the populace some. But, hey, trolling the Christians is fine, too.

And, to be frank, I would've probably lol'd hard at the Pastafarian display.

Still doesn't help, though.

/I wonder what the Jewish community thought of it
 
2012-11-19 08:54:00 AM

Uncle Tractor: cassanovascotian: It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.

Uh, I got the impression the conflict was escalated by the christians who vandalized the trollery displays. Blaming the atheists for this seems a bit off the mark.


Look, they were just asking to be vandalized, ok? They should have known better than to put up signs on that street.
 
2012-11-19 08:54:37 AM
cry moar, red state tea tard christians.
 
2012-11-19 08:55:01 AM

mhd: Couldn't they just limit the exhibits to actual nativity scenes?


No, they could not, unless you like the idea of being ruled by a theocratic state.
 
2012-11-19 08:55:13 AM

saint1975: Am I the only one who is wondering why a Kansas newspaper is so worried about Christmas displays in California?


Are you worried about all the Daily Mail and Telegraph articles about local news in the US too?
 
2012-11-19 08:55:14 AM

cman: Yes, religion has had it's moments where evil was all over. But, without religion, culturally we would not be where we are.


We would have been exactly were we are now -- minus some of the wars and genocides. No Holocaust, none of the ME BS, and the WTC would still be standing.

The great masterpieces of art in our past have a religious background. From the sphinx in Egypt to the statutes of Buhda (can't spell, sorry) in Asia, to the Stonehenge in England to the Sistine chapel, to the great mosques of Saudi Arabia to the Native American burial grounds,

Instead, we would have had great masterpieces from a secular background. People with wealth and power like showing off. For the most part of our history, that means clergy or people who pander to them.

religion is what has been the biggest guide for us in our history.

Ball and chain. Not guide. Ball and chain.
 
2012-11-19 08:55:25 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: jso2897: That which looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck rarely turns out to be a penguin.

But the fact is nothing looks like anything here. Doesn't seem anyone knows who did it, and I'd say more kids vandalize shiat just to vandalize it out of boredom than people vandalizing stuff due to intolerance.
To me then, the duck would just be random vandalizing.
But like I said, everyone has a different idea of who would be the likely culprit, so the finger is just going to get pointed at whoever they dislike most.

And to add to my last post, the Christian displays in public areas weren't an issue 60 years ago because it was largely a Christian nation, with some Jews, and very few other religions mixed in. Plus those groups were mostly segregated to different localities.
Now, Christians are still a majority but becoming a smaller group, and other beliefs are becoming a much larger percentage of the population, not to mention everyone (regarding religious belief anyway) is more evenly dispersed due to having less family ties and staying in one area. So displaying religious items in any public area is going to cause someone to get their feelings hurt.


That's the problem as I see it. people can't play nice. No matter how benevolent the intentions of the collective in question, there will always be some individual or individuals who are unable to respect the rules of civil discourse.
 
2012-11-19 08:55:44 AM

cassanovascotian: It has to do with a bunch of Atheists going super-troll and putting up displays for no reason other than to make a public "fark you" , and escalating a conflict to the point where nobody gets to enjoy the holiday.


If your enjoyment of the holiday is contingent upon a nativity scene on public property, and I am pretty sure I speak for atheists, muslims, christians, jews, etc here, you are doing it wrong!

Plus it was escalated by the Christians complaining.
 
2012-11-19 08:57:29 AM
Seems like maybe the city was getting sick of this anyway since they were funding the lottery process. so, reinstitute the lottery, and if you win a booth, you owe the city $100 to set up a display (to cover administrative fees, clean up after, etc.). Only the people who really care about setting up a booth pony up the $100 ea. Failure to pay gives your booth to the next person on the waiting list. Failure to actually set up something in your booth excludes you from future lotteries.
 
2012-11-19 08:57:40 AM
"It's a wonderful commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old tradition of violating the 1st Amendment is now having to hunt for a home"

There, fixed it.
 
2012-11-19 08:57:47 AM

DerAppie: xanadian: The question becomes: are these churches putting up their religious stuff on government property (i.e., city hall grounds)? Then it runs afoul of a government purporting to favor one religion (or non-religion) over another. Hence, why the atheists have put up their OWN displays.

If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date. Putting Poseidon or FSM displays up right next to those of the Christians is just juvenile behaviour. Almost as if the best way to protest that they could come up with was similar to the kid with his finger hovering an inch from your forehead while claiming "I'm not touching you!" Just let them have their fun for a month or two and pick another period of similar length to put up your own display. But no one is interested in doing that because the drama would only be half of what can be generated in December.


I have to disagree with the last bit. I think atheists having their displays up during the Xmas season is perfectly fine, if it serves a purpose other than just trolling. Like the historical aspects of Christmas I mentioned in my previous posts: about how it's a pagan holiday co-opted by the Catholics of the day. And even then, I'm sure that's only part of the story.
 
2012-11-19 08:58:14 AM

xanadian: A little of both. So Santa Monica had to put both of them in time-out.


What did those atheists do besides set up displays?

See now, if it were me, and I had been in Vix's place, I would've made a display about the REAL origins of Christmas as we know it. Educate the populace some. But, hey, trolling the Christians is fine, too.

IMO trying to educate certain kinds of christian is no better than trolling them, and from what I can tell, they were trolled HARD.
 
2012-11-19 08:58:59 AM

xanadian: DerAppie: xanadian: The question becomes: are these churches putting up their religious stuff on government property (i.e., city hall grounds)? Then it runs afoul of a government purporting to favor one religion (or non-religion) over another. Hence, why the atheists have put up their OWN displays.

If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date. Putting Poseidon or FSM displays up right next to those of the Christians is just juvenile behaviour. Almost as if the best way to protest that they could come up with was similar to the kid with his finger hovering an inch from your forehead while claiming "I'm not touching you!" Just let them have their fun for a month or two and pick another period of similar length to put up your own display. But no one is interested in doing that because the drama would only be half of what can be generated in December.

I have to disagree with the last bit. I think atheists having their displays up during the Xmas season is perfectly fine, if it serves a purpose other than just trolling. Like the historical aspects of Christmas I mentioned in my previous posts: about how it's a pagan holiday co-opted by the Catholics of the day. And even then, I'm sure that's only part of the story.


Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.
 
2012-11-19 08:59:02 AM
Damn, I wish Vix had asked my opinion, now... I think an educational display would've been awesome. Hell, even his previous displays HINTED at Christmas's origins. Should've done more with it.

Eh. What's done is done.
 
2012-11-19 09:00:54 AM

xanadian: DerAppie: xanadian: The question becomes: are these churches putting up their religious stuff on government property (i.e., city hall grounds)? Then it runs afoul of a government purporting to favor one religion (or non-religion) over another. Hence, why the atheists have put up their OWN displays.

If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date. Putting Poseidon or FSM displays up right next to those of the Christians is just juvenile behaviour. Almost as if the best way to protest that they could come up with was similar to the kid with his finger hovering an inch from your forehead while claiming "I'm not touching you!" Just let them have their fun for a month or two and pick another period of similar length to put up your own display. But no one is interested in doing that because the drama would only be half of what can be generated in December.

I have to disagree with the last bit. I think atheists having their displays up during the Xmas season is perfectly fine, if it serves a purpose other than just trolling. Like the historical aspects of Christmas I mentioned in my previous posts: about how it's a pagan holiday co-opted by the Catholics of the day. And even then, I'm sure that's only part of the story.


Thing is - the expresion of belief where permitted is "perfectly fine" even if the objective IS trolling. There is nothing in the 1st amendment about "except for trolling". You can't have freedom of expression in a public place for some, but not for others.
 
2012-11-19 09:01:09 AM

xanadian: if it serves a purpose other than just trolling.


The best way to defeat trolls is to ignore them. Wrecking the displays?

upload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.orgupload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-19 09:01:39 AM

Uncle Tractor: xanadian: A little of both. So Santa Monica had to put both of them in time-out.

What did those atheists do besides set up displays?

See now, if it were me, and I had been in Vix's place, I would've made a display about the REAL origins of Christmas as we know it. Educate the populace some. But, hey, trolling the Christians is fine, too.

IMO trying to educate certain kinds of christian is no better than trolling them, and from what I can tell, they were trolled HARD.


I have to admit, even if Vix had done an elaborate display on the origins of Christmas, I think the end result would've been the same.

*sigh*

Again, still doesn't make what he DID do any less dickish. He could've been the bigger man. But, he decided to stoop to their level.

cman: Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.


Named after Roman gods, I believe...No, wait, Norse gods. I think (for example) Friday was based off of "Freyr's Day" or something.

Crazy.
 
2012-11-19 09:02:12 AM

cman: And people wonder why we Americans are so divided. We are more content with pissing in everyone's coffee instead of live and let live


It's the sports mentality of winning being more important that what you've won, or what moral integrity, common decency, or display of common sense you had to sacrifice to win. As long as "my side" won it doesn't matter if it means we win a trip off some cliff. So long as my side won.
 
2012-11-19 09:02:53 AM

xanadian: Uncle Tractor: xanadian: A little of both. So Santa Monica had to put both of them in time-out.

What did those atheists do besides set up displays?

See now, if it were me, and I had been in Vix's place, I would've made a display about the REAL origins of Christmas as we know it. Educate the populace some. But, hey, trolling the Christians is fine, too.

IMO trying to educate certain kinds of christian is no better than trolling them, and from what I can tell, they were trolled HARD.

I have to admit, even if Vix had done an elaborate display on the origins of Christmas, I think the end result would've been the same.

*sigh*

Again, still doesn't make what he DID do any less dickish. He could've been the bigger man. But, he decided to stoop to their level.

cman: Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.

Named after Roman gods, I believe...No, wait, Norse gods. I think (for example) Friday was based off of "Freyr's Day" or something.

Crazy.


Every day except Saturday was named after a Germanic heathen god or goddess. Saturday was named after Saturn, a Roman god
 
2012-11-19 09:03:06 AM

cassanovascotian: The atheists' "display" wasn't exactly a display of something meaningful and valuable that they wanted to showcase about a seasonal holiday they celebrate; it was a Big ol' "Fark you" to the christians -the equivalent of a big farking middle finger sticking up in the air, so don't go all martyr on this by saying that your beliefs were attacked when someone "vandalized" said display.


But surely statuettes of Hitler are welcome at Holocaust Museums, no?
 
2012-11-19 09:03:36 AM

mhd: Couldn't they just limit the exhibits to actual nativity scenes? Sure, there's freedom of speech, but if they were doing a gardening exhibit they'd probably be within their rights to prohibit anything by actual plants - or just tulips. No big chance of someone putting a Bolivian pan flute band in one of the lots.

Or were these general booths that just happened to be used for nativity scenes for 60 years?


Not unless they wanted to violate the 1st.
 
2012-11-19 09:04:02 AM

jso2897: Thing is - the expresion of belief where permitted is "perfectly fine" even if the objective IS trolling. There is nothing in the 1st amendment about "except for trolling". You can't have freedom of expression in a public place for some, but not for others.


Oh, yeah, legally, trolling is "perfectly fine." I'm talking about from the "don't be a dick" standpoint. And, like I mentioned earlier, my initial reaction to something like the Pastafarian display would've garnered a few laughs from me. But then I'd think better of it later.

I guess I'm a bit of a dick, too. :P
 
2012-11-19 09:04:14 AM

PreMortem: "...something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested."

Wat


No, it's rat cheer inda babble. jebus werent berned yet but he hadda find a place to be berned. So he got mary and joseph to ride round all night lookin fer the motel 8. they left the lat on fer im. Den they all got squoze in the bern with da critters and a couple of black guys, but de black guys brought stuff, so they were cool. And Round John* was there, too.

*Round Joh, Vergen, don't you lissen to karols?
 
2012-11-19 09:04:36 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


The religious arguments are cute and all, but the actual lesson to be learned here is that people's tastes and moods change over time, both as individuals and as a society. The change doesn't necessarily invalidate either condition,old or new.
 
2012-11-19 09:05:06 AM

cman: xanadian: Uncle Tractor: xanadian: A little of both. So Santa Monica had to put both of them in time-out.

What did those atheists do besides set up displays?

See now, if it were me, and I had been in Vix's place, I would've made a display about the REAL origins of Christmas as we know it. Educate the populace some. But, hey, trolling the Christians is fine, too.

IMO trying to educate certain kinds of christian is no better than trolling them, and from what I can tell, they were trolled HARD.

I have to admit, even if Vix had done an elaborate display on the origins of Christmas, I think the end result would've been the same.

*sigh*

Again, still doesn't make what he DID do any less dickish. He could've been the bigger man. But, he decided to stoop to their level.

cman: Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.

Named after Roman gods, I believe...No, wait, Norse gods. I think (for example) Friday was based off of "Freyr's Day" or something.

Crazy.

Every day except Saturday was named after a Germanic heathen god or goddess. Saturday was named after Saturn, a Roman god


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-11-19 09:05:17 AM

tkwasny: cman: And people wonder why we Americans are so divided. We are more content with pissing in everyone's coffee instead of live and let live

It's the sports mentality of winning being more important that what you've won, or what moral integrity, common decency, or display of common sense you had to sacrifice to win. As long as "my side" won it doesn't matter if it means we win a trip off some cliff. So long as my side won.


Hmm. It sounds like you might be alluding to some real-world event whose outcome you are unhappy about.
 
2012-11-19 09:06:45 AM

jso2897: However one feels about religion, it is foolish to pretend that it is not deeply entertwined in human culture. At some point in the future, it may not be - but we don't live in the future. And in a inter-human dealings, mutual respect is usually the way to go. Of course, people of faith could also use to improve their track record in that regard. Everybody could.


Spirituality is entwined, yes, but that by no means makes it indispensable. We are an inquisitive species; that may be due to a cause or an effect of our evolution, but regardless, it drives us to wonder about the world and the universe and what makes it tick. For thousands of years we had no better than our own two eyes to see, our ears to hear and our hands to touch the world, and so much of its true nature remained hidden, obscured or incomprehensible. So we made up stories. There was no malicious intent, no desire to deceive. We were simply trying to make sense of the world. Now, some were inspired by this to create great works of art, yes, but that does not make up for the damage done by those whose desire to repress the advance of knowledge in order to preserve their status quo caused forever lost ages of intellectual development. There is no getting the time of the dark ages back, it is gone and we must move on and hopefully learn from it what we can. That lesson, I believe, is that superstitious belief is to be relegated to the same status as children's fairy tales. It is sometimes amusing and often carries some moral lesson, but when it comes to matters of public policy, it carries as much weight as a reading of Snow White would in a court case deciding the fate of genetically modified fruit.
 
2012-11-19 09:07:12 AM

neongoats: All that being said: you churches bilk your people out of shiatloads of money and don't farking pay a dime in taxes, so here is an idea.. Use that money to put a display up at your church, on your church land.


That's not a particularly bad idea. I grew up near a church that did exactly that. Every year they had a live nativity scene with real people and everything. I'm not sure what they did. It kind of looked like the cheesy nativity display my parents put up in our front yard except they used real people.

Can we keep all non-religious groups from demonstrating on public land too? Surely the Freedom From Religion organization has an office somewhere that they can organize a protest on their property. And I'm sure the Democratic party and the GOP have offices too. Let's keep these people on their own land. No public protests or demonstrations of any kind! If it's good enough for religion, it's good enough for any kind of speech.
 
2012-11-19 09:07:40 AM

cman: xanadian: DerAppie: xanadian: The question becomes: are these churches putting up their religious stuff on government property (i.e., city hall grounds)? Then it runs afoul of a government purporting to favor one religion (or non-religion) over another. Hence, why the atheists have put up their OWN displays.

If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date. Putting Poseidon or FSM displays up right next to those of the Christians is just juvenile behaviour. Almost as if the best way to protest that they could come up with was similar to the kid with his finger hovering an inch from your forehead while claiming "I'm not touching you!" Just let them have their fun for a month or two and pick another period of similar length to put up your own display. But no one is interested in doing that because the drama would only be half of what can be generated in December.

I have to disagree with the last bit. I think atheists having their displays up during the Xmas season is perfectly fine, if it serves a purpose other than just trolling. Like the historical aspects of Christmas I mentioned in my previous posts: about how it's a pagan holiday co-opted by the Catholics of the day. And even then, I'm sure that's only part of the story.

Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.


The next time an Odin, Tyr, Freyja, Thor, Saturn, etc, continually and actively try and suborn my secular government, I'll be sure to complain about the days of the week.

Which, makes me wonder if Romney sat around before the election trying to decide which month should be named after him, so he could be remembered like Augustus Ceasar. Because frankly, all the shiat that's come out post election makes me think he thought of himself that way. And that's not even talking The Lord of the rings style white horse prophecy silliness.
 
2012-11-19 09:08:55 AM

xanadian: jso2897: Thing is - the expresion of belief where permitted is "perfectly fine" even if the objective IS trolling. There is nothing in the 1st amendment about "except for trolling". You can't have freedom of expression in a public place for some, but not for others.

Oh, yeah, legally, trolling is "perfectly fine." I'm talking about from the "don't be a dick" standpoint. And, like I mentioned earlier, my initial reaction to something like the Pastafarian display would've garnered a few laughs from me. But then I'd think better of it later.

I guess I'm a bit of a dick, too. :P


Trouble is, it's subjective, and law is not. One man's dick is another mans hero. That's the reason that this sort of thing can't work in the long run - not only can't people play nice, they can't even agree on what constitutes playing nice.
 
2012-11-19 09:10:52 AM
"Missing from the courtroom drama will be Vix and his fellow atheists, who are not parties to the case. Their role outside court highlights a tactical shift as atheists evolve into a vocal minority eager to get force their non-beliefs into the public square onto everyone else as never before."

There. FTFY
 
2012-11-19 09:11:14 AM

StrangeQ: jso2897: However one feels about religion, it is foolish to pretend that it is not deeply entertwined in human culture. At some point in the future, it may not be - but we don't live in the future. And in a inter-human dealings, mutual respect is usually the way to go. Of course, people of faith could also use to improve their track record in that regard. Everybody could.

Spirituality is entwined, yes, but that by no means makes it indispensable. We are an inquisitive species; that may be due to a cause or an effect of our evolution, but regardless, it drives us to wonder about the world and the universe and what makes it tick. For thousands of years we had no better than our own two eyes to see, our ears to hear and our hands to touch the world, and so much of its true nature remained hidden, obscured or incomprehensible. So we made up stories. There was no malicious intent, no desire to deceive. We were simply trying to make sense of the world. Now, some were inspired by this to create great works of art, yes, but that does not make up for the damage done by those whose desire to repress the advance of knowledge in order to preserve their status quo caused forever lost ages of intellectual development. There is no getting the time of the dark ages back, it is gone and we must move on and hopefully learn from it what we can. That lesson, I believe, is that superstitious belief is to be relegated to the same status as children's fairy tales. It is sometimes amusing and often carries some moral lesson, but when it comes to matters of public policy, it carries as much weight as a reading of Snow White would in a court case deciding the fate of genetically modified fruit.


My point exactly - what is now the case may not be the case in the future. Not only does Man evolve - his culture evolves with him. But the fact remains that where we are now is where we are now.
 
2012-11-19 09:12:02 AM

cman: xanadian: DerAppie: xanadian: The question becomes: are these churches putting up their religious stuff on government property (i.e., city hall grounds)? Then it runs afoul of a government purporting to favor one religion (or non-religion) over another. Hence, why the atheists have put up their OWN displays.

If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date. Putting Poseidon or FSM displays up right next to those of the Christians is just juvenile behaviour. Almost as if the best way to protest that they could come up with was similar to the kid with his finger hovering an inch from your forehead while claiming "I'm not touching you!" Just let them have their fun for a month or two and pick another period of similar length to put up your own display. But no one is interested in doing that because the drama would only be half of what can be generated in December.

I have to disagree with the last bit. I think atheists having their displays up during the Xmas season is perfectly fine, if it serves a purpose other than just trolling. Like the historical aspects of Christmas I mentioned in my previous posts: about how it's a pagan holiday co-opted by the Catholics of the day. And even then, I'm sure that's only part of the story.

Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.


We already knew.

Wait until the Christians learn that the days of the week are named after "false" gods.
 
2012-11-19 09:14:12 AM

cman: Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.


You know what's really fun? The fact that atheists consistantly score higher on religious historical tests than their respective believers. Atheists were pointing out to the Christians that they were using various gods to name the days of the week by the time they hit junior high.

The difference is nobody believes in those gods anymore, or at least very few do, and nobody takes the naming convention as a directive to believe or even as an endorsement of Norse religion.
 
2012-11-19 09:14:31 AM

neongoats: So pretty much the only time in the long history of this tradition that vandalism became a big problem, just happens to coincide with Christian poutrage over having to share space with atheists, but to you that spells "random vandalism".

Wake up and smell the burning crosses. It's documented atypical Christian behavior whenever anything nonchristian notices "hey, the Constitution protects US TOO"!

By and large a violent cult, few of which exhibit any of the virtues Jesus felt we're important. Boy they love the fire and hate of Paul though.


Wait....

You have documentation that no vandalism has happened at all to any displays over the last 60 years? That is pretty impressive, since I don't think I know of anything that goes up every year in a major city for that many years altogether avoid vandalism.
Every year some church or other gets its nativity scene trashed by someone and it ends up on the news. Or a public display gets vandalized.
I seen several stories on the news over the years, of people painting nazi symbols on stuff, and everyone HORRIFIED that anti-semites could be in their community, then it turns out it was some asshole kids that have no affiliations or beliefs with anyone at all, but rather want to cause a major scene and shock the adults.

Like everyone here echoes, until it conflicts with their opinion, correlation does not equal causation. 
The information seems to link the vandalism to the Christians, and it could very well be them, but no media is going to say "despite no evidence" since it doesn't equal good sensationalism to get people like you in an uproar.

Does it even matter which side it was anyway? Both are being asshats. Both sides have people that are capable of such thing, and those people don't necessarily reflect the whole group. So it's a moot point.
I don't want to be associated with the asshole atheists because they're idiot trolls, and I doubt an average Christian wants to be associated with a few intolerant vandals. fark agenda based organized groups of people in general, whether religious or not, as they tend to all be a bunch of intolerant morons, or at least run and presented by people that are.
 
2012-11-19 09:16:36 AM
This is definitely a 1st Amendment violation.
Also the guy in the article is a complete douche.

/atheist
//likes nativity scenes
 
2012-11-19 09:17:10 AM

Happy Hours: You militant atheists are assholes


madmikesamerica.com

/EABOD you fascist ass.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 09:18:01 AM

FriarReb98: I feel like I'm looking at the command deck of Spaceball One when I read this article - nothing but Assholes with a capital A. Atheists trying to provoke the Christians, Christians dicking out on the atheists for provoking them, just sounds like they're all just miserable pricks who hate each other.

I'm a lapsed Catholic. I admit I don't really like going to church, pretty much because it doesn't do anything for me anymore and I feel like I know when I'm doing good and when I'm being a dick. But when we're talking about a frickin' religious holiday, it's hard to sit there and say "you know what? I don't think that nativity scene belongs there." I understand how someone can not believe and all, but when Christians get one month out of the twelve of the year to be proud of their religion, it just seems petty to be sitting there and antagonizing them for it. I'm sure if the atheists lost their extra day off in December they'd be pissing and moaning about working too much, too.

Why do we all have to be a bunch of pricks to each other? Why do we have to spend the last two months of every goddamned year treating each other like pricks because of what we believe? Maybe it's because my best friend is Wiccan and another good friend's wife is a Reiki priestess, and I was taught by very ecumenical-minded people even at a Catholic college, but it just seems like a waste and a denouncement of Christian principles to be so dickish about religion or a lack thereof. Especially when it comes to the time of year that's supposed to be about family, about acceptance, about good will towards all, and just generally not being a dick.



^^^THIS^^^ so VERY much this.
Look folks, it's called CHRISTmas, or broken down in structure "Christ's mass".
I am a recovering catholic, so I am essentially rowing the same boat as Friar.
This whole "you aren't validating my beliefs so I am going to be an asshat and start shiat and cause a frikking ruckus thereby ruining the entire thing for all because misery loves company" crap has GOT to stop.

And that goes for BOTH ends of the spectrum on religion, from "every sperm is sacred" to "that was a nice bit of biology right there, you have a new being in your womb!"

Religion needs to stay the hell out of government and government needs to keep their filthy hands off religion. Whenever the two get near each other there is either a conflagration or corruption, inevitably.

And we need to stop shiating on each other (unless you are into that, but that's another thread altogether) and learn to let each other be.

/respect, how does that work?
 
mhd
2012-11-19 09:18:26 AM

liam76: Not unless they wanted to violate the 1st.


Wouldn't that just be another zoning law?
 
2012-11-19 09:19:31 AM

StrangeQ: cman: Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.

You know what's really fun? The fact that atheists consistantly score higher on religious historical tests than their respective believers. Atheists were pointing out to the Christians that they were using various gods to name the days of the week by the time they hit junior high.

The difference is nobody believes in those gods anymore, or at least very few do, and nobody takes the naming convention as a directive to believe or even as an endorsement of Norse religion.


My mother introduced me to Norse mythology at a fairly early age (7 or 8, IIRC). I learned a lot about Odin, Baldur, Thor, Loki, etc. It was all in this really cool picture book.

Oh, and my mother is an atheist. Guess that's no surprise. ;)
 
2012-11-19 09:19:31 AM

Babwa Wawa: t3knomanser: That's the best reason for keeping government away from religious holidays.

There are plenty of other, better, reasons.

[http://i.imgur.com/ByBuN.jpg]




testing my theory on gore porn vs admins
 
2012-11-19 09:20:02 AM
Monotheists reacting violently to others beliefs? Where have I seen that before?

www.nypost.com

/Hot like digital hell
 
2012-11-19 09:20:12 AM

Happy Hours: neongoats: All that being said: you churches bilk your people out of shiatloads of money and don't farking pay a dime in taxes, so here is an idea.. Use that money to put a display up at your church, on your church land.

That's not a particularly bad idea. I grew up near a church that did exactly that. Every year they had a live nativity scene with real people and everything. I'm not sure what they did. It kind of looked like the cheesy nativity display my parents put up in our front yard except they used real people.

Can we keep all non-religious groups from demonstrating on public land too? Surely the Freedom From Religion organization has an office somewhere that they can organize a protest on their property. And I'm sure the Democratic party and the GOP have offices too. Let's keep these people on their own land. No public protests or demonstrations of any kind! If it's good enough for religion, it's good enough for any kind of speech.


The atheists weren't the ones demanding exclusivity. But I'm fine with Christians using the public propery, I'm not at all fine with their "only WE get to do it!" Sense of entitlement.

And yes, to an atheist, your dear and fluffy lord is exactly as ridiculous and invented a fantasy as Poseidon. The only difference is that no one bombs clinics in Poseidon's name, Poseidon's worshippers aren't constantly trying to wrest control of my government and institute a Poseidon centered theological dictatorship.

Jesus wishes he could say the same thing, but his worshippers are off indulging in Paul inspired barbarism and hate.
 
2012-11-19 09:20:31 AM

xanadian: I have to disagree with the last bit. I think atheists having their displays up during the Xmas season is perfectly fine, if it serves a purpose other than just trolling. Like the historical aspects of Christmas I mentioned in my previous posts: about how it's a pagan holiday co-opted by the Catholics of the day. And even then, I'm sure that's only part of the story.


Oh, I agree. I was just talking about the Poseidon stunt they pulled. No reason why they couldn't put stuff up that symbolises an older meaning. Put up you trees, wreaths and whatnot and tell people you are celebrating the turning of seasons. I am pretty sure that no one protested the Hanukkah display. They weren't being dicks by pointing out that Jesus fails the messiah requirements set out in various prophesies. They did their own thing and went on with their life. Just don't go pointing to the Christian display and claiming that what they are doing is wrong and/or stupid.
 
2012-11-19 09:21:15 AM
For I the Lord Jehovah, thy God, am a jealous God.
 
2012-11-19 09:21:28 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


You're absolutely right. Religious freedom is covered, but so is freedom from it. That's really the problem though, isn't it? Atheists aren't stopping "Christians" from practicing their religion. They're simply keeping you from foisting it off on everyone else, while attempting to acquire an air of legitimacy by putting up these assinine displays on prominent governmental properties. You know, the ones we ALL pay for. Then you act like spoiled children when you can't have it your way. Particularly when you cannot bully into silence those who feel differently. It is obscene and perverse.

You know why the Founding Fathers put that there? Because NO ONE is an asshole like a militant "Christian".
 
2012-11-19 09:23:32 AM

xanadian: Named after Roman gods, I believe...No, wait, Norse gods. I think (for example) Friday was based off of "Freyr's Day" or something.


In english, the days are named for the moon, Tyr, Woden / Odin, Thor, Frigg, Saturn, and the sun. It's the same in norwegian except for saturday, which we call "washing day" (lørdag).
 
2012-11-19 09:24:19 AM
I suggest we stave off the broo-haa-haa by replacing the traditional nativity display with goat sacrifices and virgin de-flowerings.
 
2012-11-19 09:25:01 AM

JackieRabbit: I suggest we stave off the broo-haa-haa by replacing the traditional nativity display with goat sacrifices and virgin de-flowerings.


Now this sounds like a party!
 
2012-11-19 09:25:20 AM
Maybe if the christians hadn't made such a farking stink about an atheist putting up his own display, they'd continue to be able to put up a nativity.

They decided to act like children, and now they are being treated as such. Nobody gets to play anymore.
 
2012-11-19 09:26:14 AM
Well, the rational part of the discussion was nice, and lasted longer than usual. Y'all enjoy your flamewar.
 
2012-11-19 09:26:21 AM

Uncle Tractor: xanadian: Named after Roman gods, I believe...No, wait, Norse gods. I think (for example) Friday was based off of "Freyr's Day" or something.

In english, the days are named for the moon, Tyr, Woden / Odin, Thor, Frigg, Saturn, and the sun. It's the same in norwegian except for saturday, which we call "washing day" (lørdag).


Like the Germanic G and W, there is no uniform Germanic name for Saturday. English, Dutch, and Afrikkans use Saturday or a various form
 
2012-11-19 09:26:38 AM

willfullyobscure: Babwa Wawa: t3knomanser: That's the best reason for keeping government away from religious holidays.

There are plenty of other, better, reasons.

[http://i.imgur.com/ByBuN.jpg]



testing my theory on gore porn vs admins


whoops. Lets' test it again. death by stoning vs free cat 


cdn.ebaumsworld.com
 
2012-11-19 09:26:54 AM

gja: Look folks, it's called CHRISTmas, or broken down in structure "Christ's mass".


And that, plus the star at the top of the tree, is just about the only christian thing about it. The reason for the season, aka axial tilt:

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-19 09:27:11 AM

xanadian: JackieRabbit: I suggest we stave off the broo-haa-haa by replacing the traditional nativity display with goat sacrifices and virgin de-flowerings.

Now this sounds like a party!


Hazza! For Traditional Values™!
 
2012-11-19 09:27:59 AM

Rasraf Mekerk: This is definitely a 1st Amendment violation.
Also the guy in the article is a complete douche.

/atheist
//likes nativity scenes


I like them, too. On private land. I like most Christmas/Hannukah/Kwanza/Solstice decorations, so long as they aren't overdone and tacky. If the city is going to put up decorations, or allow others to put them up on public property, they shouldn't be from any particular faith.
 
2012-11-19 09:29:13 AM
Are meerkats still ok?

farm8.staticflickr.com

/E in the P if you want a set
 
2012-11-19 09:31:26 AM

jso2897: Maybe. I am deeply suspicious of "false flag" explanations - their track record of turning out to be true is very poor. I'm not saying it never happens, but the vast majority of the time it is just deflection.


Doesn't necessarily have to be a false flag operation. Kids vandalize stuff all the time. Every year there are thousands of garden gnomes and baby jesuses that get stolen from people's yards. I'm not really sure these are people who necessarily have a problem with garden gnomes or Jesus. They're just kids looking to mess things up. It's senseless destruction of property but nonetheless it happens.

We all remember the inflatable snowman who got stabbed in someone's front yard, don't we? Did the kids who stabbed the inflatable snowman have some sort of hatred for inflatable snowmen? Or were they just being brats on a rampage?

When I was a kid, my parents used to set up a nativity display in our front yard (our property). One year someone stole Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus and left them in a ditch a couple of miles down the road. We didn't see that as an act of anti-Christian behavior - we viewed it as an act of senseless vandalism.

Did we not get the message? Were atheists really sending us a very clear message that my parent's display of faith was not acceptable in the neighborhood where I grew up? Should I judge all non-believers (including myself) by that senseless destruction of someone else's property?
 
2012-11-19 09:31:53 AM
Why is it that so many atheists in the US feel compelled to label atheists who speak up as assholes or pricks or whatever?

/at least I think it's just atheists in the US
 
2012-11-19 09:32:08 AM

cassanovascotian: Let's stop for a second and be honest with ourselves. The atheists' "display" wasn't exactly a display of something meaningful and valuable that they wanted to showcase about a seasonal holiday they celebrate


Perhaps they found the idea that they could say what they wanted without subscribing to a particular set of myths both meaningful and valuable?
 
2012-11-19 09:32:20 AM

gja: Look folks, it's called CHRISTmas, or broken down in structure "Christ's mass".


Now, maybe. Before the Christians appropriation it was called Yule or Yuletide or simply a celebration of the solstice. The absolute most infuriating thing about this and the reason why I have no sympathy for Christian groups in this situation is that despite the season's historical background, they insist on claiming it as a purely Christian holiday with purely Christian roots when such a claim is utterly false. I will not now or ever support a group who runs on a platform of outright falsehoods.
 
2012-11-19 09:32:57 AM

xanadian: JackieRabbit: I suggest we stave off the broo-haa-haa by replacing the traditional nativity display with goat sacrifices and virgin de-flowerings.

Now this sounds like a party!


After we sacrifice the goats, can we cook them up in a nice curry? Trying to find a virgin to deflower is hungry-making work.
 
2012-11-19 09:37:51 AM

xanadian: /while Jesus didn't say word one about it, but had a LOT to say about hypocrisy


"There are 6 admonishments in the Bible concerning homosexual activity and our enemies are always throwing them up to us usually in a vicious way and very much out of context. What they don't want us to remember is that there are 362 admonishments in the Bible concerning heterosexual activity. I don't mean to imply by this that God doesn't love straight people, only that they seem to require a great deal more supervision." (from "Butch Fatale" by Lynn Lavner)
 
2012-11-19 09:37:59 AM

DerAppie: almost as if the best way to protest that they could come up with was similar to the kid with his finger hovering an inch from your forehead while claiming "I'm not touching you!"


Best description I've seen in the thread yet.

Beerbarian: Seems like maybe the city was getting sick of this anyway since they were funding the lottery process


Pretty much what I gathered from the article. The vandalism was just a good excuse to get out of it after 60 yrs.

Uncle Tractor: IMO trying to educate certain kinds of christian is no better than trolling them, and from what I can tell, they were trolled HARD.


Like you said - certain kinds. That doesn't mean that the more moderate or less religious Christians can't be educated to be more tolerant. Trying to educate the hardest of the hardcore members of any group is futile. It's the rest you want listening. Same with politics. There aren't going to be any hardcore republicans voting for a democrat, or vice versa, but the more moderate voters may go either way if something convinces them. On the other hand, if you're a complete asshat, you just lost any valid attention from the moderates altogether.
When you look at it that way, of course the atheists weren't going to get hardcore Christians to accept them, but being assholes they caused the more moderate individuals to dismiss them as idiots, thus alienating themselves further. That does no good whatsoever.
 
2012-11-19 09:40:52 AM

I drunk what: orbister: Perhaps religion isn't trying to stop you getting married?

or trying to stop you from stealing, lying and murdering


Religion traditionally has nothing against stealing, lying or murdering, as long as you steal from, lie to and murder the right people. Which means the wrong people. Well, the other people.

There is nothing ethical or moral about following a book of instructions, whether it's the Bible or the workshop manual for a '72 Chevy.
 
2012-11-19 09:42:12 AM

Happy Hours:
Personally, I don't see religion as such a threat that I have to troll religious folks. I can comfortably ignore religion.


Then you haven't been paying attention to religion. I'm an atheist now, but was raised Jewish. Hell I still participate in some of the holidays, specifically the family ones. I'm all too aware of the dangers of being a minority religion.

I don't believe in trolling the religious, people only entrench themselves further when you ridicule beliefs. I won't go to their homes handing out leaflets like they do to me. I won't protest outside their churches. The sole exception to this, however, is when we're talking about the government. There should be no place for religion in government. The religious people who forget or ignore or disagree with that need to be reminded at every step of the way. If a subtly mocking spaghetti monster or Poseidon is what it takes, then good for them.
 
2012-11-19 09:42:21 AM

mhd: liam76: Not unless they wanted to violate the 1st.

Wouldn't that just be another zoning law?


IT would be a zoning law like saying you can only have catholic churches on this street.

It wouldn't stand a constitutional challenge. Nativity scenes are a intrinsically religious symbol, the state using public land for only them crosses the line to an endorsement of religion.
 
2012-11-19 09:43:30 AM
"Jeez, you think someone might get offended if I put up my 35x40 foot lego re=enactment of Abraham rebuilding the Kaaba in Mecca?"

"oh yeah those guys are terrorists and that's a phony religion!"

"oh well, it's Jesus and the drunks again..."

drawyourowncomic
 
2012-11-19 09:48:38 AM
Not aware CONGRESS made a law about this, i thought they were busy with the Libiya thing.
 
2012-11-19 09:48:52 AM

ArgusRun: There should be no place for religion in government. The religious people who forget or ignore or disagree with that need to be reminded at every step of the way. If a subtly mocking spaghetti monster or Poseidon is what it takes, then good for them.


I wonder how many of them even "got it" per se.

I live in the bible belt, and most of the very religious Christians I know have NO clue what the FSM is, and wouldn't understand the Poseidon thing as related to them at all....
No doubt a lot of the younger less religious Christians understood, but most of the hardcore Christians I encounter, regardless of locality, are older individuals whose use of the internet is mainly relegated to facebook and sending/receiving chain emails. And any young individuals that are highly religious, not just outwardly for their parents, are extremely sheltered by their parents, so they don't have free access encounter those images or comments anyway.
 
2012-11-19 09:49:37 AM

xanadian: JackieRabbit: I suggest we stave off the broo-haa-haa by replacing the traditional nativity display with goat sacrifices and virgin de-flowerings.

Now this sounds like a party!


Yes it does, as long as the virgins voluntarily opt in. And the goats must be slow roasted over an apple-wood fire.
 
2012-11-19 09:50:58 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


Not sure if troll, but I'll bite. No one is stopping anyone from practicing their religion. The government can't establish a religion, and by only allowing Christian displays that is what it would be doing, so they let an atheist put up a display too and Jesus kicked the signs down. Someone doesn't like to share the holiday they stole.
 
2012-11-19 09:51:42 AM

Happy Hours: jso2897: Maybe. I am deeply suspicious of "false flag" explanations - their track record of turning out to be true is very poor. I'm not saying it never happens, but the vast majority of the time it is just deflection.

Doesn't necessarily have to be a false flag operation. Kids vandalize stuff all the time. Every year there are thousands of garden gnomes and baby jesuses that get stolen from people's yards. I'm not really sure these are people who necessarily have a problem with garden gnomes or Jesus. They're just kids looking to mess things up. It's senseless destruction of property but nonetheless it happens.

We all remember the inflatable snowman who got stabbed in someone's front yard, don't we? Did the kids who stabbed the inflatable snowman have some sort of hatred for inflatable snowmen? Or were they just being brats on a rampage?

When I was a kid, my parents used to set up a nativity display in our front yard (our property). One year someone stole Mary and Joseph and the baby Jesus and left them in a ditch a couple of miles down the road. We didn't see that as an act of anti-Christian behavior - we viewed it as an act of senseless vandalism.

Did we not get the message? Were atheists really sending us a very clear message that my parent's display of faith was not acceptable in the neighborhood where I grew up? Should I judge all non-believers (including myself) by that senseless destruction of someone else's property?


In fact, we can speculate about his until the cows come home - and all we would be doing is speculating.
We lack the data to make any definitive evaluation. We can draw our own conclusions as to what is the most "probable" explanation - but the most probable thing isn't always what happens. We'll never know.
 
2012-11-19 09:54:45 AM

neongoats: The atheists weren't the ones demanding exclusivity. But I'm fine with Christians using the public propery, I'm not at all fine with their "only WE get to do it!" Sense of entitlement.


Wait, really? They said that? Can you point out exactly where because I missed it.
 
2012-11-19 09:54:51 AM
It was a terrible year. The elves were on strike so Santa had to import a boat load of illegals to finish out the season.
Ms. Clause was going through the change, there were rumblings from the reindeer about performance pay issues and the IRS wanted to know more about the deduction for "Fuel".
Suddenly an angel appeared. He was carrying a Christmas Tree, a heavenly tree it was too.
The angel asks Santa "Santa? Where would you like this years Christmas Tree?"
And THAT boys and girls is why we have an angel on the top of the christmas tree.

I gave up on religion - it's promise is un-fulfilled and primarily used to cow the populations around the world. It seeks to absolve it's followers of rational thought and allows them to denigrate others at will.

Religion? No thanks, I'm full.
 
2012-11-19 09:55:50 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: ArgusRun: There should be no place for religion in government. The religious people who forget or ignore or disagree with that need to be reminded at every step of the way. If a subtly mocking spaghetti monster or Poseidon is what it takes, then good for them.

I wonder how many of them even "got it" per se.

I live in the bible belt, and most of the very religious Christians I know have NO clue what the FSM is, and wouldn't understand the Poseidon thing as related to them at all....
No doubt a lot of the younger less religious Christians understood, but most of the hardcore Christians I encounter, regardless of locality, are older individuals whose use of the internet is mainly relegated to facebook and sending/receiving chain emails. And any young individuals that are highly religious, not just outwardly for their parents, are extremely sheltered by their parents, so they don't have free access encounter those images or comments anyway.


Good point. It might have been better to liaison with some other religions to put up displays. I think the only time I've every heard of someone "getting it" was that state legislator in Louisiana who was shocked when she found out that school vouchers would also be used for Islamic schools. Freedom of religion applies to alll religions. Not just yours.
 
2012-11-19 09:56:15 AM

jso2897: In fact, we can speculate about his until the cows come home - and all we would be doing is speculating.
We lack the data to make any definitive evaluation. We can draw our own conclusions as to what is the most "probable" explanation - but the most probable thing isn't always what happens. We'll never know.


I'm actually pretty sure it was The Man.

The atheists are a minority, so he has to keep them down.

No display for you. Not yours.

/yes my jokes are terrible
//why are you pointing at the door? :(
 
2012-11-19 09:57:31 AM
it's important to suppress viewpoints we don't agree with...
 
2012-11-19 09:57:32 AM
Get real. The atheists are all doing this for attention as they feel unloved. Liberals are doing this because their prurient ways they feel are threatened by religion. But I'd agree that no political or religious statements belong on public property.. main so I don't have to hear the leftist WHINING about such.
 
2012-11-19 09:57:59 AM

vudukungfu: PreMortem: "...something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested."

Wat

No, it's rat cheer inda babble. jebus werent berned yet but he hadda find a place to be berned. So he got mary and joseph to ride round all night lookin fer the motel 8. they left the lat on fer im. Den they all got squoze in the bern with da critters and a couple of black guys, but de black guys brought stuff, so they were cool. And Round John* was there, too.

*Round Joh, Vergen, don't you lissen to karols?


How I pictured Jesus driving Mary around:

i99.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 09:58:00 AM

Uncle Tractor: Why is it that so many atheists in the US feel compelled to label atheists who speak up as assholes or pricks or whatever?

/at least I think it's just atheists in the US


Because they are trying to paint themselves as the different, hipster atheists that would never do something so crass as defend their lack of belief in a public forum. Some atheists consider a submissive conciliatory stance towards fundamentalists to be less upsetting and more harmonious a way to demonstrate their beliefs. The golden rule, and all that.

But some of us tried that, realized that Christians don't consider non Christians as equally human, and certainly don't believe in extending them the same rights and protections enjoyed by Christians. Christians are a special, elevated class to them, and the rules and restrictions that bind others matter not to them.

This whole display issue is the perfect example. Atheists get discriminated against by the Christians, Christians kick up a fuss, Christians ruin it for everyone. It's like history in miniature.
 
2012-11-19 09:59:42 AM

ArgusRun: I think the only time I've every heard of someone "getting it" was that state legislator in Louisiana who was shocked when she found out that school vouchers would also be used for Islamic schools.


Someone from Louisiana figured something out? I am SHOCKED.

I've been there, and repeatedly seen people stop at green lights, and go on red, not to mention the "fast" food restaurants tend to take about 20 minutes and then not one item is what you ordered.
I like fried alligator bites though, so I tolerate them.
 
2012-11-19 10:04:04 AM
SnarfVader

Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.

Douchebags like the clown in this story being an attention wh*re?
 
2012-11-19 10:05:06 AM

jso2897: Actually, it would be OK with me if people of different faiths (or lack thereof) expressed their views in public space - as long as they could play nice. But they never can


Well, yeah, that's the point. The city realized at some point that constitutionally, they had to go "all or none" with respect to religious holiday displays, and lately "all" was getting to be too much of a hassle. The problem is that either way way, the "War on Christmas" people perceive their loss of unique recognition as persecution.

There are Christian groups out there dedicated to Church/State separation, and I would be thrilled if they got more press, but seeing has how they seem less legally active it seems unlikely. (That, and they don't play into the "mean atheists ruining everyone's fun" narrative.) Religious groups in the U.S. have benefited tremendously from secular government, and it's nice to see them acknowledge, even occasionally, that in order to enjoy the benefits of secular government, secular government has to be defended.
 
2012-11-19 10:07:32 AM
Libs and probably Atheists wouldn't object to an Islamic display...at taxpayer expense no less :)
 
2012-11-19 10:08:01 AM

OnlyM3: SnarfVader

Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.
Douchebags like the clown in this story being an attention wh*re?


If by attention whore, you mean Christians that had a tantrum because some atheists put up their own displays, then sure.
 
2012-11-19 10:09:29 AM

mamoru: Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

You see, there wouldn't be an issue if the Christians hadn't vandalized the displays that Atheists, also expressing their very equal first amendment rights, put up. It's a public space. The Christians do not get special privileges for their displays over those of other faiths or lack thereof.

But since the Christians went and vandalized the other displays, the city decided to cancel the whole thing rather than have the same kind of trouble this year. Now, the city's decision to try to avoid conflict may not be the correct decision, but don't blame the atheists for putting them in the position they were in to make such a decision.


Do you have proof that it was the Christians vandalizing the displays? Hindus hate Poseidon...goes back for centuries.
 
2012-11-19 10:10:13 AM

neongoats: OnlyM3: SnarfVader

Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.
Douchebags like the clown in this story being an attention wh*re?

If by attention whore, you mean Christians that had a tantrum because some atheists put up their own displays, then sure.


Funny thing is, Christians have no problem with Atheists displays. The converse isn't so true.
 
2012-11-19 10:10:56 AM

neongoats: But some of us tried that, realized that Christians Americans don't consider non Christians Americans as equally human, and certainly don't believe in extending them the same rights and protections enjoyed by Christians Americans. Christians Americans are a special, elevated class to them, and the rules and restrictions that bind others matter not to them.


Well, that's how it looks to the rest of the world. Can't have a state religion? Turn your state into a religion. Hooray for American Exceptionalism.
 
2012-11-19 10:13:19 AM

newtigator: Libs and probably Atheists wouldn't object to an Islamic display...at taxpayer expense no less :)


The atheists weren't objecting to anyone's display, you farking jackass. But you are right, put up an Islamic display, put up a display of Jesus, Mohammad and Poseidon having a 4 way with Cthulhu for all I care. But you better be prepared to share space with people that aren't interested on your Hellenic-abrahamic tentacle cult.
 
2012-11-19 10:13:29 AM

mamoru: You see, there wouldn't be an issue if the Christians hadn't vandalized the displays that Atheists, also expressing their very equal first amendment rights, put up. It's a public space. The Christians do not get special privileges for their displays over those of other faiths or lack thereof.

But since the Christians went and vandalized the other displays, the city decided to cancel the whole thing rather than have the same kind of trouble this year. Now, the city's decision to try to avoid conflict may not be the correct decision, but don't blame the atheists for putting them in the position they were in to make such a decision.


Oh look, religious people acting like petulant children, with no one to blame for their loss of privileges but themselves.

Happy Hours: You militant atheists are assholes


Case in point. This is why we you can't have nice things.

PirateKing: It's unlikely that there will be many explicitly atheistic displays on private property, so the religious scenes will far outnumber the rest.


While this is true, here's one of the many reasons why Baltimore will always have a warm place in my heart:

farm3.static.flickr.com

Happy Hours: Certain atheists set up displays for the sole purpose of pissing off some Christians.That is trolling.


But when christians proselytize, they're doing god's work. Yeah. OK.
 
2012-11-19 10:14:27 AM

Uncle Tractor: Why is it that so many atheists in the US feel compelled to label atheists who speak up as assholes or pricks or whatever?

/at least I think it's just atheists in the US


I dunno.

Hopefully I wasn't personally coming off as such.

I don't like the WAY they spoke up, but I think speaking out and defending your freedom to believe or not believe, good and necessary.

I see at as similar to some of the black power groups back in the 70s saying stuff like "kill whitey."
Extreme example, but it's still nothing more than preaching to the choir, so to speak, and alienates themselves from people that would otherwise be on their side because they come off as just as intolerant as the whites that hate blacks. The only people in agreement are other members or radicals, and everyone else is thinking "wow you're kind of scary..."

In a similar vein, the only people that got these atheists mocking jokes and went "hell yeah! you tell 'em!" are other atheists, and anyone else that they would have gotten on their side if they presented a more creative and thought provoking display probably just went "wtf?"
 
2012-11-19 10:14:47 AM
Sad what this country has become.
 
2012-11-19 10:15:08 AM

newtigator: Libs and probably Atheists wouldn't object to an Islamic display...at taxpayer expense no less :)


i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 10:15:43 AM

newtigator: neongoats: OnlyM3: SnarfVader

Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.
Douchebags like the clown in this story being an attention wh*re?

If by attention whore, you mean Christians that had a tantrum because some atheists put up their own displays, then sure.

Funny thing is, Christians have no problem with Atheists displays. The converse isn't so true.


Uh huh, that's why the atheist displays were vandalized at the height of the whole dust up. Sure. Coincidence.
 
2012-11-19 10:17:24 AM

cassanovascotian: Being a dick is being a dick, even if you happen to sympathize with their non-beliefs.


Insisting on putting up religious displays on government land in a country founded on the separation of church and state is "being a dick".
 
2012-11-19 10:17:41 AM
I have to say I strongly approve of the trolling of public nativity displays. It doesn't cost the state money in messy lawsuits but still points out that such displays can be highly volatile and the state is better off not getting involved in religious displays of any kind.

And no, hysterical War on Christmas folk, this is in no way a violation of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or any other Constitutional right. Just suck it up and celebrate your private beliefs on private land.
 
2012-11-19 10:18:29 AM

Swiftstone2012: Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

You're absolutely right. Religious freedom is covered, but so is freedom from it. That's really the problem though, isn't it? Atheists aren't stopping "Christians" from practicing their religion. They're simply keeping you from foisting it off on everyone else, while attempting to acquire an air of legitimacy by putting up these assinine displays on prominent governmental properties. You know, the ones we ALL pay for. Then you act like spoiled children when you can't have it your way. Particularly when you cannot bully into silence those who feel differently. It is obscene and perverse.

You know why the Founding Fathers put that there? Because NO ONE is an asshole like a militant "Christian".


That's interesting. I'm not the Christian here but you presume I am. My city spends a lot of money every year on things I don't necessarily support. It's because we voted for those things explicitly or we voted for city council members who supported them.

Let me play devil's advocate and pick on our Octoberfest beer celebration. I'll neglect all the positive aspects about how it promotes local businesses (breweries and micro-breweries and even restaurants and local shops downtown) which all benefit from our citywide promotion of alcohol abuse. Why should those businesses get what is essentially a handout from the city and why should the city spend money promoting alcohol abuse? Is it because my fellow citizens like to drink beer? How dare they! What about all the people who don't drink (for whatever reason). What about all the people who are killed in alcohol-related accidents every year? Why should my city spend money promoting something that promotes substance abuse?

We are free to drink in this country. We're also free not to drink. That doesn't mean we're free from promotion of alcohol and while I wish my city didn't spend any tax-dollars on a beer fest (the breweries can afford to promote themselves) most people think it's a great idea and they think it promotes local businesses.

When you speak of freedom from religion I think you and I have a very different idea of what that means. Nobody can force me to go to church. That's freedom from religion. Anyone can come up to me on the street and tell me that I should go to church. I'm free to ignore them and I'm also free to tell them to fark off and leave me alone. That's freedom of speech and it works both ways. They can tell me that Christ died for my sins and I can tell them I think they're full of shiat.

There is no freedom from religion just as there is no freedom from any other form of speech with which you might disagree.
 
2012-11-19 10:18:41 AM

neongoats: newtigator: neongoats: OnlyM3: SnarfVader

Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.
Douchebags like the clown in this story being an attention wh*re?

If by attention whore, you mean Christians that had a tantrum because some atheists put up their own displays, then sure.

Funny thing is, Christians have no problem with Atheists displays. The converse isn't so true.

Uh huh, that's why the atheist displays were vandalized at the height of the whole dust up. Sure. Coincidence.


Assertions that one party in a dispute of this nature bears all the fault really don't warrant a response.
 
2012-11-19 10:18:42 AM

orbister: neongoats: But some of us tried that, realized that Christians Americans don't consider non Christians Americans as equally human, and certainly don't believe in extending them the same rights and protections enjoyed by Christians Americans. Christians Americans are a special, elevated class to them, and the rules and restrictions that bind others matter not to them.

Well, that's how it looks to the rest of the world. Can't have a state religion? Turn your state into a religion. Hooray for American Exceptionalism.


Pretty much ONLY fundamentalist Christians believe the American Exceptionalism, one true prince, lord of the rings, we are inherently better tripe. Take that to the bank.
 
2012-11-19 10:21:10 AM

Martian_Astronomer: There are Christian groups out there dedicated to Church/State separation, and I would be thrilled if they got more press, but seeing has how they seem less legally active it seems unlikely.


Less like legally active, and more like too reasonable for the media to use in their sensationalistic reports.

All Christians want a religion based government, and all atheists want to oppress Christians. Everyone likes a good flamewar.

The song Dirty Laundry is just as true now as it was when it was written, sadly.
 
2012-11-19 10:25:18 AM
sixty whole years?! thats like 1% of how old the whole UNIVERSE is!
 
2012-11-19 10:25:20 AM

mhd: mhd: anything but actual plants

/dang my Germanic sausage wurst fingers

 
2012-11-19 10:25:33 AM
Can we get back to discussing what's important: de-flowering virgins?

Look, I understand that virgins are rare unless you're into 14 year olds, but this problem is not insurmountable. We can have virtual virgins by asking the gals to abstain for a few weeks and double up on the Kegel exercises.
 
2012-11-19 10:26:12 AM

Babwa Wawa: Happy Hours: I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

"Scenes" are not speech, you retard. You want to hand out leaflets or preach in the park, go ahead. If you want to act out the nativity with live people, feel free. But if you want to put up a scene and then leave it, you need a permit, just as if you were putting up a billboard.

And as someone pointed out earlier, they'd have continued permission if someone hadn't chosen to vandalize the atheists' display last year.


If scenes are speeches, then neither are movies. Tard.
 
2012-11-19 10:26:30 AM

jso2897: Assertions that one party in a dispute of this nature bears all the fault really don't warrant a response


Pretty sure he's just trolling.

Badly.

Then again, it's early. I'm sure some gullible Christians will show up later and take the bait.
 
2012-11-19 10:27:30 AM

jso2897: In fact, we can speculate about his until the cows come home - and all we would be doing is speculating.


True...in the case of my parents nativity scene, I'm going with teenagers with no specific message. In the case of vandalism of atheist displays in Santa Monica I have to say I don't know, but I don't believe it was any part of an organized movement by any church to quash atheist views.


Z-clipped: Happy Hours: Certain atheists set up displays for the sole purpose of pissing off some Christians.That is trolling.

But when christians proselytize, they're doing god's work. Yeah. OK.


They believe they are. You can call it what you want, but it's not trolling.
 
2012-11-19 10:27:57 AM

JackieRabbit: Can we get back to discussing what's important: de-flowering virgins?

Look, I understand that virgins are rare unless you're into 14 year olds, but this problem is not insurmountable. We can have virtual virgins by asking the gals to abstain for a few weeks and double up on the Kegel exercises.


I do Kegels, but my hymen hasn't grown back yet. Am I doing something wrong?
 
2012-11-19 10:29:03 AM

Z-clipped: cassanovascotian: Being a dick is being a dick, even if you happen to sympathize with their non-beliefs.

Insisting on putting up religious displays on government land in a country founded on the separation of church and state is "being a dick".


Be aware that you are attempting to argue with an individual who believes lying an acceptable means of justifying a position. The fact that his premises are, to him, irrelevant to the validity of his argument.
 
2012-11-19 10:32:23 AM

Dimensio: Z-clipped: cassanovascotian: Being a dick is being a dick, even if you happen to sympathize with their non-beliefs.

Insisting on putting up religious displays on government land in a country founded on the separation of church and state is "being a dick".

Be aware that you are attempting to argue with an individual who believes lying an acceptable means of justifying a position. The fact that his premises are false are, to him, irrelevant to the validity of his argument.


I have corrected an error in my previous posting. I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted.
 
2012-11-19 10:35:56 AM

xanadian: JackieRabbit: I suggest we stave off the broo-haa-haa by replacing the traditional nativity display with goat sacrifices and virgin de-flowerings.

Now this sounds like a party!


We film the whole thing. Call it Porno For Gyros.
 
2012-11-19 10:37:51 AM
Sort of off topic, maybe? I'm a photographer, and I find images all over the place. I shot this one in Austin, Texas in someone's yard. Now, I also sell my images. Just ended my first shows ever in Colorado. I've sold this image all over Texas, Ohio, and online without issue. My Sock Monkey Nativity Scene is usually a best seller, but offended at least 8 people at the Colorado shows. How do I know? Because they were very vocal about it.

One of the problems with Christians is they lost their sense of humor centuries ago.

CSS
imageshack.us
 
2012-11-19 10:38:30 AM

doglover: Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes

This.

No different than the anti-drugs and anti-drinking crowd. They just want other people to be miserable. Worthless, the lot of them.


Waah.
 
2012-11-19 10:38:34 AM
Here's a list of the hundreds of churches in Santa Monica,it should be pretty easy to find a new home:

http://www.usachurch.com/california/Santa_Monica/churches.htm
 
2012-11-19 10:41:12 AM
I happen to like cristmas
(no im not christian)

one of the few times of the year that many folks (not all ) try to be less assholy

so if the christians are otherwise being good
please leave them alone and dont poke them
 
2012-11-19 10:43:10 AM
I don't care if you want to recreate the garden of eden with a life size replica of the temple and the noah's ark, just two rules. Don't do it on my property and don't use my tax money. You have to be some special ahole to give a shiat besides those two points.
 
2012-11-19 10:44:51 AM

Happy Hours: They believe they are. You can call it what you want, but it's not trolling.


OK. I call it "offensively arrogant, presumptuous and self-involved". Which coincidentally, is also the phrase I ascribe to your idea that "pissing off christians" is the only reason that atheists exercise their rights to equal time in situations like these.

Get over yourself. You're not the center of the universe, no matter what your holy book might tell you.
 
2012-11-19 10:46:54 AM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


fark You Asshole.

Keep the nativity displays on church and/or other private property and there won't be an issue.

Put it on my (read public) land and you can kiss my big fat ass while you to take it down.
 
2012-11-19 10:47:20 AM
Ah, Atheists. Feeling left out? Why not do your best to become just as annoying as the farking Christians currently are!
 
2012-11-19 10:49:55 AM
demotivators.despair.com
 
2012-11-19 10:50:50 AM

Dimensio: The fact that his premises are false are, to him, irrelevant to the validity of his argument.


Well, if you want to get technical... they aren't.
The soundness of his argument is another matter. ; )

Mr. Cat Poop: We film the whole thing. Call it Porno For Gyros.


Well done. Perry Farrel sees what you did there.

bindlestiff2600: so if the christians are otherwise being good


Nah.. they decided to break shiat. Now it's "everybody out of the pool". Too bad.
 
2012-11-19 10:51:39 AM
I'm a supporter of constructive trolling. Government allows a religious display (from any religion) on public property, troll the shiat out of them. If the government in some way PAID for that display, then double-down on the trolling. Don't break the law, but force the issue of having equal representation until the whole fiasco gets dragged down under its own weight.

/maybe I'm still irritated that I got woke up by people going door-to-door to invite people to a local Baptist church
//they had the nerve to have kids along as human shields so I couldn't tell them off without feeling like a dick
 
2012-11-19 10:53:09 AM

Arumat: I'm a supporter of constructive trolling. Government allows a religious display (from any religion) on public property, troll the shiat out of them. If the government in some way PAID for that display, then double-down on the trolling. Don't break the law, but force the issue of having equal representation until the whole fiasco gets dragged down under its own weight.

/maybe I'm still irritated that I got woke up by people going door-to-door to invite people to a local Baptist church
//they had the nerve to have kids along as human shields so I couldn't tell them off without feeling like a dick


Never allow the presence of children to diminish the severity of your response.
 
2012-11-19 10:53:18 AM
Dimensio:

Your typing issues seem to have rubbed off on me.
 
2012-11-19 10:57:02 AM

CheekyMonkey: Ah, Atheists. Feeling left out? Why not do your best to become just as annoying as the farking Christians currently are!


Not sure where you've been but you're way, way too late. The only people more annoying than religious people are aggressively irreligious people. To hell with all of them.
 
2012-11-19 10:58:16 AM
I am waiting for the image of Christ to appear in Twinkie filling. That will save Hostess.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 10:59:10 AM

Uncle Tractor: And that, plus the star at the top of the tree, is just about the only christian thing about it. The reason for the season, aka axial tilt:


I will give agree it has gone so very far afield from what it SHOULD be, but still......no reason for the hatin' season.
People can remain the BEST christian part of Christmas, it just takes us to remember to be decent humans to each other.

/axial tilt, solstice, geo year...I am an engineer so physics and astrology is spoken here but thanks for the reminder for those not "in the know"
 
2012-11-19 10:59:55 AM

FriarReb98: I understand how someone can not believe and all, but when Christians get one month out of the twelve of the year to be proud of their religion, it just seems petty to be sitting there and antagonizing them for it.


Why do we have to spend the last two months of every goddamned year treating each other like pricks because of what we believe?.




So, is it one month or two?

Actually, it's much, much longer than that.

Many stores began setting up their Christmas displays and selling trees back in September. 'Santa's Workshop' had arrived in the local mall before Halloween and will last until mid-January... at which point it will be taken down and replaced with the Easter Bunny who will then last until mid-April.

Only one month to be proud of their religion? I wish. It's currently just over 6 months and slowly continues to grow.
 
2012-11-19 11:02:51 AM

Z-clipped: Happy Hours: They believe they are. You can call it what you want, but it's not trolling.

OK. I call it "offensively arrogant, presumptuous and self-involved".


Fair enough - you're entitled to call it that.

Which coincidentally, is also the phrase I ascribe to your idea that "pissing off christians" is the only reason that atheists exercise their rights to equal time in situations like these.

That's my opinion of course, but yeah - I think the whole point of creating displays in praise of Poseidon and Flying Spaghetti Monster was to piss off Christians.

Get over yourself. You're not the center of the universe, no matter what your holy book might tell you.

I'm not? Wait, I have a "holy book"? What is it? Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas? The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam? The Holy Bible? Bonfire of the Vanities? I own all 4 of those books. I'm not sure which one is the holiest. 

Silly me - everyone knows the Curse of Lono is the holiest of books.
 
2012-11-19 11:03:16 AM

StrangeQ: ... Who's blaming what now? Are you saying the atheists vandalized their own signs to get the city to cancel the whole thing?


Were those committing the vandalism busted in the act?

If no one knows 'who' vandalized the displays - then it could have been anyone.

Might not have been either Christians or atheists.

Could have been one person who simply gets off on stirring up trouble.

Someone who finds stirring up trouble 'amusing'.
 
2012-11-19 11:05:45 AM
Happy Hours
There is no freedom from religion just as there is no freedom from any other form of speech with which you might disagree.

So, I can do banking on 12/25 every year, and not worry about some federaly recognized Holy-Day?


How about when we shut down the government for Muohoummood's birthday?
Will we be free then?
 
2012-11-19 11:06:00 AM

StrangeQ: jso2897: However one feels about religion, it is foolish to pretend that it is not deeply entertwined in human culture. At some point in the future, it may not be - but we don't live in the future. And in a inter-human dealings, mutual respect is usually the way to go. Of course, people of faith could also use to improve their track record in that regard. Everybody could.

Spirituality is entwined, yes, but that by no means makes it indispensable. We are an inquisitive species; that may be due to a cause or an effect of our evolution, but regardless, it drives us to wonder about the world and the universe and what makes it tick. For thousands of years we had no better than our own two eyes to see, our ears to hear and our hands to touch the world, and so much of its true nature remained hidden, obscured or incomprehensible. So we made up stories. There was no malicious intent, no desire to deceive. We were simply trying to make sense of the world. Now, some were inspired by this to create great works of art, yes, but that does not make up for the damage done by those whose desire to repress the advance of knowledge in order to preserve their status quo caused forever lost ages of intellectual development. There is no getting the time of the dark ages back, it is gone and we must move on and hopefully learn from it what we can. That lesson, I believe, is that superstitious belief is to be relegated to the same status as children's fairy tales. It is sometimes amusing and often carries some moral lesson, but when it comes to matters of public policy, it carries as much weight as a reading of Snow White would in a court case deciding the fate of genetically modified fruit.


Yes. So next time someone brings up any kind of gut feeling about naturalism, or nature, or pretty much any moral arguments about GMs, tell them to shut the fark up.
 
2012-11-19 11:10:33 AM
i141.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 11:10:36 AM

santadog: Sort of off topic, maybe? I'm a photographer, and I find images all over the place. I shot this one in Austin, Texas in someone's yard. Now, I also sell my images. Just ended my first shows ever in Colorado. I've sold this image all over Texas, Ohio, and online without issue. My Sock Monkey Nativity Scene is usually a best seller, but offended at least 8 people at the Colorado shows. How do I know? Because they were very vocal about it.

One of the problems with Christians is they lost their sense of humor centuries ago.

CSS
[imageshack.us image 640x427]


Not all of us have. I think that sock monkey nativity is hilarious!
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:11:33 AM

StrangeQ: Now, maybe. Before the Christians appropriation it was called Yule or Yuletide or simply a celebration of the solstice. The absolute most infuriating thing about this and the reason why I have no sympathy for Christian groups in this situation is that despite the season's historical background, they insist on claiming it as a purely Christian holiday with purely Christian roots when such a claim is utterly false. I will not now or ever support a group who runs on a platform of outright falsehoods.


I am quite aware of Yuletide, yule logs burning taking approx 2 days and such. Most christians realize we didn't beat everyone else to the punch in inventing holidays, let alone one that predates their inception some hundreds or possibly thousands of years.

I don't think ANY reasonable christian would claim:
1. The entire season is all ours
2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen
3. We invented the entire concept of the season, blah blah yakkity-smakkity......ad nauseum

People like that have only 1 good use, being launched into space to observe the effect of rapid hypoxia and vacuum environments on the human form.
Or target practice for virii.

Then there are literally SCADS of folks like me. Who just ask you not brow-beat the holy hell out of us for slipping up and saying "Merry Christmas" in passing. I mean FFS, REALLY. Hypersensitive much?

And please stop 'pitchin a biatch' when we have the audacity to put a little manger scene out because, you know, that's imposing on your beliefs as you drive by. SHEESH.

/tolerance is acceptable, respect would be better, actually learning to love your fellow man would be a really nice target to shoot for
 
2012-11-19 11:12:09 AM
From the other thread:

Cliff's Notes version for everyone:

1953 - First Nativity scenes held in public parks
Up until 1978, Santa Monica had subsidized the scenes by paying for electricity, underwriting revenue lost by bagging the parking meters in front of the scenes & assistance in erecting the booths (this was merely a financial decision as Proposition 13 was curtailing funds)
1979 - All direct city support was withdrawn after ACLU/Madelyn Murray O'Hair threatened suit
1980 - 1982 displays were underfunded crappola
1984 - Emboldened by Lynch v. Donnelly, a resurgence in private funding & participation
2001 - 2003 City of Santa Monica & nativity supporters clashed over ordinances regarding displays in city parks
2009, 2010 - Atheist Damon Vix petitions city & is granted a single display
2011 - Dix and a large number of fellow atheist activists (mostly from outside of the city) inundate the city with applications. Under city rules, any group was allowed to apply up to 14 spaces; the number of applications necessitated a lottery that resulted in 18/21 spaces going to the atheist activists, 2/21 to Nativity scenes & 1 to a Jewish display. Atheist displays are mostly vandalized.
2012 - Santa Monica cuts off everyone to avoid the issue getting worse

Sources:
TFA
Santa Monica Nativity History
Where Crèches Once Stood, Atheists Now Hold Forth, NYTimes, December 21, 2011

My personal opinion: Once the city stopped supporting/underwriting the scenes, their lottery system was an inherently fair way to treat public religious displays. The atheists gamed the system, and were pretty much jerks about it, but no Christian rights were infringed, the lawsuit is bunk. This is a shallow win for the atheists, who come off looking like smug assholes; they'd have been better served in the long game by increasing their presence gradually over the next few years.
 
2012-11-19 11:12:54 AM

gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen


No christian would claim that? Isn't that the first farkin' commandment? Who's lying, you or your god?
 
2012-11-19 11:13:25 AM

untaken_name: The only people more annoying than religious people are aggressively irreligious people.


Life imitates XKCD.

Happy Hours: I think the whole point of creating displays in praise of Poseidon and Flying Spaghetti Monster was to piss off Christians.


Then you're just as irrational and shortsighted as the religious dickheads that you're pretending not to be one of.
 
2012-11-19 11:15:28 AM

Z-clipped: untaken_name: The only people more annoying than religious people are aggressively irreligious people.

Life imitates XKCD.



Oh, no, I discovered a new contender for the throne - people who quote XKCD. I don't believe in YOUR god, either.
 
2012-11-19 11:18:06 AM

gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen


Really? Because that's literally a central tenet of christianity. It's like, a commandment and everything.

gja: eople like that have only 1 good use, being launched into space to observe the effect of rapid hypoxia and vacuum environments on the human form.


www.mibba.com

"You're gonna need a bigger rocket."
 
2012-11-19 11:18:57 AM

untaken_name: people who quote XKCD


That would be YOU, in this case. Thanks for playing.
 
2012-11-19 11:19:07 AM

gja: Uncle Tractor: And that, plus the star at the top of the tree, is just about the only christian thing about it. The reason for the season, aka axial tilt:

I will give agree it has gone so very far afield from what it SHOULD be, but still......no reason for the hatin' season.
People can remain the BEST christian part of Christmas, it just takes us to remember to be decent humans to each other.

/axial tilt, solstice, geo year...I am an engineer so physics and astrology is spoken here but thanks for the reminder for those not "in the know"


I don't think that's the word you were looking for.
 
2012-11-19 11:20:25 AM

Dimensio: I have corrected an error in my previous posting. I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted.


you thought that was what needed correcting?

you sound mad. Y U mad?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:20:28 AM

Happy Hours: Silly me - everyone knows the Curse of Lono is the holiest of books.


No no no, "Behind the Green Door" is the holiest.
Erm, Hole-y ist? Sorry I get those 2 confused more often than a catholic priest.

/aisle seat, express train, burn-in-hell
 
2012-11-19 11:21:30 AM

newtigator: neongoats: OnlyM3: SnarfVader

Here we go again. Hurr Durr "War on Christmas" derpy derp derpity doo! Normally, I like this time of year. But these douchebags who insist I celebrate the season their way are getting to be intolerable, for Christ's sake.
Douchebags like the clown in this story being an attention wh*re?

If by attention whore, you mean Christians that had a tantrum because some atheists put up their own displays, then sure.

Funny thing is, Christians have no problem with Atheists displays. The converse isn't so true.


0/10. Really? Maybe try this in a story where Atheist displays weren't vandalized, but wow, was that lazy.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:23:01 AM

untaken_name: gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen

No christian would claim that? Isn't that the first farkin' commandment? Who's lying, you or your god?


The jackass that claims his translation and interpretation of all the writings is the only right one.

/hubris, look it up
//perfect,first stone, etc....
 
2012-11-19 11:23:21 AM

Dimensio: Be aware that you are attempting to argue with an individual who believes lying an acceptable means of justifying a position.


Care to cite an example?.... or, y'know, back up accusations with some kind of evidence?
 
2012-11-19 11:26:50 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: Both sides are big babies.

The Atheist organizations for trolling instead of demonstrating their rights in an adult manner. Something like "We believe in the freedom not to believe,", with some kind non-religious, perhaps science oriented mural or picture (Maybe that old pic of Einstein and all the other scientists gathered for a picture) would have demonstrated their attitude toward religion, and the fact that there are other things to find interest in, while still remaining mature and sensitive toward the other people putting up displays. Maybe with some quotes from philosophers that aren't blatantly mocking our hostile toward religious people, but are more about people's right to be non-religious.
Instead they put up a bunch of meme's and trollworthy pictures and quotes, which makes us atheists that just want to keep to ourselves and be free to avoid religious activities look like a bunch of farking intolerant assholes.

The Christians groups are a bunch of big babies, because their religious freedoms aren't being quashed by not being able to put up a nativity scene in a public park. IMO, none of the groups should be putting up blatantly religious themed displays in public areas, and they are still left free to practice their religion without being able to do so. Saying "This is a shame that not everyone could act in a mature and adult manner," is one thing, but going to court as if they're being persecuted is ridiculous. And comparing the nativity scene to Jesus having nowhere to go? They are PLASTIC statues. Dramatizing much?

As far as the vandalism, is there even any proof the Christian groups did it? Kids vandalize shiat all the time, and they probably knew they'd get more flack if they were caught vandalizing Jesus, than some random internet memes. Or maybe they knew the Christian groups would get pointed at and blamed, and they could sit back and watch the hilarity that ensued. I wouldn't be surprised if some of the atheists did it themselves for that rea ...


The difference here is that the atheist groups aren't spending their time telling us all that Christians can't have any morals, because they don't believe in their deity/lack thereof.

\these are usually the same people who proclaim themselves Patriots, thereby insinuating that the rest of us give Fark All about our country, because we don't agree with their politics
\\DIAF, and do it quickly
 
2012-11-19 11:27:06 AM

gja: I will give agree it has gone so very far afield from what it SHOULD be, but still......no reason for the hatin' season.
People can remain the BEST christian part of Christmas, it just takes us to remember to be decent humans to each other.


Hate? Putting up some parodic displays isn't hate.

One of the problems with many religious people is that they interpret everything that isn't total submission as "hate."
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:27:19 AM

Z-clipped: gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen

Really? Because that's literally a central tenet of christianity. It's like, a commandment and everything.


Not really
That argument fails. The commandment is thus "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", or in plain english 'you need to worship me as YOUR only god".
NOT, "go scream all derpy at anyone how thinks different than you for having a different god/deity/being to believe in!!!"
 
2012-11-19 11:27:31 AM

untaken_name: CheekyMonkey: Ah, Atheists. Feeling left out? Why not do your best to become just as annoying as the farking Christians currently are!

Not sure where you've been but you're way, way too late. The only people more annoying than religious people are aggressively irreligious people. To hell with all of them.


The funny thing is, I haven't ever really seen any aggressively irreligious people.

And this story certainly doesn't contain any. We can debate whether or not the displays put up by the Santa Monica atheists were the best way to go about putting forth their message, but the fact remains that they did nothing inherently wrong. Some assholes vandalized the atheists' displays, and the city opted out of the whole mess before it escalated further this year.

The blame for the whole mess falls squarely on the vandals, and I can't really blame the city for their response. The only alternative would be to waste taxpayer money posting police to guard the displays, and I can't support that, especially in this economy.
 
2012-11-19 11:28:02 AM

cman:

Wait until atheists hear that the names of the days of the week are of religious origin. That would be a fun lawsuit.


It's been done. French Republican Calendar. Not explicitly atheist, but it was an attempt to shed all of the superstitions of the Ancien Régime.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:28:38 AM

FloydA: gja: Uncle Tractor: And that, plus the star at the top of the tree, is just about the only christian thing about it. The reason for the season, aka axial tilt:

I will give agree it has gone so very far afield from what it SHOULD be, but still......no reason for the hatin' season.
People can remain the BEST christian part of Christmas, it just takes us to remember to be decent humans to each other.

/axial tilt, solstice, geo year...I am an engineer so physics and astrology is spoken here but thanks for the reminder for those not "in the know"

I don't think that's the word you were looking for.


If I used astronomy some might get all confused and whatnot.
 
2012-11-19 11:30:36 AM

untaken_name: gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen

No christian would claim that? Isn't that the first farkin' commandment? Who's lying, you or your god?


it's " "You shall have no other gods before me." It doesn't state that there are no other gods, just that we are to place none before Him and we are not to worship any of them.
 
2012-11-19 11:30:52 AM

gja:
If I used astronomy some might get all confused and whatnot.


Worrying about people in this thread being "confused" is probably not a productive use of your time. ;-)
 
2012-11-19 11:31:01 AM

mhd: Couldn't they just limit the exhibits to actual nativity scenes? Sure, there's freedom of speech, but if they were doing a gardening exhibit they'd probably be within their rights to prohibit anything by actual plants - or just tulips. No big chance of someone putting a Bolivian pan flute band in one of the lots.

Or were these general booths that just happened to be used for nativity scenes for 60 years?


So, they should of had the baby pastafarian in the manger, surrounded by farm animals and the Three Pasta Chefs?

\tell me you're not that f'ing dense, please
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:36:11 AM

Uncle Tractor: Hate? Putting up some parodic displays isn't hate.

One of the problems with many religious people is that they interpret everything that isn't total submission as "hate."


I wasn't pointing directly at that example, just the general malcontent when two opposing views come to loggerheads.

And the one problem with EVERY religion is their expectation of blind faith. That aint gonna fly with reasonable folks who realize context is a critical part of interpretation.
 
2012-11-19 11:41:17 AM

give me doughnuts: xanadian: JackieRabbit: I suggest we stave off the broo-haa-haa by replacing the traditional nativity display with goat sacrifices and virgin de-flowerings.

Now this sounds like a party!

After we sacrifice the goats, can we cook them up in a nice curry? Trying to find a virgin to deflower is hungry-making work.


And I know how to make a mean curry.
 
2012-11-19 11:41:18 AM

PreMortem: "...something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested."

Wat


Shouldn't have ditched that reading comprehension class. It's an easy history to read and understand in the New Testament of the Holy Bible.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:43:14 AM

FloydA: gja:
If I used astronomy some might get all confused and whatnot.

Worrying about people in this thread being "confused" is probably not a productive use of your time. ;-)


Sad but true, methinks
 
2012-11-19 11:44:52 AM
The quote from the story that is used by this headline is asinine.

It's a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested.

Really?

Jesus was born in Bethlehem in order fit the Messianic Prophecies of the Old Testament (see Mic 5:2). The concocted story that forces Jesus, Mary & Joseph into Bethlehem instead of their residence in Nazareth/Galilee is a Roman census that inexplicably required subjects to travel to the hometown of long-dead ancestors and for which there are a lack of contemporaneous sources validating its occurrence. Even assuming the story is true, it does not follow that "the world was not interested" because a poor couple from out of town couldn't find great lodgings during a mandated semi-migration. The whole point of Bethlehem as the birth place of a Messiah was precisely because it's small and out of the way...
 
2012-11-19 11:49:07 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: JackieRabbit: Can we get back to discussing what's important: de-flowering virgins?

Look, I understand that virgins are rare unless you're into 14 year olds, but this problem is not insurmountable. We can have virtual virgins by asking the gals to abstain for a few weeks and double up on the Kegel exercises.

I do Kegels, but my hymen hasn't grown back yet. Am I doing something wrong?


Don't sweat it. You'll still be eligible. We'll give you a Get Out of Hymen Free card. We have to be flexible and reasonable. It is the holidays after all.
 
2012-11-19 11:50:46 AM

Z-clipped: Nah.. they decided to break shiat. Now it's "everybody out of the pool". Too bad.


Is this why we can't have nice things?
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 11:52:15 AM

Ihaveanevilparrot: I do Kegels, but my hymen hasn't grown back yet. Am I doing something wrong?


How YOU doin?
 
2012-11-19 11:56:59 AM

gja: Not really
That argument fails. The commandment is thus "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", or in plain english 'you need to worship me as YOUR only god".


Uhhh...

Deuteronomy 4:35,39 - Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. [Note in Mark 12:28-34 how Jesus and a Jewish scribe he encountered understood this text.]

Deuteronomy32:39 - See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

2 Samuel 7:22 - Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

1 Kings 8:60 - That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

2 KINGS 5:15 - And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

2 Kings 19:15 - And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.

1 Chronicles 17:20 - O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

Nehemiah 9:6 - Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Psalm 18:31 - For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?

Psalm 86:10 - For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

Isaiah 37:16,20 - O LORD of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou has made heaven and earth. (20) Now therefore, O LORD our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the LORD, even thou only.

Isaiah43:10,11 - Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he:before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no savior.

Isaiah44:6,8 - Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.Fear ye not, neither be afraid; have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.

Isaiah 45:21 - Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time: who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Savior; there is none beside me.

Isaiah 46:9 - For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.

Hosea 13:4 - Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me; for there is no savior beside me.

Joel 2:27 - And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the LORD your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed.

Zechariah 14:9 - And the LORD shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one.

Mark 12:29-34 -And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

John 17:3 - And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Romans 3:30 - Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 - As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, andthat there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Galatians 3:20 - Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one.

Ephesians 4:6 - One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

1 Timothy 1:17 - Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen.

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

James 2:19 - Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.


You sure about that?
 
2012-11-19 12:00:05 PM

trappedspirit: Is this why we can't have nice things?


Z-clipped: This is why we you can't have nice things.


Chill out you guys, I GOT THIS.jpg
 
mhd
2012-11-19 12:05:50 PM

CheapEngineer: \tell me you're not that f'ing dense, please


Just Bavarian, we're not that good with the whole church/state separation.

Which is why I'm always interested in the weird ways where that line is drawn in other countries, esp. the US. It does seem a bit arbitrary at times, even for legal matters. Tax-exempt churches, no school on Christmas or Jewish New Year, no problem with cities being utterly shut down on St. Patricks day, "In God We Trust" etc.

Let's say that, e.g. in that particular area of the city, during that particular time, those boxes are intended to be rented out to display Christian nativity scenes. In other locations and/or other times, other religions (and atheists) can make use of public property. That wouldn't establish a certain religion, nor prevent the freedom of exercising it, it would just schedule it (I did say that I'm German...). Just like you have different rallies or parades on different days.

Would that be any worse than "freedom of speech" zones?
 
2012-11-19 12:07:12 PM

Z-clipped: Deuteronomy 4:35,39


To be fair, there are also passages which hint at an older, henotheistic belief system, wherein other gods did actually exist. The Old Testament had a lot of authors.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 12:09:28 PM

Z-clipped: gja: Not really
That argument fails. The commandment is thus "Thou shalt have no other gods before me", or in plain english 'you need to worship me as YOUR only god".

Uhhh...

Deuteronomy 4:35,39 - Unto thee it was shown, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him. (39) Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the LORD he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else.

Deuteronomy 6:4 - Hear, O Israel: The LORD thy God is one LORD. [Note in Mark 12:28-34 how Jesus and a Jewish scribe he encountered understood this text.]

Deuteronomy32:39 - See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand.

2 Samuel 7:22 - Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God; for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

1 Kings 8:60 - That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else.

2 KINGS 5:15 - And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel; now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant.

2 Kings 19:15 - And Hezekiah prayed before the LORD, and said, O LORD God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.

1 Chronicles 17:20 - O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears.

Nehemiah 9:6 - Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou has made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee.

Psalm 18:31 - For who is God save the ...


You referenced the commandment.
Z-clipped: gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen

Really? Because that's literally a central tenet of christianity. It's like, a commandment and everything.

No such COMMANDMENT. And I also view the bible as far too much conjecture and tainted opinion to take it literally.
 
2012-11-19 12:23:02 PM

Martian_Astronomer: Z-clipped: Deuteronomy 4:35,39

To be fair, there are also passages which hint at an older, henotheistic belief system, wherein other gods did actually exist. The Old Testament had a lot of authors.

gja used the word "legitimate" as a qualifier. I'm not saying the Bible doesn't recognize that other deities are worshiped in the world, but it's pretty clear on the "one TRUE god" front. There are no other legitimate gods for christians.

gja: You referenced the commandment.
Z-clipped: gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen

Really? Because that's literally a central tenet of christianity. It's like, a commandment and everything.

No such COMMANDMENT. And I also view the bible as far too much conjecture and tainted opinion to take it literally.


The commandment was just an example. Are you seriously saying that there are other "legitimate" gods that christians are allowed to worship, as long as they revere Jehova above them?
 
2012-11-19 12:26:45 PM
Man, my HTML is really messed up today. Sorry everybody.
 
2012-11-19 12:29:46 PM

gja: And I also view the bible as far too much conjecture and tainted opinion to take it literally..


Uh oh, does that mean it's possible the nativity story is conjecture?
 
2012-11-19 12:35:32 PM

cyks: FriarReb98: I understand how someone can not believe and all, but when Christians get one month out of the twelve of the year to be proud of their religion, it just seems petty to be sitting there and antagonizing them for it.


Why do we have to spend the last two months of every goddamned year treating each other like pricks because of what we believe?.



So, is it one month or two?

Actually, it's much, much longer than that.

Many stores began setting up their Christmas displays and selling trees back in September. 'Santa's Workshop' had arrived in the local mall before Halloween and will last until mid-January... at which point it will be taken down and replaced with the Easter Bunny who will then last until mid-April.

Only one month to be proud of their religion? I wish. It's currently just over 6 months and slowly continues to grow.


A am tempted to decorate my office space with St. Patrick's Day decor. If asked for an explanation, I will reference the Christmas-themed decorations established last week.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 12:36:48 PM

Z-clipped: Martian_Astronomer: Z-clipped: Deuteronomy 4:35,39

To be fair, there are also passages which hint at an older, henotheistic belief system, wherein other gods did actually exist. The Old Testament had a lot of authors.
gja used the word "legitimate" as a qualifier. I'm not saying the Bible doesn't recognize that other deities are worshiped in the world, but it's pretty clear on the "one TRUE god" front. There are no other legitimate gods for christians.

gja: You referenced the commandment.
Z-clipped: gja: 2. Our God is the only legitimate one you heathen

Really? Because that's literally a central tenet of christianity. It's like, a commandment and everything.

No such COMMANDMENT. And I also view the bible as far too much conjecture and tainted opinion to take it literally.

The commandment was just an example. Are you seriously saying that there are other "legitimate" gods that christians are allowed to worship, as long as they revere Jehova above them?


Of course not. Now don't be obtuse. I just didn't feel like addressing such a massive topic as that. Just wanted to point out there's no such commandment (the 'heathen' thing was a tad of levity, i have a somewhat off-center sense of humor).

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-19 12:36:50 PM

BronyMedic: Case in point, in 2000 85% of Americans identified with Christianity. in 2010, 75% did.


i heard that atheism is the fastest growing religion

TenJed_77: I just wish it was happening faster.


i suppose you could start feeding them to the lions?

orbister: There is nothing ethical or moral about following a book of instructions


where do morals come from?
 
2012-11-19 12:38:27 PM

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: I have corrected an error in my previous posting. I apologize for any confusion that may have resulted.

you thought that was what needed correcting?

you sound mad. Y U mad?


I am not angry. I am only noting that you have established yourself, in previous discussions, as dishonest and thus your arguments should be evaluated with that consideration.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 12:39:27 PM

browntimmy: gja: And I also view the bible as far too much conjecture and tainted opinion to take it literally..

Uh oh, does that mean it's possible the nativity story is conjecture?


It ALL best guess, pal. All the eye-witnesses are demised, dead, recycled celestially, found the final rest.
 
2012-11-19 12:43:11 PM

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: Be aware that you are attempting to argue with an individual who believes lying an acceptable means of justifying a position.

Care to cite an example?.... or, y'know, back up accusations with some kind of evidence?


In a previous discussion, you lied extensively while advocating total civilian disarmament.

In this discussion, you are suggesting that atheists should allow Christians to be provided preferential treatment by government agencies.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 12:43:31 PM

Dimensio: A am tempted to decorate my office space with St. Patrick's Day decor. If asked for an explanation, I will reference the Christmas-themed decorations established last week.


Fair enough. I am sick of the commercialization of holiday, myself. Enough so I try to avoid parties held just to use them as an excuse, just 'because'.
 
2012-11-19 12:44:15 PM

gja: Of course not.


Oh, OK then. It certainly sounded like that's what you were saying.

Now don't be obtuse. I just didn't feel like addressing such a massive topic as that.

Then perhaps next time you might avoid saying "your argument fails", when you really mean, "Sorry, I'm too lazy to elucidate my claims".
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 12:49:54 PM

Z-clipped: gja: Of course not.

Oh, OK then. It certainly sounded like that's what you were saying.

Now don't be obtuse. I just didn't feel like addressing such a massive topic as that.

Then perhaps next time you might avoid saying "your argument fails", when you really mean, "Sorry, I'm too lazy to elucidate my claims".


Yeah, I can live with lazy. More like busy trying to fix shiat in a cesspool of I.T. horrors, honestly.
And beside, I have no alcohol to imbibe with while at work so I don't really have the stomach for such heavy discussions.

/come to a NY Fark party, I will buy many rounds and together we can fix the world.
 
2012-11-19 12:51:25 PM

gja: Yeah, I can live with lazy. More like busy trying to fix shiat in a cesspool of I.T. horrors, honestly.


Did the IT department where you are located change out an important server without testing the new server implementation with existing applications?
 
2012-11-19 12:57:53 PM

cassanovascotian: Dimensio: Be aware that you are attempting to argue with an individual who believes lying an acceptable means of justifying a position.

Care to cite an example?.... or, y'know, back up accusations with some kind of evidence?


Dimensio is Fark's Official keeper of the Truth

he needs no citations-evidence! now go away or he will taunt you a 2nd time
 
2012-11-19 12:58:51 PM

Ihaveanevilparrot: Something like "We believe in the freedom not to believe,", with some kind non-religious, perhaps science oriented mural or picture (Maybe that old pic of Einstein and all the other scientists gathered for a picture)


I support the idea you were proposing - to have done a respectful display representing the viewpoints of atheists - thereby promoting more understanding of those who choose to be non-religious.

However the 'taken for granted assumption' that - all great scientists have abhorred religion and berate the including of spirituality in one's life experience - just isn't true.

And Einstein was opposed to atheism - so including him wouldn't have been very accurate.

Concerning what was actually done - the using of the displays to mock the beliefs of others?

Just run-of-the-mill rude, ill-mannered, a$$hole behavior.

FWIW I'd be just as unimpressed if - some atheists had spent a lot of time putting up a legitimate display somewhere - and some person 'claiming' to represent Christianity - rushed in and put displays up all around it - mocking the viewpoints of the atheists.

Illegal? No.
Do I refuse to associate with individuals - Christian or atheist - who claim their 'beliefs' requires them to pi$$ all over anyone - who thinks differently than them? Yes.

However, since atheism does purport to be an intellectually elevated mindset - that has 'set-aside' childish beliefs in deities - and compares a belief in God with that of a child's belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa . . .?

Well just sayin', if I were an atheist - I wouldn't have been too thrilled to have those elementary-playground-level nanner-nanner displays put up - cause they do NOT reflect an intellectually superior mindset in the least.

/has good friends who are atheists
//they are NOT a$$holes
///so being one - does not always include - being the other
////it's the same with religious folks
 
2012-11-19 01:00:25 PM

gja: And beside, I have no alcohol to imbibe with while at work so I don't really have the stomach for such heavy discussions.


To be fair, I'm currently drinking pints of Oettingers 8.9% Uber Pils, so I might be flailing about a little more than usual.
 
2012-11-19 01:01:56 PM

Dimensio: cassanovascotian: Dimensio: Be aware that you are attempting to argue with an individual who believes lying an acceptable means of justifying a position.

Care to cite an example?.... or, y'know, back up accusations with some kind of evidence?

In a previous discussion, you lied extensively while advocating total civilian disarmament.

In this discussion, you are suggesting that atheists should allow Christians to be provided preferential treatment by government agencies.


In a previous discussion, I made it clear that gun-ownership and permissive gun laws are positively correlated with gun violence. Y'know.... facts and stuff.
If facts aren't your thing, that aint my problem.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 01:05:43 PM

Z-clipped: gja: And beside, I have no alcohol to imbibe with while at work so I don't really have the stomach for such heavy discussions.

To be fair, I'm currently drinking pints of Oettingers 8.9% Uber Pils, so I might be flailing about a little more than usual.


SNIFF.... no beer
encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-19 01:06:13 PM

cassanovascotian: In this discussion, you are suggesting that atheists should allow Christians to be provided preferential treatment by government agencies.


and in this discussion, I am claiming that people who want to put up some public display to celebrate a holiday aren't really hurting anyone -people who are inventing absurd reasons to put up a "display" that is in reality nothing more than a thinly veiled insult to another group at the time of their biggest holiday, should grow up.
 
2012-11-19 01:08:15 PM

I drunk what: BronyMedic: Case in point, in 2000 85% of Americans identified with Christianity. in 2010, 75% did.

i heard that atheism is the fastest growing religion

TenJed_77: I just wish it was happening faster.

i suppose you could start feeding them to the lions?


Not enough lions.
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 01:08:18 PM

Dimensio: gja: Yeah, I can live with lazy. More like busy trying to fix shiat in a cesspool of I.T. horrors, honestly.

Did the IT department where you are located change out an important server without testing the new server implementation with existing applications?


HAH! Testing is for pussies!

/you should only see some of the wrecks I have pulled their keisters' from, no really, it scares me
 
gja [TotalFark]
2012-11-19 01:09:57 PM

TenJed_77: I drunk what: BronyMedic: Case in point, in 2000 85% of Americans identified with Christianity. in 2010, 75% did.

i heard that atheism is the fastest growing religion

TenJed_77: I just wish it was happening faster.

i suppose you could start feeding them to the lions?


Not enough lions.


Even lions have taste buds and enough sense not to eat rotten meat.

/que the Hyenas, they eat ANYTHING
 
2012-11-19 01:10:35 PM

gja: Dimensio: gja: Yeah, I can live with lazy. More like busy trying to fix shiat in a cesspool of I.T. horrors, honestly.

Did the IT department where you are located change out an important server without testing the new server implementation with existing applications?

HAH! Testing is for pussies!

/you should only see some of the wrecks I have pulled their keisters' from, no really, it scares me


Even the IT department where I am employed tests new infrastructure implementations prior to putting those implementations in production.

/Then they change the system configuration after testing but before going live.
 
2012-11-19 01:12:40 PM

Happy Hours: Personally, I don't see religion as such a threat that I have to troll religious folks.


I find this amazing. Did we not all see the controversy about abortions and rape during the elections? Sorry if this has been covered already, I come late to the party.
 
2012-11-19 01:15:57 PM
Oh boy! the Wichita Eagle has an article about Christmas in Santa Monica, let's post it to fark!
 
2012-11-19 01:19:40 PM

Happy Hours: I'm suggesting that it might be wiser not to do so.


So, why not mention that the Christians might be wiser not to insist on putting sectarian religious displays on government property, when that makes them look like assholes to the more secular-minded? Since that's the immediate focus of TFA.

Happy Hours: I think we should be a little more tolerant of speech and allow it and promote it even when we disagree with the message.


However, the Christians would have none of it. One of the major factors for ending the forum was the amount of complaining they did when they were no longer the only voice in it.

hbk72777: Why stop someone else from doing something?


Technically, the atheists didn't. They merely availed themselves of the limited public forum to add their own decorations.

xanadian: It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??


The lottery allowed winners to claim up to 9 spaces. They did.

Ihaveanevilparrot: I wouldn't be surprised if some of the atheists did it themselves for that reason, the same way religious people have been caught vandalizing their own stuff to make it look like some hate group did it. This atheist group seems like a bunch of trolling assholes, so why not assume that?


Because there are more Christians, making the assumption non-parsimonious.
Not to mention the Christians' history nationally of such aggressive behavior.

cassanovascotian: You have a problem with that. Why?


Because they're doing so on government property, in violation of the principle of Separation of Church and State, which violation is considered a bad thing by secularists.

mhd: Couldn't they just limit the exhibits to actual nativity scenes?


Nope. Not without a violation of the case law on the First Amendment's Antiestablishmentarian requirement (that the 14th incorporates to the States and their subdivisions as well).

DerAppie: If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date.


However, they were also doing it to make it clear that there was not a government establishment of the Christian Religion, for which a display at another time would be less effective than a simultaneous display.

Happy Hours: Can we keep all non-religious groups from demonstrating on public land too?


Strawman; unattended display ≠ group of people demonstrating.

StrangeQ: The fact that atheists consistantly score higher on religious historical tests than their respective believers.


I'm only aware of one such study, done by the Pew Forum. Do you know of a second?

Ihaveanevilparrot: On the other hand, if you're a complete asshat, you just lost any valid attention from the moderates altogether.


That's one hypothesis. Another hypothesis is the Overton Window -- if you do it long enough, you shift the normative expectations of what's considered a "moderate" position. I'm not aware of any formal psychological studies testing them against each other.

Joe Blowme: Not aware CONGRESS made a law about this


The current case law on the 14th Amendment incorporates the antiestablishmentarian requirement of the 1st to the states and their subdivisions.

newtigator: Funny thing is, Christians have no problem with Atheists displays.


(2012-11-08... the pre-election account too toxic now?)
Actually, there was quite a lot of complaining about the Atheist displays last year, both in Santa Monica and in other municipalities with similar situations.
 
2012-11-19 01:33:32 PM

cassanovascotian: I am claiming that people who want to put up some public display to celebrate a holiday aren't really hurting anyone


When they put it up on government land, it does hurt people. They are flouting our separation of church and state, and perpetuating a paradigm of religious intervention in government. That's not cool. And then somehow, the small amount of tongue-in-cheek pushback you see from atheists (after centuries of suppression, ridicule, ostracism, and persecution by christians) is an absurd, thinly veiled insult? That's crazy.

It's also crazy that you still don't see that Christians in America are STILL trying to push for things that are oppressive to atheists. Not a day goes by that some jackass politician fails to remark that the US is a "christian nation" or some such nonsense. Women's reproductive rights, gays' right to marry, a shopkeeper's right to sell beer on sunday... all still under attack by religion. Atheists want nothing more than the level playing field that our laws are supposed to be providing. Any attempt to paint that as "militant", "aggressive", "insulting" or "trolling" comes from an ignorant, unconsidered point-of-view that is disregarding the current social and legal imbalance that exists.
 
2012-11-19 01:41:36 PM

FTDA: santadog: Sort of off topic, maybe? I'm a photographer, and I find images all over the place. I shot this one in Austin, Texas in someone's yard. Now, I also sell my images. Just ended my first shows ever in Colorado. I've sold this image all over Texas, Ohio, and online without issue. My Sock Monkey Nativity Scene is usually a best seller, but offended at least 8 people at the Colorado shows. How do I know? Because they were very vocal about it.

One of the problems with Christians is they lost their sense of humor centuries ago.

CSS
[imageshack.us image 640x427]

Not all of us have. I think that sock monkey nativity is hilarious!


YAY!! Cause that's all I wanted. :D
 
2012-11-19 01:46:02 PM

I drunk what: i heard that atheism is the fastest growing religion


Depends whether you measure as percentage relative to existing numbers, or percentage of the US population.

www.pewforum.org[!]

imgs.xkcd.com
 
2012-11-19 01:48:51 PM

orbister: doglover: No different than the anti-drugs and anti-drinking crowd. They just want other people to be miserable. Worthless, the lot of them.

The last time I looked, it wasn't the atheists who went round telling everybody that there are poor, miserable sinners destined to burn in hell for all eternity because someone ate an apple.


I think some folks are saying it might have been a pomegranate. More consistent with the climate and parallel mythology like the story of Persephone. But I digress. Whatever fruit is the most appropriate interpretation, it's still pretty silly.

/a friend brought this up while playing Assassin's Creed 2 when someone tried to open the "Apple"
//thought it was interesting
 
2012-11-19 01:49:20 PM

abb3w: Depends


what the heck is an "agnostic"??

i'm agnostic about these poll results...

how ya been dude?
 
2012-11-19 01:55:23 PM
"Nothing in particular" ... lulz

i heard that apatheists is the fastest .. growing .. meh

wateva

tl;dr

we've already lost, nobody cares
 
2012-11-19 01:55:49 PM

I drunk what: where do morals come from?


Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.
 
2012-11-19 02:02:02 PM

revrendjim: Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.


so then Naturedidit?
 
2012-11-19 02:04:22 PM

revrendjim: I drunk what: where do morals come from?

Humans


pfft. So where did humans come from?

...

...


...

...

God my friend, god.
 
2012-11-19 02:06:43 PM

revrendjim: I drunk what: where do morals come from?

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.


and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?
 
2012-11-19 02:08:48 PM

vactech: God my friend, god


where did God come from?
 
2012-11-19 02:11:44 PM

Z-clipped: comes from an ignorant, unconsidered point-of-view


U sound mad bro... I'll just ignore the ad-hominem though...

Z-clipped: Not a day goes by that some jackass politician fails to remark that the US is a "christian nation" or some such nonsense. Women's reproductive rights, gays' right to marry, a shopkeeper's right to sell beer on sunday... all still under attack by religion.


See that's the point right there. Those are legitimate issues. I don't give a damn about your holy crusade, so in terms of political leverage you have to consider your impact on the "neutrals" in this little battle of yours :

Start talking about the need for marriage equality --> I'm on your side
Start talking about the need for women's reproductive rights to be respected --> I'm on your side
Start talking about respect for plurality of beliefs within society where everyone is able/willing to practice as they please -->I'm on your side

Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

So... do you want allies or do you want enemies?
 
2012-11-19 02:16:54 PM

I drunk what: vactech: God my friend, god

where did God come from?


Any 5 year old, sunday school student could ask that question. The new, super modern, Christrian philosophers have already debunked such ignorant ideological pursuits. The fact that you even typed that shows why you are the leader of the Fark IS.
 
2012-11-19 02:17:03 PM

I drunk what: revrendjim: I drunk what: where do morals come from?

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?


So what you are saying is that passages in the bible that describe the stories of incest, rape, murder etc.. those are the instructions you are talking about... right? Ones we should follow because they are moral?

The ones that say if you wear mixed fabrics, you should be put to death? Right?

Or like this: Lot, his wife, and his two daughters escape the Israelite God's destruction of Sodom, a town that has a reputation of being wild. YHWH kills the wife by turning her into a pillar of salt because she looked back at the city's destruction. Then the two daughters get their Dad drunk and have sex with him. The Bible paints Lot as innocent in this orgy (he was drunk, after all) but maybe Lot and family actually were just good citizens of Sodom. Look it up. Genesis 19

Or maybe: YHWH humiliates Ezekiel by ordering him to eat only bread baked using human dung fuel and to lie on his left side for thirteen months. Ezekiel has some strange visions. Look it up. Ezekiel 4:4-151, 8-11

Or maybe..King Herod marries his brother's wife, Herodias. John the Baptist tells Herodias it is wrong. She doesn't like being told she is wrong. At Herod's birthday banquet, Herodias' young daughter spins into the room and dances so sensually that the tipsy king can't resist her. He swears to give her anything she wants. The girl, drunk with the first feelings of her sexual power, has no idea what to wish for so she asks her mom. Mom sarcastically suggests the head of John. That sounds like an outrageous request so she says, "I want the head of John the Baptist on a dish." The king is distressed, but he gave his oath in front of all his guests. So John's head is cut off, placed on a dish and given to the girl. Though the Bible never gives the name of the young lady who dances, other sources say her name is Salome and that she does this thing with seven veils that is dynamite. Look it up. Mark 6:17-29

Or..King David sees Bathsheba bathing and decides that he must have her. No problem. Her husband is in David's army and is fighting far away. David thinks it improper to be dallying with a married woman so he plots to make the husband's position in the army so vulnerable that he is unlikely to survive. Then it is in YHWH's hands. YHWH buys in and kills the husband but tempers his action by killing the first born of David and Bathsheba. Look it up. 2 Samuel 11

Or..King David is driven out of Jerusalem by his son, Absalom. As a show of his power (and maybe a touch of exhibitionism) Absalom goes up on the roof of the palace and has elaborate sexual intercourse with his father's numerous concubines in sight of all of Israel. When a battle brews with his father, Absalom makes the mistake of riding his mule under an oak tree and gets his head stuck in the tree branch. He is hanging in mid air by his hair when David's men find, torture, and kill him. Look it up. 2 Samuel 13:20-30, 16:20-22, 18:9-15

I could go on.. but really.. if you are looking for Morality.. it's probably not best to look to the bible.
 
2012-11-19 02:20:37 PM

cassanovascotian: Start talking about respect for plurality of beliefs within society where everyone is able/willing to practice as they please -->I'm on your side


ORLY?

cassanovascotian: Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.


what about the people who deserve ridicule and derision? would it help if we didn't treat them as ignorant objects, but actual "intelligent" people that should know better? (which would call for even more severe ridicule and derision...)

cassanovascotian: So... do you want allies or do you want enemies?


I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.
 
2012-11-19 02:23:10 PM

santadog: I could go on..


here i come Constantinople

Constantinople here i come

how goes your search?
 
2012-11-19 02:26:39 PM

I drunk what: santadog: I could go on..

here i come Constantinople

Constantinople here i come

how goes your search?


All the leaves are off of the oak and
All of the sheep have followed the spoken
Word. I'm coming Constantinople
Here I come...

:D My search? What have I lost?
 
2012-11-19 02:30:55 PM

vactech: The fact that you even typed that shows why you are the leader of the Fark IS.


i would feel better if you included some image macros

but you can't use storm troopers, those are IBTM

santadog: So what you are saying is that passages in the bible that describe the stories of incest, rape, murder etc.. those are the instructions you are talking about... right?


"you" as in old law jews? but even under the Old Law they were told not to kill, covet, etc.. so what gives?

also according to your logic (do everything that is recorded in the Bible because reading things in context with comprehension is hard) we should also inflict any man named Job with boils and destroy his house and family

cuz, ya know, that's in the bybull too

or something like that?
 
2012-11-19 02:32:40 PM

I drunk what: cassanovascotian: Start talking about respect for plurality of beliefs within society where everyone is able/willing to practice as they please -->I'm on your side

ORLY?

cassanovascotian: Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

what about the people who deserve ridicule and derision? would it help if we didn't treat them as ignorant objects, but actual "intelligent" people that should know better? (which would call for even more severe ridicule and derision...)

cassanovascotian: So... do you want allies or do you want enemies?

I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.


Then you've made your priorities clear, and proselytising your own non-belief is the only thing that matters to you. So don't pretend that you're really so concerned about marriage equality and reproductive rights. Unlike you, I am.
 
2012-11-19 02:34:54 PM

santadog: My search?


yes, for Truth

santadog: What have I lost?


your recollection that we've done this dance before, i hope that little chorus (see your previous p0st) has properly jogged your memory

i prefer to move on with progress rather than repeat stuff ad infinitum
 
2012-11-19 02:38:54 PM

I drunk what: vactech: The fact that you even typed that shows why you are the leader of the Fark IS.

i would feel better if you included some image macros

but you can't use storm troopers, those are IBTM


I customed PS designed some macros for you!(remember the card game?) But hey, if you want to keep avoiding my TRUTH, then just keep whining that your opponent doesn't have his own personal gilruiz.
 
2012-11-19 02:48:41 PM

I drunk what: revrendjim: I drunk what: where do morals come from?

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?


As long as you include murdering outgroups.
 
2012-11-19 02:49:16 PM

I drunk what: vactech: God my friend, god

where did God come from?


Uranus.
 
2012-11-19 02:52:21 PM

StoPPeRmobile: I drunk what: revrendjim: I drunk what: where do morals come from?

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?

As long as you include murdering outgroups.


Oh please! That's just allegory. Way to conveniently forget the historical context of the time.
 
2012-11-19 02:54:40 PM

cassanovascotian: U sound mad bro... I'll just ignore the ad-hominem though...


That's not what "ad hominem" means. I said that the point-of-view that ignores the existence of religious aggression is ignorant and unconsidered. If I had said, "cassanovascotian's argument is wrong because he fellates goats... THAT would be an ad hominem.

cassanovascotian: Those are legitimate issues.


Yes, I know. And so is keeping religious displays off of government property. They're all part of the same philosophical battle. What's so difficult to understand about this?

cassanovascotian: Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.


OK, be my guest. No one in TFA is doing that, and I'm certainly not doing it either, so you've got nothing to worry about. However... meekly accepting religious aggression, no matter how sanctimoniously it may be voiced, is not my definition of "common courtesy". It certainly appears to be yours, based on your posts.

cassanovascotian: So... do you want allies or do you want enemies?


I'm not out to make enemies, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to avoid offending people who are in the very act of pushing their religion on me in the the public forum. They're the aggressors, whether they (or you) recognize it or not. Fark 'em. The law is on my side, and I'll take every inch it affords me, just like these people in TFA did.
 
2012-11-19 02:59:11 PM

I drunk what: vactech: The fact that you even typed that shows why you are the leader of the Fark IS.

i would feel better if you included some image macros

but you can't use storm troopers, those are IBTM

santadog: So what you are saying is that passages in the bible that describe the stories of incest, rape, murder etc.. those are the instructions you are talking about... right?

"you" as in old law jews? but even under the Old Law they were told not to kill, covet, etc.. so what gives?

also according to your logic (do everything that is recorded in the Bible because reading things in context with comprehension is hard) we should also inflict any man named Job with boils and destroy his house and family

cuz, ya know, that's in the bybull too

or something like that?


I drunk what: santadog: My search?

yes, for Truth

santadog: What have I lost?

your recollection that we've done this dance before, i hope that little chorus (see your previous p0st) has properly jogged your memory

i prefer to move on with progress rather than repeat stuff ad infinitum


Nope. No recollection at all.
I guess you didn't really set a big impression on me.
 
2012-11-19 02:59:39 PM

vactech: StoPPeRmobile: I drunk what: revrendjim: I drunk what: where do morals come from?

Humans are social animals, and like all social animals we evolved rules of behavior that increase our chances of survival by giving us a relatively safe and cooperative society.

and just so i understand you properly, are you saying that "increasing our chances of survival" would be how to define what is "moral" so long as it is done is a relatively safe and cooperative manner?

supposing i were to record these evolved rules into a book (or manual if you will)

could a person qualify as ethical/moral by following these instructions?

As long as you include murdering outgroups.

Oh please! That's just allegory. Way to conveniently forget the historical context of the time.


lulz
 
2012-11-19 03:01:05 PM

Z-clipped: I'm not out to make enemies, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to avoid offending people who are in the very act of pushing their religion on me in the the public forum. They're the aggressors, whether they (or you) recognize it or not. Fark 'em. The law is on my side, and I'll take every inch it affords me, just like these people in TFA did.


Sure, if that's what's important to you, then go and fight your crusade.

All I'm saying is don't pretend that you're motivated by a concern for gay-rights, reproductive issues, or basically any other humanist concern. You're obviously not. I, however, am motivated to promote progressive principles on these issues, and guess what ?

You're not helping.
 
2012-11-19 03:05:39 PM

StoPPeRmobile: I drunk what: vactech: God my friend, god

where did God come from?

Uranus.


Oh so you're one of those "Russell's Teapot" subscribers, eh? Nice try. But in the God/Nuture program there IS a teapot floating around Uranus relative to the philosophical abstract of infinity.

Check and mate.
 
2012-11-19 03:14:28 PM

I drunk what: BronyMedic: Case in point, in 2000 85% of Americans identified with Christianity. in 2010, 75% did.

i heard that atheism is the fastest growing religion

TenJed_77: I just wish it was happening faster.

i suppose you could start feeding them to the lions?

orbister: There is nothing ethical or moral about following a book of instructions

where do morals come from?


From the society you happen to live in. Morals are tribal customs. The change as the tribe changes.
 
2012-11-19 03:17:29 PM

santadog: I guess you didn't really set a big impression on me.


ditto

but we'll always have our giant eyeballs, dancing around the campfire

freak show was one of my personal favorites

just be careful perusing around jello jack's room, still waters run deep
 
2012-11-19 03:21:34 PM
Atheists: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity scene. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?
 
2012-11-19 03:24:48 PM

WarszawaScream: Atheists: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity scene. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?


Like stocking shelves in October with chrismas kitch?
 
2012-11-19 03:25:16 PM

cassanovascotian: Z-clipped: I'm not out to make enemies, but I'm not going to bend over backwards to avoid offending people who are in the very act of pushing their religion on me in the the public forum. They're the aggressors, whether they (or you) recognize it or not. Fark 'em. The law is on my side, and I'll take every inch it affords me, just like these people in TFA did.

Sure, if that's what's important to you, then go and fight your crusade.

All I'm saying is don't pretend that you're motivated by a concern for gay-rights, reproductive issues, or basically any other humanist concern.


You're either confusing me with IDW, or vastly overestimating the strength of this gambit.

You're obviously not.

I beg your pardon- Exactly how do you arrive at the conclusion that I don't support humanist concerns? Are you saying that in order to promote gay rights and women's health in the face of religious oppression, we need to capitulate to the same pressures in other arenas? That's ludicrous.

I, however, am motivated to promote progressive principles on these issues

OK, good for you. The current social and political trends correlate with demographic information to imply that, though we may not be progressing as quickly as some of us would like, these issues are under control and we can look forward to their resolution in the reasonably near future. But these are not ultimately the issues relevant to the discussion we're having. We're discussing religious displays on government property, which is its own important battleground.

cassanovascotian: You're not helping.


I fail to see how a city cancelling holiday display permits because the christians involved first complained about others wanting equal time, and then vandalized the competing displays does anything to hurt the marriage equality movement. This is a war of ideas, where we can fight on many fronts at once, not a land war where we have to worry about where to put the cavalry.
 
2012-11-19 03:28:39 PM

WarszawaScream: How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith


If it's no big deal where the nativity scene goes, then it's no big deal for you to put it on your church lawn where it belongs, instead of government land, where it clearly doesn't.

and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?

What, like praying for them?
 
2012-11-19 03:32:13 PM

Z-clipped: WarszawaScream: How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith

If it's no big deal where the nativity scene goes, then it's no big deal for you to put it on your church lawn where it belongs, instead of government land, where it clearly doesn't.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-19 03:33:12 PM
digitalpolyphony.webs.com
 
2012-11-19 03:33:14 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Z-clipped: WarszawaScream: How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith

If it's no big deal where the nativity scene goes, then it's no big deal for you to put it on your church lawn where it belongs, instead of government land, where it clearly doesn't.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 220x299]


What's Dumbledore got to do with it?
 
2012-11-19 03:34:20 PM

Z-clipped: I fail to see how a city cancelling holiday display permits because the christians involved first complained about others wanting equal time, and then vandalized the competing displays does anything to hurt the marriage equality movement. This is a war of ideas, where we can fight on many fronts at once, not a land war where we have to worry about where to put the cavalry.


it's a war in which the limiting resource is credibility. When you define yourself as categorically "against religion" you lose a lot of yours.
 
2012-11-19 03:35:39 PM

WarszawaScream: AtheistsChristians: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity sceneflying spaghetti monster. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?


See how easy that was?
 
2012-11-19 03:35:50 PM

Happy Hours: Eat More Possum: You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land

I'm pretty sure religious speech is covered by the First Amendment. This point was that not only can the government not impose a religion on anyone, they also cannot stop you from practicing your religion.

You militant atheists are assholes


The Christers can get their nativity scenes if the atheists, Pastafarians, and Satanists all get to put up displays, too. What's the problem?
 
2012-11-19 03:37:57 PM

WarszawaScream: Atheists: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity scene. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?


You know how I know you didn't RTFA? It's Christians protesting victim-less acts that's causing the problem.

And displays of faith are anything but victim-less.
 
2012-11-19 03:38:39 PM

santadog: FTDA: santadog: Sort of off topic, maybe? I'm a photographer, and I find images all over the place. I shot this one in Austin, Texas in someone's yard. Now, I also sell my images. Just ended my first shows ever in Colorado. I've sold this image all over Texas, Ohio, and online without issue. My Sock Monkey Nativity Scene is usually a best seller, but offended at least 8 people at the Colorado shows. How do I know? Because they were very vocal about it.

One of the problems with Christians is they lost their sense of humor centuries ago.

CSS
[imageshack.us image 640x427]

Not all of us have. I think that sock monkey nativity is hilarious!

YAY!! Cause that's all I wanted. :D


I don't take religion or life too serious, especially life because no one's made it out alive yet! If I did take religion as seriously as some of the stuffy types I've ran across in my life I'd probably never have created this photoshop.
i1197.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-19 03:42:12 PM
In my smallish town in Tennessee, there's a local chainsaw artist. He's not very good, but since we don't have many artists around here, he's celebrated and the town allowed him to put some of his crap up on the courthouse yawn. It started with a 6 foot bear wearing a UT Vols shirt or something, which was okay I guess. Then, he made a life-sized Jesus statue, and they put that up, too. Soon after, he added a bunch of kids sitting around the statue's feet, but that wasn't enough. His magnum opus was to set out a table, and do a life-sized (but badly carved) last supper scene.

Well, this didn't go over well with my Dad, who is an atheist and likes to stir the pot, so my folks bought a 6-foot metal version of the statue of liberty to put up on the courthouse lawn with a plaque that had sayings from our founding fathers about the separation of church and state on it. They had the proper paperwork to set it up, but a week before they planned to get the statue out there, this beauty popped up on the lawn:

img837.imageshack.us

While not high art, I think it was pretty good for being made by a teenager in her garage. (That's my parents' statue to the right, and me to the left).

Was it trolling on my parents' and the kid's part? Maybe. But it was obvious that if someone didn't put their foot down, the entire courthouse lawn would be littered with ugly Christian chainsaw sculptures.

I don't have a pic of the last supper, but here's one I playfully dubbed "Surface to Air Jesus"

img13.imageshack.us

The town was in an uproar about it and the controversy even appeared on Fark. The city tried to make the girl take down her Flying Spaghetti Monster, but she had the proper paperwork and her dad lawyered up, so they made the decision to ban all displays from the courthouse lawn.

The First Amendment applies to EVERYONE, not just people you agree with
 
2012-11-19 03:42:16 PM

abb3w: DerAppie: If they did it to get equal time they should have picked another date.

However, they were also doing it to make it clear that there was not a government establishment of the Christian Religion, for which a display at another time would be less effective than a simultaneous display.


How was it a government establishment of a religion when another display contained a Hanukkah set up which was arranged by Jews? And wouldn't it invalidate the idea that the state is promoting a religion if you'd arrange for a different show later in the year? or would you argue that the state is suffering from a schizophrenic disorder which makes the state switch opinions every month depending on what is on display? Allowing Christians to have a nativity scene on a piece of land is establishing a religion in the same way that a Passover display establishes Judaism. Or a Muslim New year celebration is establishing Islam. It just doesn't work that way.

hbk72777: Why stop someone else from doing something?

Technically, the atheists didn't. They merely availed themselves of the limited public forum to add their own decorations.


If you claim 18 out of 21 spots for shiats and giggles you are in fact preventing other people from doing something. Especially if you leave them empty.

xanadian: It would've been fine if they had 1 or 2. Displays about the secular bit of Xmas. Or even a flat-out atheist thingee about how there's no God or something. That would've been fine. But 18 of 21!??

The lottery allowed winners to claim up to 9 spaces. They did.


And that is why they are assholes. They didn't need all those spots. The only reason they claimed them was to prevent access to others. Basic courtesy appears to be lost on those people.

The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.
 
2012-11-19 03:47:22 PM

browntimmy: WarszawaScream: AtheistsChristians: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity sceneflying spaghetti monster. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?

See how easy that was?


The only thing is that I have never once had a Christian drag me to a nativity scene against my will. Also, while we can denounce many Christians as hypocrites, we must also acknowledge that many of them have and do very much that is useful to mankind.

Would there be any controversy if Some new-age Druids put up a replica of a hinge in a public park and celebrated the solstice? What about secular rock concerts and other events that are offensive to Christians, Jews or Muslims? I'd say we have more than enough hypocrisy to go around. Let the Christians have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.
 
2012-11-19 03:53:32 PM

I drunk what: we've already lost, nobody cares


If by "we" you mean "protestants", and by "lost" you mean "fallen below 50% of the population", yes.

santadog: Nope. No recollection at all.
I guess you didn't really set a big impression on me.


Google doesn't turn up anything, either.
 
2012-11-19 03:56:53 PM

JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.


Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.
 
2012-11-19 04:00:55 PM

DerAppie: The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.


www.travelandleisure.com
 
2012-11-19 04:08:02 PM

Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.


No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."
 
2012-11-19 04:19:05 PM

JackieRabbit: Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."


I thought he said, hello my name is steve, turn it of then on again.
 
2012-11-19 04:21:35 PM

abb3w: Google doesn't turn up anything, either.


it was a while ago

its hard to remember after so many years, srsly i can't keep up with every random farker that accidentally stumbles into one of our ongoing (4+ years) debates

besides, i'm not going to drum up the old "do new law christians have to follow the old jewish law" routine for the brazillionth time

whether or not he was actively involved in one of those discussions
 
2012-11-19 04:21:37 PM

StoPPeRmobile: DerAppie: The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.

[www.travelandleisure.com image 380x320]


Yup, one of the awesome festive days we have. Don't like it? Not my problem.
 
2012-11-19 04:23:49 PM

Mega Steve: In my smallish town in Tennessee, there's a local chainsaw artist. He's not very good, but since we don't have many artists around here, he's celebrated and the town allowed him to put some of his crap up on the courthouse yawn. It started with a 6 foot bear wearing a UT Vols shirt or something, which was okay I guess. Then, he made a life-sized Jesus statue, and they put that up, too. Soon after, he added a bunch of kids sitting around the statue's feet, but that wasn't enough. His magnum opus was to set out a table, and do a life-sized (but badly carved) last supper scene.

Well, this didn't go over well with my Dad, who is an atheist and likes to stir the pot, so my folks bought a 6-foot metal version of the statue of liberty to put up on the courthouse lawn with a plaque that had sayings from our founding fathers about the separation of church and state on it. They had the proper paperwork to set it up, but a week before they planned to get the statue out there, this beauty popped up on the lawn:

[img837.imageshack.us image 640x480]

While not high art, I think it was pretty good for being made by a teenager in her garage. (That's my parents' statue to the right, and me to the left).

Was it trolling on my parents' and the kid's part? Maybe. But it was obvious that if someone didn't put their foot down, the entire courthouse lawn would be littered with ugly Christian chainsaw sculptures.

I don't have a pic of the last supper, but here's one I playfully dubbed "Surface to Air Jesus"

[img13.imageshack.us image 317x422]

The town was in an uproar about it and the controversy even appeared on Fark. The city tried to make the girl take down her Flying Spaghetti Monster, but she had the proper paperwork and her dad lawyered up, so they made the decision to ban all displays from the courthouse lawn.

The First Amendment applies to EVERYONE, not just people you agree with


I'm from another small town in Tennessee (Collinwood.) I just got to say, even as a Christian I'm laughing my ass off at your dubbing that pic, "surface to air Jesus."
 
2012-11-19 04:24:40 PM

abb3w: If by "we" you mean "protestants", and by "lost" you mean "fallen below 50% of the population", yes


sorta, something like that

we = people responsible for improving society

i'm glad that we agree

//meh
///let the next generation solve all our problems
 
2012-11-19 04:29:51 PM

I drunk what: "do new law christians have to follow the old jewish law"


Oh please. That was just a metaphor wrapped in symbolism.

Are you sure you've actually read the Bible?
 
2012-11-19 04:32:52 PM
Eat More Possum

You want a religious scene up? Put it up on your own land


Tear down you Christmas display on public land, it offfennnnnds me.
Get that book out of the public library, it offfennnnnds me.

farking fascists, both of you groups. You'd both happily goose step all over people you disagree with.
 
2012-11-19 04:40:31 PM

mhd: CheapEngineer: \tell me you're not that f'ing dense, please

Just Bavarian, we're not that good with the whole church/state separation.

Which is why I'm always interested in the weird ways where that line is drawn in other countries, esp. the US. It does seem a bit arbitrary at times, even for legal matters. Tax-exempt churches, no school on Christmas or Jewish New Year, no problem with cities being utterly shut down on St. Patricks day, "In God We Trust" etc.

Let's say that, e.g. in that particular area of the city, during that particular time, those boxes are intended to be rented out to display Christian nativity scenes. In other locations and/or other times, other religions (and atheists) can make use of public property. That wouldn't establish a certain religion, nor prevent the freedom of exercising it, it would just schedule it (I did say that I'm German...). Just like you have different rallies or parades on different days.

Would that be any worse than "freedom of speech" zones?


My take on the article was that the atheist organizations went for the jugular mostly because the churches had been slapping them around for so long about how heathen they were, and about how un-American they were, and how their children were all going to hell because of their pinko liberal satanic views. I assumed the opportunity to punk them was too much to resist.

Sadly, it's the Christian Taliban over here in a *lot* of places. Didn't use to be that way - there used to be a 'live and let live' attitude for the most part, but the fundamentalist fervor that used to only be found in the rural south was packaged, commercialized, and applied to Politics in order to spread it further.
 
2012-11-19 04:41:59 PM

DerAppie: How was it a government establishment of a religion when another display contained a Hanukkah set up which was arranged by Jews?


Only allowing religious displays would still qualify; under current case law, the state can't even express a general preference for theist religions. "The Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all".

DerAppie: And wouldn't it invalidate the idea that the state is promoting a religion if you'd arrange for a different show later in the year?


To an extent, yes; but it would not send the message as clearly.

DerAppie: Especially if you leave them empty.


Contrariwise, it could be argued a very effective way to convey atheists' lack of belief.

DerAppie: The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it.


The Dutch culture is a heck of a lot more homogenous than the US. There's some pretty major subculture divisions within the US, both regional and within regions.

DerAppie: Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.


Actually, there's a significant fraction of nuts who do consider the Constitution to have been divinely inspired. (Mostly protestant strains, but I understand it's also Mormon doctrine.) You might bear in mind that several US colonies were founded by religious loonies who were chased out of Europe, and more weirdness has cropped up since.

JackieRabbit: to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public


More exactly, deny others the right to dictate that only the Christian holiday have a privileged position in public.
 
2012-11-19 04:50:02 PM

Z-clipped: You're either confusing me with IDW


no, no i'm the one prostylitizing my non-belief and pretending that i can care about gay marriage and abortions

???

i haven't a clue

is this the thread where no one understands anyone else? because this is one of my major gripes

//ready to hit the reset button
 
2012-11-19 04:54:56 PM

JackieRabbit: Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."


As long as we're throwing around Gandhi quotes, here's another: "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?
 
2012-11-19 04:57:29 PM

browntimmy: JackieRabbit: Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."

As long as we're throwing around Gandhi quotes, here's another: "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?


He liked fish tacos?
 
2012-11-19 05:08:11 PM
Christians are just like republicans. They feel they can express their opinion however, whenever and to whomever they want all the time. If you try and express an opposing viewpoint they immediately cry "persecution." That gets old.

Caveat: Not all of them are bad, but those who tend to hold public forum, are.

Also, why are you militant for expressing an opposing viewpoint? They aren't picketing churches, which would still be okay, just ask the christians picketing family planning centers. It's just a persecution complex some groups have that can't stand being opposed.
 
2012-11-19 05:09:30 PM

browntimmy: Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?


a complete misunderstanding of what a Christian is?

it turns out that not everyone claiming to be one actually is, but we do get to waste lots of our time apologizing for any that do
 
2012-11-19 05:16:10 PM

abb3w: DerAppie: And wouldn't it invalidate the idea that the state is promoting a religion if you'd arrange for a different show later in the year?

To an extent, yes; but it would not send the message as clearly.


And to whom is the message aimed? I get the feeling that they are going for the bragging rights. Just the ability to tell each other that they got them good. No matter how you dress it up, it is simply juvenile behaviour based on the idea that their point is more valid than that of anyone else.

DerAppie: Especially if you leave them empty.

Contrariwise, it could be argued a very effective way to convey atheists' lack of belief.


Which didn't need 85% of the available space. While you might be right about it being effective I'm not convinced that they had such noble intent. They just wanted to pick up the ball and go home, ruining the game for the rest of the people.

DerAppie: The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it.

The Dutch culture is a heck of a lot more homogenous than the US. There's some pretty major subculture divisions within the US, both regional and within regions.


Which is why everything that could lead to the slightest of friction needs to be banned preventively? People could just grow up, enjoy the scene, have some eggnog/wine and then move on to the next large celebration. Maybe some food from the Middle East at the end of Ramadan. Or whatever Jews do during Passover/Hanukkah/etc. But nooooo, someone might feel excluded and we can't have that. Everyone has a festive day in public or no one gets to have one. And with a certain group having a serious lack of festive days the end result is clear. Always dealing with people according to the lowest common denominator results in a very bland society.
 
2012-11-19 05:22:42 PM

JackieRabbit: browntimmy: WarszawaScream: AtheistsChristians: GET A GRIP. It's a farking nativity sceneflying spaghetti monster. How about you stop protesting victimless acts and displays of faith and devote yourselves to something useful to mankuind?

See how easy that was?

The only thing is that I have never once had a Christian drag me to a nativity scene against my will. Also, while we can denounce many Christians as hypocrites, we must also acknowledge that many of them have and do very much that is useful to mankind.

Would there be any controversy if Some new-age Druids put up a replica of a hinge in a public park and celebrated the solstice? What about secular rock concerts and other events that are offensive to Christians, Jews or Muslims? I'd say we have more than enough hypocrisy to go around. Let the Christians have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.


It would be a full time job to point out all the contradictory bullshiat in this paragraph. No one is denying the Christians their nativity. Aren't there any churches in that town? Are they not allowed to have lawns of their own? And if they decide, among themselves, that in order to spread the word to those who are unable to travel to their Church grounds and see their nativity scene that they want to put it up on city property - Why does that mean that no one else can?

Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?
 
2012-11-19 05:23:36 PM

StoPPeRmobile: browntimmy: JackieRabbit: Metaphysical Ham Sandwich: JackieRabbit: I'd say far more harm is done to the community by the atheists, who somehow got the idea that two wrongs make a right - to wit, they have the right to dictate to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public.

Yes because "please display my scene too" is "dictating to others how what is a Christian holiday may be observed in public." My eyeball sockets don't support the level of eye-rolling required to respond to this.

No, they are not. I have never once experienced this. Christians have long accepted and even embraced the secular aspects of the celebration. New atheists, in their unwarranted arrogance, refuse do do it. You are locked in on a narrow point of view and refuse to see the validity of any others. How does this make you any different that one of the fire-breathing evangelicals? Grow up. There's enough room in the world for all of us. Or maybe you'd be more comfortable in a less pluralistic society.

Too bad simple logic and tolerance make your eyes roll so hard. Maybe this is why you cannot see? Remember what Gandhi said "All that an eye for an eye accomplishes is to make the whole world blind."

As long as we're throwing around Gandhi quotes, here's another: "Oh, I don't reject Christ. I love Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike Christ."

Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?

He liked fish tacos?


Fark is not your personal erotica site.
 
2012-11-19 05:25:05 PM

DerAppie: Everyone has a festive day in public or no one gets to have one.


Christmas crap has been out for over a month now.

Does everybody get 2 months?
 
2012-11-19 05:31:32 PM

JackieRabbit:

Would there be any controversy if Some new-age Druids put up a replica of a hinge in a public park and celebrated the solstice?


"Thou shalt not a door heathen gods." Try to get a handle on that simple rule, you knobs. It's the key to the whole thing.
 
2012-11-19 05:36:52 PM

StoPPeRmobile: DerAppie: Everyone has a festive day in public or no one gets to have one.

Christmas crap has been out for over a month now.

Does everybody get 2 months?


To a certain segment of Christianity (who are well represented in this thread), an absence of explicit celebration of their traditions is considered equal to celebrating some other, competing tradition. If you're not currently drinking Coca Cola, that means that you are drinking Pepsi, because you are a militant anti-Coke-ist who hates Coke, and you are just as bad as, maybe even worse than, the people who kill Dr Pepper.

The statement "I'm not thirsty, thanks" is utterly incomprehensible to them.
 
2012-11-19 05:41:26 PM

I drunk what: browntimmy: Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?

a complete misunderstanding of what a Christian is?

it turns out that not everyone claiming to be one actually is, but we do get to waste lots of our time apologizing for any that do


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
 
2012-11-19 05:50:50 PM

CheapEngineer: Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?


Give me one good reason why it is such a problem to have a religion put up a display on public land. just one. And it can't be "because the constitution says so" because that is no better than "because the bible says so." I want an original reason you came up with yourself.

Also: in before "before you know it we'll all be in church on Sunday because we once allowed a nativity scene." That's bullshiat and you know it.

StoPPeRmobile: DerAppie: Everyone has a festive day in public or no one gets to have one.

Christmas crap has been out for over a month now.

Does everybody get 2 months?


The displays in tfa are available for equal time frames so their is no conflict there. Everything beyond that, like the stores, aren't about Christianity but about people buying a lot of crap which allows the stores to make a pretty penny.

/Well okay thousands of pennies
//Some of which are likely no longer pretty
 
2012-11-19 07:15:23 PM

browntimmy: I drunk what: browntimmy: Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?

a complete misunderstanding of what a Christian is?

it turns out that not everyone claiming to be one actually is, but we do get to waste lots of our time apologizing for any that do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman


i'm a chinese jet pilot

i believe i can fly
 
2012-11-19 09:19:54 PM

I drunk what: browntimmy: I drunk what: browntimmy: Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?

a complete misunderstanding of what a Christian is?

it turns out that not everyone claiming to be one actually is, but we do get to waste lots of our time apologizing for any that do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

i'm a chinese jet pilot

i believe i can fly


Wow a racist non anteistic believer.
 
2012-11-19 09:20:59 PM

StoPPeRmobile: I drunk what: browntimmy: I drunk what: browntimmy: Now why do you think he'd go and say something like that?

a complete misunderstanding of what a Christian is?

it turns out that not everyone claiming to be one actually is, but we do get to waste lots of our time apologizing for any that do

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

i'm a chinese jet pilot

i believe i can fly

Wow a racist non anteistic believer.


or something
 
2012-11-19 10:07:55 PM
eeeewwwwwwww. dirty.....
 
2012-11-19 11:29:06 PM

DerAppie: CheapEngineer: Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?

Give me one good reason why it is such a problem to have a religion put up a display on public land. just one. And it can't be "because the constitution says so" because that is no better than "because the bible says so." I want an original reason you came up with yourself.


Happily. I am an athiest, Everywhere I go someone is loudly proclaiming how fabulous the Lord is, and how I just don't have any values or morals or principles if I don't believe in the same Lord, the same way. Every friggin day. 90% of the legislators in the state I live in are Republican, and talk about how God insists they lower taxes, and deny benifits, and slash programs, because if you need help you should get it from prayer and your church, instead of a local municipal safety net. I'm told I'm going to hell for wanting women to have a right to choose, and for my daughter to have the right to love whoever she wants to, regardless of what their Lord says they should do.

So after 364 days of *that*, when I see that *only* the Christians are freely given the public lands that I pay to maintain as *yet another* place to swing their crosses at me, I get cranky. There are plenty of other places to put a nativity scene in town. 99% of the land in this town *isn't* Public Land, and is as pretty and as prominent as any other parcel. Use one of those. No matter what Pat Robertson says every friggin day on TV, not *everyone* in this town or state is a Christian.

Christianity isn't suffering so badly that it needs to shove it at people who aren't interested every goddamn day.

And I came up with this myself. Typed it out and everything. So I'll excuse your attept to be an insufferable asshole just this once.

DerAppie: Also: in before "before you know it we'll all be in church on Sunday because we once allowed a nativity scene." That's bullshiat and you know it.

Get over yourself. I can think for myself, and speak for myself, and can easily TELL YOU WHAT I THINK without you "helping me out", thanks.

\see, now I can't even say "get down off the cross' to you without using religious imagery, can I
\\still a good metaphor
 
2012-11-19 11:50:26 PM

CheapEngineer: DerAppie: CheapEngineer: Because that's where you are. Let the {insert religion here} have their nativity. They aren't harming anyone by it. Why is this less valid? Why is being equal to all, *on public property* a problem?

Give me one good reason why it is such a problem to have a religion put up a display on public land. just one. And it can't be "because the constitution says so" because that is no better than "because the bible says so." I want an original reason you came up with yourself.

Happily. I am an athiest, Everywhere I go someone is loudly proclaiming how fabulous the Lord is, and how I just don't have any values or morals or principles if I don't believe in the same Lord, the same way. Every friggin day. 90% of the legislators in the state I live in are Republican, and talk about how God insists they lower taxes, and deny benifits, and slash programs, because if you need help you should get it from prayer and your church, instead of a local municipal safety net. I'm told I'm going to hell for wanting women to have a right to choose, and for my daughter to have the right to love whoever she wants to, regardless of what their Lord says they should do.

So after 364 days of *that*, when I see that *only* the Christians are freely given the public lands that I pay to maintain as *yet another* place to swing their crosses at me, I get cranky. There are plenty of other places to put a nativity scene in town. 99% of the land in this town *isn't* Public Land, and is as pretty and as prominent as any other parcel. Use one of those. No matter what Pat Robertson says every friggin day on TV, not *everyone* in this town or state is a Christian.

Christianity isn't suffering so badly that it needs to shove it at people who aren't interested every goddamn day.

And I came up with this myself. Typed it out and everything. So I'll excuse your attept to be an insufferable asshole just this once.

DerAppie: Also: in before "before you know it we'll all be in church on ...

 

t3.gstatic.com
 
2012-11-20 12:03:39 AM

I drunk what: BronyMedic: Case in point, in 2000 85% of Americans identified with Christianity. in 2010, 75% did.

i heard that atheism is the fastest growing religion

TenJed_77: I just wish it was happening faster.

i suppose you could start feeding them to the lions?

orbister: There is nothing ethical or moral about following a book of instructions

where do morals come from?


"I can't wait to share this new wonder. The people will all see its light. Let them all make their own music. The Priests praise my name on this night!"
 
2012-11-20 12:09:49 AM

DerAppie: And to whom is the message aimed?


Multiple audiences. The Christians, indicating "No, this space is not JUST for you"; the potentially persuadable (particularly younger generations) "there's other people with other ideas"; and yes, the other atheists.

DerAppie: No matter how you dress it up, it is simply juvenile behaviour based on the idea that their point is more valid than that of anyone else.


That can be turned around; "No matter how you dress them up, complaints are simply trying to make atheists go sit in the back of the bus."

DerAppie: I want an original reason you came up with yourself.


Sorry. Madison argued it rather more eloquently; "religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together".

Also, "such a problem" seems to require it be argued all the way from an is-ought bridge, which would appear a pretty far moving of goalposts. If you're going to demand that, I'd have to insist we start with more basic propositions still and dredge out the P's and Q's. Nobody would appreciate that.
 
2012-11-20 12:26:47 AM

abb3w: DerAppie: And to whom is the message aimed?

Multiple audiences. The Christians, indicating "No, this space is not JUST for you"; the potentially persuadable (particularly younger generations) "there's other people with other ideas"; and yes, the other atheists.

DerAppie: No matter how you dress it up, it is simply juvenile behaviour based on the idea that their point is more valid than that of anyone else.

That can be turned around; "No matter how you dress them up, complaints are simply trying to make atheists go sit in the back of the bus."

DerAppie: I want an original reason you came up with yourself.

Sorry. Madison argued it rather more eloquently; "religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together".

Also, "such a problem" seems to require it be argued all the way from an is-ought bridge, which would appear a pretty far moving of goalposts. If you're going to demand that, I'd have to insist we start with more basic propositions still and dredge out the P's and Q's. Nobody would appreciate that.


You're too reasonable. Stop it.
 
2012-11-20 12:52:06 AM

StoPPeRmobile: You're too reasonable. Stop it.


It's not actually prohibited by the FARQ posting rules, y'know.
 
2012-11-20 01:18:56 AM

cassanovascotian: When you define yourself as categorically "against religion" you lose a lot of yours.


a. I have not done so. I have defined myself as categorically against religion in government. Is it that you are unwilling to recognize that difference, or unable? (Perhaps Dimensio was right about you?)

b. Who elected you "Arbiter of Credibility"? The events described in the article follow my rationale to a T. If they upset you, you may want to re-align your own worldview instead of attacking mine.

DerAppie: The Dutch have nailed most things shut legally and socially but are pretty relaxed about what happens with it. Contrariwise the US claims freedom to do stuff yet I have never heard of a society with such a hard on for various rules, no matter how trivial the case. Sometimes I simply assume a lot of the US thinks their Book of Laws is divinely inspired.


I'll tell you what: When people like Michelle Bachmann are invariably laughed out of politics at the local level, we can start relaxing on the issue like the Dutch can. At the moment, we are not even in the same ballpark of "reasonable behavior" as any of the European countries.

I drunk what: no, no i'm the one prostylitizing my non-belief and pretending that i can care about gay marriage and abortions


I was only noting that he/she/it used the exact same non sequitur verbage in a post replying to you just before. I guess if you have a hammer, everything looks like a screw.

I drunk what: //ready to hit the reset button


Yeah, some of the usual endgame suspects are here, but some of the visitors are looking like a pretty sorry bunch this time around.

DerAppie: Which is why everything that could lead to the slightest of friction needs to be banned preventively?


You must not understand the level of influence fundamentalist christians have held over our national political elections for the last 30-40 years. It's bad here. Really. Close to half the country wants to drag everyone back to the early 1900s. And with the decline of their numbers in the younger generations, and the political backlash resulting from their party's recent economic blunders, the fear of losing their hold is causing them to become more shrill and aggressive than I would have thought possible 20 years ago.

abb3w: Nobody would appreciate that.


It would be like killing a fly with a howitzer, but I DO still enjoy it when someone takes up your gauntlet. It tickles me when I see someone come to the realization that in a rational system, even "faith" can be quantified and given defined boundaries.
 
2012-11-20 02:11:42 AM
TFA: "If they want to hold an opposing viewpoint about the celebration of Christmas, they're free to do that - but they can't interfere with our right to engage in religious speech in a traditional public forum," said William Becker, attorney for the committee.

They're not. At least no more so than you're interfering with their right to speech.


"Our goal is to preserve the tradition in Santa Monica and to keep Christmas alive."

LoL. Yes, Christmas will surely die without your nativity scene.


I have to say though, despite my disagreement with the Christian fellows argument, as an atheist I'm not very impressed with this sort of activity. Trolling Christians like this doesn't win you or your cause any friends, you're just acting like a douchebag to a bunch of people who want to celebrate their holiday. Yes I understand that they're in a privileged situation and already have a de facto monopoly on the holiday season, but that's beside the point. There are better ways to go about this without acting like a knob who is just out to ruin people's fun.

Personally, I'd have used the space to make educational displays about the winter / solstice holidays and myths of other world religions, both contemporary and from antiquity. It still gets the point across -- their nativity scene sitting next to Dionysus in the Brumalia makes it clear that it's just another of many myths -- but it is more educational, less prickish, and completely immune to the argument that you're stifling religious speech. In fact you're contributing to it. Plus, maybe the odd Zoroastrian (Yalda is suspiciously similar to Christmas, celebrating Mithra being born to a virgin), Hopi, or Hindu who walks by would appreciate being represented. Hell, it might even be cool enough to usurp the nativity display as a new and better tradition.
 
2012-11-20 02:19:19 AM

Kyro: [demotivators.despair.com image 617x435]


Hahaha, ahh Despair.com. Almost like The Onion in their uncanny applicability.
 
2012-11-20 02:45:49 AM

newtigator: Funny thing is, Christians have no problem with Atheists displays.


ORLY?


Mega Steve: here's one I playfully dubbed "Surface to Air Jesus"


Hahaha LOOOL, that's a perfect nickname XD
 
2012-11-20 04:42:20 AM

Z-clipped: cassanovascotian: When you define yourself as categorically "against religion" you lose a lot of yours.

a. I have not done so. I have defined myself as categorically against religion in government. I


ORLY? let's take a stroll through some of your comments:

Z-clipped: Oh look, religious people acting like petulant children, with no one to blame for their loss of privileges but themselves.


Z-clipped: OK. I call it "offensively arrogant, presumptuous and self-involved".


Z-clipped: Then you're just as irrational and shortsighted as the religious dickheads that you're pretending not to be one of.


Z-clipped: Any attempt to paint that as "militant", "aggressive", "insulting" or "trolling" comes from an ignorant, unconsidered point-of-view...Z-clipped: cassanovascotian: Start treating all religious people as ignorant objects for ridicule and derision, undeserving of basic common courtesy --> I'm against you and will fight against you.

OK, be my guest. No one in TFA is doing that,

I can think of one person...

that's just in this thread alone.

sooo... still trying to claim that you only want to avoid having religion pushed on you, and aren't trying to be openly insulting to people who just happen to believe something different from you on their own time? sure. Keep telling yourself that.

Z-clipped: though we may not be progressing as quickly as some of us would like, these issues are under control and we can look forward to their resolution in the reasonably near future.


Under Control!? fark you man, people are still getting beat to death for being gay, The planet is melting down while Fox news claims global warming isn't happening, and the middle east is blowing up because of Conservative jack-wads intent on thumping their chest to jingoistic war-monging. But we can't even talk about that shiat, because you assholes have to make this whole thing about some stupid farking christmas display.

Let me make this clear to you: when you make the conflict about people's personal beliefs you're attacking something that they can't and won't change, and will get defensive about. You legitimize their persecution complex, and force them to dig their heels in and rally behind whatever politician is going to give them a feeling of protection. Eventually the above issues will be addressed, but because of people like you it's going to take a whole lot longer than it needs to, and while you continue to double-down on this petty little crusade of yours, you make it more difficult for people like me to deal with the problems that actually matter. You force me to waste time and energy explaining to the same conservative demagogues that "I'm not one of those people."

I am sick to farking hell of self-righteous proselytising over shiat that doesn't matter -and lately, it aint coming from the catholics and fundies -it's coming from you buddy; atheism isn't a religion, but you have embodied all of the features organized religion that you found so contemptible in the first place.
 
2012-11-20 08:25:26 AM

StoPPeRmobile: As long as you include murdering outgroups.


who is neighbor? are any of them my enemies?

which of these are exempt from Love?

StoPPeRmobile: Word salad.

or something


would you like some croutons with that?

StoPPeRmobile: "I can't wait to share this new wonder. The people will all see its light. Let them all make their own music. The Priests praise my name on this night!"


so then morality is derived from random unattributed quotes?

i thought it evolved from nature??
 
2012-11-20 08:28:18 AM

Z-clipped: It tickles me when I see someone come to the realization that in a rational system, even "faith" can be quantified and given defined boundaries.


that's much more difficult than it sounds, but i'll give it a go

ready when you lads are
 
2012-11-20 08:31:43 AM

cassanovascotian: sooo... still trying to claim that you only want to avoid having religion pushed on you, and aren't trying to be openly insulting to people who just happen to believe something different from you on their own time? sure. Keep telling yourself that.


You don't read too well, do you?

Every one of the statements you quoted me on was bashing either proselytism in general, or the behavior of the jerks in TFA (who complained about other groups getting equal time, and then vandalized their displays).

Not a single one of them bashes religion in general. Your histrionics are completely misplaced. I'm going to write this one more time, and maybe it will get through your thick skull: I am against religion intervening in government. In all forms, always, no matter how large or small the forum. What the ever-loving fark is your philosophical problem with that position? I'm getting sick of you slinking around the shadows on this point. Quit hiding behind "other issues", man up, and discuss the topic at hand.

cassanovascotian: Let me make this clear to you: when you make the conflict about people's personal beliefs you're attacking something that they can't and won't change, and will get defensive about.


This conflict isn't about beliefs, it's about actions. When you figure that out, maybe you'll be able to debate me, instead of having to divert the discussion to red herrings and strawmen.

cassanovascotian: Under Control!? fark you man, people are still getting beat to death for being gay, The planet is melting down while Fox news claims global warming isn't happening, and the middle east is blowing up because of Conservative jack-wads intent on thumping their chest to jingoistic war-monging. But we can't even talk about that shiat, because you assholes have to make this whole thing about some stupid farking christmas display.


You have a shorter attention span than a Fox News viewer if you think we can't talk about more than one issue at a time. There should be no religious interference in government. Period. It's not a negotiation. I'm not willing to capitulate on any aspect of that issue, just because you think it happens to be benign. You're wrong- Constitutional amendments banning gay marriage are not benign. "Teach the controversy" is not benign. The Ten Commandments in the courthouse lobby is not benign. Opening city council meetings with a traditional christian prayer is not benign. Having a portion of the town budget set aside for a Christmas pageant is not benign. And one religious group vandalizing the holiday displays of others who were only exercising their rights to equal time it not benign. These all stem from the same presupposition: that religion belongs in government.

cassanovascotian:
You legitimize their persecution complex, and force them to dig their heels in and rally behind whatever politician is going to give them a feeling of protection.

Fark that. They've been dug in for generations. Atheists have been trying to reason with religious people for hundreds of years, and have been ridiculed, demonized, ostracized, tortured, and burned at the stake for their trouble. It's not the reasonable christians that are the problem. They're fine with having a Wiccan display next to Jesus' manger in the park. It's the unreasonable ones that are the problem. They go to town meetings and push for government legitimization of their faith. They beat gay people in dark alleys. They rip the chapter on evolution out of their kids' Biology texts. They vandalize displays that contradict their own beliefs. They're not reasonable. They don't play fair. They behave like children, and they should be treated like children.

What you don't seem to get is, THEY'RE LOSING. We're making progress. The laws are on our side. The younger generation is on our side. Gay marriage will be legalized in every state during your lifetime. DADT is history. The courts continue to rule against Creationists at every turn. Environmental issues were one of the current president's major campaign pillars. The majority is no longer tolerating religious hate speech from politicians like Todd Akin. The non-religious are a continually increasing presence in politics. In order to maintain their energy, religious extremists are being forced to ramp up their rhetoric past the point of what is socially acceptable to the general public. That's their death knell. So let them dig their heels in all they want... the harder they do, the less legitimacy they'll have when the dust settles.

cassanovascotian: and while you continue to double-down on this petty little crusade of yours, you make it more difficult for people like me to deal with the problems that actually matter.


Get over yourself, Mr. Greatest American Hero. What great strides have you made to legitimize Climate Change in the national consciousness today? How many Middle Eastern wars have you prevented? We all fight the fights that matter to us in each particular context. Fark you for assuming you understand everything about the situation of the atheists in TFA, and judging their particular actions as petty. Just because a thing is small, doesn't make it unimportant. Again, this article represents an example (in real life) that supports MY position, not yours (which is imaginary). Christians couldn't play nice with others, so they lost their privileges. They had the opportunity to exercise tolerance, didn't, and are completely to blame for the outcome.

Look: When I was a kid in high school, I refused to say the Pledge, because it made me uncomfortable for several reasons. I didn't shout about it, or make a scene- I wasn't trying to get attention or buck authority for the sake of bucking authority. I just didn't want to do it, because I didn't think it was right. It caused me no end of trouble with my teachers, and got me thrown out of more than one classroom. My life would have been much easier if I had just said it every morning like everyone else. I didn't start a movement, or stop the Pledge from being said, but I'm proud that I took a stand, because some things, even though they're small and may seem petty to an outsider, have important principles behind them that shouldn't be compromised.
 
2012-11-20 08:41:32 AM

vactech: Are you sure you've actually read the Bible?


i looked at the pictures

StoPPeRmobile: You're too reasonable. Stop it.


larf

he is an illogical sod isn't he? wait

give me doughnuts: From the society you happen to live in.


so according to the aztecs it IS moral to sacrifice humans...

glad we cleared that up

and clearly they were more evolved than those iron age goat herders talking about loving your neighbors

FOR SCIENCE11!1
 
2012-11-20 08:55:27 AM

Z-clipped: I am against religion intervening in government.


life is way more fun without all that religious garbage burdening our society

Z-clipped: These all stem from the same presupposition: that religion belongs in government.


like antitheism? atheism? agnosticism? scientism? i'mokyou'reokism?

//trying to imagine a government without philosophical beliefs...

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... ~brainwashing cultist

O NOES, we're too late, even the founding of this country has been corrupted by the taint of religion...

we should start over, except this time we should create an atheist system of government, because they have such a wonderful track record throughout history :)

then we can create a perfect utopia, free from any burden of morality and other such nonsense

...it will be glorius
 
2012-11-20 08:57:43 AM

I drunk what: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness... ~brainwashing cultist CREATIONIST


almost forgot to properly ridicule that bafoon
 
2012-11-20 09:39:19 AM

I drunk what: I drunk what: tl;dr


Wrong again IDW!!

No government of yours is going to save this doomed world. Your arrogance is your downfall lad.

I don't know what kind of government you are thinking about, but where I come from God IS the government.

You go with your king, I'll go with mine.

I drunk what: vactech: Are you sure you've actually read the Bible?

i looked at the pictures


paulbern1.files.wordpress.com 

Did you see this one?
 
2012-11-20 10:17:56 AM
Z-clipped: You don't read too well, do you?

You don't discuss like a grown adult too well, do you?

Z-clipped: Not a single one of them bashes religion in general.


So calling people "petulent children" isn't in any way an insult?... k.

Z-clipped: Quit hiding behind "other issues", man up, and discuss the topic at hand.


ok, let's cut to it then:

Z-clipped: We're making progress. The laws are on our side. The younger generation is on our side. Gay marriage will be legalized in every state during your lifetime. DADT is history. Environmental issues were one of the current president's major campaign pillars.


See how you used the word "We" there?... that's the problem. that's the issue. You're pretending to care about these issues while contributing nothing but sabotage to their progress. You can be angry at religion all day, but when you hijack these legitimate causes and derail them -that's when I have a problem. Notice how this conversation started when I said to one of you angry atheists:

"Hey buddy, why don't we put aside inconsequential theological discussions and work together on said humanist concerns" ? and what was the response I got?

I drunk what: I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Right, so, ok, so much for priorities...

Z-clipped: We all fight the fights that matter to us in each particular context.


So everything is important in its own way? No. Issues that have tangible impact on human welfare and suffering matter. Your crusade doesn't. You like to think that it does because you want some kind of affirmation for your world-view -or who knows, I don't really care.

sigh ... I've got other shiat to do, and this back-and-forth isn't going anywhere. I'll just say it one more time: fight your crusade if that's what's really important to you. Just don't pretend that that other shiat matters to you. And don't use the word "we" to describe progress on issues like climate change and LGBT rights, etc. cuz you aint one of the "we", and you aint helping. 

I'm out. Last word is yours.
 
2012-11-20 10:52:18 AM

cassanovascotian: Notice how this conversation started when I said to one of you angry atheists:


um, if you are referring to me as one of them "angry atheists", i've got some bad news for ya

i'm the happy theist

cassanovascotian: Right, so, ok, so much for priorities


and as for having my priorities in the right place, I am quoting the Word of God verbatim, so yeah i'd say that IDW has his priorities

however i am quite confused as to what yours are:

cassanovascotian: why don't we put aside inconsequential theological discussions and work together on said humanist concerns


[inigo.jpg] those words, i don't think they mean what you think they mean

we can bicker about human concerns all day, however, until you morans start establishing standards-def.s., etc.. about why your theology (or at least philosophy) conflicts with others we aren't going to make ANY progress

agreeing to disagree is not improving our society, nor is throwing up your hands and passive-aggressively muttering "i'm ok you're ok"

lastly as for you concern about my sincerity for the topics of homosexuality and the sanctity of human life, and how they relate to our society

IDW cares more about those things than you can possibly imagine, so don't worry your pretty little head

we are aware and are ready to present solutions to any of your problems

/when you're ready lads
//i'll just patiently wait here
 
2012-11-20 10:57:27 AM

cassanovascotian: So calling people "petulent children" isn't in any way an insult?


not when it is true

just in case you haven't figured out what one of the major problems with society today, is the fact that we have many petulent children running around disguised in adult bodies, running-ruining everything around them

and this has been going on for generations now (starting with the ME generation and fulfilled in the current emo-snowflakes), do you suppose it will start getting better? or somehow magically resolve itself..?
 
2012-11-20 10:58:12 AM

cassanovascotian: I drunk what: I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.


By the way that was a hyperbole of a parable. Come on people! Jesus couldn't just come right out and say what he really meant! Ever hear of a little thing called Roman persecution? Huh?

//also it translates better in Greek.
 
2012-11-20 11:02:27 AM

I drunk what: petulent children


I drunk what: and this has been going on for generations now


Finally you said something with some truth to it. Was that so hard, IDW?

Like the other day on my way out of town. There were these children viciously mocking this bald man that passed by.

What to do, IDW?
 
2012-11-20 11:07:22 AM
Their 60 year-old tradition is so beloved it has to live behind a chain-link fence?
 
2012-11-20 11:09:13 AM

vactech: What to do, IDW?


Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Children respect your elders.

Parents discipline your children.

vactech: also it translates better in Greek


well? we're waiting...
 
2012-11-20 11:35:02 AM

I drunk what: vactech: also it translates better in Greek

well? we're waiting...


Well....

Sword translates more like Épée in Greek. So it has a much more deeper meaning when you think of it.
Interestingly, a little known fact is that at the Council of Ephesus it was decided that they would remove the sections of the Bible describing various fencing matches between Jesus and Bartholomew. True story.
 
2012-11-20 12:13:33 PM

vactech: So it has a much more deeper meaning when you think of it.


um if you're looking for deeper meaning in original words shouldn't you be looking for the Aramaic words?

חרב

and more importantly

התפלגות

cuz ya know that's what (s)words do

as for most people's desire for the peace of i'm ok you're ok, He did not come to bring you that

/darn that Free Will
 
2012-11-20 12:20:06 PM
FYI:

Hebrews 4:12
For the Word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Ephesians 6:17
And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God.
 
2012-11-20 12:27:47 PM

I drunk what: vactech: So it has a much more deeper meaning when you think of it.

um if you're looking for deeper meaning in original words shouldn't you be looking for the Aramaic words?

חרב

and more importantly

התפלגות

cuz ya know that's what (s)words do

as for most people's desire for the peace of i'm ok you're ok, He did not come to bring you that

/darn that Free Will


Technically you are correct. But I think you've missed the complex simile He was trying to convey here.
 
2012-11-20 12:31:10 PM

vactech: Technically you are correct


the best kind

vactech: But I think you've missed the complex simile He was trying to convey here.


*ears open*
 
2012-11-20 12:47:08 PM

cassanovascotian: So calling people "petulent children" isn't in any way an insult?... k.


It's an insult to their behavior, and it's an accurate one. It's NOT an insult to religion in general. Again... how do you not make this connection?

cassanovascotian: ok, let's cut to it then:


Annnnnd you promptly avoid the point AGAIN! Is the stupidity an act? Are you trolling? Have I been taken in? You will do absolutely anything to avoid addressing my actual position on this matter, even if I put it in bold type. Should I try large bold caps? I AM AGAINST RELIGION INTERVENING IN GOVERNMENT. For fark's sake man, don't be such a coward. If you have a problem with that position, address it directly. You're just making shiat up and pretending I said it.

cassanovascotian: Issues that have tangible impact on human welfare and suffering matter. Your crusade doesn't.


You don't know thing one about how I spend my energy when it comes to making the world a better place for people to live in, and you're incredibly arrogant to pretend you do. I'll ask again: What do you think YOU do that is so productive? You think that because you can perform basic intellectual triage that you're somehow helping people?

cassanovascotian: You're pretending to care about these issues while contributing nothing but sabotage to their progress.


Uh huh... So I guess your "arguing on Fark" crusade is ever so much more productive than my "arguing on Fark" crusade? Hey, there's a thread about Climate Change on the main page... I'm sure if you hurry you can wrap the whole thing up by lunch.

cassanovascotian: I've got other shiat to do,


Yes, by all means... STFU and GBTW.
Your logical contortionist routine is getting tiresome.

I drunk what: and this has been going on for generations now (starting with the ME generation and fulfilled in the current emo-snowflakes


I actually find the current crop of young people to be far less self-involved and much more socially conscious and civilized than the other living generations. It's part of the reason I quit a rather lucrative career to go back to school so I could be a teacher. They deserve better than they have right now, and they're going to have to be a hard-working and innovative bunch if they're going to undo the damage that their parents have done to the world. I honestly have high hopes for them.
 
2012-11-20 12:49:02 PM

I drunk what: vactech: But I think you've missed the complex simile He was trying to convey here.

*ears open*


That's good, that your ears are open to Jesus, but you need to open your heart IDW. But you are not "there" yet my friend.

Firstly, you are going about things backwards. You don't need to be so technical about God. We need not, put God in a test tube, boil Him in a flask amongst a bunsen burner, relocate Him with test tub holders, remove Him with tongs, observe for 24hours in a well microtitration plate and then spin him on a centrifuge.

Secondly, we needn't concern ourselves with earthly logic when trying to understand Him. Nor burden, our limited human minds trying to decipher His meaning through so called "classical reasoning".

Keep this quote in mind:

"There is one place where you have not looked, and it is there, only there where you will find the master." - John Knox, 1592
 
2012-11-20 01:17:07 PM

vactech: but you need to open your heart IDW


*heart open*

now what?

vactech: Firstly, you are going about things backwards.


how can we discover Him?

vactech: Secondly, we needn't concern ourselves with earthly logic when trying to understand Him.


whose logic ought we to use?

vactech: John Knox


you stumped google, so you may need to elaborate on your source and more about the context of that quote

are you quoting the scottish clergyman who died in 1572? because i'd imagine quoting him 20 years after his death would be something like "get me out of this box!!1!"
 
2012-11-20 01:50:31 PM

I drunk what: *heart open*

now what?


Not "what", but "how".

I drunk what: vactech: Firstly, you are going about things backwards.

how can we discover Him?


I think you answered your own question:

I drunk what: "get me out of this box!!1!"


I drunk what: whose logic ought we to use?


His Logic son. His.

I drunk what: you stumped google, so you may need to elaborate on your source and more about the context of that quote


See. This is why you fail. Do you filter God through google to get your answers? Do you format32 HIM to fit your narrow world view? Why don't you get with the "program", son? Come in for the "big win"?


I drunk what: are you quoting the scottish clergyman who died in 1572?


Maybe. Maybe not. It's hard to say in these Godless times. The important thing to remember is, Jesus said it, I believe it.
 
2012-11-20 02:04:41 PM

vactech: Not "what", but "how".


now how?

vactech: Why don't you get with the "program", son?


dad?!?

vactech: Do you filter God through google to get your answers?


hmmm

vactech: I think you answered your own question:


so we discover God by digging up his grave and freeing Him from a coffin? fascinating

vactech: His Logic son. His.


ok, dad

vactech: Come in for the "big win"?


for the gipper?

vactech: The important thing to remember is, Jesus said it, I believe it.


so jesus was asian? and the virgin mary lives in miami?

btw how long does this bit go on? are you sure there aren't better priorities to have? just curious
 
2012-11-20 02:45:56 PM

I drunk what: btw how long does this bit go on?

gifsoup.com
 
2012-11-20 03:49:40 PM

Z-clipped: It would be like killing a fly with a howitzer, but I DO still enjoy it when someone takes up your gauntlet. It tickles me when I see someone come to the realization that in a rational system, even "faith" can be quantified and given defined boundaries.


It's almost as amusing how shocked some atheists are to realize that they do take some points on "faith" -- though not necessarily the particular points (nor anywhere near as much) that Christians claim.

Gawdzila: Trolling Christians like this doesn't win you or your cause any friends


There's anecdata giving existence cases; whether it's a net gain is more questionable.
Are you aware of any sociological studies measuring the impact?

cassanovascotian: fark you man, people are still getting beat to death for being gay, The planet is melting down while Fox news claims global warming isn't happening, and the middle east is blowing up because of Conservative jack-wads intent on thumping their chest to jingoistic war-monging. But we can't even talk about that shiat, because you assholes have to make this whole thing about some stupid farking christmas display.


They're actually related. The Christmas displays in the public square, as with maintaining "in God we trust" on the coins and "under God" in the pledge, are attempts to bolster the notion that the United States is a "Christian Nation"... in which case, homosexuality should be a capital offense, there's no worries on climate change because God promised not to destroy humanity again and Jesus is going to be back real soon, which is why the Mid-east is going up right on schedule so there's nothing to do about that either. Fortunately, this level of full-blown nuttery is rare, but it is more common among those who are pushing religion into government territory. By opposing them on even the small issues, it makes it more difficult for them to push the larger narrative, as they have to justify it from more basic propositions.

Or at least, that's one hypothesis.

Z-clipped: What you don't seem to get is, THEY'RE LOSING. We're making progress.


Some. The demographics are shifting, at least. It's not clear the attitudes are much, beyond that.

cassanovascotian: Notice how this conversation started when I said to one of you angry atheists: "Hey buddy, why don't we put aside inconsequential theological discussions and work together on said humanist concerns" ? and what was the response I got?
I drunk what: I've not come to bring peace, but a sword.


Er... I drunk what isn't an Atheist; he's a Christian. 7th Day Adventist offshoot group, maybe? I don't recall with particularly high confidence. Anyway, not everyone on Fark is an atheist. Jumping to conclusions about religious identification is a really good way to look very silly.
 
2012-11-20 04:05:04 PM

abb3w: 7th Day Adventist offshoot group, maybe?


swing and a miss

/would it kill you to click a person's profile before guessing?
//how long have we known each other? *sniff*

abb3w: he's a Christian


that's a bingo
 
2012-11-20 04:08:35 PM

abb3w: not everyone on Fark is an atheist.


you could have fooled me 

/maybe they're just shy?
 
2012-11-20 04:16:55 PM

abb3w: in which case, homosexuality should be a capital offense, there's no worries on climate change because God promised not to destroy humanity again


abbey how many times do i have to remind you to never go Full Retard

srsly dude, i'm not going to keep vouching for you, if you keep up this IB-like typing

/cut it out

abb3w: Jesus is going to be back real soon


careful what you ask for

abb3w: It's not clear the attitudes are much, beyond that.


meh

abb3w: By opposing them on even the small issues


you mean like abortion?

luckily that is only a small white sin, you have to commit 1,000 of those before god will care
 
2012-11-20 08:13:35 PM

abb3w: Gawdzila: Trolling Christians like this doesn't win you or your cause any friends

There's anecdata giving existence cases; whether it's a net gain is more questionable.
Are you aware of any sociological studies measuring the impact?


No, although I think that kind of misses the point.
It almost certainly doesn't make Christians happy with you, and as much as I think their beliefs are nonsense there is also value in promoting harmony with thy neighbor. It seems to me that the more people see how atheists can also be kind and agreeable people, the more they will be generally accepted and the more it undermines the typical hogwash about atheists being bad immoral people without god's teachings.
 
2012-11-20 09:55:51 PM

Gawdzila: No, although I think that kind of misses the point.


For an empiricist? Not really. Especially given the number of studies that have turned up over time with counter-intuitive results contradicting the common sense "be nice" type assertions.

If you want me to take you seriously when you argue about social engineering methods, I'm afraid I expect you to be willing to back the argument with social science. Of course, this is Fark, so most people aren't inclined to the effort. However, if you try, you might at least learn something solid on the topic, and possibly be able to teach me about it; and worst case, you learn a bit more about how to research using Google Scholar or the like.

Gawdzila: It almost certainly doesn't make Christians happy with you, and as much as I think their beliefs are nonsense there is also value in promoting harmony with thy neighbor.


Short term? Yes, if that's your only criterion.
Longer term? You're neglecting the potential contribution to changing people's minds over time, which might allow reducing one source of larger social disharmonies.

Gawdzila: It seems to me that the more people see how atheists can also be kind and agreeable people, the more they will be generally accepted and the more it undermines the typical hogwash about atheists being bad immoral people without god's teachings.


Then by all means, keep being nice. (It's one reason why I save outright rudeness for very special occasions.) Contrariwise, I believe there are sociological studies suggesting in general that replacing prejudice with acceptance is associated to increased awareness of how many people in one's social circle fall into the category. Such assertive behavior lets people know that atheists are out there, and disapprove of such privileged gestures signalling the likes of them are an out-group -- tending to provide a negative reinforcement to that behavior.

YMMV.
 
2012-11-20 10:36:02 PM

abb3w: Gawdzila: No, although I think that kind of misses the point.

For an empiricist? Not really.


Yes, it does.
You're so busy being condescending and yammering about the thing you wanted to make the discussion about -- the overly-broad topic of "being nice and accommodating vs. being an assertive d*ckbag", that you apparently overlooked that the entire point of my post was that you can be assertive without being a complete douche. You're so glued this idea that changing people's minds is somehow antagonistic with promoting harmony -- as if you somehow have to exchange one for the other like social currency -- that you're failing to see the actual point I'm trying to make.

People are obstinate. If you come at them with the argument "NO YOU'RE WRONG" they will push back, almost no matter what it is you're saying. If you make the same point in a less confrontational way you are still educating them, but people who are open to changing their minds will do so more quickly and naturally since it feels like it is something they came to on their own and not an idea that has been inflicted upon them. And I know there is empirical evidence for this. So get out of here with your "learn to use Google Scholar" bullshiat; I'm a physicist, I know how peer reviewed science works. You, on the other hand, should perhaps learn to recognize new approaches to problems instead of trying to trying to trim and cram them into whatever dusty, biased old framework you've got mouldering in your thought processes.
 
2012-11-20 11:09:26 PM

abb3w: It's almost as amusing how shocked some atheists are to realize that they do take some points on "faith" -- though not necessarily the particular points (nor anywhere near as much) that Christians claim.


I agree completely. It was illuminating for me personally in this way the first time I saw you work your way through it some years ago. I owe at least a small measure of my current sense of perspective to you, so thanks.

abb3w: Some. The demographics are shifting, at least. It's not clear the attitudes are much, beyond that.


Along with the demographic shift on social issues, there's also a relative decline in numbers among people who identify as religious, is there not? Or perhaps I should say, a growing percentage that identify as non-religious?

Gawdzila: as much as I think their beliefs are nonsense there is also value in promoting harmony with thy neighbor.


Well, there's the kind of harmony that comes from one entity having complete control of the other, and the kind that is born out reciprocal respect for equivalent strength. At the moment, I see atheists and christians in the US as being in an uncomfortable place between the two.

In the grand scheme of things, atheists' modern battle for equality with theists has been about as benign as it gets for a religious conflict. No bombings, no riots, no barricaded streets, no mass exodus, no violence in the name of "the movement"- it's pretty much been a slow, steady (almost milquetoast, really) assertion of rights and opinions, mostly all taking place within the legal framework of the nation. A lot of it has been about little things, like in TFA. And these actions have been met with rhetoric that is wildly hyperbolic, like the "War on Christmas" nonsense.

I don't know how much "nicer" you can really expect atheists to be about this, unless you're subtly pointing to the idea that they should just give in on every front, and become christians on top of it (and I don't think you are). When one group is willing to characterize literally any action counter to their agenda as militant, I think "turn the other cheek" loses some of its moral impact.

The main sticking point seems to be that people are largely culturally blinded to the aggression that religion imposes on the non-religious, and the enormous social imbalance between the two positions. People who see atheists as rude and militant when they're really just trying to claim equitable social and political ground generally suffer from this blindness.
 
2012-11-20 11:50:36 PM

Gawdzila: People are obstinate. If you come at them with the argument "NO YOU'RE WRONG" they will push back, almost no matter what it is you're saying. If you make the same point in a less confrontational way you are still educating them, but people who are open to changing their minds will do so more quickly and naturally since it feels like it is something they came to on their own and not an idea that has been inflicted upon them.


Theists have been beating atheists with a proverbial stick for generations. Atheists could pull out a stick of their own and fight back, but instead, they're asking the theists to stop hitting them. You seem to be arguing that this is too rude and aggressive, and that they should instead obliquely imply that the theists might get fewer arm cramps if they swing their stick more slowly.
 
2012-11-20 11:51:43 PM

Gawdzila: You're so busy being condescending


Sorry about that. The appearance of condescension is mostly due to forcing a profound degree of disagreement through a screen of civility. More forthright expression would be ruder than that.

Gawdzila: you apparently overlooked that the entire point of my post was that you can be assertive without being a complete douche


Ah.

For that: the assorted ad campaigns show no matter how inoffensive the atheists are in asserting themselves, the Christians are outraged. Any reaction at all is going to be considered to be douchery of some form, by people reacting to motes with beams in their own eyes.

Getting into a full dissection of manners, social norms, and the is-ought bridge seems beyond the scope of a dying thread. But I'll note that given there's room for further escalation, it was also at most incomplete douchery; and the hyperbole leads to my (perhaps unfairly) discounting your argument as inaccurately calibrated.

Gawdzila: If you make the same point in a less confrontational way you are still educating them, but people who are open to changing their minds will do so more quickly and naturally since it feels like it is something they came to on their own and not an idea that has been inflicted upon them.


However, human learning apparently requires triggering cognitive dissonance or mass repetition; either will be considered douchey to some degree, the latter is impractical, leaving the former putting limits to the benefit of avoiding confrontation. Empirically, there are occasions where a more confrontational approach can be more more effective.

Z-clipped: Along with the demographic shift on social issues, there's also a relative decline in numbers among people who identify as religious, is there not? Or perhaps I should say, a growing percentage that identify as non-religious?


The demographics are shifting on degree of religious identification, with irreligiosity growing relatively rapidly. The shift on issues seems mostly correlated to the religious shift, with some exceptions. (Young folk are unkeen about abortion over defects. There's probably other issues that I'm forgetting.) Within degrees of religiosity, the attitudes seem pretty near constant.

Since before 1970, the irreligious percentage of "Nones" has apparently been growing roughly (with some oscillations) on a logistic curve with birth cohort, circa 27 year time constant, 2007 cohort expected midpoint. Also, I think we might be in seem in a slight upsurge for most cohorts -- the irreligious equivalent of the rise of the "religious right". The pendulum may eventually swing back a bit on that... but the amplitude is much smaller than the underlying logistic shift.

Of course, past performance is no surety of future trends.
 
2012-11-21 07:33:37 AM
These threads have the same people, copping the same poses, selling the same talking points, all trying to convince the other that there most certainly is / is no God and the theists and the atheists farm their respective back forty of sniffy dismissiveness and eye rolling, and the waves crash to the shore, and the sun rises and they don't really know, I don't really know and neither do you. So, there's that.
 
2012-11-21 08:24:56 AM

Gawdzila: It seems to me that the more people see how atheists can also be kind and agreeable people, the more they will be generally accepted and the more it undermines the typical hogwash about atheists being bad immoral people without god's teachings.


you know it's talk like this that sets us back 100s of years, i wasted half of my class (of christianity) the other day arguing with "xians" about the difference between morality and just being civil-polite

the sooner we distinguish the two the better of the world will be

abb3w: Of course, this is Fark a sign of the times, so most people aren't inclined to the effort.


meh

abb3w: For that: the assorted ad campaigns show no matter how inoffensive anyone is in asserting themselves, the xians are outraged.


FTFY

//the devil has been busy

i've spent weeks trying to convince xians, that speaking the Truth =/= being offensive

but they were too offended-outraged to hear my words...

apparently the age of emo-snowflakes began within our own beloved generation X, of course back in those days we told the nancies to 'man up' but as we all know that was quickly replaced with the cultural norm of telling men that it's ok to be effeminate and ironically the women had to 'man up' because there was no one left with enough balls to handle the responsibilities of reality

fun fact

hows that progress workin' out for ya?
 
2012-11-21 08:36:02 AM

abb3w: Any reaction at all is going to be considered to be douchery of some form, by people reacting to motes with beams in their own eyes.


actually there is a box truss in both sides' eyes

the blind leading the hypocrites, i am literally surrounded by the Idiot Brigade

if i told you what the topics are that we discuss in my class and the quality of the responses i get, you would probably crap yourself

let me just put it this way, i have actually referred to you (without naming names) as a person who understands significant parts of Christianity better than they do

needless to say, this doesn't bode well for the Keepers of the Light
 
2012-11-21 09:05:12 AM

abb3w: the is-ought bridge seems beyond the scope of a dying thread


maybe next time

abb3w: Empirically, there are occasions where a more confrontational approach can be more more effective.


i concur

/ready when you are

abb3w: The demographics are shifting on degree of religious identification


completely glossing over whether or not identification has any correlation with knowledge-ability

what do you suppose those numbers would actually look like if i were to tell you that of group X, only 20% of those that claim to be X actually are...?

i'm a chinese jet pilot

people have become so lost, (whether through apathy, ignorance, complacency, stupidity, vanity, etc..) that they wouldn't recognize the way even if the answers were given to them

all of the divinely designed IS-OUGHT bridges in all of Reality won't do you any good if they lack the will to invest a sufficient amount of effort-faith to cross them
 
2012-11-21 12:42:46 PM

I drunk what: i've spent weeks trying to convince xians, that speaking the Truth =/= being offensive


If they're offended by someone speaking an unpalatable truth, I'd think it says more about the listener than the speaker.

I drunk what: let me just put it this way, i have actually referred to you (without naming names) as a person who understands significant parts of Christianity better than they do


The Pew study indicated that for basic knowledge about Christianity, white mainline evangelicals average are a little more informed than the average atheist/agnostic, but I'm likely an outlier. More significantly, the edge is modest; there's not enough data easily turned up from Pew to be exact, but I'd guess the average such evangelical could expect at least one-in-six chance on running into an atheist more knowledgeable than them... and your crew is below the overall average. Factors associated with more knowledge about religion in general include more education, more religious education, reading about religion more frequently, and disfavoring a literal interpretation of scripture. I suspect the Church of Christ leans more to the literal end of the spectrum -- though correlation isn't causation, I suspect the root of that literal mindset may be the problem.

Of course, there's some difference between "knowledge" and understanding. Matthew 7:16-20?

I drunk what: completely glossing over whether or not identification has any correlation with knowledge-ability


Depends on how you define measures for those, and there are some confounds that weaken the correlation. However, since you seem to object to that gloss: first pass, irreligiosity tends to be correlated to intelligence, education, and socio-economic index. Second pass, how someone looks at the Bible is key: the more likely someone is to consider the Bible as Fable generally correlates positively to measured intelligence (though causation seems likely the other way around), in which case intelligence correlates to irreligiosity; but for those who don't consider it thus, religiosity increases with intelligence... making the overall correlation kind of impressive.

We've been over those before, though. Polarization looks to be increasing with younger cohorts, however.

I drunk what: what do you suppose those numbers would actually look like if i were to tell you that of group X, only 20% of those that claim to be X actually are...?


If you're referring to the fraction of those without religious affiliation who still have belief in God, or the ones who don't have a belief in God but still have religious affiliation, both tend to be relatively poor, stupid, and ill-educated compared to the religious theists, who in turn tend that way compare to the irreligious nontheists.

Otherwise, the first question is what basis you use to identify the 20%.
 
2012-11-21 10:19:25 PM

abb3w: Of course, there's some difference between "knowledge" and understanding.


it's like when a catholic can memorize the entire bible, but cannot tell you why we shouldn't be worshiping Mary

abb3w: Matthew 7:16-20?


nah that's more about faith with works

knowledge - Romans 10:17, Luke 11:37-54

understanding - 2 Timothy 2:15, James 1:5, 1 Corinthians 13:2

here's a decent link
 
2012-11-21 10:27:04 PM

abb3w: If you're referring to


actually i was thinking more along the lines of xians vs Christians

there are plenty of people claiming to be in that group and meanwhile very few of them even qualify

i see large amount of failures within the One True Church itself, can you imagine how many do not even come close in those other buildings?

abb3w: the first question is what basis you use to identify the 20%.


The Bible

/crashn'
//have a good thanksgiving
 
Displayed 449 of 449 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report