Atheists "Hijack" Nativity in Santa Monica

#1

n_huffhines

What's it gonna cost?
Joined
Mar 11, 2009
Messages
88,321
Likes
53,255
#1
Even though I'm not religious, I have a hard time identifying with atheists. This kind of thing is part of the reason why.

Patrick Elliott, a lawyer for the Freedom From Religion Foundation, said tradition is no excuse for violating the boundaries between church and state. "Just because they're long-standing doesn't mean they're right," he said.

Ironically, using government property to push an anti-religious agenda would be a violation of church and state, as well.

"It's littering — literally, littering — these spaces," Gaylor said of such displays, which she said are a "territorial attempt by Christians to impose their beliefs in this season."

"That creates an atmosphere of intimidation," said Gaylor, who noted that the organization's banner was destroyed by vandals after being hung in Palisades Park. "Christians are the insiders, and everyone else is an outsider."

Atheists 'hijack' Nativity display in Santa Monica, critics say - latimes.com
 
#2
#2
I think it's funny but I read part of it with a George Carlin voice in my head......

ATHEIST "Hijack" Nativity in Santa Monica

Meanwhile, vandals, you know just being little ole vandals destroyed some silly old banner.
 
#3
#3
I think it's funny but I read part of it with a George Carlin voice in my head......

ATHEIST "Hijack" Nativity in Santa Monica

Meanwhile, vandals, you know just being little ole vandals destroyed some silly old banner.

Yeah, but that would be the actions of an individual, I assume. I tend to be more critical of organization-wide actions.
 
#5
#5
They, fairly, won the lottery to put up displays. I don't see a problem with this. It is a little hypocritical, though. I don't care much for tradition, though.
 
#7
#7
Hmm...Atheists won these spots fairly; Christians vandalized their property...

Merry Christmas.
 
#8
#8
They, fairly, won the lottery to put up displays. I don't see a problem with this. It is a little hypocritical, though. I don't care much for tradition, though.

It's not about that, to me. And it's not even about them being hypocritical, really. They're just being bastards. They can put up their displays some other time of year. The only reason they care is because they want to sabotage the Christians' fun.

Not to mention, Christian nativity displays are passive. It's a celebration of what is Christian. They are being replaced by political statements intended to deride people and organizations. If anything, this is a much bigger violation of the spirit of the intent of the "separation of church and state".
 
#9
#9
I don't see the displays as passive. Maybe, if they used a Santa Claus and some reindeer, I could see it.
 
#10
#10
It's not about that, to me. And it's not even about them being hypocritical, really. They're just being bastards. They can put up their displays some other time of year. The only reason they care is because they want to sabotage the Christians' fun.

Not to mention, Christian nativity displays are passive. It's a celebration of what is Christian. They are being replaced by political statements intended to deride people and organizations. If anything, this is a much bigger violation of the spirit of the intent of the "separation of church and state".

Don't Christians already possess tax-free land upon which they can do whatever they want?

Christmas, for Christians, is the celebration of the incarnation of a God who will only accept those who believe in him; the holiday itself, at its foundation, is one of at best passive-aggression to anyone and everyone who does not share the same beliefs.
 
#12
#12
Don't Christians already possess tax-free land upon which they can do whatever they want?

Christmas, for Christians, is the celebration of the incarnation of a God who will only accept those who believe in him; the holiday itself, at its foundation, is one of at best passive-aggression to anyone and everyone who does not share the same beliefs.

Not all Christians believe that.
 
#13
#13
I think it's funny but I read part of it with a George Carlin voice in my head......

ATHEIST "Hijack" Nativity in Santa Monica

Meanwhile, vandals, you know just being little ole vandals destroyed some silly old banner.

Solid.
 
#14
#14
We get upset because the Atheist group took the time and effort to figure out a way to get their message across and the Christian groups thought it was their right to have the display without putting forth the effort.

I'm a Christian and strong believer. However, I'm dismayed at how lazy we are. We cry about political correctness and ask why we can't say merry Christmas in the schools but then we put up inflatable Santas and reindeer in our yards. We'll write a letter to the newspaper saying how prayer should be allowed in school but then we don't encourage our kids, who are allowed to pray, to stand up and make their voice heard. The fact is the Christians who wanted to put up this display should have made sure they had enough applications in to make it happen. Or they should have had a back up plan...you know, how about moving the traditional scene into 14 different churches and providing a map to those interested. Well that would require work and effort and cooperation among the denominations...admit it, we are lazy.
 
#15
#15
First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
 
#17
#17
It's a massive, super-secret (or not so secret), conspiracy against Christians. Everyone is out to get you people...
 
#19
#19
Derpaderpaderp! First Amendment! Derpaderp!

Anyway, I don't the Amendments mean **** to vandals. I'm an atheist, and I think it was a childish, silly thing to do, but it was also stupid to leave such a display so open to vandalism.

Lesson learned: the constitution doesn't apply for squat here. This is nothing more than idiots being idiots.
 
#21
#21
Vix, a 43-year-old prop maker from Burbank, said the display "defines Santa Monica as a Christian city, and I feel very excluded by that."

He might want to find out who his city is named after.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
Where is this separation of church and state nonsense written as law?

:ermm:


It was taken from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson
,Third President of the United States, stated in a Jan. 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association:

President Jefferson's Reply:

Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802


In response to this Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }


Who were they:
The Danbury Baptists were a religious minority in Connecticut, and they complained that in their state, the religious liberties they enjoyed were not seen as immutable rights, but as privileges granted by the legislature — as "favors granted."

Jefferson's reply did not address their concerns about problems with state establishment of religion — only of establishment on the national level. The letter contains the phrase "wall of separation between church and state," which led to the short-hand for the Establishment Clause that we use today: "Separation of church and state."

This is the one and only use, that i am aware of, of the term "Seperation of Church and State" that is accredited to any of the founding fathers.
 
#24
#24
Oh, so that matters? Tell everyone to evacuate LA. Turns out those people aren't angels. I repeat, they are NOT angels!

His complaint was that Nativity displays give the impression that Santa Monica is a "Christian city." I would think he'd have much more problem with the city being named after a Christian saint.
 
#25
#25
His complaint was that Nativity displays give the impression that Santa Monica is a "Christian city." I would think he'd have much more problem with the city being named after a Christian saint.

No, you find the people in a city are a much more valid reason to hate a city than the name, but that's just my experience.
 

VN Store



Back
Top