A Way To Stop Government Nativity Scenes?

I really, REALLY hate the “but nobody has complained!” defense.

Slavery was traditional, but we no longer do that. I really hate the argument that just because it has always been done it must be right.

Just like the billboard version of this, I don’t think this would be effective. As @The “Eh”theist said, it would require incredibly tight messaging and a truly professional, and likely national, operation.
I’m well aware that I’m in the minority of atheists here in believing such messages are dickish and counter-productive. However I think it can be quite credibly argued that if such messages are controversial even within our community, they will likely be recieved badly by the vast majority of those outside the community. I also know that plenty of people don’t give a hot damn if we offend every single theist out there. However if the objective is to remove these anti-Constitutional displays and what we are using is media attention, then it matters that coverage and opinion be in our favor. If we produce a backlash against us politicians will have less, not more, incentive, to stay away from such displays.

No, you either make it economically inconvenient (through lawsuits) or logistically inconvenient/unviable. If you’re going to use volunteers/media I would suggest going to the garden and setting up a good dozen or so “alternative” displays, of current, past and made up religions. Clutter up the place to the point that the Nativity is barely visible and then defy the government to take out all of them except the Christian one. You could still get coverage, it would be much harder to portray as offensive, and you might just get them to get rid of the headache by getting rid of the Nativity on public land.

So the poll boils down to:

Should We Follow the Constitution?

I’m with Claudia. Fill that lawn with flying speghetti monsters and such. I’d love to see them argue to keep only the Christian display.

also, thank you hoverfrog for the image!

I think setting up many alternate scenes next to it would be more effective. A planet mobile could be setup that includes russels teapot. Or a scene of a stork delivering the FSM or a unicorn, or Xenu and the Galactic Federation could be featured, etc…

If you want media attention, setup an alternate display that promotes Islam. If you want to really fire up the controversy, later slip in a baby Muhammad. With or without the baby, this would have multiple advantages.

* Muslims have an unquestionable right to be there

* Many Christians will freak out that Islam is being promoted by our government

* It’s sure to grab media attention

If baby Muhammad makes an appearance from time to time, fear of a Muslim reprisal with prevail, which may overpower their insistence on displaying their own little tyrant.

Hmmm, I like that Einstein quote. It’d be a perfect one to display.

If volunteers did this, I’d frankly fear for their safety and, as others have said, numerous displays would be more effective. Skip the protest and go straight to the lawsuit and, if you can’t keep the Xian nonsense out, bury it with numerous displays. Let’s have the Church Lady going, “Well, isn’t that special?” The point would be to point out to the Xians that they aren’t.

hoverfrog, you’re really getting adept at these posters. Good job!

This is terrible and right under that flag too. Wow…I would def. be willing to help set up the other displays. I consider myself a “radical” Atheist, I like getting on people’s faces anyday, but I think that making a big stink would be against us. People would get caught up on how we are antagonists and heathens, and totally steer away from the message we’re trying to convey.

I suggest that the local atheists should first provide some volunteers to help move the display to the grounds of a nearby church (or the front lawn of a nearby house, if someone wanted to host it).

If this is turned down by the owners of the display, then the second option is to put up some alternative displays, as suggested.

If this is disallowed by the council, then I think Pluto Animus’ proposal is a good one to carry out while the law suit is in preparation. The signs should prominently include the URL of a site which explains both the constitutional issues and the reasons why we know that the nativity stories are fictional.

Stephen, they’re breaking the fucking law. Move their own goddamn illegal shit to a place where it isn’t illegal, like a church. I’m not going to spend time away from family and friends to fix someone else’s illegal shit. No. Just no, and shame on you for suggesting it.

I don’t think the “myth” signs would be effective. Instead, “unconstitutional!” “law breakers!” etc. That’s what they are.

Bullshit add a disclaimer. Lets put up a muslim display in front of school and put a little sign that says “not everybody is a muslim, and here’s a link to the skepticsannotated koran”. Except it wouldn’t be that, it would be a weak refutation, probably the weakest one they could find. So is the government going to choose what website to put? I thought conservatives were for small government and lowering taxes.

Christians care when their rights are pissed over, but they’ll piss over other people all the time. They can dish it, but they can’t take it.

My apologies, I misread your comment Stephen.

I thought you were a Christian and were suggesting solutions to the problem(and nativity problems in general, as in federal solutions).

I think your suggestions are intelligent reasonable, but I am not an accommodationist. I think this should be fought, like I said earlier, strong. They’re law breakers and don’t respect the constitution, and should be treated as such. Complain, call them what they are, and sue them; that’s what I think.

In the minority here, but I kind of like the educational potential of Pluto Animus’ idea. Yes, you can’t educate the truly die-hard, but if we make it clear that it’s not religious displays that are objectionable, but such displays on government property, maybe some middle-of-the-road religious folk will conclude we’re not so evil/unreasonable after all. Probably a pipe dream, but I do appreciate public outreach that explains the secular perspective in addition to complaining about violations.

As long as you keep opening new browser windows, you can vote in the poll until your fingers fall off. We only need about a thousand votes to swing the poll in our favor. That’s 100 readers voting ten times each. We can do that!

Does anyone remember the response to the creche in state of Washington’s capitol a couple years ago? Fun!

I think it would be better if the sign had an arrow pointing to the manger and read “The Baby Mithras”.

“Well boo fucking hoo Danny Wuvs Kittens. Maybe you should put up a protest sign, as you rush over there on an expired registration (breaking the law!), something like ‘Zero atheists were injured in the setting up of this display’.

What really gets me is when atheists compare their ‘plight’ to the Civil Rights Movement. Letting loose the police dogs, spraying with fire hoses, and lynchings pale in comparison to having to see religious symbols on — gasp in horror — public lands!!!

Here’s an idea – hows abouts we go over to Arlington National Cemetery, since that’s public land and all, and remove any rosaries or other religious offerings left on the headstones. That’ll show those believers what’s what!

Fuck their grief, can’t they see we have much more pressing issues to worry about than their dead loved ones?”

First, this isn’t going a few miles above the speed limit downhill(something which should still be avoided) or a slightly expired registration(but seriously, how hard is it to mark a calender?). Those are minor infractions, and people rarely face punishment for them, and when they do, its minor; a small fine. I’m not upset that they’re probably breaking some ancient zoning code from 1860. I’m concerned that they’re SHITTING ALL OVER FIRST GODDAMNED AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION.

Arlington is not the same thing. People are allowed to put things on the graves of their dead loved ones. If a church came and were putting crosses on ALL the graves, that would be wrong. I’m aware that there ARE crosses in the cemetery, which is fine, provided that dead non-Christians have an alternative option for their respective religious beliefs(or lack of). I’m pretty sure that’s the way it is. Jews get the star of David, I know. Muslims should get something different too, and atheists should too(though it can be argued that a simple cross as a grave has become a secular symbol, I still think they should have something special). Don’t put beliefs onto the dead that they didn’t have.

If this is not the case, it should be fixed, but its also less practical. Arlington has been there many decades, and if there is a place with crosses, you can’t just rip them out of the ground.

This nativity scene has been there two weeks, probably less. Nobody is buried in the nativity scene. Its totally practical to move it out of respect to the constitution.

As for Christmas trees, they’re secular displays. Nowhere near the same thing as a nativity scene.

Oh, and as for the civil rights movement, I haven’t heard anyone compare it to the secularist movement. I’ve heard people compare certain situations to Rosa Parks or MLK, and they may or may not have some merit in some respects, but I haven’t heard anyone compare us as a whole to the civil rights movement.

I personally have no issue with government sponsored nativity scenes on public land. Just as long as those displays are no more prominent than the displays of the other accouterments of the pageantry of the season. That’s right, a nativity scene is OK as long as it’s next to Santa and his elves and reindeer, a christmas tree, Frosty the Snowman and Charlie Brown.

I tell my daughter about baby Jesus with the same gravity that I tell her about the Boy who Cried Wolf.

I’m aware that there ARE crosses in the cemetery, which is fine, provided that dead non-Christians have an alternative option for their respective religious beliefs(or lack of). I’m pretty sure that’s the way it is.

Off-topic, but just so you know yes, there are options for the non-religious. In fact, the military is pretty awesome in that respect, and allows for a large variety of symbols, including the American Atheists A with electronic orbits and the Humanist H.

Invite the media so that some local news anchor can wag his finger and tut-tut the mean old atheists for interfering with ‘tradition’?

I’d stick with the courts.

I live nearby, and in case nobody else has realized it Brookville, IN is maybe a half an hour from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Ky. So yeah, that’s what you’re dealing with here.

Robert W

Russel’s tea pot, the flying spaghetti monster and the other potential displays in opposition are not religions and as such would not be allowed as a counter display.

So treat all religions equally – but its ok to discriminate against non believers – eh? Well atleats you are consistent
Discriminates against gays – Check
Discriminates against atheists – Check
Now all we need to know is if you discriminate against women and you have your trifecta.

I do think that a disclaimer from the county that says they are not promoting one religion over another and that there are people who do not believe in the Christian story of Christmas would be appropriate.

No that doesnt work. You’d also have to light up for Diwali and sacrifice goats for Bakri Eid to prove that you arent endorsing any religion rather than empty words designed to circumvent the consititution.

For alternative displays let us not forget Festivus and a display of “The Feats of Nekkid Greased Up Strength”. It must be performed by the least nekkidable amongst us and I’ll go first.

Flooding the channel with other displays would be one way to dilute it’s respect and raise awareness. But, I do think we should continually make it known that our real goal is to get all displays removed. There may be a lot of people who will be uncomfortable having to explain to their kids as they drive by that other people believe other things. I do think that the signs pointing at the display is a good last option. It’s exercising our freedom of speech. And, it’s going to make a lot more people uncomfortable to the point where many Christians would rather the nativity be taken down, rather then have their kids exposed to something that might foster doubt. We could float the idea for a few years, and when we do it they can’t say that we didn’t give them fair warning (not that they haven’t had it already). Also, if it’s done, all displays by freethought groups should come down everywhere…we need to be consistent.

Deepak,

So treat all religions equally – but its ok to discriminate against non believers – eh? Well atleats you are consistent

How is not allowing a Flying Spaghetti Monster display discriminating against atheists when the idea is to display traditional holiday decorations?

If atheists want to be taken seriously I don’t think that an attempt to use the satirical Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Tea Pot would work. You would have to tell the County that you believe in those as a religion and that there is a history within this country of people celebrating those religions during Christmas with certain decorations and you want equal time and space. Of course you couldn’t do that because you would be lying when you say any of that particularly because you don’t believe there is such a being. They would rightfully say prove it is a religion and to be consistent with why the nativity scene is up,prove its secular historical significance as a holiday event in this country.

The secular argument for Nativity scenes has been that they represent the historical nature of this holiday in this country. See Lynch v. Donelly as an example of that argument. You simply don’t have that with the other displays that you mention.

Robert W

How is not allowing a Flying Spaghetti Monster display discriminating against atheists when the idea is to display traditional holiday decorations?

You aren’t representing our thoughts on the season. You keep using the word traditional – then please use 10,000 years as your reference point.

If atheists want to be taken seriously I don’t think that an attempt to use the satirical Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Tea Pot would work

possibly. Satire is wasted on the religious – most aren’t smart enough to get it as you aptly demonstrate.

The secular argument for Nativity scenes

Oh please. Make up your mind is Christmas a secular event or a religious one.

Deepak,

You aren’t representing our thoughts on the season. You keep using the word traditional – then please use 10,000 years as your reference point.

That doesn’t show discrimination. Not including a menorah would. By tradition, I mean in this country. No need to go back 10,000 years for that point of reference.

possibly. Satire is wasted on the religious – most aren’t smart enough to get it as you aptly demonstrate.

Oh I’m smart enough to get it and probably smarter then those who throw this particular argument around as if it means something. It’s just not good satire nor does it advance your cause in relation to a Nativity scene argument.

Oh please. Make up your mind is Christmas a secular event or a religious one.

I was giving you the Supreme Court’s rationale as to why even a christian symbol of a Christian holiday would have a secular purpose which would make it constitutional. Is that clear enough for you to understand?

Deepak,

Why ever not? Certainly native americans are probably offended by your casual dismissal of their traditions.

Maybe you could enlighten me on the Christmas traditions of the Native Americans.

Why not? It exposes just how ridiculous religious beliefs are since you can no more disprove the FSM exists than I can disprove that Jesus turned water into wine.

Actually it doesn’t. It just mocks religious belief without making a point at all. Without exposing a defect in religious belief it simply makes the person saying it sound silly.

Ill read Scalia whenever I want to know that. It’s idiotic reasoning.Even most Christians will admit that the cross is a religious symbol – its made secular whenever someone wants to circumvent the constitution not because they actually believe it has a secular purpose.

Like it or not, the history of this country includes a robust and profound Christian heritage that is part of our makeup and our history. There is a secular purpose in representing this history and reflecting it in our public square. That doesn’t change the nature of the symbols at all, but it does show that the state can have secular purpose in presenting it.

It would be like telling the story of the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving without mentioning their Christian beliefs.

Nah, we don’t need state-sponsored unemployment programs, education, or health care; however, it’s absolutely imperative that the government advertises moar jesus. Long-standing traditions can’t survive without government support, don’t you know?

Deepak,

The point is you cannot draw an arbitrary line in time and say after this is tradition – before this no tradition. the fact that the native americans dont have a Christmas tradition should tell you that you cannot make an argument like “Christmas displays are traditional”

Probably the best way to answer this comment is from the Lynch v. Donnelly opinion itself:

Based on the record in this case, the city has a secular purpose for including the creche in its Christmas display, and has not impermissibly advanced religion or created an excessive entanglement between religion and government. The display is sponsored by the city to celebrate the Holiday recognized by Congress and national tradition and to depict the origins of that Holiday; these are legitimate secular purposes. Whatever benefit to one faith or religion or to all religions inclusion of the creche in the display effects, is indirect, remote, and incidental, and is no more an advancement or endorsement of religion than the congressional and executive recognition of the origins of Christmas, or the exhibition of religious paintings in governmentally supported museums. This Court is unable to discern a greater aid to religion from the inclusion of the creche than from the substantial benefits previously held not violative of the Establishment Clause. As to administrative entanglement, there is no evidence of contact with church authorities concerning the content or design of the exhibition prior to or since the city’s purchase of the creche. No expenditures for maintenance of the creche have been necessary, and, since the city owns the creche, now valued at $200, the tangible material it contributes is de minimis. Political divisiveness alone cannot serve to invalidate otherwise permissible conduct, and, in any event, apart from the instant litigation, there is no evidence of political friction or divisiveness over the creche in the 40-year history of the city’s Christmas celebration. Pp. 465 U. S. 680-685.

That is the point I am making.

Ok. What is the difference between the stories made up by
a. Bobby Henderson
b. Joseph Smith
c. L Ron Hubbard?
Assume for a moment that you don’t know that FSM is satire. read what each of the above had said, what proof they have submitted, the evidence for claims made. Then conclude why a) is *ineffective* satire b) is a religion and c) is a cult.

a. A study of how this “religion” came about, a study of its founder that would have to admit that he doesn’t believe what he is saying shows it is an attempt at satire.

b. A study of the history of this religion, the fact that people who follow it believe it to be true reveal that it is a real religion. Some would however call it a cult

c. Same answer for b. The people who believe in it don’t think it is a cult and think that it is a true religion, however most looking outside would call it a cult.

However what is also true is that this nation was founded on secular principles even if some of the founders were Christians. They went out of their way to spell it out. You are the one who ignores this heritage. Government has no business putting up religious scenes – its not its job.

Despite the establishment clause, not every acknowledgment of religion by the government is a violation. As the supreme court stated:

This Court’s interpretation of the Establishment Clause comports with the contemporaneous understanding of the Framers’ intent. That neither the draftsmen of the Constitution, who were Members of the First Congress, nor the First Congress itself saw any establishment problem in employing Chaplains to offer daily prayers in the Congress is a striking example of the accommodation of religious beliefs intended by the Framers. Pp. 465 U. S. 673-674.

(c) Our history is pervaded by official acknowledgment of the role of religion in American life, and equally pervasive is evidence of accommodation of all faiths and all forms of religious expression and hostility toward none. Pp. 465 U. S. 674-678.

So I don’t think I am ignoring our heritage and a public display of a nativity scene recognizes that heritage

I have a solution to this whole problem. All athiests stay out of Brookville until Christmas is over. Then, If you want, come on back. If not stay away forever. You most likely don’t contribute to anything good anyway.