No, the beliefs and non-beliefs are not equal. The right to believe and the right to not believe is equal. There is a difference.

We must uphold the separation of religion and government. Each by itself cause much misery and many problems, combined it would be more than any human could endure.

Jeremy, the Constitution applies to all Government, not just the Federal Government. As such, you can't just do "whatever the voters allow locally". That's why slavery isn't allowed anymore.

Now the atheists have just as much right to put up their message as the Christians, Jews or anyone else. If the city wants to allow one, they must allow all (or a fair process for determining which ones are allowed). Since the city decided not to get involved anymore, then none are allowed. It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with Constiutionality.

And frankly, if you can't make your point without insulting everyone else, perhaps you shouldn't be trying to make a point at all.

You cannot use freedom of religion when you do not believe in it. Its freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. Two very different things.

Actually, no it is not. You can be free of religion, therefore you have freedom of religion.

Well, Jessica, you could have made your point without all the nastiness, you know? Who cares what you say when you write that way..doesn't reflect well on you or your point.

Jeremy, you are wrong. You feel you simply have the right to do as you wish in a public park because the majority happens to like it? What if the majority were a group you really disagreed with and might not like a 14 scene display of their beliefs up for weeks in the public park you like to use? And yes, we are supposed to have freedom from religion as well as of which one we choose. So if they had 14 scenes from the Qur'an that would be okay with you? Or maybe the Satanists could take over the park a few weeks a year?

I agree nasty signs aren't helpful, but there is a point here that the park is for everyone and not a "Christan park", and just because they have done it that way for years doesn't make it right or fair.

@Todd,

This isn't about one belief "trumping" another. It's about religious (or non-religious) displays on public property. The city is done with it.

People can still post their Nativities, Menorahs, etc. along with their anti-religious displays on private property.

@Jeremy,

You cannot have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion. Think about it.

Jeremy you are correct. I have been searching for the right way to express myself in the battle and you have it. I am a moderate atheist and believe that manger on the courthouse square should be there as the majority of Americans believe in it. I believe there is a needed place in this world for organized religion, always have. Our country was founded by men who were religious believing men who just wanted freedom for all to worship as they pleased with no one religion to gain in stature over the other. That is why the constitution was written as it was. Jessica you are an abomination on life, a radical atheist who has no right to paint atheists as you do.

Since porn is more popular than religion should we include porn sites in this park also?

This is what Jefferson clearly believed. And also quite obviously in the separation of church and state. And who informed Madison on matters of religion? Why don't the churches have their displays on church grounds? That's where religion belongs. And it is patently absurd as some have suggested that the churches can have their display but not the atheists. Not if any equal rights are at play. And there is little in the Bible so obviously concocted than the birth story. Then we get one reference to Jesus (obviously added) for about the next 30 years.

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. "

Thomas Jefferson - in his autobiography regarding the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom.

This argument also reminds me of my favorite cartoon on the subject...

http://museshelpme.blogspot.com/2012/09/english-essay.html

They can't have it both ways!

I am atheist, I am tired of the constant believe as I do or else, my rights supersede yours theory. If u put it on ur property that is your right. In order for me to make an oath I have to request the under god and bible be removed else Y I start with a lie. I resent having to do that in a court of law. So is the law written for me I wonder.

The atheists used half their spaces, displaying signs such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil and said: "37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?"

Most of the signs were vandalized and in the ensuing uproar, the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames, the City of the Christmas Story.

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

Priceless. They want free speech, but when the Atheists have the free speech, they want to tear down and vandalize that speech.

Newsflash! It was your fine, upstanding religious people that vandalized and forced the city to stop the displays!

The city has decided that they do not want to be involved in this mess and I can't say I blame them. When non-Christians posted their messages alongside the christian ones they were vandalized. The city does not want a repeat of that so they have decide to stop this altogether. I can not fault them for it. In fact, it is the intolerant Christians who vandalized the non-Christian displays that brought this about, so they really have no one to blame but themselves. The city was left with the option of once again conducting their lottery and allowing anyone who wished to set up a display or not allow the displays at all, they chose the latter. I think that they probably made the right choice based on history. Having the lottery and allowing all displays would most likely have resulted in another round of vandalism by the intolerant Christians and the whole thing turning into an eyesore.

The question isn't who has the right to promote displays of their beliefs, but who has the right to do it on public property. The answer is: no one. Do what you like on private land; leave the rest of it alone.

It is freedom of religion, not any other interpretation. See that's the problem. Many people have sought to twist our Founding Father's words to suit their own needs, instead of understand the original meaning. If they don't like the principles we are founded on, then they need to change them through the process already established, not make crap up and expect us to believe them.

I'm glad they are suing.

This so called "non-belief" is also a belief. They have no evidence that God doesnt exist. Both positions are unknowns. Logically speaking, you cant prove a negative. The Constitution protects the FREEDOM of speech but has no duty to SUBSIDIZE or FACILITATE it.

Since the rights of Atheists don't trump the rights of christians, the rights of christians shouldn't trump the rights of Atheists. There is no legal justification to giving christians special rights to display their, and only their, beliefs on public property.

"There is no Dog"

-Dyslexic Atheist :)

As long as everyone both atheist and Christian are allowed to set up their displays and NOT ONE DIME OF TAXPAYER'S MONEY is used for any of it who cares. Just one bunch of idiots trying to force their beliefs on another and visa versa.

How about...you keep your religious stink off the government, and the government can keep it's laws off religion. That being said...

There are plenty of front yards or churches that can host this display. No parks or government buildings should be involved.

I am not an atheist -- I grew up in the Christian tradition, and I believe in God. (Just not an old guy with a beard and a white robe,who lives in the sky.)

Myth is not a bad word. (Joseph Campbell wrote a book called Myths to Live By.) A myth is a story that contains meaning for our lives. I once heard it described as "the truth rolled up in a story."

Yes, every religion has its myths. It's just that while Christians are perfectly willing to call other religions' stories myths, they get pretty upset when it is applied to their religion.

In this case, the churches of Santa Monica could easily set up their own nativity scenes. Or, in an act of ecumenism, they could rotate the location from church to church. I don't think anyone would mind. It's about not using public property to promote one set of religious beliefs while being intolerant of the beliefs (or non-beliefs) of others.

What's the big deal? the churches can get together and have a 'walking' (oops, 'driving') nativity - each church in the area puts a portion of the story they want to tell ON THEIR PROPERTY and people can walk (oops, it is California, I mean drive) by to see them.

Yesterday's religions are today's myths. Today's religions are tomorrow's myths.

And, Wet Willy, most atheists do ignore the Christian myth, UNTIL IT'S SHOVED DOWN OUR THROAT ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. Enjoy your religion, keep it on church property and private property, but not public property.

So remind me again why the church is NOT putting this display on church property? I am all for 1st ammendment rights, but religious displays belong on religious property.

Does the city post job openings on church property? does the city park police cars in the church parking lot? God, give me that days before political correctness, and yes, I used to live in CA...

As an atheist, I'm thrilled that religion is losing it's mind control over America, but I also cringe when fellow atheists choose Christmas to make their point. What's next, a trip to Disneyland to post signs that Mickey Mouse doesn't actually exist? Raised in an abusive Christian home, I began reading those atheist books I wasn't supposed to because my parents used Bible verses to justify their mistreatment of me (Exodus 21:17, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Proverbs 13:24, Proverbs 20:30, Proverbs 29:15, etc.). My skepticism in childhood was certainly not sparked by some idiot ruining Christmas. I understand if he was only trying to make a point, but Jewish atheists in New York used to purchase billboards along the road, just to post signs insulting the nativity story. I imagine some of that stems from jealousy because they were never allowed to celebrate Christmas in childhood but, obviously, any atheist can celebrate any holiday he wants, and should. Whenever I see these displays, my thought is "why Christmas?" Why not gather a group of atheists to counter one of the Westboro Baptist Church's demonstrations, or put up signs around college campuses about the importance of evolution to a scientific education, in order to make your point? Why not purchase billboards that list the wars fought over religion, and their casualties, or remind people of the Salem Witch trials, and post those signs during Pride Month, instead? If you want to gain support, don't attack a holiday. Rather, demonstrate the good atheism brings to society.

If the atheists the religious were truly comfortable with their belief/non-belief dogma, they wouldn't feel the need to constantly attack the religion non-belief of others.

See how that works? It's a 2 way street. Or did you miss that whole "do unto others" thing?

schoolyard post 1.20

great job, you may have a cookie..............

Why is it that those that feel offended by others actions don't mind enforcing their actions or beliefs ( or non-beliefs) on others?? Isn't that just a bit hypocritical? What's wrong with live and let live - can't we just look the other way if what we see bothers our beliefs....don't many (perhaps all) liberals look the other way at illegal immigrants that violate the very laws we would be subjected to imprisonment for? Where is YOUR tolerance for others?

Um,um,um....those tolerant, inclusive lefties are at it again. Betcha they'd have no problem with a Muslim feast day display.

ram: Just be polite and ignore Jessica's rant as you would politely ignore someone's accidental fart in an elevator.

Wet Willy

Please do not generalize... The vast majority of us atheists are perfectly comfortable with you having your religion. It is your prerogative to have whatever belief you want. Stating that ALL atheists are as these morons is like stating that ALL christians are fundamentalists. Remember, If morons could fly they would fill the sky!

Some atheists have made atheism into a religion... Atheism is tolerant in itself since it does not accept the imposition of beliefs, so trying to impose atheism is a contradiction.

Maybe the authors of the Constitution could help clarify what is obviously misinformation that someone fed some of you regarding their original intent. They were actually very emphatically clear on the subject:

"An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against......Every new and successful example therefore of a PERFECT SEPARATION between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance........religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government." [James Madison in a letter to Livingston, 1822, from Leonard W. Levy- The Establishment Clause, Religion and the First Amendment,pg 124]

"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 legitimate 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 should "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." - Thomas Jefferson 1802

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on
one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others."- James Madison

"In the affairs of the world, men are saved not by faith, but by the lack of it."- Ben Franklin

"This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in
it"- John Adams

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - John Adams, Treaty of Tripoli

"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."- George Washington

It's not logically possible to have freedom of religion without freedom from it. Saying otherwise is like disagreeing with 1+1=2. If an individual lacks freedom from any religious belief that is not his own - his freedom of religion is thus null and void. Meaning, for those of you who are inclined to nonsense - freedom from religion is intrinsic to having freedom of religion.

Constitutionally, the government - whether it's local, state, or federal - cannot endorse, support, or otherwise promote in any fashion one religion over another. It can either a) treat all religions equally or b) stay out of it.

In this case - the displays are on public property using public funding. In other words, they belong to EVERYONE. Previously, to ensure equality as the Constitution demands - a lottery was done to objectively provide permits for display applicants - which was well within Constitutional grounds. But when Christians began vandalizing non-Christian displays, the local gov't went the safest and most clearly Constitutional direction and decided to stay out of it all-together... because the Christians seemingly could not handle sharing public property with those of differing beliefs.

Any questions?

If they want a nativity scene, put it in front of the church where it belongs, not on government property. It's that simple. Not every tax payer in the country is a Christian. Quit shoving your beliefs down everyone's throat.

Jessica, Nice post supporting your belief. You represent the atheists so well (BTW - that's called sarcasm). I don't blame you for the way you act since obviously your parent(s) raised you that way. Too bad they never taught you respect or tact.

As for all of this Christian and atheists stuff, they're both faith base. The definition of faith is the belief in something that can not be proven. Therefore Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc can not prove the existence of a supreme being any more than atheist can prove a supreme being doesn't exists.

So one question; Why all the hate?

“When I do good, I feel good. When I do bad, I feel bad. That's my religion.” Abraham Lincoln

Ask yourself; what is this bickering between Christians and atheists teaching our children about acceptance, tolerance, justice, faith, sincerity, love, equality, and fairness?

This is a huge country and there is room for all beliefs, all traditions. If a church wants booth to set up a nativity scene, great. If an atheist wants a booth to set up a display that celebrates freedom from religion, fine. If a coven wants a booth to celebrate yule and Solstice, great. If a Muslim wants a booth to celebrate their version of the nativity, great. Same for Jews, Buddhists, Hindu, Bahai'i, and Pastafarians.

This should not be a display about 'whose religion is better', but rather an object lesson for visitors about the different views that their friends and neighbors hold. It shouldn't be about 'one-upmanship' or 'who can grab the most space' but rather as a display of the tolerance and acceptance this country was founded on, the principle that no one belief system is more or less important than anyone else's. It should be a display of the many kinds of faith-based belief systems out there, a way of opening a visitor's mind to what is out there and letting them decide for themselves, and it should be a celebration of a season that is all about giving, sharing, caring for each other, the joy of giving to make someone else happy, and a reminder that many, many people around the world are not so lucky to live in a country like ours that accepts and tolerates everyone's beliefs.

jeremy said;

congress blah blah blah, has ZERO bearing on this. After all this is not the Federal Gvmnt, this is local City Gvmtn. And we can pretty much do whatever the voters allow locally ( as long as it does not step on federal toes )

In a true democracy, the will of the majority rules. However, we do not live in a true democracy, we live in a republic and laws have to be fair for everyone--and apply to everyone.

gilamonster70,

The difference, as I see it, is that the churches seek to give a positive representation in their display (positive in that it seeks to affirm a belief - not slander others) while the Atheists seem to only want to mock and insult.

It is freedom of religion, not any other interpretation. See that's the problem. Many people have sought to twist our Founding Father's words to suit their own needs, instead of understand the original meaning. If they don't like the principles we are founded on, then they need to change them through the process already established, not make crap up and expect us to believe them.

@willowbrook it seems as though it's you who needs the reading comprehension refresher. The establishment clause states "respecting an establishment of religion" not "respecting an establishment of a religion" ergo it does provide for freedom from religion and the imposition of religion of any kind on others. Your freedom of expression as it pertains to public land/government ends at my freedom of religion.

jeremy said:

Even all of that aside, The root of this is political correctness bull chit. Look you might not believe, but the majority of this country DOES believe in a higher power of some sort ( insert your chosen god here ) Your rights stop where others begin. Stop being a dikwad and let the people who do believe have their day. Letting someone celebrate with a display in the park, does not affect you in one shape or form. If you must do something point and laugh and go about your own business..

Wet Willy said:

If the atheists were truly comfortable with their belief/non-belief dogma, they wouldn't feel the need to constantly attack the religion of others. I believe they're compelled to do so to attempt to validate their position, otherwise, why not just ignore the religions of others?

I would very much like to see Christians point, laugh and go about their business or otherwise 'ignore the religions of others' if a Muslim were to put up a historically-accurate Nativity scene (Muslims do acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah and do subscribe to the concept of Jesus' conception of a virgin birth.) Joseph and Mary were Jewish, and the Bible itself says that Mary was engaged to Joseph but not yet married to him. By Jewish tradition at the time, girls could be engaged/betrothed as young as 9, and were married by 12, and had started childbearing by 14; any woman who had reached her late teens/early twenties and not yet had children would have been anathema as the Jews at the time considered sacred God's word to 'Be fruitful and multiply.' So a Muslim's nativity scene would look the same except Joseph would be 16-18, and Mary would be a child somewhere between 9 and 14.

I doubt very, very much that the Christians would leave that alone.

ram said:

So if they had 14 scenes from the Qur'an that would be okay with you? Or maybe the Satanists could take over the park a few weeks a year?

THANK YOU!

The entire concept of 'Christmas' is a flawed one--Jesus wasn't born on December 25,we have no idea exactly when he was born.

My belief system celebrates Yule, or Midwinter/Solstice on what is now Dec 21; since our belief system was the majority religion at the time Christianity was founded, the Christians placed their celebration of Jesus's birth close to ours and eventually the Christian celebration superseded the much-older Yule. (Didn't you all ever wonder where the name 'Yule' came from and where the traditions of a 'Yule Log' and present exchanges came from?)

I doubt very much that the Christians would enjoy seeing a coven celebrate Yule skyclad in a public park. They would be petitioning to get that shut down in a hurry, and I firmly believe that they would forgo their own displays if it mean that the coven had to forgo theirs as well.

Can't wait till this hell hole called California falls into the ocean. These retards are arguing over this issue but don't want to know what's in their food and can't balance a budget. You are what you eat and as I see it California is full of crap. Funny how the athiest gays illeagles all get their say but when a religion wants to express it they crap all over it. If you don't want them forcing their beliefs on you, than shut up and grow up. It is freedom of religion NOT freedom From religion. These United States were based on Gods law like it or not. Also agre with previous poster. The city has the right to do as voters decide.

It seems to me there are two types of atheists, the first who does not believe or accept God/religion and the second who want to attack it and stamp it out completely. I respect the viewpoint of the first, but the second group is NO DIFFERENT from people who try to push their religion on others. If the city doesn't want displays then why can't the churches each put up their own or rent a space to put up their displays?

Wet Willy...were the "christians" that vandalized the athiests display attempting to validate their position because they're unsure of their beliefs? These roads go both ways. If athiests treated christians the way christians treat athiests, there wouldn't be a church standing in this country, just a pile of ashes every fifteen feet on every main stretch of road.

Sorry Christians. If you want to display christian religious figures on our public spaces, pay taxes or no go...

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.”
― Thomas Jefferson

ram: Just be polite and ignore Jessica's rant as you would politely ignore someone's accidental fart in an elevator.

LOL!

The problem is that ol' Jessica kinda shat all over the place. Not exactly the best way to win over "converts". (Pardon the pun.)

Simplest solution: Either allow them all, (charging them ALL rent), or do no not allow any, on public lands.

When one looks at the way the government is set up, the Founders use PRINCIPLES from various civilizations/religions, (mainly Christianity, but not totally), for the way things were to work. But only the principles! Not the actual religion(s).

We got the cutest little cameras hanging everywhere, Oh yeah.
After a while you just forget they're there, Oh yeah.
What a perfect place.
This perfect place.
-- "This Perfect Place", Pink World, Tony Carey/Planet P Project

There is a difference between putting up a display to promote your religion and putting up a display ridiculing another religion. What the atheist did was put up a display that ridiculed Christianity and that was wrong. If they want to put up a display promoting non religious beliefs then do that but don't put up a display ridiculing another religion whether it be Christianity, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. In other words they have a right to their belief but they don't have a right to hurt other people by ridiculing their belief.

Our Constitution says in part: "The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion." It does not say abolish religion from government property such as nativity scenes but I do believe that the government themselves should not display one religion beliefs over another religion. (Such as the Ten Commandments as much as I love them) In other words let a church put up the scenes in parks but don't use government workers to do it. If you let one church put up displays you must let all churches do it otherwise stop all churches from doing it. But under no circumstances should one be allowed to ridicule the other in their displays..

The most obnoxious religious wackos on this planet: atheists. Make no mistake about it. Atheism is a religion. A highly evangelical religion.

Next time, maybe they'll keep their desire to infringe upon atheists' freedom of religion to themselves. It's not like this man threw a fit over their plastering their religion all over public property. He simply availed himself of the same constitutional rights they did. Yet, they threw a fit. And, well, this is the result.

When you infringe upon the rights of others, you forfeit your own. If you want freedom of speech and religion, you have to be willing to allow others to have it, too. It's as simple as that.

Larry...if it's okay for Westboro to stand in public and announce that homosexuals are going to hell because they believe it's true then why is not okay for a religion to be ridiculed? Is it okay for christians to outright verbally assault someone because they don't agree with their lifestyle and call it freedom of speech when it's not okay for an athiest to display their point of view? Where's the equality in that?

If they want to put up a display promoting non religious beliefs then do that but don't put up a display ridiculing another religion whether it be Christianity, Muslim, Jewish, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.

The problem is that any of those religions think it's ridicule simply to state "i don't believe in _______". How do you say "We don't believe in ____" without stating what you don't believe in?

Now you may say "don't look or listen" but why should I even have to "see or hear", let alone make sure you don't "see or hear" anything you may not want to?

Keep it to yourselves and no one will have a reason to contradict you.

This guy in the article did the best thing he could have. He beat them at their own game.

Larry...if it's okay for Westboro to stand in public and announce that homosexuals are going to hell because they believe it's true then why is not okay for a religion to be ridiculed? Is it okay for christians to outright verbally assault someone because they don't agree with their lifestyle and call it freedom of speech when it's not okay for an athiest to display their point of view? Where's the equality in that?

Westboro rightly gets slammed from Christians and non-Christians alike because of their message of intolerance. How is the Atheist "message" any difference from the Westboro nuts though? Neither are positive affirmations of their beliefs but petty name calling and insults. Westboro = Vix's kooky group

There is a difference between putting up a display to promote your religion and putting up a display ridiculing another religion. What the atheist did was put up a display that ridiculed Christianity and that was wrong

Larry-2260635 - it could be argued that the nativity (and Christianity itself) ridicules another religion as well as atheism and that any ideology that rejects Jesus (or symbol of that ideology) offends and ridicules Christianity. Perhaps that is why the establishment clause references the establishment of religion as opposed to establishment of a religion.

Larry said:

What the atheist did was put up a display that ridiculed Christianity and that was wrong.

Honestly, I looked at the display and I didn't see it as ridiculing Christianity.

I saw it as advocating their belief that there was no difference between pagan beliefs (Poseidon), Christian beliefs (Jesus), regional beliefs (Santa Claus) and Satanist beliefs (Lucifer.)

(The origin of the Santa Claus tradition was an actual toymaker in an Eastern European village who made toys to give to good poor children in the village whose parents couldn't afford to buy something to reward good behavior for, and these were passed out on Solstice Night.)

I haven't heard the Pagans protesting, the Satanists protesting, or the eastern Europeans protesting, saying this ridicules their beliefs. Only the Christians are complaining that it ridicules theirs.

I noticed he did not have a satirical picture of Muhammad in his display. Why not? Does he have an agenda against Christians only? If he wanted to make a point against religion why just one? Since he doesn't celebrate Christmas, what's his beef?

In theory then, all the religious symbols in the national cemetaries should be removed also? Government property and all that, sets a court precedent for that to happen . It is the law. Then any idiot that is against symbols can file suit just like this one did.

Seems to me if they just put these displays up on church property this would be a non issue.

"This so called "non-belief" is also a belief."

False. If it was a belief then it wouldn't be a Non-Belief.

"They have no evidence that God doesnt exist."

Irrelevant. That is not atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief, not a belief in the opposite. Not all atheists believe there is no god. Besides, theists have no evidence that their god(s) exists.

"In a true democracy, the will of the majority rules. However, we do not live in a true democracy, we live in a republic and laws have to be fair for everyone--and apply to everyone."

There is no such thing as a "true democracy". What you were referring to is a Direct Democracy. It is true that this is a republic but, another name for it would be a representative democracy.

I think the CITY made the right call here.

Who'd want to referee that kind of madness? I dont blame them for just bowing out.

perhaps if the christians would have been able to walk their talk, this exhibit would still be going on...they would have just bombarded the lottery with their own requests, and likely won back a bulk of the exhibits...and maybe, JUST MAYBE, engaged the atheists in discussion about the point of this display...and if you dont have anything HOLIDAY ESQUE to offer, just dont come at all.

But then, that would force Christians to admit there are is more than one Holiday happening this time of year, and more than one way to celebrate...and that USING THE WORD HOLIDAY is not a WAR ON CHRISTMAS.

and frankly, I dont see christians willing to retreat from their faux victim stance.

Would have been beautiful to see this parks display turn into a walk through "ALL FAITHS" - seeing a kwanzaa display, a jewish one, festivus, winter solstice, and saturlina...and for many of us, christmas has nothing to do with jesus and everything to do with Santa/family/food and fun.

but again, giving people a glimpse into reality - would be an act of war against christian christmas.

so, good call by the city.

im certain there are plenty of church lawns these displays can be on.

Joe: There wasn't an issue until this bonehead fancied himself some kind of anti- religious militant. This display had been there before he was born.

Jessica: I guess you will be the one to petition all religious symbols be removed from Federal and State property huh?

Bob - there are no actual pictures of Mohammed, so what would he have put up?

I can allow taxes to go through the roof.

I can allow abortions at will.

I can allow people not to work and get govt checks.

Of course, cell phones for everyone must be tolerated.

Having my President watch a consul being attacked and didn't try to help is ok.

BUT I"LL BE DAMMMMMED IF I ALLOW THEM TO PUT A LIT UP PLASTIC SHEPHERD ON THE LAWN..!!!!!

Jessica: You are the victim. The hatred and scorn you project against Christians in general is an indication of a bigoted view. Why do you possess such animosity against something you do not know.

P.S. It would be called a rendition, like the one of Jesus. No pictures of him either they didn't have cameras back then. Maybe you have compassion for his life, for if he had done so he would be subject to death under Islamic law.

bob-2476682 a couple of points here: 1)the Muslims didn't have a display, and 2) the government doesn't own cemetaries. Except for Arlington. And crosses are used in a number of religions, in various forms.

I also think that a lot of people who are non-Christians feel a great deal of pressure from Christians in society in general to conform to these beliefs, to the detriment of their own beliefs. I personally believe that you can put up anything you like on your own property, and that public property should not cater to anything not specific to the purpose of that property.

"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,..."

Well that would depend on your point of view.

As for the city's action being a 1st Amendment violation, that viewpoint is about as incorrect as it gets. There is, was and should never be a law that specifically states that a religious display MUST be allowed to exist on CITY PROPERTY. These churches can use their own property and can put up pretty much any display they want, any time they want. There is no restriction being placed on their "speech"...only on the venue they want to do it at. A city certainly has the right to say "not on our land", and the churches have no leg to stand on at all. This suit will get thrown out, guaranteed.

bob - you clearly didnt read my entire post if thats the conclusion you came to.

im simply saying their choice to cancel because the little kids cant all get along, is the wise choice.

it's a shame christians chose vandalism, a multi-faith celebration of displays sounds pretty awesome to see...but it doesnt sound like the christians were ok with different voices being heard.

as such, event cancelled.

I dont care if you think they were "egged on"...a non-believer has a right to say how they feel about christmas, even if you and I disagree with their message.

I am a non-believer, and I think the atheists efforts were a little misguided - though I think it's great that they wanted to use some displays.

It would have been smarter to show modern americans that christianity actually hijacked the pagan holiday of Saturlinas, and that MOST of modern american christmas traditions have their roots in Saturlinas.

Jesus wasnt even born in december, for Christs Sake (pun intended)...

anywho. temporary, all welcome, ok. permenent (of any kind) not ok.

hope thats black and white enough for you.

A local immigrant from Iraq said that when his family came here many years ago, around Christmas, hsi kids saw all the nativity scenes and were overjoyed there were apparently so many muslims in this northern plains town.

As an agnostic, generally leaning atheist, who was raised (and confirmed) Lutheran but who has acquired some familiarity with many religious myths, I personally get kind of annoyed at the direction FFRF and some other atheists take--I consider the myths to be expressions of human experience (and personally found Greek mythology more to my liking as a child than the old and new testament stories I was taught). I would have NO problem with displays referencing muslim holy days (but I believe that islam frowns on depictions of people--thus the mathematically-oriented art of the middle east--and btw shared with jewish traditions). . . . I'd like to see more of the "atheists in foxholes" monuments. . .

I do think that in this case the city's decision to get rid of all displays was a tacit endorsement of Christianity, or at least a concession to a community's insistence on Christian endorsement, and certainly a rejection of, um, debate in the public square (since the debate was precisely what they did not want to deal with). blueunicorn--local governments can and do own cemeteries, and the cemetery in my hometown is municipally owned. In fact, in my hometown, none of the 4 churches have cemeteries on their own property. Not to mention that public land was used for pauper cemeteries years ago, and state asylums always had their own burial grounds (with, sadly, numbers instead of names on the markers in many cases).

Bob, it obviously offends him. Not so much as him being offended offends you, it would seem. Like I said, just put it on church property, case closed. No one really cares honestly. I see no reason the city should waste time and money here.

Why don't we quit brainwashing children (and adults). These irrational, unprovable Christian beliefs teach children that facts and logic are unnecessary for belief. No wonder we lag behind most of the free world in science comprehension.

Healthy skepticism is a good thing. It's okay to say "I don't know" when something is unknowable. I am of the opinion that much of the religious dogma (which, by the way, was largely stolen from the pre-Christian Greek philosophers) resulted from the failure of the ancient learned men to say "I don't know" when asked questions about where we came from and how the world began.

In a court of law we require proof "beyond reasonable double." Why should that same standard not be applied to everything we accept as truth. Instead we reject proven science such as the Theory of Evolution in favor of the impossible concept of the Bible's version of creationism. We promote the idea of virgin birth ...... something Christians accept as fact when they would never believe that any modern conception occurred by any other means than sexual intercourse. We consider facts as optional when deciding whether or not to believe that humans cause global climate change.

Christians should focus their attention on Jesus's teaching regarding how we treat others and how we should conduct ourselves .... a focus on the moral lessons of the New Testament rather than in the contradictory, illogical and too-often hateful aspects of the Old Testament.

NBCNews.com, the three choices offered in your poll all waltz around the actual question:

"Are religious displays appropriate on Public property?"

The US Constitution has already answered that question, and the answer is "No."

Share and share alike. Nativity, Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, Let's just make them artistic, and beautiful. Ban the zealots on all sides.

I'm really sorry I even made the first comment. From reading these comment I believe many of you people have a serious issue about religion so I will leave you with regret for breaking my philosophy of staying out of an argument about religion. There are no winners in an argument about religion.

bob - I dont know what to tell ya buddy, but you're projecting a bit much.

I really like jesus, I just think his followers are horribly misguided.

Do you really think he'd be a fan of the fact that:

A) you all are celebrating his birth in december, and thats not when he was born?

B) that christians hijacked Saturlinas (pagan holiday) in order to get "more people" to celebrate jesus/christianity, and subsequently todays christmas looks a lot like Saturlinas.

C) some christians complain about shopping centers using the word "holiday" instead of "christmas" and have dubbed this the "war on christmas"? or maybe it's just a fox news made up war for ratings, but you'd think their viewers - who claim to be christians - would tell fox to SHUT IT if they didnt agree there was a war on christmas to begin with.

i dont hate christians as a group...I try not to hate anyone.

but for sure, there are some christians that I straight up dislike. thats life isnt it?

but no, I have no sympathy for christians...they've been a driving force in making so many peoples lives miserable, that when it's their turn to experience misery, I just have no sympathy for them.

it sucks that these churches lost the opportunity to promote their faith, but it also sucks when women like me lose the right to marry my spouse, because a few gay people dont agree with it...and then lobby the govt to ban gay marriages.

turn about is fair play sometimes...no sympathy from me.

Blueunicorn: Veterans cemeteries around the country and abroad are on Federal land. His beef was with religious display and he parodied more than one religion as seen in photo. What is your stance on symbols on public property? What and how I express my opinion toward his action is evident I do not support him nor his actions. I made a few points that are relevant to the laws and this subject, we don't have to dodge straight foreword questions. The fact is there are symbols at Arlington, the Arizona memorial, and Gettysburg to name a very few.

Jessica: How did you aquire so many facts? Have you been reincarnated and were there to record these events yourself? I don't think so. I have no problem with what you choose to believe or do for that matter.

Dennis - thats what im talking about!

I think a Flying Spaghetti Monster scene would have been very amusing!

RAmen!

the people that don't believe probably still ask their significant other what they would like for Christmas

and also take religious time off from work

It seems to me that the monkey wrench in this whole thing was the fact that a display got vandalized. Otherwise, like last year, both Christians and Atheists got to have spaces. It's public property, everyone has a right to enter the lottery for a space. It's called the free marketplace of ideas. If the city reinstates the lottery, then I think that cameras should be installed. Charge a fee for entering the lottery, or for getting a space, be sure that the fee covers the cost of the camera, and any other costs that the county incurs. It would keep everybody on all sides honest!

Plenty of people celebrate Christmas, or X-Mas to some, as a cultural holiday, not a religious one.

Plenty of people celebrate Christmas, or X-Mas to some, as a cultural holiday, not a religious one.

While a Christmas tree is more of a cultural symbol, the nativity scene is most certainly a religious symbol.

Lisa,

It would keep everybody on all sides honest!

It's just sad that any measure needs to be taken to keep anybody honest. That there are folks filled with so much contempt that they see fit to vandalize anybody else's display is a very sad thing.

I support the city's judgement that if people can't act like mature law-abiding adults, they ought to be shut out of using city property. Government has no obligation to help you promote your free speech, they simply cannot impede it. Not allowing the use of city property for a religious display doesn't impede free speech. Interested parties may still use their private land to make a display.

@RUSS62 - it is a federal holiday and most offices are closed, I doubt anyone who doesn't believes asks for religious time off. That said, even though Xmas was a paid holiday I was always expected to cover for my Christian colleagues on Xmas eve & Xmas Day because I am Jewish. I did so willingly because I know it's an important holiday to spend time with family even for those who are nominally Christian but, considering the snark of your comment, I do feel the need to point out that I did not get paid extra for doing so nor did I get "comp" time since I was a salaried employee - I had to use vacation time to be able to take time off for my religious holidays (I have never been given the option to exchange time off for Xmas to be used for Rosh Hashanah or Yom Kippur at any company, university/hospital at which I worked).

So I'll see you all at work on Sundays from now on? What? No?

The ole separation of Church and State is not absolute I see.

It's funny that in Europe, most are secular - but they don't have problems with this BS. My company has a "Christmas" party there, since no one cares enough to pretend to be offended. We have a "holiday" party here, because we Americans have such tender sensibilities.

I tried to explain the controversy to them. It was hilarious. Now, in addition to thinking we're all fat and stupid, they think were mental.

In theory then, all the religious symbols in the national cemetaries should be removed also?

Negative. You must be talking about Arlington et al.... and even in those cases the crosses are used as a marker for christians, star of david for jewish people, etc etc. The appropriate symbol for the person buried there is perfectly legitimate. Now - if they buried all people under the cross; non-christians, jews, hindu, muslim... then there is a significant problem with that - but the fed gov't makes what accomodations it can depending on the varied beliefs of its citizens - and that is one of the two options it has when it comes to religion. Accomodate all equally, or none equally. Often times, it's much more realistic to accomodate none equally - but in the case of federal cemetaries I think it's perfectly reasonable to accomodate soldiers' graves depending on their religious/non-religious beliefs.

Why not those scumbag haters , use another time for their display , why to interrupt a peacefully display. They can chose any other time during the year, to spread their hate. Those atheist criticise Christians but they do not show they are better than them. Go Bach To Your Rat Hole and leave Christians alone.

Why not those scumbag haters , use another time for their display , why to interrupt a peacefully display. They can chose any other time during the year, to spread their hate. Those atheist criticise Christians but they do not show they are better than them. Go Bach To Your Rat Hole and leave Christians alone.

One: The irony is palpable. Talk about hate! Sheesh.

Two: They have just as much right to the public space as anyone else.

Three: I think some of the nastiness came from the Christians who intitially tried to block out the atheist application for a display (and also tried the same with other religions as well). You reap what you sow.

Shulack: Then what you say is a religious symbol on federal or state property is OK? Contrary to separation of church and state, in some instances like biblical inscriptions in cemeteries, monuments, and the display of symbols should have exemption from the dictate of separation of church and state. Then this annual event which started before he was born and only served as a holiday symbol should receive no exemption because a small minority only first represented by a radical anti-religious militant objected. That is your position?

Then what you say is a religious symbol on federal or state property is OK?

So long as it's relevant, it's perfectly ok. It's ok for the gov't to sponsor art shows which may display religious stuff. It's ok for them to have military chaplains etc. It's ok for them to have headstones displaying the religious affiliation of the individual buried there.

So long as it does not endorse, support, promote, or otherwise highlight one religion over another. Doing that is what acts as de-facto seperation of church and state because treating all equally does not ALLOW for the endorsement of one over another.

And, as in the cases of cemetaries - that is an INDIVIDUAL's marker. The gov't can make those accomodations to an individual, so long as every individual is offered equal accomodations.

Contrary to separation of church and state, in some instances like biblical inscriptions in cemeteries, monuments, and the display of symbols should have exemption from the dictate of separation of church and state.

You write like someone who's trying to sound smart... but it's not working.

Here this makes it simple so we don't have to be smart. "Biblical inscriptions" from the Bible. OK! How about the fact of display their for over 50 years until his objection?

P.S. This is Newsvine being smart is not a prerequisite.

The "quick vote" doesn't offer the answer "No, there is a legally prescribed separation of chuch and state that must be observed." This is an omission that will prevent many people from voting in this 'poll', as that is the legal and ethical reason why religious scenes should not be promoted on public land due to it's placement serving as a de-facto endorsement by the city, state or federal government. There can be and SHOULD be no religions promoted by the government. It happened with the Catholic church in England who tried to dethrone the leader of that nation due to his "moral failings before god" (which was hardly their place to judge since they are and have been the biggest murderers, child rapists and hipocrites in the history of the world) which prompted that leader to assert his authority by excising them from England and making his own church which later jockeyrd with other leaders to attempt to gain power after that. Our nation's separation keeps BOTH institutions undiluted by the other, and keeps both strong. When they mix, all hell breaks loose and countries are divided. It's not a place where religion should be involved, this is why we're not the Taliban or 'Al Queda in the Christian peninsula'. Keep nativity scenes on christian church grounds and private homes, and not anywhere publicly owned no matter how many people support it in the particular area.

See I misspelled there as their.

I am not an atheist (far from it), and I would like all those who are displaying anger toward atheists to first consider this; For you who have a belief in God, you have been promised life everlasting (provided you are obeying your scriptures) and the peace of God which passes all understanding...death is just a transition from one life to the next (hence the term one has "passed" away).

For those who do not have this belief, those who believe there is no after life, please look at death from their perspective. It is like going to sleep but never...ever...awakening again. It is non-existence for all time without end...this life is all there is...no second chance...no further experiences...nothing. The hopelessness that the future ultimately holds at their death is a picture of complete and total despair, and they live with this everyday! They (for their own reasons) cannot believe in God and therefore cannot follow the scriptural path...so if there is a God they have no hope...and if there is no God they have no hope!

Please consider this as you respond to them...despite your religious beliefs we are told to show charity and understanding.

I noticed a lot of the people who are against the churches (any of them) displaying religious material on public property keep bringing up how they pay taxes and don't want to promote something they don't believe in. I must say, most of the athiests on here (except for the few like Jessica) don't care if they are displayed or not, because it does not affect them and isn't it everyone's right to use public property??

Freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, merely says that you are free to practice whatever religion you wish and the government cannot MAKE UP a religion and then force you to follow it. The idea was to allow people to express their religion, or not, as they believed (or didn't). That same amendment also means you can't prevent me from displaying religious decorations simply because you don't like them. Otherwise, you yourself are guilty of the very thing you are accusing of others. Public property means anyone who wants to can wear or display items depicting Christ, a Menorah, Buddah, Mohammed, or the flying spaghetti monster because it is PUBLIC property. I pay those same taxes, you know.

Not long ago, there was an article on athiest outcry because the Governor of a state put up Christmas decorations on the Governor's mansion that were visible from off the property. Quoted the whole "Separation of Church and State" bs again. But think about it, public property or not, is this residence not his/hers while they are in office? Does he lose his constitutional right to display his religion, whatever it was, just because he holds a public office? Absolutely NOT. But radical athiests complain that it is being "shoved down their throat". Well I shouldn't have to have you shoving your epithets about "invisible sky fairy" down MINE, but *I* respect that you have the right not to believe in a higher power, whatever be his/her name.

As far as the bit brought up about gay marriage. As a Christian, I'm actually for it. I am not gay myself and I do belive the Biblical stand on it, but in the end, it's not hurting me a bit and it also doesn't bother me seeing two men or two women walking hand in hand EVEN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. Just because it's not MY choice doesn't mean I don't think someone else should be allowed to have THEIR choice. I won't even go up to them to give them my religion's views on it because, in the end, they won't have to answer to me for their life. In fact, most of the friends I have that are gay say that I am one of the few Christian friends they have because I don't try to convert or condemn them for their life.

If we are going to bring taxes and fairness into it, then by that token they should outlaw government funding for Planned Parenthood and other places that assist in women getting abortions. Is it their right? Yes, but I should not have MY tax money paying for it. If she wants to get knocked up and get rid of it, she can damn well pay for it herself. If *I* don't believe in it, *I* shouldn't have to pay for her to get one for free.

Here is some history for you it wasn't a problem or issue for fifty years. Most people enjoyed it, those who found a poor family living in a manger with a baby inspirational; Because that is what it is, if you believe that to be offensive you are the one with the problem. I could compare it to numerous bigoted practices, but I won't.

Arguesforsport 1.28

I don't see anyone attacking atheists. What 2 way street? Would atheists be allowed to put a display exhorting their beliefs on public property?

RamFla 1.32

You are correct, my post obviously painted all atheists with one brush. I should have known better because I have friends that are atheists and they don't go around bashing anyone's religion. Actually, they like Christmas, at least the secular part of the Holiday.

Seems if neither side can play nice, neither side gets to play. Simple as that. Atheists put up insulting signs, and Christians vandalized them (Jesus would be so proud).

As my parents used to say: If you kids can't figure out how to play nice with each other, then neither of you gets to play.

Seriously, this entire argument is like watching children argue over which cartoon is "real" and should be played on the house TV. If you can't take turns, no one gets to watch any cartoons.

I guess people never really grow up.

hambone johnson it is not completely true that anyone is free to display religious spectacle, or any other spectacle for that matter, just because it is displayed upon private property. In many cases, neighbors have successfully fought against such displays. But the neighbors are probably more often motivated by their own ill will, instead of a concern for a greater social good and ironically fight against the notion of private ownership in that type of quest for a freedom of belief.

Personally, I think anyone who gets seriously pissed about nativity scenes is a little over the top. I'm just saying that, if they have no meaning for you, whatever ignore it. I mean, if we have to have two months of Christmas crap shoved down our throats every year, the part about celebrating the birth of a great philosopher is the least of my worries.

"Have a Holly Jolly Christmas" and giant, inflatable snow globes are way more offensive to me. As is the incredible hypocrisy between the gluttony and greed involved in what's become Christmas and the true message of Jesus of Nazareth.

However, why don't they just erect their Nativity on their own property where no one can tell them what to do, or make a deal out of it? The real 1st Amendment violation would come into play if the government banned THAT, or didn't allow for every other possible religious or atheistic message to be equally displayed. Wouldn't it just be easier to keep it on church and/or property?

Why is everyone so sure it is Christians who have been trashing Atheist displays? To be sure, I have seen enough hypocrisy amongst so-called Christians that I could well believe some of them are the guilty parties. However, I've also seen hypocisy aplenty amongst Atheists and I can also believe that some of them have trashed their own displays just to get the Christians in trouble. So, please, everybody, let's not make snap judgments on either side of the fence.

I think the most amusing thing about Damon Vix or Devil Dick whichever you prefer, is that big old grin on his face. Naturally, when you're that smug and confident you have not a clue what's waiting for you in the next life. So Damon, when it's your time to pass on, please don't do like most atheist bitches do and start begging for mercy to save you dumb-ass from that big old pit, when you awake and hear all those wonderful screams and moans in that dark place where you will call home, for eternity. I am quite sure when you blubbering "Oh please save Lord, I really believe you exist," it will come back as a giant echo! Oh, and make sure you take plenty of barbecue sauce with you; I recommend Bulls-eye, it cooks the meat better! Enjoy your wonderful journey, and you won't need a flashlight, I hear there is plenty light down there!

Rocco,

So Christian of you. Is that what you think your Jesus is going to say to him when he dies, "Ha ha you little atheist bitch!"???

And some of you wonder why we are sick unto death of it all.

And for all of you who are saying there is NO freedom FROM religion...

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, isunconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violatesthe Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

So, that 1st Amendment, is what decrees religion HAS NO legal or governing standing. You can practice it, but you CAN'T govern with it.

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
..........Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And

John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."
..........To John Taylor

And

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And...

Benjamin Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

And don't even try to give me that 10th Amendment, Mike Huckabee crap. Your Constitution also has a little something called incorporation through the 14th Amendment in it. So "states" or "local government" rights as argued through the 10th hasn't been applicable since, oh 1866 or so.

The gentleman with the big smile on his face missed putting up another picture.

Where is the picture of Mohammed? I want to see him add the picture of Mohammed and stand next to it with a big smile on his face.

I'm against talking ill of any religion. We teach our children not to bully and then this guy does this.

Bob: RE the religious ornaments on cemeteries: First, the Government doesn't PUT them there - the families of the people in the lots request permission to do so, and they are only on that lot. Only the oldest government cemeteries have large inscriptions - if you go into a veteran's cemetery, you'll see the cross, star of david, or crescent on the head stone only. The majority of people who put up any ornament also made a substantial donation to the cemerery, but now, some of these monuments are being removed. But they have NEVER been something the government purchased. Also - please remember to stop attacking the poster, and only attack the statement you find fault with - otherwise you make it too personal.

@unconventional-6647560

So I'll see you all at work on Sundays from now on? What? No?

blue laws no longer exist in most places so a lot of people do work on Sundays. the reasons others don't work on sundays isn't because of religious observance, it's because they're among the few lucky folks whose offices are closed on week ends and they're not expected to work when the office is closed. many schools and businesses are going to a 4-day week giving off Friday -Sunday, are you saying this time off is now religious because the initial work week for those who worked in business offices and retail were set up back in the days of blue laws?

The ole separation of Church and State is not absolute I see.

your example doesn't support your statement

It's funny that in Europe, most are secular - but they don't have problems with this BS. My company has a "Christmas" party there, since no one cares enough to pretend to be offended. We have a "holiday" party here, because we Americans have such tender sensibilities. I tried to explain the controversy to them. It was hilarious. Now, in addition to thinking we're all fat and stupid, they think were mental.

First off, we're talking government not non-government businesses, there's a big difference. There are no laws against businesses having Christmas/Holiday parties and such so if you explained the situation based on the understanding you expressed here it's no wonder they were confused by the "controversy' you created. Secondly, please let me know which European country in which you worked that doesn't have an official state religion. I work with colleagues all over Europe and Asia and my experiences and the things they say to me are so very different from what you explain, the only similarity is that they do think we're mental based on the Faux news coverage of the non-existent war on Christmas and the need of some people to pretend our country that doesn't have an official state religion does.

Personally, I blame this all on the Christians of that area. They knew that other religions were going to be putting up displays. They didn't have to vandalize them. They could have said to their followers: you may not like what they are doing, but they have the same right and they can put up what they want. However, Christians do NOT believe that other religions have the same rights that they do. They believe that THEY have all the rights and no other religion has the right to do anything. Basically this is forcing them to understand this: Either EVERYONE has the same rights to put up a display of their choosing, or NO ONE has the right to put anything up at all. Plain and simple. If I wanted to go in and put up a display of Gucci Purses for a Christmas display, I should have that right without having to worry that someone from Christian Dior would come by and do something about it like steal it or vandalize it. Period. I'm glad they said no. Churches: you want your Nativities, put them on your land or if you want it a certain place, buy land there to use later.

there are no actual pictures of Mohammed

@ Jessica, there are no actual pictures of Jesus either.

There are images of Mohammed just like there are images of Jesus.

Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. The event is in the hands of God." George Washington.

Jefferson quote, "God Who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton

Massachusetts:
John Hancock, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry

Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery

Connecticut:
Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott

New York:
William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris

New Jersey:
Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark

Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross

Delaware:
Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean

Maryland:
Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Virginia:
George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton

North Carolina:
William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn

South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton

Georgia:
Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

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.

Know where I found this reference to the creator-Divine providence? Signed by all your champions.

Pragmatic-3918582 -- I agree, it is pretty sad that a camera would be needed to keep everybody honest. Unfortunately, much of the human race are like adolescents. Yes, if people can't act like adults, then I don't blame the city for closing it down. It appears that the atheist display was the one vandalized. Many of the following commentators think that it was a Christian who did it, some think that it was an atheist trying to make Christians look bad. It even could have been a delinquent adolescent who was just out looking to cause trouble and have some 'fun'. But I digress.

I think what troubles me the most is that as a Christian, I am embarrassed by the actions of people who say they are Christian but do not follow the prime directive given by Jesus to love God and love our neighbor as ourselves--our neighbors being all the people on the face of the earth. People who talk like they are from Westboro Baptist Church, name calling, telling people they are going to hell, who use phrases like "atheist bitches" and "Go Bach(sp) to Your Rat Hole". All I can say to those people is, how in the world do you reconcile that to Jesus' command to love your neighbor (yes, atheists are your neighbor!)

Sara - Your such a liberal commie @!$%#! You're just another atheist liberal ass-wipe that I think about when I take my morning dump. So tell me, when it is your time to snivel so you can be saved by the guy that doesn't exist, are you going to be like the Cowardly Lion in the Wizard of Oz and exchange the word ghost for god? I cannot believe there are still idiots like yourself who think that there is no afterlife. And if your children get sick, I hope the Tree God can help you, stupid!

I think the wisest comment so far was the one that said, basically, there is no way to win a religious argument, so why bother. That pretty much sums up most of this thread, IMO. No one is being convinced of anything related to belief or faith, by anyone. It's just a complete waste of time. So, why not argue the issue on legal grounds, instead?

Legally speaking, the city either has to display all manner and types of displays, or none at all. They chose none at all, and there is no way to force them to change their mind. The grounds of my state capitol fought this battle for years; now they allow all manner and types of displays, including atheists, more or less side-by-side. It took a couple of years, but lately all sides and displays have co-existed pretty much without any incident at all. The capitol could have just as easily decided to allow zero displays. Either way, it's their land to control, albeit in the public's interest. If the capitol grounds, or any city, decided to display only Christian nativity scenes, or only Jewish displays, or Muslim, or atheist, then a lawsuit could be filed and won. But a complete ban isn't even technically reviewable by a court. I mean the suit can certainly be filed, but no court would take it seriously unless some type of discrimination was involved. If you've banned everything, there is NO discrimination, by definition.

It's just not a winnable lawsuit and it doesn't take a constitutional lawyer - which I'm certainly not - to see it. I'll say it again: no court in CA would ever force the city to allow such displays against their will. This case will be thrown out of the first court that hears it, if it even gets THAT far.

And...your "creator" could be your mother or father. It doesn't say "God", and that's the point. Yes, most of the founder's were Christians...so what? It makes no difference. The declaration of independence carries no legal weight at all. It is a historical, explanatory document, nothing more. The founder's could have created a Christian republic if they were at that level of belief. They chose NOT to, and you need to ask yourself why they didn't do so.

Just to nitpick myself, I wish I could go back and remove those apostrophes from FOUNDERS but I can't. We need to develop contextual spell-checkers...

Hey Bob: the Declaration of Independence is not a governing document of this country -- that would be the Constitution. Show us where the Constitution mentions God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or entity.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.
"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites. To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind. Thomas Paine
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists.... George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

“And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together…” - [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

“Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.” - [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774]

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” - [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." - James Madison, 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.” - [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (James Madison, Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (James Madison, Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (James Madison, Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist." Benjamin Franklin

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England." Benjamin Franklin

"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches." Benjamin Franklin

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason." Benjamin Franklin, in Poor Richard's Almanac

From John Adams, in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences, only as of more importance.

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.

Here's an excerpt from James Monroe, when he declared in a legal proclamation, his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy.

Erin,

Shhhh... Don't confuse them with the not so subtle difference between religion in one's personal life and religion in one's government.

:)

Okay, I'm all for banning "freedom of speech"...HERE...that lasts for more than like 10,000 characters. Everyone could cut and paste the encyclopedia if they wanted. But, reasonable people keep it reasonably short. Is that too much to ask?

Jo Ann,

There has never been an image of Mohammad because he forbade it. No paintings or sculptures. No one alive knows what he looked like, so the best someone could do would be to show a picture of some random Arab gentleman and call him Mohammad.

fgh,

You got me on a technicality, but those aren't for religious reasons so there is not a 1st amendment issue.

"The Devil made me do it" Flip Wilson. The country, the Capital, the monuments, the majority of early Americans were faith based. The legal document was written to include all faiths so they could garner support and allegiance of various groups. It was about the politics and money, just like it is today. I only offered a small rebuttal to an enormous post on quotes on certain patriots. I proved those individuals all approved and supported religion in early America. Like this one; Ben Franklin to President of Yale; "Here is my creed. I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped." If I worked in a library or had an infinite amount of time to fish for quotes or ancient script I could possibly go tit for tat. In all my posts it has been a question of the simple fact this person was offended by a peaceful symbolic display that had been there before he was born. What compelled him to be so offended by this if not rage and hatred of a bigot.

Hambone: There are descriptions of Muhammad in various places. Start in Iraq or India for texts there are on it.

Do not judge all by the actions of a few.

Subject: God in your state Constitution !!!!

THIS IS VERY INTERESTING! After you check your state(s), look at
the last
sentence or two.

America's founders did not intend for there to be a separation
of God and
state, as shown by the fact that all 50 states acknowledge God in
their
state constitutions:

Alabama 1901, Preamble. We the people of the State of Alabama,
invoking the
favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish the
following
Constitution ..

Alaska 1956, Preamble. We, the people of Alaska, grateful to God
and to
those who founded our nation and pioneered this great land
..

Arizona 1911, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Arizona,
grateful to
Almighty God for our liberties, do ordain this
Constitution...

Arkansas 1874, Preamble. We, the people of the State of
Arkansas, grateful
to Almighty God for the privilege of choosing our own form
of government...

California 1879, Preamble. We, the People of the State of
California,
grateful to Almighty God for our freedom .

Colorado 1876, Preamble. We, the people of Colorado, with profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of Universe .

Connecticut 1818, Preamble. The People of Connecticut,
acknowledging with
gratitude the good Providence of God in permitting them to
enjoy ...

Delaware 1897, Preamble. Through Divine Goodness all men have,
by nature,
the rights of worshipping and serving their Creator according to
the
dictates
of
their consciences .

Florida 1845, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Florida,
grateful to
Almighty God for our constitutional liberty ... establish
this
Constitution...

Georgia 1777, Preamble. We, the people of Georgia, relying upon
protection
and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this
Constitution...

Hawaii 1959, Preamble. We, the people of Hawaii, Grateful for
Divine
Guidance . establish this Constitution

Idaho 1889, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Idaho,
grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings
..

Illinois 1870, Preamble. We, the people of the State of
Illinois, grateful
to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberty which He hath
so
long permitted us to enjoy and looking to Him for
a blessing on our
endeavors
.

Indiana 1851, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Indiana,
grateful to
Almighty God for the free exercise of the right to chose our form
of
government
..

Iowa 1857, Preamble. We, the People of the State of Iowa,
grateful to the
Supreme Being for the blessings hitherto enjoyed, and feeling
our dependence
on Him for a continuation of these blessings ... establish
this Constitution

Kansas 1859, Preamble. We, the people of Kansas, grateful to
Almighty God
for our civil and religious privileges . establish this
Constitution.

Kentucky 1891, Preamble. We, the people of the Commonwealth of
grateful to
Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberties...

Louisiana 1921, Preamble. We, the people of the State of
Louisiana, grateful
to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious
liberties we enjoy ..

Maine 1820, Preamble. We the People of Maine .. acknowledging
with grateful
hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in
affording us
an opportunity ... and imploring His aid and
direction

Maryland 1776, Preamble. We, the people of the state of
Maryland, grateful
to Almighty God or our civil and religious
liberty...

Massachusetts 1780, Preamble. We...the people of
Massachusetts,
acknowledging with grateful hearts, the goodness of the Great
Legislator of
the
Universe...in the course of His Providence, an
opportunity and devoutly
imploring His
direction ...

Michigan 1908, Preamble. We, the people of the State of
Michigan, grateful
to Almighty God for the blessings of freedom ... establish
this Constitution

Minnesota, 1857, Preamble. We, the people of the State of
Minnesota,
grateful to God for our civil and religious liberty, and desiring
to
perpetuate
its
blessings

Mississippi 1890, Preamble. We, the people of Mississippi in
convention
assembled, grateful to Almighty God, and invoking His blessing on
our work.

Missouri 1845, Preamble. We, the people of Missouri, with
profound reverence
for the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, and grateful for
His goodness ..
establish this Constitution ..

Montana 1889, Preamble. We, the people of Montana, grateful to
Almighty God
for the blessings of liberty establish this Constitution
..

Nebraska 1875, Preamble. We, the people, grateful to Almighty
God for our
freedom .. establish this Constitution

Nevada 1864, Preamble. We the people of the State of Nevada,
grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom . establish this Constitution
..

New Hampshire 1792, Part I. Art. I. Sec. V. Every individual has
a natural
and unalienable right to worship God according to the dictates of
his own
conscience .

New Jersey 1844, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New
Jersey,
grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He
hath so
long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on
our
endeavors
.

New Mexico 1911, Preamble. We, the People of New Mexico,
grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of liberty ..

New York 1846, Preamble. We, the people of the State of New
York, grateful
to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure its
blessings .

North Carolina 1868, Preamble. We the people of the State of
North Carolina,
grateful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of Nations, for
our civil,
political, and religious liberties, and acknowledging our
dependence upon
Him for the continuance of those

North Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of North Dakota,
grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty, do
ordain...

Ohio 1852, Preamble. We the people of the state of Ohio,
grateful to
Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and to
promote our
common
..

Oklahoma 1907, Preamble. Invoking the guidance of Almighty God,
in order to
secure and perpetuate the blessings of liberty ... establish
this

Oregon 1857, Bill of Rights, Article I. Section 2. All men shall
be secure
in the Natural right, to worship Almighty God according to the
dictates of
their consciences .

Pennsylvania 1776, Preamble. We, the people of Pennsylvania,
grateful to
Almighty God for the blessings of civil and religious liberty,
and humbly
invoking His guidance

Rhode Island 1842, Preamble. We the People of the State of Rhode
Island
grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He
hath
so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a
blessing

South Carolina, 1778, Preamble. We, the people of the State of
South
Carolina grateful to God for our liberties, do ordain and establish
this
Constitution

South Dakota 1889, Preamble. We, the people of South Dakota,
grateful to
Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties . establish
this

Tennessee 1796, Art. XI.III. That all men have a natural and
indefeasible
right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of
their
conscience...

Texas 1845, Preamble. We the People of the Republic of Texas,
acknowledging,
with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God

Utah 1896, Preamble. Grateful to Almighty God for life and
liberty, we
establish this Constitution .

Vermont 1777, Preamble. Whereas all government ought to ...
enable the
individuals who compose it to enjoy their natural rights, and
other
blessings which the Author of Existence has bestowed on man
...

Virginia 1776, Bill of Rights, XVI ... Religion, or the Duty
which we owe
our Creator . can be directed only by Reason ... and that it is
the mutual
duty
of all to practice Christian Forbearance, Love and Charity
towards each
other
...

Washington 1889, Preamble. We the People of the State of
Washington,
grateful to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe for our liberties,
do ordain
this
Constitution .

West Virginia 1872, Preamble. Since through Divine Providence we
enjoy the
blessings of civil, political and religious liberty, we, the people
of West
Virginia .. reaffirm our faith in and constant reliance upon God
.

Wisconsin 1848, Preamble. We, the people of Wisconsin, grateful
to Almighty
God for our freedom, domestic tranquility

Wyoming 1890, Preamble. We, the people of the State of Wyoming,
grateful to
God for our civil, political, and religious liberties ...
establish this
Constitution .

After reviewing acknowledgments of God from all 50 state
constitutions, one
is faced with the prospect that maybe, just maybe, the
ACLU and the
out-of-control federal courts are wrong!

"Those people who will not be governed by God will be ruled by
tyrants."
William
Penn

Bob, yes God is mentioned in the preambles, but when you get to the actual Constitutions, there is no mention of God, or religion. That says something.

What the state constitutions mention is irrelevant, since the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Bob -- and until you can show us where it mentions God, Jesus, the bible, or any other religious text or entity, you will just have to accept the fact that the US is and has always been a secular nation. That is how it was founded, and that is how it remains. The Founding Fathers did that for a specific reason: they did not want future generations to endure the religious persecution that they and/or their families had suffered, and they realized that religion and government do not mix.

What compelled him to be so offended by this if not rage and hatred of a bigot.

What hypocritical, pompous bull@!$%#! The Christians are the only ones who have been showing any "rage and hatred" so far, since only the atheists' displays were vandalized, and the Christians (through their attorney) are trying to claim (without success) that their free speech rights are being infringed. The truth is that the Christians want only the Christians to be able to express themselves freely, while they expect the atheists (and anyone else who does not find their displays appropriate for public property) to remain silent.

On the contrary, I have no supreme leader in this realm. California celebrates graffiti as an art-form that is done as a statement. I believe some unknown artistic individuals decided their art would attract more attention on those displays than anywhere else. News hounds probably. Wait! Now after I prove the majority of citizens were and have been religious since the inception of these United States, what matters is some peoples secular beliefs? I stated in simple words, little words most can understand. The paper was a contract for business between states and the dealings for mutual benefit. Fine you don't have no religion, but 50 US states did and have.

P.S. Maybe you can write your Congressmen and ask them to alter history so you can always be right.

bob, just because the majority of people belonged to or believed in some religion when this country was founded does not mean they wanted any religion in their governement. They made that very clear. The majority of people in this country still believe in some kind of religion, and the majority still do not want any religion in their government.

Too bad for ignorant people like you, Bob, that not only is the US a secular nation (and has always been one), but we are also not a country of majority rule.

BTW, Bob, you do have a "supreme leader in this realm" -- the Constitution. Remember the whole "render unto Caesar" thing? Well, while you live on the earth (supposedly), you must obey the earthly laws, and that would be the Constitution.

You can copy and paste all the bull@!$%# you can find, Bob, but it won't change the facts (which you apparently cannot grasp).

Why are you still harping on constitution when I did not ever mention nor inferred God was in the document. I pointed out the original declaration had God referenced. This inflamed the response of anti-religious rhetoric on an epic scale. The seething disdain for any defence of God is quite evident. This in my opinion would LABEL YOU a bigot or at least bias. By the way an ornamental Christmas display on the grass is in by no means having religion in government. What this case demonstrates is a hatred of someones peaceful, joyful expression of love.

bob, you are trying to equate a mention of God in state constitution preambles to the framers of these constitutions and our national Constitution wanting religion in our government.

If you knew the whole story, you would know it was the Christianic groups that started the problems. They hogged the spots in the park. When they were prevented from doing that, they complained. They threatened to sue. They demanded the atheist/other group's displays come down. In one instance, some upstanding "christian" tore down a banner about the Winter Solstice. Other atheist display were anonymously vandalized. The city didn't want to deal with all this, so they said no displays by anyone. Yet you blame the atheists and the other groups.

I didn't try anything. You try to project something that is not stated so that you might continue on in your feelings of righteousness. This story is years old and I posted on the first one. Go back in time search out the fact he is a hater and did this out of spite. The display had been there decades and had a theme which required many spaces. Maybe you should read in the story about the towns tradition. In the article, tongue in cheek etc.. this is what you support hate and mockery as a Christmas display? They have no rights in my book to do that.

Bob - Wow! That's good ammunition for the atheist nutballs like Sara and Erin. Just look at the ramblings they both have spewed from their nasty pie-holes! But now that you told them that info, Atheist A-wipes of America will go to work to remove that preamble in each state constitution. You see, Atheist believe in nothing but the dollar bill and themselves and practice hate by not allowing you to worship as you please. They are the ultimate bigots against organized religion, by imposing their views on those who practice their faith as they see fit. They believe they have the right to take your religious freedom away by their bigoted beliefs. I have yet to meet an atheist who wasn't an egotistical, miserable piece of sh!t. And if you think I am kidding read their posts above. I have had the dubious honor of meeting these poor excuse of human beings!

bob, maybe he did do this out of spite, but not all the other groups that got involved did. Plus, if the church groups had just ignored him, he probably would have gone away. The town tried to be fair to everyone and it didn't work, so they only way to be fair was to ban all displays.

Your "book of rights" is immaterial to the law, and no, I don't agree with what this guy did, if it was done purely out of spite, but as was once said, "I will defend to the death your right to say it."

@Bob,

Quotations from the Founding Fathers prove their intent to separate any specific religion from the operation of government, despite their own religious beliefs.

@Rocco1

Reported for numerous CoH violations. Nice Christian sentiment you've got going.

Atheist A-wipes of America will go to work to remove that preamble in each state constitution.

While Christian asswipes (look in the mirror, Rocco and Bob) will deny that those preambles are meaningless, and that the US Constitution supersedes EVERY state constitution, and that the Supreme Court has already ruled against states that have tried to enforce ANY type of laws with religious undertones (for example, Torcaso v. Watkins and Everson v. Board of Education). Those same Christian asswipes (still looking in the mirror?) deny that any other group is entitled to the same freedom of speech and freedom OF and FROM religion that they enjoy.

Atheist...practice hate by not allowing you to worship as you please

Really, Rocco? Who is not allowed to worship as s/he pleases? How does this particular case deny anyone the right to worship? If you had read the article, Rocco, you would have read that this case involves nativity scene displays on public property; there is nothing being said or written about preventing people from worshiping. Actually, you would have read that, but it's doubtful that you would understand it, given your obvious lack of reading comprehension skills.

Wet Willy

Arguesforsport 1.28

I don't see anyone attacking atheists. What 2 way street?

You wouldn't, would you. At least we know those blinders are working correctly.

In my book is an expression. How many times must I repeat that I did not say GOD was in document? The articles they agreed upon so many years ago were based on honest belief in just laws. Sound familiar to numerous Preambles there are throughout history? Sucession is on the table in all seriousness.

Roger Williams, the seventeenth century theologian who founded Rhode Island, was undoubtedly one of the inspirations of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. In his book, The Bloudy Tenent of Persecution for Cause of Conscience, Williams used, among other arguments, the Parable of the Tares of the Field to argue that the civil government should tolerate the "weeds" of the world because, in persecuting them, it also harms the "wheat." He pointed out that it is God's prerogative to judge between the two, not man's.

I agree. I do not have to condone nor be silent against people who hate for hates sake.

“Sir, my concern is not whether God is
on our side; my greatest concern is to be on God's side, for God is always
right”
“I am not bound to win, but I am bound
to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live by the light that
I have. I must stand with anybody that stands right, and stand with him while he
is right, and part with him when he goes wrong.” Abraham Lincoln.

Erinbooby: What detrimental remark have you got for old honest Abe and his religious beliefs?

Oh! The reason they did not put GOD in constitution was a parable from the BIBLE! Post:1;131

Erinbooby: What detrimental remark have you got for old honest Abe and his religious beliefs?

I'm not quite sure how anyone can be more childish than you're acting, bob. Reported.

Oh! The reason they did not put GOD in constitution was from a parable from the BIBLE! Post:1;131

Oh, the reason they did not put a god in the Constitution was because it didn't belong! Try reading the words of the Founding Fathers on the matter sometime, kid.

Erin - Your still the same old paranoid bigot that's off her meds as usual. You really need some serious help. Oh, take Sarah with you, I think she, like you, is beyond help. I am no doctor, but it looks contagious to me. Two liberal loons that belong together! Ones an idiot off her meds, and the other has delusions of grandeur off her meds.

ROCCO reported for violation of COH.

Quotes huh? James Madison "Father of the Constitution" Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offense against God, not against man:To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. [James Madison (There ya go!) History lesson over.

Why is it that the ardent Christian fundamentalists are the first ones to resort to attacks and insults? CoH violations reported again.

You do realize you didn't help your case any, right bob? He flat out states that a god doesn't belong in the governments of men.

Allswell! What attack/ What insult? I did not say no such thing. What you fail at is comprehension of my continued position of God not in document. It is your attempts to get me to agree with you, that is your true mission. The facts of the development of the constitution are not in line with your Dogma. If anyone is being attacked for a different opinion, it is me. P.S. I'm childish, but your going to tell on me? Who is the kid? Now go stand in the corner for not respecting proper decorum.

Allswell! What attack/ What insult? I did not say no such thing.

You also posted while I was writing my response to Rocco, whom it was directed at. Try again.

What you fail at is comprehension of my continued position of God not in document.

What you continue to fail to realize is that you brought up god being in the state Constitutions with your cut and paste of a failed email chain.

P.S. I'm childish, but your going to tell on me?

Yep. That's how Newsvine works, in case you didn't realize: users report violations.

Now go stand in the corner for not respecting proper decorum.

Amusingly worthless.

ROCCO reported for violation of COH.

Greg - I sooooooooooooooo not terrified that you reported me. OMG, oh, you probably don't believe in that guy, sorry! Look Greg, they're coming to get me! Grow up little boy and stop sniveling!

@Rocco1

Reported for numerous CoH violations. Nice Christian sentiment you've got going.

allswell - Not really! Thank you for reporting me for COH, I guess you can't handle a Christian believer who doesn't turn the other cheek for you atheist liberal loons posting your raving lunatic page-long rants like Sara & Erin! Ain't that too bad!

The truth is I posted the truth. You cannot or will not accept it. Here is my state. From their website.

We, the people of the State of Florida, grateful to Almighty God for our
constitutional liberty, in order to secure its blessings and to form a more
perfect government, insuring domestic tranquility, maintaining public order, and
guaranteeing equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish
this Constitution.

The truth is I posted the truth. You cannot or will not accept it. Here is my state. From their website.

So you do contend that god is in the state Constitution. However, that is irrelevant, as the Federal Constitution trumps.

So you do contend that god is in the state Constitution. However, that is irrelevant, as the Federal Constitution trumps.

allswell - No really, of course its irrelevant, facts to atheist usually are. I guess you missed that part about States Rights that belong to the States when they are not within the Federal Governments jurisdiction. This is one of them! Again, you're confusing "of religion"with "from religion!" You atheist do this all the time. You make crap up to suit you fanaticism.

I guess you missed that part about States Rights that belong to the States when they are not within the Federal Governments jurisdiction.

I'm afraid the Constitution is explicit, according to SCOTUS interpretations throughout history, that separation of church and state is reality.

Again, you're confusing "of religion"with "from religion!

Actually, I'm not. Again, numerous decisions have shown that said right to have freedom from religion exists in the Constitutional amendments.

You make crap up to suit you fanaticism.

That's funny, pretty much your entire religion is made up in the first place (not a shred of it is provable). Meanwhile, everything I've said is.

That's how you get people to join your religion.

Hey we have holidays at the same time you do. Christmas, Easter.. So join us and you won't have to change your party days!!

One question I'd ask is whether these displays are a year round tradition, or just something the city does around Christmas. If it's the latter, then that is an inherent bias towards Christianity and against any religion whose most significant holidays do not happen to coincide roughly with the winter solstice. If the city promotes Christmas in December, shouldn't they also promote Diwali in November and Ramadan in July?

Nathan - the city is not promoting anything. They are allowing displays on their property. It's in December because people wanted to do a Christmas displays. If enough people want to promote the holiday of another religion or anything else, they can request that, and if there is enough interest, that would probably happen.

Oh, there was no magic involved in assigning Dec 25 to Jesus' birth, it was science - the science of social manipulation. The church, under Pope Julius I in the 4th century, decided banning very popular pagan festivals, through often dispcable means, decided to repackage the holidays as christian... they Borged it. You weren't being tortured and killed for celebrating a pagan holiday, you were being peer pressured to accept the new holiday... and tortured and killed if you didn't.

The Forefathers saw what a mess it was when a government actively sanctioned a religion as well as having kings and nobles. We were to be the country of equality. We got rid of the highly stratified class society of europe and we made religion the separate entity it should be and, supposibly, on equal footing as other organizations. Those lead to equality to all people over the centuries.

Even today there are people who want to bring back slavery, the second class status of women, stratified upper and lower classes and (christian) religion as the equal partner in governing the nation. We're having battles on many of those fronts but doing.. somewhat well over the years. This is also the case with those who believe their religion, as said by George Orwell in Animal Farm, "ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL BUT SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS.". Religion ingeneral and a single religion in particular should never govern everyone. So let government govern rather than actively promote one people or organization over all others. That's the american way and that's what the Constitution and the Forefathers meant.

Nathan, that's more a cultural thing, and there certainly is no bias in favor of Christians. For instance, the Bible actually forbids decorating Christmas trees because they are Pagan (Jeremiah 10:2-4), so the early Pilgrims and Puritans in America made celebrating Christmas illegal. For a few hundred years, they tried very hard to enforce this law, watching people closely to ensure they didn't drink more on Christmas Day, or slack off work. Like any other country, America has a right to it's cultural traditions. In our country, Christmas takes precedence over Ramadan. Just be grateful that Christians are no longer the ones protesting that.

Actually most "Christian" holidays were used to replace "pagan" holidays for conversion advantages. Anonther example is Easter, First Sunday after the First Full Moon after the Spring Equinox, or in other words time to start planting the fields.

Comment about Christmas--the Calvinists of colonial days frowned on Christmas celebrations, and in many cases banned businesses from closing. They saw Christmas hoopla as hedonistic and paganistic.

Jessica Naomi, find a priest to sprinkle some Holy Water on you to burn out those ugly hateful demons within.

Nathan: the city is allowing a public display to be held on public land, it is not promoting one religion over another. In fact, the article appears to say that they hold a lottery to determine who gets a spot and that only 3 went to religious organizations, 2 Christian and one Jewish. In what way was the city promoting Christianity, Judaism or any other religion? Looks to me like they're sort of promoting atheism, aren't they? If there is a group who wants to display stuff for Ramadan, I'd go see it. It's interesting to see what others believe. I would also go to a Jewish festival. I'm lighting my first real Menorah this year, given to me by a Jewish man who just joined my CHRISTIAN church. In addition to recognizing the Man who fulfilled the prophecies in his own Holy Book, The Torah, he thinks it's great that there are Gentiles who are willing to learn about and embrace Jewish traditions, and why not? My Savior WAS JEWISH!!! If it's good enough for Him, it's certainly good enough for me.

If the city is willing to allow ANY group to display their decorations (at whatever time of year they occur) then that should be no problem. It seems to me the only problem the city had with it was that another GROUP had a problem with it, so the city decided that having a small war on public land was not worth allowing the groups to do their thing, so now no one can. I have to say, the Christians DID bring this on themselves by defacing the other's displays so they really do not have much to say about it if the city decides to stop allowing it, as long as they either allow or refuse EVERYONE. They just need to be clear that they are stopping it because of the hate crimes against the displays and not the fact that they are on public land, which is available for ALL to use. THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED PUBLIC!!!!

the city is allowing a public display to be held on public land, it is not promoting one religion over another.

@usagi-sensei - a religious display on public land is promoting religion. the establishment clause specifically states "religion" not "a religion"

agreed. people really need to mind their own damn buisness.

Is the nativity scene on public property tax payer money is used for? Then it's their business.

I see many nativity scenes around my neighborhood, all on church property. No problem with that. I don't see any nativity scenes on public property in my neighborhood and I have no problem with that as well. Sounds like the perfect balance to me.

The only winning move is not to play. "Public" institutions shouldnt get involved with private opinions.

I.A.ScooterTramp-the city decided that the display had to go because of vandalism to the athiest's display. Obviously, someone wasn't minding their own business when they committed the vandalism. And it's the Christian churches suing, not the athiest.

hambone johnson people are not always free to display religious exhibits on their own private property. In many cases, neighbors, more likely out of ill-will than any concern for a common social good, have successfully fought against such exhibits. Ironically in doing so, they fight against the concept of privately-owned property.

FGH,

Can you please cite a source for that?

Are you talking about home owner's associations? Because if you are, they involve signing agreements, as in those people AGREED to not displaying certain types of holiday decorations and abiding by the associations rules.

And it's most likely due to snobbery, not ill will per se.

Thank you Sarah.

fgh,

Like I said above, and like you even said, these are not religious reasons, therefore, there is no 1st amendment issue.

You had me until you wondered into the thought police "happy holidays" crap. I have no problem with christians saying merry xmas. They mean it as a positive thing and that's how I choose the take it.

I have no problem with Americans saying Merry Christmas. It's a federal holiday.

I wish lots of people "Merry Christmas", but when it's an obviously Muslim cashier I use "Happy Holidays" so she needn't be bothered with my "Merry Christmas" crap (using your word) Perhaps those cashiers wouldn't take a mention of Christmas as a positive thing; "Happy Holidays" can be very positive unless, of course, one considers such a cheerful greeting as "crap".

most of the time people say Merry Christmas or Happy holidays as a nice gesture; there are, however, times when people say Merry Christmas with an emphasis/tone that makes it clear they're intentionally making a statement as opposed to just making a cheerful greeting

Happy Thanksgiving, Merry Christmas and God Bless America. Have safe and Happy New Years also, Amen.

Happy whatever Holiday your country and religion celebrates, and God Bless Humanity. Have a safe and Happy Future.

I say merry Christmas as that is the holiday I celebrate, It is that of F off, I know, I know, that is not being a 'good christian' and blah, blah, blah, however, here is the key, I am celebrating a holiday, not running for Christian of the year award. I like Christmas and as much as I despise most Humans, Christmas is a time of year that reminds me, I am not supposed to, it reminds me that supposedly we are more then just a collection of egotistical A holes spinning around the universe on this 3rd rock from our Sun. Overall it makes me better able to tolerate the trash around me for another year.

However I would be quite content to receive Happy Honica or Happy Quanza as a reply to my Merry Christmas, why.... Because I suggests to me like minded folks, those who may believe in something bigger then their own little egos, people who know that human's stink but, we supposedly have the potential to be better then we are.

"And when Santa shoves his fat, white ass down that chimney at midnight, he's gonna find the jolliest bunch of bastards this side of the nut house!" - Clark Griswold.

Seriously, I wouldn't be offended if someone told me Happy Hanukkah, get over it. We're all so inundated with everything greedy, gluttonous and cheesy regardless. That sure as hell isn't gonna be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

I've decided to just join in and enjoy the insanity these days. You have no idea how entertaining the look on someone's face when they receive "Pajama Jeans", can be.

Hey Sarah, if you're passing out Pajama Jeans, I'll take a pair! ;)

Misscreant,

I'm planning on wearing them myself on Thanksgiving. :)

OR.... As I like to call Thanksgiving, Native American Genocide Day.

I call it what many others do: Putting up with crazy family day!

Thanksgiving - The day I drink too much wine and try to get along with my grouchy brother.

I think it's more of a matter that most churches don't have the property to place 14 life sized scenes. Though maybe a good idea would be to create a path from church to church, each church holding a different scene.

I think it's more of a matter that most churches don't have the property to place 14 life sized scenes.

They could, I dunno, make it smaller so it will fit? I mean my family used to have a small nativity scene on an end table. It didn't diminish their faith any that it was small.

OMG What next. i think this country has gone crazy. i think all of the altheists and gays should have their own community to live apart from the normal american people instead of cramming thier B.S. down our throats everytime we turn around. Next u will be hearing about christian bashings and non-gay bashings. because of our persoanal beliefs. Christmas is only once a year. the rest of u are here 365. get over your selves u r not funny. ur pathetic.

it's truly a shame that people like moco loco and many Christians of his ilk chose to show less respect of Christmas as a religious holiday by demanding a huge public spectacle be made of one of their most holy religious holidays than non-Christians/evil secularists do

moco loco:

i think all of the altheists and gays should have their own community to live apart from the normal american people

Kind of like how Hitler and the German people set aside Jewish ghettos? reminder--Jews, blacks, homosexuals, and Gypsies were the most persecuted minority and the greatest population in those deportation camps.

instead of cramming thier B.S. down our throats everytime we turn around.

I've never had an atheist try to talk me out of my personal belief in the Goddess. Or a Muslim. Or a Bahai'i. Or a Hindu, or Buddhist, or a Jew. I have, however, been approached by Christians trying to convert me almost every day--I ride public transportation to work and very few days go by when that 40 minute ride to and from work doesn't include and episode of someone shoving a 'are you saved?' flyer, pamphlet, or other literature into my hand.

Recently I was at a bus stop, there was a bus at the curb and up the block I saw a woman running to try and catch this one. I stuck my hand in the bus door and kept the driver from pulling away until this woman got there. My pentagram was hanging right next to my dog tags, and I'm sure she saw it because she told me 'you're going to hell!' right before she got on the bus and it pulled away.

But she still caught her bus.

Just as the atheist in this article is being somewhat narrow-minded, so too are your views also exhibiting a narrow-mindedness (in advocating for segregation) that shows a lack of understanding of the principles of equality this country is founded on.

It's what you do that matters, not whose Name you do it in.

Then why read the article at all? and after you read it, why go to the trouble of clicking the 'comments' link, scroll down to the comment field, then spend a couple minutes typing a message about not caring?

The same reason you cared enough to reply to a comment that basically said nothing...

That would be the Christians or the Atheists with too much free time? Wonder how many hot meals a nativity scene would buy? Christians, heal thyself.

Arsenic, I'm sure that there are plenty on each side of the fence with too much time on their hands, as for the nativity scene buying hot meals, what about the atheists who had 18 of the 21 available spaces two years ago? Would that also not have provided hot meals, or are you saying that atheists aren't just as accountable (in your opinion) of providing hot meals as Christians? Everyone, regardless of faith or lack thereof, and has the means should help those in need no matter the time of year. You may not believe as I do but that's okay. "For surely as you do to the least of these also you do for me."

Hey Annon. The point I was making, and you know it, is the false duality that actions are "good" if they can be labled "religious" and Bad if Atheist.

And you do it too, despite your smugness that you don't. I do good works all year, because it causes less pain amon the ones I help. And yes, we are not as accountable, because we dont have a dogma that says that good works save us from eternal torture. Even at the end of your spiel you want to take godly credit for the acts of the non-beliver. How utterly pompous. How utterly delusional. Point your derision to your fellow travellers, not to those that reject your worldview of myth=might.

so this guy wont mind pulling a double shift on the holidays right? no good friday, x-mas etc. while i am not in the least bit religious, i don't feel the need to slam those who are.

Some people has so much time on their hands that they want to force their religious beliefs on taxpayers.

Keep in the church or on church property or pay taxes. Simple as that.

I never said atheists were bad, that's all on you fellow and if you feel that way so be it. As someone who doesn't believe how then can you hold Christians more accountable than non-believers for doing good works? As a HUMAN shouldn't we do right by each other regardless of affiliation? I am happy to hear that you help others in need of it, I am happy for anyone who takes the time to help those less fortunate b/c when anyone is hurting in what ever way, kindness will be much appreciated. I don't think homeless or people who need a hot meal care who is providing it to them, I'm sure they are just grateful not to be hungry any more.

And we all will acknowledge that many terrible things have happened in the name of religion (and many different ones)

Lorrie said "You may not believe in God, Mr. Vix. But I promise, he believes on you."

Which god?

No one is forcing him to look at Christmas displays? Have you ever been outside in December? Even like, for a couple minutes to get the mail?

Or maybe they have something to say, too, and unfortunately choose sometimes obnoxious ways to say it. But then, sometimes Christians choose obnoxious ways to talk about atheists, too. I think the point is the Christian display is the only one that consistently insists on being on public property...I don't see other religious groups putting their holidays/holy days' signs/displays in public parks, and if they do I bet you wouldn't like that much. Why not just put it on your church property and I would say to him how about stating your case without being nasty. This is not just about one group...a park belongs to the city and is for everyone to enjoy and not a place for a bunch of fights over who gets to display religious displays.

Why not put up a lighted tree...light all the trees in the park if you like...that isn't pushing just one religion. Then put your nativity on church property? 14-scene Christian display? You want those who "don't want to see it" to have to stay out of the park for weeks a year? But you don't like his sign? Do you see the problem here? Two different viewpoints are displayed. One has 14 scenes and one objects to that. So move it to your church property and he will take down his sign. Problem solved. Good for the city to stop it.

Lorrie, you are a perfect example of why he put up his display in the first place. You see, YOU just don't GET IT! There is no god. No super beings. No prayers. None of that hallucination stuff to believe or live WITHIN. And there are growing numbers who see the absolute hypocrisy of religion and mythical beliefs. (Santa Clause WAS fun...and the Easter Bunny.....etc)

There is no 'emptiness' or 'something that is not being fed'. Actually, it is quite the contrary when you finally GET IT that YOU run your life, and YOU get but one chance to make the world a better place. The emphasis shifts to what you can do today...and away from what should I do to get to 'heaven'. One way is for the benefit of generations to follow. The other is selfishly all about you - and of course your fear of a south-of-Texas bar-b-que.

Happy Holidays!

Mark in Texas

you seem to misunderstand that, in erecting a nativity scene on government land, the government would be by default establishing religion - something that is specifically verboten by the establishment clause. It is a constitutional violation regardless of whether the act results in forcibly shoving one's religion down the throat of another or passively imposes religion on another by serving as an act of government endorsement.

I will (Unfortunately) never cease to be amazed at the "christian" proclivity for the false sense of targeted persecution. From the article: " "Religions are all alike -- founded on fables and mythologies." The other side read "Happy Solstice." " NOT christians, all worshipers of imaginary beings. Personally I believe it is a form of projection. You persecute others (gays are bad, muslims are bad, pre-marital sex is bad, athiests are bad, etc.), therefore you believe all people target you as well.

Mr. Vix is not the only group with minions that need to go away. You may believe in god, but I promise, he cannot believe in you.

SAICS Exactly! Thank you.

So what's wrong with looking at displays of mythical characters? It only represents more than that if you BELIEVE it does.

I live in the area and the park they use is a PUBLIC park that is right on a cliff overlooking the ocean. It's where people go to jog, walk their dogs, paint or just enjoy the view. I don't care if they're displaying nativity scenes or whatever, they shouldn't be there. Again, it's a PUBLIC park and shouldn't be used for ANY type of display, religious, commercial or whatever.

Why don't the churches use their own front lawn? There is plenty of space on several area churches. I don't really want to drive or walk by these displays every year. It just looks like a mess to me and I can't wait until they're taken down every year.

It would be so much nicer to have smaller, individual displays on all the church properties in the area.

So what's wrong with looking at displays of mythical characters? It only represents more than that if you BELIEVE it does.

@peanutGalleryTheater - it represents more when the insistence in having these things on government land is very obviously a way for the majority to mark their territory

aSailor's mom said;

What he is doing is in effect based on hate. And though it is not technically a crime, it seems narrowly close to fitting the description of a hate crime. He isn't protesting any groups other than "Christians". Isn't persecuting a group in such a way a form a bigotry?

Actually, that display he put up 'protests' Pagans, Christians, Satanists, and eastern Europeans. Poseidon is pagan, Jesus is Christian, Santa Claus is an Eastern European figure, and Lucifer is Satanist.

(The origin of the Santa Claus tradition was an actual toymaker in an Eastern European village who made toys to give to good poor children in the village whose parents couldn't afford to buy something to reward good behavior for, and these were passed out on Solstice Night.)

I haven't heard the Pagans protesting that they're being persecuted, the Satanists protesting they're being persecuted, or the eastern Europeans protesting and saying this ridicules their beliefs. Only the Christians are complaining that they are being persecuted.

It's not persecution. If one person has the right to tell everyone god is real, Mr. Vix has the right to tell everyone that he is not. Ridiculing someone's beliefs or ideas is NOT persecution. Persecution is treating someone as a lesser person because of a belief, for example not letting someone vote.

Or as Confucius put it "Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself."

The bible. Read it and you will become a non Christian. Numbers 31, Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 22, 25 etc etc. Gods mind:

Deuteronomy 25

25:11 When men strive together one with another, and the wife of the one draweth near for to deliver her husband out of the hand of him that smiteth him, and putteth forth her hand, and taketh him by the secrets:

25:12 Then thou shalt cut off her hand, thine eye shall not pity her.

To Chris - 5thape,

Even though I am a Christian, I do not believe in the Bible verbatim as it was written by man, but I do like the Golden Rule no matter your beliefs and think we all should strive to live by it.

A weak believer avoids temptation. A strong believer can face it head on. These must be weak christians.

Many Christians fear atheists due to projection. If they are the type of Christian who views all dissenting beliefs as evil lies from the pit of hell, and who believes that they have a divine mandate to convert, subjugate, or destroy all people whose beliefs that conflict with their own worldview, then they assume that all atheists are the same, just working for Satan instead of Jesus. That is a scary thought to people who actually believe in Satan and Jesus.

Here - here Tiger! Could not have said it better myself. More christians should have your outlook.

When I was approached by a Jehova's Witness, I said I was atheist, just to avoid talking to them. I was just trying to have a sunset stroll and wasn't interested in a theological discussion. They got the most horrified look on their face and physically took a step back. I might as well have been Satan himself.

@ Chris You should have no problem with that. As your Messiah Darwin says, "Survival of the Fittest". Talk about a belief that encourages barbaric activity. Basically put, if one species destroys another, the destroyer is the dominant species that has eliminated the weaker genes, thus supporting Evolution.

@jason8472-like the Christians who killed and enslaved native American populations when the Europeans "discovered" these continents? And the destruction of cultures in many other places? I'm not saying that Christians have been the only ones to do so, but that is the belief system being discussed here.

Jason:

And by your reasoning then Christians shouldn't have a problem with evolution:

And they went waging war against Midian, just as Jehovah had commanded Moses, and they proceeded to kill every male. And they killed the kings of Midian along with the others slain, namely, Evi and Rekem and Zur and Hur and Reba, the five kings of Midian; and they killed Balaam the son of Beor with the sword. But the sons of Israel carried off the women of Midian and their little ones captive; and all their domestic animals and all their livestock and all their means of maintenance they plundered. And all their cities in which they had settled and all their walled camps they burned with fire. And they went taking all the spoil and all the booty in the way of humans and domestic animals. And they came bringing to Moses and Eleazar the priest and to the assembly of the sons of Israel the captives and the booty and the spoil to the camp, to the desert plains of Moab, which are by the Jordan at Jericho. Numbers 31: 7-12

Then Moses and Eleazar the priest and all the chieftains of the assembly went out to meet them outside the camp. And Moses grew indignant at the appointed men of the combat forces, the chiefs of the thousands and the chiefs of the hundreds who were coming in from their military expedition. So Moses said to them, “Have you preserved alive every female? Look! They are the ones who, by Balaam’s word, served to induce the sons of Israel to commit unfaithfulness toward Jehovah over the affair of Peor, so that the scourge came upon the assembly of Jehovah. And now kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has had intercourse with man by lying with a male. And preserve alive for yourselves all the little ones among the women who have not known the act of lying with a male.” Numbers 31: 13-17

As for human souls from the women who had not known the act of lying with a male, all the souls were thirty-two thousand. Numbers 31:35

on the list of reasons why we are broke, I think the nativity scenes in Santa Monica are pretty low.

so the court's and city have the time and money to deal with this eh? Or is this all free? i myself have never met a 'free" lawyer.

The separation of church and state is as important to the churches as it is to the non-believers! The principle needs protection.

Ahhhh the Christian mind "This guy should have his rear end kicked. ". You just have to stand back in awe of it.

Celebrate it all you want (I sure will) but not on publicly funded property. Do you understand?

I don't want to get too far off the topic here, but I am amused at the message in several posts that if athiests and non-christains don't like the religious scenes, don't look at them. At the same time, christians have no problem imposing their so-called christian beliefs on others through legislation.

I agree- if you don't believe in the story of Christ's birth, don't look at the depictions on display. If you don't believe in birth control don't practice it, if you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry a person of the same gender, etc. Same thing.

By all means, put up the nativity displays. I enjoy looking at many of them because they sometimes are valuable as works of art aside from their religious significance just as we admire the Roman's and Greek's depicting their gods as works of art regardless of their genesis.

ah the poor oppressed minority

Please note that the US is a democratic republic, not a democracy. Much of our constitution is written to avoid the tyranny of the majority that the likes of Adams and Madison (of founding fathers fame) warned about

"I understand the separation(sic) from church and state but dude." Do you? Do you really?

"It's the retards like this guy..."

" A few butt heads ruin it for the majority. This guy should have his rear end kicked."

Wow. Way to "christian" up your message dude. And still you can't comprehend why the world grows less and less tolerant of the religious hypocrisy every day. Nice job, pinhead.

Well Ken, if you don't like the Atheist display, don't look at it! Why should christians have the special right not to be offended?

Christians are starting to sound a lot like muslims. Weak faith, thin skinned, declining membership, easily offended.

Ken Martelli-You should have your butt kicked for writing something so stupid. You obviously didn't read the article before commenting or you would realize that the CITY is the one who ended all of the displays, NOT Mr. Dix. If you're a religious zealot and don't like his display, then don't look at it. You apparently take great pride in your stupidity, and get very upset when someone questions it. You obviously DON'T understand the seperation of church and state or you would be whining about the state allowing one display and not another. C'mon dude, it's friggin a Christmas display! Not an athiest, then stop looking (and complaining) about those that are. It's pinheads like yourself that are making the world a crazy place with more and more of you tin-foil hat types and less freedom! Nice job butthead!

Islam is one of the fasting growing religions in the world peanut gallery.

I'm frustrated that so many Christians don't understand their own faith. KenMartelli: Love, don't judge. Jesus came into the world for people like Dix. ~~ It's the sick who need a doctor, not the healthy, right? ~~

Pray that he comes to believe.

And for people who don't believe: According to Jesus, the second most important law of god is to love your neighbor as you love yourself. What can you have against that? Don't let the idiotic words or actions of a few (like KenMartelli) paint the entire faith with the same brush. There are both good and bad examples in the church.

The nativity scene belongs on private property.

Sophomoric -

agreed...arrogant little narcissistic prick isn't he....

Or, the message I got was "All the religious types fight for the same spot like a pack of dogs for a bone, and it costs us a lot of money to put up with it and the city is sick of it, so they just said 'Screw it, no one can put their crap here.' And the only group that ended up getting their way in the end were the Atheists, because it was their idol that picked to go on display."

So yeah, he's smug. He has the right to be, he won. In fact, you religious types should feel like you lost every time you see a big open space without a Nativity scene in it. So the next time you're in the park, or the forest, on a lake, or in your empty front lawn, let that remind you about how we took away Christmas from you.

Now if only you were still allowed to practice it in your own home. Oh wait, you are, so stop whining.

Why wouldn't he be arrogant and smug? After all, atheists believe man is the most intelligent and powerful being in the universe and science has solved all its mysteries. Yet they don't know where the stuff came from before the big bang, can't find the missing link and haven't been able to explain how life sprang out of the primordial ooze.

They don't have any answers, they just know your beliefs are wrong.

Would that be the group insisting that public land should be used as they wish and the hell with the rest of the population, or do you mean the guy who put up signs? Seems to me just keep it all off the park land and all is even.

They don't have any answers, they just know your beliefs are wrong.

Wow....Thy hypocrisy truly knows no bounds.

They're like the blind guy in Eric The Viking.

Ken Martelli-You should have your butt kicked for writing something so stupid. You obviously didn't read the article before commenting or you would realize that the CITY is the one who ended all of the displays, NOT Mr. Dix. If you're a religious zealot and don't like his display, then don't look at it. You apparently take great pride in your stupidity, and get very upset when someone questions it. You obviously DON'T understand the seperation of church and state or you would be whining about the state allowing one display and not another. C'mon dude, it's friggin a Christmas display! Not an athiest, then stop looking (and complaining) about those that are. It's pinheads like yourself that are making the world a crazy place with more and more of you tin-foil hat types and less freedom! Nice job butthead!

bet this elf proclaimed "atheist" (which is a type of religion in itself,) will scream bloody murder if he has to work through the holidays.

@jrsygrl,

No atheist believes that "man is the most intelligent and powerful being in the universe and science has solved all its mysteries." The thing that seems to separate atheists from theists is their decided lack of certainty. Sure, there are some who think they know everything, but most just go about their lives not even thinking about it.

Science has never claimed to solve all mysteries. But, as it slowly chips away at human ignorance, it sure is painting most religions into a corner, isn't it?

Also, just as a side note, by mentioning a "missing link", you prove you have absolutely no understanding of the science behind evolution.

@Scooter,

Atheism is in no way a religion.

scooter,

Atheism is not a religion because a religion is defined by the rituals that are performed. Worshipping is such a ritual. Atheism is, however, a belief. A non-belief in something is still a belief unto its own.

IA.Scooter - Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

jrsygrl - Would you accept an answer about what happened before the big bang if it was in the form of "My magical cookbook tells me that an all powerful Fig-Newton created all things."? No. Then maybe you understand how we hear your explanation for it. To us it's the same thing. Neither answers any real question, and only really recreates the same type of question in it's place. "Who made the magical Fig-Newton?"

Also as habone stated, Evolution has nothing to do with the Big Bang, hell it doesn't even have anything to do with Abiogenesis (start of life), it simply describes the mechanism for how the various living creatures came to be in their current form after life began. Also, don't say "missing link" anymore, there are none. When you say "missing link", you show that not only do you have a 8th grade science education, but that you received it prior to 1970. The fact is that fossilization is a rare event for land animals, even so, we have plenty of transitional fossils to support evolution as fact, but even if we hadn't found one, scientists could prove evolution nowadays through genetics, or through observation of fast-life-cycle creatures like flies or viruses.

It's ok to be science ignorant, but if you are going to choose to be ignorant, don't try to argue with people that aren't. Don't take my word for any of the above (I wouldn't), go out and READ about it, and don't pick any website with the words "creation" or "bible" in the title, because contrary to popular belief, you can lie all you want on the internet. I would pick a nice .EDU site or maybe a nice .GOV, maybe even an .ORG.

LOL Is that all you have to do in Iowa?

You know, other groups celebrate holidays around the same time: Jews, Pagans and atheists all have something to celebrate besides the christian god.

Atheists don't celebrate. But they get the day off because it's a federal holiday.

All they wanted was to put up messages as well. It was vandalized by Christians. So now no one gets to (on public land).

But the better thing is we are here talking about it. Now we get to expose the religions for the myths that they are. With luck others will see this as well (the total nut bars never will of course).

Religion is a virus of the mind.

I agree maybe it isn't the most positive approach, but you want to guess what "positive" messages he got when he simply pointed out it wasn't fair to any other group to take over that park for 14 scene religious displays? I live in the south...I can take good guesses the response he got wasn't "positive" or even polite.

A more positive approach to pointing out that myth-believers belive in myths? The same myth-bilievers that want to make thier myths law? Sorry, but when you let someone know that fact indicates that thier worldview is incompatable with reality, they tend to get ticked off, no matter how you do it.

Ram: His reason to take those spaces was to be callous and vindictive. Which is how most individuals not secure in their position react. He did not have material of substance to use those spaces. When you believe in nothing, you have nothing to show for it, but vile innuendo against imaginary oppressors.

A few years ago, I returned to school to finish my education and earn my doctoral degree. I was significantly older than any other student in the facility. The first December I was there, I was surprised and pleased when the President of the student body handed out slips of paper. On the paper was the proposal that we put up a "Holiday Tree." Additionally, he recognized that we had a very diverse student body and stated the other choice was to have no decorations whatsoever, as we had limited space and were unable to place an exhibit representing each cultural/religious belief represented. Unanimously, we voted for the Holiday Tree and it was lovely. No hard feelings, we all enjoyed the lights and decorations, which were generic in the sense that they favored no single belief. Some of us verbally wished each other a Merry Christmas and others went with Happy Holidays. No one appeared offended or excluded.

Perhaps our future hope does lie with our youth.

Which god would that be?

Hmm..thought you were talking about the 14 scene Christian display there for a moment until I saw you meant that only Christians should get to use the public park. Ohh, maybe you meant that all religions should use the park for all of their holidays? We could have religious parks full of all kinds of displays...whee! Oh...you meant only this one for Christmas. Wonder why anyone would object to that?

Lots of things have been said...what difference does that make? Believe as you wish, but until you want everyone else using the park as they wish, having a big Christian display won't fly. Put up lights or something...or go put this on your own church property.

Always, eh? Possibly you can whip out that old photo of the nativity scene on Lincoln's White House Lawn. Or show me a US coin or Currency that "In God We Trust" from before the 1950's.

There is only one way to stop someone from thinking, albeit thinking wrongly, putting up competing displays sure isnt it.

WOW!!! Really? Okay let me think for YOU. ANY God you want.

SURE. Let ALL religions have a voice, a display, and anything else. Who cares? If you believe in OUR Constitution, which you obviously don't, then freedom of religion is guaranteed. Now get out there and BELIEVE...lol. Because it REALLY doesn't matter which one. JUST believe. Problem solved. NEXT!!! Whew, THAT was easy.

Which god would that be?

Ahh...a kindred spirit. I always like to point out that religion is just a chance of where and by whom you are raised. How many "good christians" actually think they would be christians if they were born in, let's say, India? Or Iran? Be truthful about it to yourself if nothing else.

No one is trying to stop anyone's beliefs.....they are trying to stop others from shoving their beliefs down everyone else's throats. Thousand on thousands of churches in this country, all tax-free so that people have places to practice their beliefs, and still they feel the need to force their beliefs into every corner of society, so that everyone else is forced to be exposed to them everywhere they turn, (Kinda like the taliban, without the stoning.....for now). Don't confuse religious persecution with not getting everything you want all the time.

Aren't all religious places of worship tax-exempt? Why harp on just Christian churches? Are synagogs and temples and mosques and any other religious place exempt from your scorn or do you lump all religions into one? Not any of these religions would appreciate being painted with the same broad brush just as atheists hate being painted by the broad brush by religious folk.

They did that last year, and people vandalized the non-Christian ones. That is why the city isn't going to pay for it this year. If you don't like it talk to the vandals.

All religions should have their tax-exemption status removed if they wish to be involved in politics.

A cuople of pomts:

- You do realize that public parks are paid for by the general population through taxes? So, given that 80 Plus percent of the population is religious, that park has (likely) been 80 Plus % funded by the religiious. So for you who are indignent over the use of your park - get over it.

- It would seem that somewhere in the 70's or 80's there became codified an American right to freedom from any and all insult or offense. If you can prove damage from your exposure to a nativity scene (or the atheist's oh-so-clever shadow box), sue in civil court. "Shoved down your throat" is likely provably damaging - had my little sensibilities tweaked? Grow up.

Where is the historical evidence?

Look in a mirror, CRWRE. What are you preaching, exactly, with your insulting comment?

One book. Actually a collection of pamphlets. Hercules got more press than Jesus at the time. Historical scribes don't even mention him. So where is that evidence again. Oh ya, one book, that is actually a collection of mis-translated and forged pamphlets.

Arsenic, I did a quick google search, here you go...

CORNELIUS TACITUS (55 - 120 A.D.) Tacitus was a 1st and 2nd century Roman historian who lived through the reigns of over half a dozen
Roman emperors. Considered one of the greatest historians of ancient Rome, Tacitus verifies the Biblical account of Jesus' execution at the
hands of Pontius Pilate who governed Judea from 26-36 A.D. during the reign of Tiberius.

"Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the
pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of
Rome also." Annals XV, 44

What this passage reveals and how it confirms the Biblical account:

• Jesus did exist
• Jesus was the founder of Christianity
• Jesus was put to death by Pilate
• Christianity originated in Judea (With Jesus)
• Christianity later spread to Rome (Through the Apostles and Evangelists)

Skeptic Interjection: Could Tacitus have taken his information from Christian sources?
Answer: Because of his position as a professional historian and not as a commentator, it is more likely Tacitus referenced government
records over Christian testimony. It is also possible Tacitus received some of his information from his friend and fellow secular historian, Pliny
the Younger. Yet, even if Tacitus referenced some of Pliny's sources, it would be out of his character to have done so without critical
investigation. An example of Tacitus criticising testimony given to him even from his dear friend Pliny is found here: Annals XV, 55. Tacitus
distinguishes between confirmed and hearsay accounts almost 70 times in his History. If he felt this account of Jesus was only a rumor or
folklore, he would have issued his usual disclaimer that this account was unverified.

Skeptic Interjection: Could this passage have been a Christian interpolation?
Answer: Judging by the critical undertones of the passage, this is highly unlikely. Tacitus refers to Christianity as a superstition and
insuppressible mischief. Furthermore, there is not a surviving copy of Tacitus' Annals that does not contain this passage. There is no verifiable
evidence of tampering of any kind in this passage.

Skeptic Interjection: Why is this passage not quoted by the early church fathers?
Answer: Due to the condescending nature of Tacitus' testimony, early Christian authors most likely would not have quoted such a source
(assuming Tacitus' writings were even available to them). However, our actual answer comes from the content of the passage itself. Nothing in
Tacitus' statement mentions anything that was not already common knowledge among Christians. It simply provides evidence of Jesus'
existence (a topic not debated at this point in history) and not his divinity.

Skeptic Interjection: Does the incorrect use of title procurator instead of prefect negate Tacitus' reliability?
Answer: No. Evidence is provided in both secular and Christian works which refer to Pilate as a procurator:

• "But now Pilate, the procurator of Judea... Antiquities XVIII, 3:1
  
• "Now Pilate, who was sent as procurator into Judea by Tiberius..." The Jewish Wars, Book II 9:2
  
• "Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar..." First Apology XII
  

It has been suggested by both Christian and secular scholars that Tacitus was either using an anachronism for the sake of clarity or, since
Judea was a relatively new and insignificant Roman province, Pilate might have held both positions.

You weren't there. You don't know.

John the Baptist fit in your story there?

You seem to miss the message that American christians preach. Hate, bigotry, pedophelia, intolerance, and randian philosophy.

WOW , Jessica Naomi sounds like a bitter young woman. I hope she finds peace before she explodes

Hey Anon,

Wow, you found THE ONE CITATION. Now do the same for Hercules, there are a score. Says a lot for your God.

If God is real and if God inspired the Bible, then we should worship God as the Bible demands. We should certainly post the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and shopping centers, put "In God We Trust" on the money and pray in our schools. We should focus our society on God and his infallible Word because our everlasting souls hang in the balance.

On the other hand, if God is imaginary, then religion is a complete illusion. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are pointless. Belief in God is nothing but a silly superstition, and this superstition leads a significant portion of the population to be delusional.

But how can we decide, conclusively, whether God is real or imaginary? One can't disprove the existance of any god, but its pretty easy to show that God, as envisioned by Christians not only doesn't exist in the form that Christians claim, but that your own dogma proves it so!

Ask yourself this simple question: Why, when you read the Bible, are you not left in awe? Why doesn't a book written by an omniscient being leave you with a sense of wonder and amazement? If you are reading a book written by the all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving creator of the universe, wouldn't you expect to be stunned by the brilliance, the clarity and the wisdom of the author? Would you not expect each new page to intoxicate you with its incredible prose and its spectacular insight? Wouldn't you expect the author to tell us things that scientists have not been able to discover yet?

Yet, when we open the Bible and actually read it, we find it is nothing like that at all. Instead of leaving us in awe, it leaves us dumbfounded by all of the nonsense and backwardness that it contains. If you would look at the Bible fresh, and read what it actually says, you find that the Bible is ridiculous. The examples shown above barely scratch the surface of the Bible's numerous problems. If we are honest with ourselves, it is obvious that an "all-knowing" God had absolutely nothing to do with this book.

The Bible is a book written thousands of years ago by primitive men. A book that advocates senseless murder, slavery and the oppression of women has no place in our society today. It is time for us to recognize this simple fact

I know - Zeus is all powerful! Nothing can stop him! :-)

Who said it would? If it did he wouldn't be much of a God, would he? Just do it on your church property and all is good!

Nor is anyone trying to stop god....how did you miss the entire point of the issue?

LOL...Won't stop delusional idiots either so just be dumb at home please.

Every place I've lived (Iowa.Nebraska,Washington) every church has put up nativity scenes on their grounds. Why the need to put them up on government property. Most churches are more visible. And if you add in the hundreds of displays in people's yards, why the need to push seperation of church and state?

LOL @ hilton, you and Jessica Naomi sound like you would be a perfect pair. have you thought about hooking up?