Christianity is "one of the hateful & evil concoctions ever perpetrated on the world" you say?

So that is why when I look at the news I see suicide bombings, little girls killed who engage in education, people killed because they have different beliefs.

Ya, I'm sure it's the fault of Christianity that muslims are slaughtering thousands of people.

Oh wait, wasn't there that guy named Jesus that said that we should forgive our enemies? Wow, that's so evil.

Then you have guys like Stalin and Hitler that were such peaceful individuals. They were models of peace for all atheists to follow.

Ditto

Christians ought to be careful about casting aspersions toward Muslims. Both religions share a history of bloody violence and intolerance for infidels.

Hitler was Catholic. It makes me mad that Christians put themselves over every other religion in terms of their peaceful disposition, when, in truth, they were the most violent.

Muslims are not inherently suicide bombers; most of the Koran forbids such behavior. It is simply that extremists twist religion. Likewise, there are also Christian terrorists. Breivik is such an example, who brutally attempted to massacre Muslims. So this puts you in a double bind: either Osama is what Islam is and then all Christians are also terrorists like Breivik, or you choose the option that matches reality: most Christians and Muslims are good people, and it is just that every religion has extremists.

The Christians brutally oppressed the Jews and other minorities. Under the Umuyadds and the Abbasid, these minorities flourished. Compare that to the Christian crusades, where Christians from 1096 to 1291 brutally slaughtered thousands of Muslims and other minorities.

Finally, you say that Stalin was a model for all atheists to follow (I previously debunked you on Hitler). Again, I can apply a similar calculus to Hitler and Stalin. Either Hitler represented all Christians as Stalin represents all atheists, or we accept the reality that their ideologies were political, and cannot be associated with a religion or atheism.

Christians have done their share of murdering back in the day for sake of religion.I believe in God but not organized religion.Controlling people with a book of stories and beliefs is not pleasing to God.

It's really comical how much time and effort atheists go out of their way to intentionally offend people. These displays were there 60 years and hurt no one.

It's funny how Atheists scream..."Don't force your beliefs on me." while in the process of trying to force their beliefs on others.

I don't care what you believe....This era has turned into every faction for themselves. Not one single group doesn't have another attacking them. Not one single group is able to exist in peace...regardless of their activities.

AHHHHH..Plastic shepherds.....WE MUST GO TO WAR AND STOP THIS!!! Funny atheists.

Paws, the atheists had no issue with the nativity scenes. They just wanted to be allowed to put up their own displays, and have other religions besides Christianity do so as well. What then happened was that the atheist displays were vandalized. The Christan groups demanded the atheist displays be taken down. Rather than try and referee this fight, the city declared there would be no displays at all. It is the city's right to do so.

The atheists were not trying to force anything on anyone.

Grant you have the right to your opinion, how ever stupid it might be. How ever your right should not infringe upon our right to worship as we see fit. If the Nativity upset you, then don't look at it. What right do you have to FORCE your beliefs on me.

Oh and by the way I have never heard any one scream for an atheist to save their sorry A#%$ when they were dying. Just another one of our freedoms the government is trying to take away from us.....

And may I wish you A Very Merry Christmas.....

you have the right to your opinion, how ever stupid it might be.

As do you, as stupid as it is.

How ever your right should not infringe upon our right to worship as we see fit. I

How is your right to worship being infringed? Did you worship at the nativity scene?

If the Nativity upset you, then don't look at it.

If atheistic displays upset YOU, don't look at them.

What right do you have to FORCE your beliefs on me.

What is being "forced" on you? It seems that it is the Christians who are trying to force their beliefs on everyone, and trying to force everyone to allow them to put their nativity scene on public, taxpayer-funded property -- when they could so easily put their nativity scenes on church property without all this fuss.

Just another one of our freedoms the government is trying to take away from us.

What "freedoms" are being taken away from you?

Have a very happy winter solstice!

Grant - at least your friends and family can save money by not having to buy you Christmas presents, because you would never accept a Christmas present, or Christmas bonus, right? Even if they are called "Holiday" presents and bonuses, they are still predicated upon religious holidays. So, you do not accept such gifts, correct? I cannot imagine why any atheist would accept such a gift - would seem quite hypocritical. Unless you slide around it by saying that the Santa Claus aspect has nothing to do with religion. Are you that slimy? Hate and despise Christmas, but haul in the presents?

Boy all this hate coming out for this stupid story put out by the News media just to get some one riled up.. LOL

Oh wait, wasn't there that guy named Jesus that said that we should forgive our enemies? Wow, that's so evil.

Kablooy and those who think like you - have you ever actually read the Bible? The stories in it are some of the most violent ever written.

Oh wait, wasn't there that guy named Jesus that said that we should forgive our enemies? Wow, that's so evil.

"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Mohandas K. Gandhi.

You can't really mention Muslims killing people when "Christians" have killed way way way way way more. It's probably easily 100-1, if not more.

You can't really mention Muslims killing people when "Christians" have killed way way way way way more.

Emanuel - that is not true. Islam is much older than Christianity, and Muslims have been killing for the same reasons they kill today for centuries before Christianity ever came on the scene.

How ever your right should not infringe upon our right to worship as we see fit. I

How is your right to worship being infringed? Did you worship at the nativity scene?

If the Nativity upset you, then don't look at it.

If atheistic displays upset YOU, don't look at them.

What right do you have to FORCE your beliefs on me.

Seems a strange argument to me. "If the Nativity upset you, then don't look at it."

"What right do you have to FORCE your beliefs on me."

If the Atheist display upsets you, then don't look at it. Duh. Your belief does not take precedince over someone else's disbelief. That's the whole point here; it seems you don't get it. It sure seems you are advocating forcing your beliefs on others.

Grant MacDonaldvia :

What's wrong with following "The Ten Commandments"? They contain the basics of all that is good in mankind?

Can the atheist come up with an original alternative?

arithehun

Hitler was Catholic. It makes me mad that Christians put themselves over every other religion in terms of their peaceful disposition, when, in truth, they were the most violent.

Hitler was as much a Catholic as the Mexicans in the drug cartels who butcher people.

The same can be said of most of the illegal aliens from Mexico. It is a violation of the Catholic Church to sneak into the United States and live off of the American people. "Immigration" and the dream for a better life cannot excuse the crimes committed against the American people in the pursuit of that dream. Illegals in the US are sinning 24 hours a day just by being in the US.

The cover story of "all Mexicans are Catholic" therefore whatever they do is approved of by God is a sin in itself. It is racial profilling in reverse. It also degrades the image of everyone else who isn't Mexican.

You would be better off concentrating your efforts on exposing the lie of the harmless illegal alien.

The real insult to the people of the United States is that we Americans have to view displays of Mexican invaders in our country, stealing the resources meant to feed the world.

How quick we are to find the scapegoat and give it a title to excuse our hate of a group. People want to blame religion or use religion as the reason for brutal acts. Try actually researching history and finding the core reasons for every war: Money and Power. In other words; acting like human beings. Now reading the posts here if i were to replace christians with jews, it would sound like nazi Germany all over again.

Emanuel - that is not true. Islam is much older than Christianity, and Muslims have been killing for the same reasons they kill today for centuries before Christianity ever came on the scene.

Please educate yourself before you speak...

Islam began in the year 622CE, after Muhammed had been preaching for 12 years. Christianity can be traced as "finalized" to the Council of Nicea in 325CE (but was practiced in large numbers as early as the Church Fathers around 150CE).

Vindicator,

If the only reason you don't kill or steal is because of the 10 Commandments, you need to do some serious moral "retooling". So if you didn't have those commandments, you'd be an adulterous, murdering thief???

RW,

Yes, money and power are bad influences on people. They're also two things churches who are run by men, have historically had a great deal of and have gone to great lengths to keep. That's our point exactly.

Okay, the obvious thing to do is pass a federal law banning the promotion of and recognition of the holiday known as "Christmas."

The reason for this holiday.... and the ONLY reason for this holiday... is the Christian belief that Jesus Christ was born on this day.

Since Christians cannot erect any type of symbolic nativity scenes during this season that is specifically special to them, the entire holiday needs to be eradicated from the American public consciousness where it pertains to the promotion and celebration of this holiday on a national scale.

No more "Christmas" breaks for government offices, especially and including Congress. No more "Christmas" breaks for schools. No more allowing department stores to promote "Christmas" deals on their merchandise... remember, by its very name, "Christmas" is promoting a specific religion.

Wipe out the name "Christmas" as we are attempting to wipe out the name "ni— — er" and let's get it over with.

Of course, we'll be wiping out Santa Clause, and all those neat holiday movies, which will affect the film industry a little, but what the hell, we can't allow the Christians any leeway, can we?

I demand this be the first thing Congress addresses when they return from.... er.... Christmas vacation.

Since Christians cannot erect any type of symbolic nativity scenes during this season that is specifically special to them, the entire holiday needs to be eradicated from the American public consciousness where it pertains to the promotion and celebration of this holiday on a national scale.

That's just intellectually dishonest. Christians are MORE than welcome to put up all the Nativity scenes their little hearts desire, on their private property, the private property of their businesses and the private property of their churches.

And they COULD have continued to erect their scenes on this PUBLIC property if they had shown the same consideration to other groups.

How about slowing down on the drama???

It's not intellectually dishonest at all. It is a fact that the entire holiday is in honor of the Christian birth of their saviour.

The dishonesty comes from the federal and state governments which allow this religious holiday to be used and celebrated as a convenience to them and to the business community but will not allow the Christians to celebrate it in the way they have done so for the past two centuries in this country because another group of people is now protesting the way it is celebrated.

To completely separate church and state would be to eradicate all religious holidays from the calenders, which would include Christmas and Easter holidays. People would, of course, be allowed to celebrate them on their own, but no more shutting down schools and federal and state institutions.

Too bad for the merchants, but, oh well, there are consequences for being an ass.

And I am not a Christian, by the way, but I always enjoyed taking my kids around to all the scenes that were displayed. I'm 61 now, and the older I get the more damn fools I see in this world.

You said...

Since Christians cannot erect any type of symbolic nativity scenes during this season that is specifically special to them, the entire holiday needs to be eradicated from the American public consciousness where it pertains to the promotion and celebration of this holiday on a national scale.

Yes or No... Are ALL/ANY nativity scenes banned? If no, than the bolded statement up there is a flat out lie. Please cite any law, decree ordinance, governing document banning nativity scenes. Or could it be still PERFECTLY legal and allowable to have those on all the private property you have access to?

The dishonesty comes from the federal and state governments which allow this religious holiday to be used and celebrated as a convenience to them and to the business community but will not allow the Christians to celebrate it in the way they have done so for the past two centuries in this country because another group of people is now protesting the way it is celebrated.

Please cite any ordinance, decree, law, governing document that says you CAN'T celebrate Christmas, or dictates how you must celebrate it. Otherwise the bolded statement above is ALSO a flat out lie.

The government is saying that since not ALL beliefs can be peacefully exhibited, or NOT vandalized, on public, tax payer funded property, than NONE can. It also said that prior to the vandalization and fighting against one set of beliefs you COULD have. Ergo, if you'd shown the same respect you ask for, and simply IGNORED the other beliefs, we could ALL still have our holiday decorations up on PUBLIC land.

And Easter is NOT a government holiday.

I'm 61 now, and the older I get the more damn fools I see in this world.

The older I get, the more I realize "older" doesn't equate to "wiser".

I'm saying that Christmas, by definition, is a religious holiday of Christians. If they can't put a nativity scene up to symbolize it, in a public park, as they have done for decades, for the majority of the public to enjoy as a symbol of this holiday, then the holiday should be eradicated.

It is a Christian holiday.

As for Easter... don't know where you live, but in my area, things are closed for "Good Friday," including the government buildings and schools.

Mimi, in this instance, other groups, such as atheists and other religions, wanted to also have displays in the park. There are many other religions and groups that celebrate things other than Christmas at this time of year. This upset the Christian groups. Rather then deal with the fighting, the city said no displays by anyone.

I fail to see your logic of how the holiday should be "eradicated" over that.

P.S. Federal buildings are not closed for Good Friday, nor are the schools in many places.

I see nothing wrong with other religions having displays in the park.

The atheist who started the whole mess, however, appears to be attacking religion just for the hell of it. No one is asking him to believe in anything. The displays were a harmless visual treat

I don't believe in the Mexican celebration of the Day of the Dead, but I find it colorful and rich in tradition and think it is a wonderful way to honor those who have passed.... and I wouldn't think of staging a protest march in the Hispanic community to ridicule their celebration because it doesn't fit my belief system.

Why the hell can't people just live and let live?

Mimi, the atheists didn't "attack" anything. This started when one atheist wanted to put up a display, and invited other religions to do so. The Christian groups got upset first, took most of the display room, and complained about the other groups. The next year, the city held a lottery to detremine who got what spots. The atheists/other religion group got eighteen of twenty-one. The Christian groups got angrier, and demanded the atheist/other group displays be taken down. Eventually, the atheist/other group displays were vandalized. The city then decided that no one could put up displays.

The reason for this holiday.... and the ONLY reason for this holiday... is the Christian belief that Jesus Christ was born on this day.

False: Christmas was originally a pagan solstice festival usurped by the Christians to gain converts.

Do try and learn not to spread falsehoods when you speak.

Einstein really was a genius! ;D

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?"

WHEN ASKED DIRECTLY IF EINSTEIN BELIEVED IN GOD, HE SAID QUOTE...

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."

He did believe in a God, a God of "order". He also said "God did not play dice with the Universe", alliterating to the fact that the order and complexity in the Universe was beyond the possibility of a random occurrence.

Hey Grant I think some one once said that God was real. Also heard a person on the Internet say that a person by the name Grant MacDonald was a fictional person dreamed up by stupid people who wanted a dumb child. So it most be right if someone said it....

I tell you what Grant you live your life and let us Christians live our. If we choice tp believe in a higher being that is our right the same as it is yours to not believe. Anut yourselfd remember when you get to HELL you have no one to blame but yourself.......

Hey Grant I think someone (sic) once said that God was real...Anut (sic) yourselfd (sic) remember when you get to HELL...

J. Paris - it's "someone", not "some one", just like it is "however", not "how ever", and "anyone", not "any one" like you wrote in your first post #1.8. I have no idea what the heck "Anut yourselfd" is supposed to mean. Perhaps you should be looking in your own backyard before making statements like, "Grant MacDonald was a fictional person dreamed up by stupid people who wanted a dumb child".

Klatu Berata Nicto:

Wasn't it Eistein who was quoted as saying:

"If GOD didn't already exist, man should invent HIM."

Most profound words ever, from a rock song....

"I know there ain't no Heaven, and I pray there ain't no Hell..."

I'll ask the question I ask all theists (tailored to Christianity):

If you die and meet Zeus instead of Yahweh...what are you gonna do?

You raise an interesting point — perhaps without even realizing it: the consumerism surrounding this holiday has probably done more to "take Christ out of Christmas" than any politically correct user of newspeak, let alone Atheist groups.

And don't forget this season has always been a melange, its practitioners shamelessly borrowing traditions from pagans and others who celebrated the solstice ages before Christ got plopped in!

Sounds good Matt!! Let's go back to celebrating ALL of the wonderful holidays that the christians hijacked and destroyed so many years ago. Or did you actually believe that jesus was the reason for the season? History is a very important subject to study.

The Christmas tree has nothing to do with Christ yet Christian's erect one in their living room and put the Nativity Scene underneath it.I love Christmas,celebrate it every year and don't believe that Jesus is my savior.I say to each his own.

If the atheists get their way, you will lose Thanksgiving, Friday after, Christmas eve & Day, Good Friday, Valentine's Day (he was a saint), & Halloween. All those nasty religious based holidays.

So you will have to go to work an extra week a year.

Go thank your atheists for wanting you to lose a week of days off every year. Cause the companies won't give you a day off without a good reason....Oh, I guess they will be whining to their god...Government.

Thanksgiving is a federal holiday, having nothing to do with religion, and many people have to work on "Black" Friday. Valentine's Day and Halloween are not religious holidays either, although Halloween started out as a Pagan religious holiday. They are also not holidays anyone gets off work. Good Friday and Christmas Eve are not federal holidays and many people do not get them off work.

So, your point would then be.....?

Misscreant - Thanksgiving started with a religious group after coming to the new world being "thankful to God" for surviving...nothing to do with religion? You don't know your history. Saint Valentine was a religious figure and Halloween was pagan, but religious none-the-less. They must go as well. Anything with religious roots must go if you are an atheist. It does not matter what people have transformed them into...otherwise, you would be a hypocrit.

And my point is proven by your own words....People are already LOSING these days off because of the secular movement. You will have to work an extra week a year because of this. It's not Christians causing you to have to work an exta week per year....It's the aethists.

You apparently didn't pay attention. The more secular it is....the more you will work. If you are lucky to be off Thurs & Friday, enjoy it....You'll lose it one day because of atheists and secularists.

I have a degree in American history from Purdue, so yeah, I think I know my history. Whereas the first Thanksgiving was a celebration of surviving, it was not made a national holiday, nor celebrated regularly until 1863, when Lincoln declared it a day of "Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens." You will read into that, thinking Lincoln's word make it a religious holiday, but you would be wrong. It is strictly an American holiday, and people of many and no faiths celebrate it. Therefore, it is not a religious holiday.

Now onto Valentine's Day. Yes, the Catholic Church made Valentine a saint, but not all religions believe in or worship saints. Also, if you knew the story of St.Valentine, you would know our cultural celebration, with candy, hearts, and cupids, has nothing to do with the man, but that the holiday is named after him.

I stated that Halloween started out as a Pagan holiday. It was then hijacked by the Catholic Church in an attempt to stamp out the Pagans celebrating their holidays, and get them to celebrate the Church's. Both Valentine's Day and Halloween have been cultural, not religious, holidays for a very long time. The transformation came about long before atheists had any influence.

People have never had holidays like Valentine's Day or Halloween off. People no longer get "Black" Friday off due to rampant consumerism, not atheists. As long as I can remember, places closed early on Christmas Eve, but I don't think places were ever closed on that day. I suppose you may be right with Good Friday. I can throw you that bone.

Look at a list of what is considered a Federal Holiday. The majority have nothing to do with religion and never did.

The almighty dollar and profit margins have far more to do with people working more than atheists. Let's be honest.

I will have to work both Thanksgiving and Friday. I am a stay at home mother. I never get a day off.

Misscreant, you're "degree" is off-base. Book-learned but still a fool.

The Catholic Church NEVER sanctioned or had a positive relationship with October 31 - as it pertains to Halloween in the modern context. The Catholic Church's liturgical year highlights November 1 (All Saints Day), with merely the 31st being referred to as All Hallow's Eve. There are symbols and sentiments of the dead, devil and the unholy associated with Halloween (nothing sanctified by the Christian Church).

Catholic also do not worship saints. Honor and venerate, yes, but I'm sure you'd have no idea of that as either a Protestant or academic agnostic, et al. St. Valentine's Day (the feast of his death) was around well before the modern commercial "love" holiday in which the purchase of alcohol, chocolates and flowers are guiltied onto (mainly) the male lovers in relationships...

Moreover, Thanksgiving is also celebrated in Canada, but on different dates. So, get off your pompous AMerican history rhetoric.

Please get rid of valentine's day. Christianity hijacked Lupercalia, which was a far superior holiday (3 days I think) celebrating health and fertility, and replaced it with the lamer valentine's day. Bring back Lupercalia, Winter Solstice, pre christian Easter celebrations, and all of the other fun festivals christians destroyed.

It's not Christians causing you to have to work an exta (sic) week per year....It's the aethists (sic).

Paws - care to explain how anyone is working an extra week per year, Einstein? The last I heard, the vast majority of people automatically get Thanksgiving and Christmas off, except for those working in areas such as ER duty. I've never heard of anyone getting Valentine's Day as a holiday, ever. Good Friday and the Friday after Thanksgiving have never been traditional holidays for most people, either. Exactly what have you been smoking? BTW, it's "atheists", not "aethists"., and "extra", not "exta". Spell-check...priceless.

Miscreant

It was George Washington (Lincoln may have made it permanent) who declared the first National Thanksgiving Holiday in 1789. See his declaration at

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gw004.html

And while he did not make it a "Church" holiday, I think the intent in the opening paragraph was pretty clear.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

To say that Halloween is a Pagan holiday and therefore not religious is also untrue. The holiday has its roots in Celtic and/or Roman religions. The Catholic Church dropped All Saints Day on the holiday to hijack it but the locals continued their celebrations. And while nobody in the US is celebrating Halloween as a religous holiday it started out that way.

Scales - People used to get those days off in full. As secularism has taken over, these days off are fading. Look at the worker complaints of Walmart & Target. People are slowly losing Thanksgiving & the Friday after off...That's 2 days. People are now not getting Christmas Eve and Christmas day off...that's 4. People are not getting Good Friday off...that's 5. I (and my coworkers) still get these days off with my company. Therefore, we will lose them.

When you get rid of religeous based holidays....That's 5 days (aka a week) that we will not get off.

So, you just proved my point that people are losing these holidays off with your own comments. Because so many have already lost them, you are under the delusion you didn't lose anything. That's what they want you to think.

Oh, sorry that my typing skills are not perfect....as it was the most relevent point you made.

I worked at KFC in the early 90's and worked on Thanksgiving and Christmas eve. I don't remember anyone getting black friday or christmas eve off except for teachers. How far back are you talking? The days when everyone received pensions?

Wow, the idiocy and ignorance here is staggering.

If the atheists get their way, you will lose Thanksgiving, Friday after, Christmas eve & Day, Good Friday, Valentine's Day (he was a saint), & Halloween. All those nasty religious based holidays.

Thanksgiving is not a religious holiday, it is a nationalist holiday. "Friday after" does not exist, having said day off is independently determined by employer (having it off is considered a tradition, nothing more).

Christmas Eve/Day was stolen from pagan solstice rites in the first place (all evidence points to Jesus, if he existed, having had to be born in a different season). This holiday also no longer holds a solely religious meaning and is instead used to spread general goodwill.

Good Friday is nothing special.

Valentine's Day is about as far removed from the original Saint Valentine as you can get.

You apparently didn't pay attention. The more secular it is....the more you will work. If you are lucky to be off Thurs & Friday, enjoy it....You'll lose it one day because of atheists and secularists.

In other words: you're fearmongering and slippery-sloping.

Because so many have already lost them, you are under the delusion you didn't lose anything.

Scales' point is that they were never holidays...you just traditionally treated them as such. That is your own fault.

allswell - Your arguments are moot. They are religiously based....no matter how much you deny. And, they were recognized days off in the corporate world....except Halloween and Valentine's Day. I never said "official government sanctioned holidays".

These are gradually disappearing. Fear-mongering? Sorry, truth is truth because these days off have disappeared over the years for many people.

So, you and scales are not correct.

I like your argument on Good Friday..."nothing special"....A day off of work is always special.

They are religiously based....no matter how much you deny.

Religious base is irrelevant, as they've evolved past religion only. Removing religion from them does not remove the holiday.

These are gradually disappearing. Fear-mongering? Sorry, truth is truth because these days off have disappeared over the years for many people.

Too bad no evidence exists that the holidays are going away, even if the religious aspect goes away.

I like your argument on Good Friday..."nothing special"....A day off of work is always special.

Never seen Good Friday given off except by specific employers or states. Its not federally recognized as a day off work.

I don't know why I bother.

Gimmeabreak, I never said the Catholic Church "sanctioned" Halloween. They simply put their own holidays conveniently around the Pagan ones. I also acknowledged that the Pagan religions are religions. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

wor·ship/ˈwərSHip/

Noun:

The feeling or expression of reverence and adoration for a deity: "ancestor worship".

Verb:

Show reverence and adoration for (a deity); honor with religious rites.

Synonyms:

noun. adoration - cult - veneration
verb. adore - idolize - deify - venerate - revere

St. Valentine's Day, as I acknowledged, my have started out as a religious holiday, but is not one any longer. It was never celebrated as one in this country.

Our Thanksgiving is based off of the Pilgrims holiday. The Canadian one is not based off the same.
I was discussing How things are here in America, as this whole discussion is based on American laws in an American city. American history is what is pertinent here.

Retired Navy, washington may have declared a "National Day of Thanks," but it was not an official holiday until Lincoln's declaration. Neither of them meant it has a religious holiday.

Miscreant,

Valentine's day replaced Lupercalia by the christians (celebrated 2/13-2/15). Christians monopolized every holiday they could. Brilliant, evil marketing.

So you read a title without actually reading the article or realizing what the point of the ruling is?

Realize that article titles are always hooks, and are always meant to be an over generalization, if not outright propaganda.

cookiepopper,Santa Monica is not all that.I prefer Huntington Beach and Seal Beach to Santa Monica.In this economy every city should welcome your business with open arms.

cookiepopper, if you truly belived in fairness for all, you would agree with Santa Monica and the judge's ruling.

Lastly, we will do more of our personal business away from the city.

And if your ignorance is any example of your business, they'll be glad to see you gone and the space used by something who can think for themselves.

The judge blocked all private, unattended displays in public parks. All.

Comprende?

So it seems that people saying the displays were getting vandalized is the issue appear to be full of it then PJI. Yeah thats the entire problem here. Shutting it down is giving into the atheists demands. It happens all the time. Pretty sad why do you care. If you don't believe in god then fine don't but why do you have to FIGHT so hard to not allow others to believe in theirs? This "It's not fair" attitude? Really?!?! What exactly is so wrong being raised with good wholesome family values and a religious moral background? Why does that SCARE the atheists so much? Pretty damn pathetic if you ask me and it's utterly amazing how this happens over and over and over. It's ok to bash Catholics and Christians but somehow I would be willing to bet if it was a bunch of Muslim displays and they threatened to kill anyone who didn't like it these so-called atheists wouldn't say a damn thing about it. Sad that this is where the world is going.

Gimme ... are you capable of posting without name calling?

It was the vandalizm perpetrated by christians on the other displays that was the reason for the city to stop this event. Christians ruined it by thinking they were the only ones that get to monopolize holidays (probably because they've been getting away with it for centuries).

Atheists, to my knowledge, have nothing against holidays. They just have a bit of a better understanding of the history of these holidays (and how christians hijacked them). Where did that "christmas" tree tradition come from again (or christmas on 12/25 for that matter)? Where did Easter, Valentines day, All Saints Day, etc... come from again?

Also, I'm curious how the jewish Hanukah holiday season is now "a little less..." by not having a christian nativity scene in a public park.

The vandalism was perpetrated by the Christians? Said who? Please share a link to said info, otherwise you're just BS'ing. Also, Atheists DO have a problem with religious holidays, symbols and displays. They dont have a belief system per say (by definition), yet feel the need to "counter" other peoples, only to spread their belief...in "nothing"?! The scenario itself is like a paradox or oxymoron!

I would like to hear this to. Read PJI post. If its correct all they did was take 18 of the 21 displays and did almost nothing but bash religion and not display anything. How do you vandalize nothing again? Sounds like its just some bs tripe to get sympathy to me.

It's in practically EVERY news article relating to the subject. The atheist signs were the ones that were vandalized, not the christian displays. Most people (myself included) are assuming it wasn't the atheists that were doing the vandalizing on their own signs, but I suppose that... could be true???

I would never pay money for such signs, but when the government is making laws based on christian religious beliefs that infringe on the religious (and non-religious) beliefs of other American citizens, I can see why some atheists would want to go that route. Also, when creationism is taught in... science class, there is a problem, being that you can't derive creationism as a scientific theory by using the scientific method.

"To keep things fair and legal, the city held a lottery to parcel out slots. Atheists won 18 of 21 spaces. A Jewish group won another. The Nativity story that traditionally took up 14 displays was jammed into two.
A flap ensued. Vandals ripped down a banner the Freedom From Religion Foundation had hung at the park. The banner began: "At this season of the winter solstice, may reason prevail." "

hopefully this link will post: if not, latimes dot com
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nativity-atheists-20121120,0,1980006.story

Just practice your religion on private property. Is that too much to ask?

Freedom of Speech is truly gone from California.... R.I.P. freedom.

Funny, nobody's speech is being restricted. They can still hold their displays on their private property, and they're still allowed to go giving sermons, carols, and passing out Bibles on city property.

Yet, they'd be the first ones bitching if atheists did the same thing right beside them (passing out secularist books).

Hey, Old Lady! You just posted the same statement at 6:52 p.m. Posting it a second time doesn't make it any more valid or important, just annoying.

"But Atheists should remember they have no right to prevent others from their right of free expression, or to insult others in the process."

You have the right to freedom of speech, but not the right to be free from being insulted. Maybe the overwhelming Christian tradition offends atheists? It may not make sense to you, but using your logic, Christians shouldn't have the right to offend atheists either. A little tolerance on BOTH sides would mean for happier people in general.

Atheists don't believe Christians should exist and organized an attack against the Christians with the intent of ruining their festival.

Geee....Sounds a little bit like Jihad doesn't it? Notice how atheists never complain about Muslims. hmm.

"Tolerance"? Sparkle....what is "tolerance" to atheists? By their actions, all Christians should be driven into caves and never be known in public.

sparkleexpress- "A little tolerance on BOTH sides would mean for happier people in general."

Agreed! Unfortunately, its not the general practice of Atheists to be "tolerant". Placing a sign next to the baby Jesus that says, "There is no God", is incredibly offensive to Christians. That should be obvious, yet the Atheists either are oblivious (unlikely), or simply don't care about religious sensitivity, or offending people in general. THAT is the problem. Perhaps the Atheists need a mascot, or a non-offensive symbol or motto that isn't offensive to the religious folk. Flying Spaghetti Monster maybe?

Paws, many people celebrate Christmas, or X-Mas as some say, as a cultural, rather than religious holiday.

Cranking up the hyperbole does nothing to strengthen your argument.

People can celebrate anything they like. My argument is strengthened by this being an organized atheists attack on a 60 year old tradition.

Atheists are not celebrating anything. They were out to destroy and harass.

Keep trying.

That should be obvious, yet the Atheists either are oblivious (unlikely), or simply don't care about religious sensitivity, or offending people in general.

While the Christians don't seem to be concerned that their displays might offend the atheists.

In any case, you are not constitutionally guaranteed the right to not be offended.

My argument is strengthened by this being an organized atheists attack on a 60 year old tradition.

As anyone should "attack" when public, taxpayer-funded lands are used to promote religion, thus violating the First Amendment.

@Erin-true. However, if you are offended by Christianity, you're probably in the wrong country. The US was founded on Judeo Christian ideals, our money says "In God We Trust", and the majority of the US population is still either Catholic or Christian. That aside, you are also correct, that nobody has a right to "not be offended", however I was not referring to constitutionality, rather I meant it in the context of a "civilized society", where generally, people dont knowingly insult each other out of simple spite. I thought we were better than that. Lastly, if Atheists are offended by religious displays, they'd better not drive down any street with a church, synagogue, temple or ashram on it! Just saying...

Paws, the atheists did not attack anything. They simply wanted to put up displays along with the Christians. Their displays were vandalized, and the Christians demanded the atheist displays be taken down. It was the city's desicion to forbid all displays. Blame the city. The majority of atheists and agnostics do not want to destroy you or your religion.

Many athiests and agnostics celebrate Christmas, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Our money has In God we trust because of the red scare, an era where you had to say you 'believed' in God or else you were a commie. It was the most embarrassing witch hunt in the mid 90's and completely stupid.

The US was founded on Judeo Christian ideals

WRONG. Our country was founded on, among other things, freedom OF and FROM religion. Our constitution and laws were based on English common law, and documents like the Magna Carta. In fact, John Adams said it himself:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

Treaty of Tripoli, 1797

our money says "In God We Trust",

That was not required until 1956:

The motto was first challenged in Aronow v. United States in 1970, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled: "It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."^[27] The decision was cited in Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow, a 2004 case on the Pledge of Allegiance. These acts of "ceremonial deism" are "protected from Establishment Clause scrutiny chiefly because they have lost through rote repetition any significant religious content."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_we_trust#Controversy

and the majority of the US population is still either Catholic or Christian.

Irrelevant, since we are not, and have never been, a country of majority rule. Read the Constitution, and pay particular attention to the First Amendment.

if Atheists are offended by religious displays, they'd better not drive down any street with a church, synagogue, temple or ashram on it!

Who said that atheists are offended by religious displays? This is about freedom of speech, and giving other groups the chance to exercise theirs, not just the Christians.

However, if you are offended by Christianity, you're probably in the wrong country. The US was founded on Judeo Christian ideals, our money says "In God We Trust", and the majority of the US population is still either Catholic or Christian.

A few problems with this .. starting with the entire reason behind the Establishment clause was that there be NO religious persecution in the United States ... that the majority does NOT rule (which is why, btw, we are not a democracy).

In fact, the Constitution, which is the law of the land, does not mention Catholics,any other Christians or God. The ONLY references to religion are the above mentioned Establishment Clause which FORBIDS a government sanctioned religion and the Religious Test Clause which PROHIBITS any religious test to run for office.

(Additionally, if you are going to set yourself up as an expert, you should know that Catholics ARE Christians. You'll notice I highlighted that error in your quote.)

Lastly, if Atheists are offended by religious displays, they'd better not drive down any street with a church, synagogue, temple or ashram on it!

Most Atheists don't care if there are religious displays on religious buildings. It's religious displays on GOVERNMENT buildings that are taxpayer funding that's the issue. In fact, most Atheists don't object to that either -- as long as EVERYONE has the equal right to post displays on public property.

Finally, I'll leave you with several quotes from a few of our Founding Fathers that express their belief that religion and government should not mix.

"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 civil as well as religious leaders will
always avail themselves for their own purposes." --Thomas Jefferson
to Alexander von Humboldt, 1813.

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov' & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. 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]

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." [Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)]

Miscreant - You still do not get it. The Atheists did not put up a display in support of anything they believe in. They put up displays intentionally with the goal of offending the Christians and trying to ruin the Christian tradition. The atheists ORGANIZED together to get the lots for these anti-Christian displays.

You can not win this because the atheists are not SUPPORTING anything. They are strictly ATTACKING the Christians beliefs and traditions. Therefore your defense that atheists do not want to destroy Christians is wrong.

It the equivelent of waving a Nazi flag at a Jewish rally....The atheists goal was to incite the Christians.

However, if you are offended by Christianity, you're probably in the wrong country. The US was founded on Judeo Christian ideals, our money says "In God We Trust", and the majority of the US population is still either Catholic or Christian.

This is perhaps one of the biggest failures of logic yet, as riposted by Erin and Beth above.

The Atheists did not put up a display in support of anything they believe in.

Actually, they did: they believe all gods are myths. End story, grow a thicker skin.

The atheists ORGANIZED together to get the lots for these anti-Christian displays.

Actually, they were "anti-theist" (IE atheist). In case you didn't know, that means "against the belief in a higher power".

"Grow a thicker skin"....

Why do you say that to Christians whose beliefs were attacked, but do not say that to the atheists who are trying to incite people because those plastic shepherds are so offensive that the atheists organized together for this?

I guess those plastic shepherds were just too much for the atheists to take...huh.

whose beliefs were attacked

And that would be why I say it: criticism of the validity of Christian beliefs (and they criticized all beliefs, idly) is not an attack unless you have thin skin.

As to why the atheists organized? To prove a point: atheism/agnosticism is growing, rapidly.

"... atheists who are trying to incite people because those plastic shepherds are so offensive that the atheists organized together for this?"

I understand that this is difficult for you to grasp, as it has been explained several times before to you, but I'll try again: Atheists are NOT offended by the practice of celebrating Christmas, or of practicing religion for that matter. we ARE offended by the fact that you have been abusing the constitution and trampling the rights of others for so long that you just can't seem to realize that it is, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, illegal for government to sanction religion. That means you can have all the pretty displays you want on your private property, even the tax shelter property the American people still deem to grant you for some reason, but NO religious display on public property (unless all religions are represented, which, frankly is still a ridiculous capitulation, IMO).

In short: Pretty twinkling lights - ok for public property. Babies in a barn, images of glowing, flying asexual creatures, Star of david, statues of Vishnu - PRIVATE PROPTERTY. Follow those simple laws and we'll all get along fine.

Paws,

Are you really whining about free speech and then decrying someone their's because you found it "meaningless and offensive"??? Hmmm, well I find the KKK meaningless and offensive. I find Christian proselytizing meaningless and offensive.

We ALL feel about a LOT of different things, the way you feel about the Atheist's display. That's the very essence of free speech. It doesn't matter if you feel "persecuted" by it, or you think it has no meaning. Ignore it. Just like you are telling others to do with the Nativity scenes.

My God, that takes the case for hypocritical.

You know what, I'm offended by your ridiculous posts. Maybe we should ban you, otherwise my freedom may be impeded.

But shucks, it doesn't work that way. For me, OR for YOU.

Sarah/Allswell - Free speech or hate speech?

If this were anti-homosexual or anti-abortion, you'd be decrying them as evil people and that they should be locked up. Yet, you scream for free speech as long as someone is bashing Christians.

Again...I'll type it slow so that you can understand....These displays were meant to intentionally incite and to discriminate against Christians.

Why can't the atheists leave the Christians alone? It's pathetic that they waste their energy trying to hurt another group....I guess discrimination and hate speech is ok as long as it is against Christians.

If this were anti-homosexual or anti-abortion, you'd be decrying them as evil people and that they should be locked up. Yet, you scream for free speech as long as someone is bashing Christians.

Anti-abortion generally doesn't get decried as hate speech unless it takes a distinctly misogynistic bent (IE women should be pregnant, barefoot, and in the kitchen).

Sexuality is a natural born identifier. Religion is a conscious choice. No correlation.

Again...I'll type it slow so that you can understand....These displays were meant to intentionally incite and to discriminate against Christians.

Again, and I'll type it even slower for your comprehension (that means understanding):

The

displays

questioned

every

religious

belief.

Bubblegum

These displays were meant to intentionally incite and to discriminate against Christians.

"Incite"...what, exactly? And how do you know that they were intended to "incite"?

Furthermore, how do they "discriminate" again Christians? What rights are being denied Christians by these displays?

Paws, why couldn't the church groups leave the atheists and the other groups alone? In one instance, a "christain" tore down a banner talking about the Winter Solstice, which in no way is hate speech or discriminates against Christians. To Pagans, Wiccans, and Druids, the Winter Solstice is as much a religious holiday as Christmas and Easter are to you.

If the church groups didn;t like what Dix was saying, they should have ignored him.

Misscreant - Valid point....If a Christian tore down something regarding Winter Soltice that someone believes, then they are JUST AS WRONG as the atheists who are attacking them. If another group is celebrating something and not anti-Christian, then they should be left alone as well and allowed the right to celebrate their beliefs.

Erin - Your spin is silly....I can use your argument for every "hate crime" ever brought. "How do you know?".....Sounds like an argument from a 13 year old. What's next? "Were you there?"

Allswell - Your spin is silly as well because atheists are not displaying ANY religious belief because they do not have one.

If people didn't have this moronic need to attack others, society would be much better. If you don't celebrate Christmas or believe, why do you have this need to attack those that do? That's stupid.

Allswell - Your spin is silly as well because atheists are not displaying ANY religious belief because they do not have one.

They believe there are no gods.

That falls under the definition of belief. Religion is simply the organization of belief.

Sorry if that reality escapes you.

Sounds like a lot more fun that what the other side is offering. Besides, It's shaping up as the place to be. The right wing Christian heaven is going to be a pretty empty place!

I'll bring the keg.

Well we know all the hookers are supposed to be down there already...so I guess I'll bring the smokes instead!

What are they "protesting" Warren?

As atheists, they believe God is a fairy tale. Do they protest other fairy tales? Or is it just this particular fairy tale that so offends.....but why?

Maybe it's the candy, the turkey, the presents, the charitable giving, or maybe people being happy, etc. etc.

Oh...it's religious you say...Do they protest the Jews fairy tale? Do they protest the Muslim fairy tales?

It's funny that they only seem to protest this fairy tale. What a miserable life an atheist must lead to be so concerned about someone else's "fairy tale".

Try and educate yourself Paws. Their displays called out all religions as myths, not just Christianity. You only saw Christianity cause Christian displays were nearby.

Oh, and Jews and Muslims? Same god as the Christians, in case you forgot. They're the Abrahamic religions for a reason.

Again, why are they concerned about what myths people believe in? Why is it their business? Why are they so concerned?

Allswell, the religions are vastly different even if the root is the same.

You try to sound so educated, but can not grasp that the atheists organized with the intent to incite and harass a certain group. Most cases call that discrimination. This is no different than a skinhead waving a nazi flag at a Jewish festival. There is only bad intentions here no matter how you try to spin it.

I don't care about the beliefs. Why can't the atheists leave these people alone?

Again, why are they concerned about what myths people believe in? Why is it their business? Why are they so concerned?

Perhaps because the religious fundamentalists continue to try and push their beliefs and practices on others? Perhaps out of a sense of humanity, a desire to help save their fellow man from the fallacies of illogical superstition?

Allswell, the religions are vastly different even if the root is the same.

Irrelevant to the statement: the god is the same.

You try to sound so educated, but can not grasp that the atheists organized with the intent to incite and harass a certain group.

Actually, you have no evidence of their intent beyond the intent to get the word out on how illogical religion in general is.

Why can't the atheists leave these people alone?

Why can't the religious stop jamming themselves down the throats of every other human being in existence (and in the case of the Mormons, the dead)?

So you support retaliation on innocent Christians that have not done anything wrong.? Their actions are evidence of their intent.

I don't care what the belief is or whether you don't believe or whether you think it's a bunch of bullstuffing....This was a coordinated attempt by atheists to discriminate against Christians with hate speech and harrassment.

If any Christian gets out of line, that's wrong just as well. But, I don't remember any Christians organizing and intentionally ruining any atheist festivals or celebrations.

People need to leave other people alone. This whole attitude of people attacking others is why this country is going down the tubes. The atheists are wrong here no matter how you try to spin it.

I don't care what the belief is or whether you don't believe or whether you think it's a bunch of bullstuffing....This was a coordinated attempt by atheists to discriminate against Christians with hate speech and harrassment.

Funny that you don't consider something stating "Christ died for your sins" as harassment...but do consider something saying "all religions are myths" is. Methinks you need to rethink the concept.

The atheists are wrong here no matter how you try to spin it.

Actually, the only people who were wrong here were the vandals (who were most likely Christian).

This was a coordinated attempt by atheists to discriminate against Christians with hate speech and harrassment.

There is no "discrimination" involved at all; get a dictionary. Please tell us what rights were denied Christians by these displays.

Furthermore, how is this "harassment" or "hate speech"? Providing another point of view is something you consider to be "harassment" or "hate speech"?

Erin/allswell - Please grow up...Christmas displays is not a forum to debate religion. The atheists were attacking the Christians with the intent to harass. Your arguments are pointless because the atheists are not displaying a religious belief. They are doing nothing but attacking people who believe in something....regardless of what the religious belief is.

All you are saying is that atheists have the right to be jerks and intentionally harass others who believe in a religion. You support these bullying tactics.

I will say again that the atheists are wrong for targeting a group of people just because they believe in something. People deserve to live in peace and not be harassed by others.

The atheists were attacking the Christians with the intent to harass

Education in logic is not attacking unless you have paper thin skin.

Your arguments are pointless because the atheists are not displaying a religious belief.

Already proved you wrong above. Enjoy.

People deserve to live in peace and not be harassed by others.

Gee, maybe you should be talking to the Christian Evangelicals then...

Here's a thought for you: clean your own glass house before you start looking for places to throw stones.

Off topic comment by a delusional one-trick pony.

Exactly - keeping religion in/around churches and private residences is precisely what atheists want.

Just not in the law of the land or unequally in public places.

I say go for it! That's exactly the point of this entire discussion. Because of the first amendment we can do that .. put whatever religious displays on private property they want to. That's the beauty of it all!

Well there you go! Actually it's not "just an idea", IT'S THE WHOLE POINT! Build the biggest darn display you can (within local zoning laws, of course). Encourage everyone else to do the same. That's your constitutional right, and mine as well. Just keep all of the religious based displays off the public dollar and public land. Personally, I LOVE holiday displays. I adore Christmas lights. What I don't appreciate is Christians stubborn instance that they alone own the holiday season and the refusal to see that, for many, the holiday has morphed to a more general celebration of family, joy, hope and a positive outlook for the upcoming year. You are perfectly welcome to continue to "keep Christ in your Christmas" but stop pouting when others exercise their perfectly legal right to celebrate something more inclusive.

Happy Holidays to all.

What a fantastic gain for that great concept known as of "separation of church and state"! Everyone just needs to keep their religious mumbo jumbo private and on private property and in churches.

A gain for separation of church and state? Clearly you have misconceived the concept of separation of church and state. You should venture to read some case law on the matter. The lottery system they devised for spots was a victory for separation of church and state. This decision was not only an affront to free speech but also did violence to the concept of separation. You should stay cognizant that your opinions, thoughts, and ideas will be useless once you have ceded the power to express them in order to silence those with competing opinions, thoughts, and ideas. Free speech is central to the success of this country and it should be defended accordingly.

I'm waiting for you to provide a shred of evidence as to why this damages free speech at all...since, you know, everybody was barred from putting up displays on public property by this ruling.

Its common bloody sense, the city could no longer afford the upkeep and lawsuits that could arise from future vandalizations (which all evidence and logic points to being performed by angry Christians).

I believe that you not only listed evidence, but provided it in boldface. Everybody was barred from putting up displays on public property. These displays were all undeniably speech as defined and protected by constitution and case law. Both the Christian displays and Atheist displays were classic examples of speech. In fact, the opposing view points being shared in these forms of speech both in one place likely spurred volumes of thought, conversation, and idea exchange that would never have occurred absent injection of this speech in to the intellectual marketplace. Now, everyone is barred from this form of speech in this public place. This form of speech in this public place has been silenced. It's not a difficult concept. As for worries about lawsuits and costs, they can be defrayed by providing waivers to those performing the speech and pushing the cost on to those performing the speech with user fees and agreements on upkeep. These are simple and cheap solutions that don't involve surrendering fundamental rights. The bottom line is that free speech has never been pretty and clean, but it is imperative upon us to preserve the right.

These displays were all undeniably speech as defined and protected by constitution and case law.

Actually, they aren't protected. The use of public land has and always shall be controlled by the desires of the state/county/city. They can determine what can and can not be placed on it. This has been the case since the beginning. You'll note that caroling and passing out Bibles are still not prohibited. Only these unattended displays.

You're grasping at burning straws.

These displays were all undeniably speech as defined and protected by constitution and case law.

And those who wish to display them are free to do so -- on private property. They cannot use public, taxpayer-funded property to do so any longer.

Allswell,

for your argument to be valid we must accept two things …

1. That symbolic speech is not speech. Unfortunately, for you, that is wrong:

The Supreme Court has "long recognized that [the First Amendment's] protection does not end at the spoken or written word." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404 (1989). Consequently, displaying religious symbols, such as a private Nativity scene, is protected speech under the First Amendment. Capitol Square at 760 (holding that the private display of a cross was protected speech); Am. United for Separation of Church & State v. City of Grand Rapids, 980 F.2d 1538, 1542 (6th Cir. 1992) (holding that the private display of a menorah was protected speech); Congregation Lubavitch v. City of Cincinnati, 997 F.2d 1160, 1166 (6th Cir. 1993) (same).

2. That speech on public land is controlled by the “desires” of the state/county/city. Unfortunately, for you, that is also wrong:

“Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.' Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)." Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 293 (1951). See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 152 (1969). The right to use a public place for expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons … The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. Our cases make clear that in assessing the reasonableness of a regulation, we must weigh heavily the fact that communication is involved; the regulation must be narrowly tailored to further the State's legitimate interest. Access to the "streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places . . . for the purpose of exercising [First Amendment rights] cannot constitutionally be denied broadly . . . ." Free expression "must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).

It’s the other way around. If a state/county/city wants to attempt to restrict speech in these places they face stiff constitutional strictures which THEY have the burden of meeting in order to pass muster. I hope through this educational journey you grow to appreciate what you are giving away. I know you want to make this about religion because it is easier to make guttural, emotional arguments that don’t rely on logic, but that view is myopic. Please understand what you are forfeiting in order to silence an opinion which you don’t agree with. I think the constitution guarantees the right to both the Christians and the Atheists to their respective forms of speech. Both perspectives are important and valid.

The right to use a public place for expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons … The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time.

I see you're unable to grasp that the city made this decision...and the court upheld it. By your own ruling, that means it was Constitutional to do so.

In the opinion of Judge Collins it certainly was constitutional and I am not arguing that she found otherwise. However, she is far from the Supreme Court and there is an appeal planned so I doubt hers is the last opinion we will hear on the matter. Either way, my whole point is that, in my opinion based on my understanding of constitutional law and value set as an American, this is an unconstitutional restriction on speech. I would hope that the residents of Santa Monica would be appalled that their government thought that this was an appropriate measure to pass. This is controversial and in the news because it is not settled law, but we are breaking ground here. It is clear to me that ground is being broken in the wrong direction. I appreciate the talents and experience of Judge Collins, but I feel she got it wrong in this instance and I think if we all walked away from the table at that we, would be leaving behind a piece of an important right on the table.

Craig,

You are either the most incompetent attorney EVER, or you're just pretending to be one.

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.

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 courts have LONG, LONG ruled that because citizens are still allowed to worship however they want in their churches and homes, the establishment clause as it applies to keeping religion out of federal, state or local governing/public property, is NOT an infringement of free speech.

The only way this would have been one, is if the judge ruled that EITHER the Atheists OR the Christians could decorate the public, tax payer funded property. It's ALL or NOTHING.

They can ALL do what they want on their private or church owned property. None can do so on public property, ergo there is NO bias because everyone can still worship, or not, and the publically funded property remains neutral.

Hmm … perhaps my legal knowledge is not on par with yours. You seem to suggest that the only way this could be a violation of free speech is “if the judge ruled that EITHER the Atheists OR the Christians could decorate the public, tax payer funded property”. However, it is a basic concept that a law can be an unconstitutional infringement of free speech without targeting a particular group. I am not arguing that this is a content-based restriction, but a blanket silencing of speech in a public place devoted to free speech. I am concerned with the silencing of speech on both sides, not just for the Christians.

Please also note that all the cases you cited deal with notably different categories of settings than a public park (which has received special treatment by the courts).

As for your concerns about the establishment clause, it should be understood that "[T]here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (O'Connor, J.).

Private religious speech enjoys as much protection in a traditional public forum as secular speech. See Capitol Square, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) at 360 ("Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression) Capitol Square at 760; see also Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269 (1981) ("[R]eligious worship and discussion ... are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment."). Indeed, in Anglo—American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince. Capitol Square at 761

Moreover, case law exists out of the 9^th circuit that specifically provides that because a park is a traditional public forum a City may permit a religious display in a public park consistent with the Establishment Clause provided it does so in a non-discriminatory manner. Kreisner v. City of San Diego, 1 F.3d 775, Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit (1993). How much more non-discriminatory can you get than the lottery system devised in Santa Monica?

You seem to be conveniently distorting the Establishment Clause to hack away at free speech because you don’t agree with the speech. Your statement that “publically funded property remains neutral” is equally confusing. You consider banning speech neutral to freedom of speech so long as it is banned irrespective of its content? I am not sure that is what the framers had in mind, nor am I sure that is a country many of us would like to live in. This is especially true when it comes to parks.

The government’s role is to remain neutral to the content of the speech, not to blanket prohibit it. Hence the specific protections built in to the constitution to prevent that.

I am concerned with the silencing of speech on both sides, not just for the Christians.

Except you're missing anything substantive to support that fear. Nothing is being silenced. You can still go to the park and sing "Silent Night" or read Neitche out loud. You can still deck your halls to the gills, as long as it's private property.

If your fear/argument had any credence, then all those cases where the government ruled against religious speech in publically owned/operated institutions, would have been ruled in the opposite way.

As for your concerns about the establishment clause, it should be understood that "[T]here is a crucial difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses protect." Bd. of Educ. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990) (O'Connor, J.).

Right, the problem with your argument here, is that by putting it on publically funded land, that IS an endorsement, and unless they can endorse ALL beliefs which the Christians and vandals are seeming to not allow, there will be a bias towards Christians.

Private religious speech enjoys as much protection in a traditional public forum as secular speech. See Capitol Square, 515 U.S. 753 (1995) at 360 ("Our precedent establishes that private religious speech, far from being a First Amendment orphan, is as fully protected under the Free Speech Clause as secular private expression) Capitol Square at 760; see also Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U.S. 263, 269 (1981) ("[R]eligious worship and discussion ... are forms of speech and association protected by the First Amendment."). Indeed, in Anglo—American history, at least, government suppression of speech has so commonly been directed precisely at religious speech that a free-speech clause without religion would be Hamlet without the prince. Capitol Square at 761

You're talking more about street corner preachers here. Problem is this isn't what that's about. This is about one set of beliefs, ATHEISTS, not being afforded the same respect on public property, ergo setting up a situation where the tax payers were funding the religious decorations of one group, while the other was being forced out of the public sphere.

Moreover, case law exists out of the 9^th circuit that specifically provides that because a park is a traditional public forum a City may permit a religious display in a public park consistent with the Establishment Clause provided it does so in a non-discriminatory manner. Kreisner v. City of San Diego, 1 F.3d 775, Court of Appeals, 9^th Circuit (1993). How much more non-discriminatory can you get than the lottery system devised in Santa Monica?

The 9th circuit means nothing when there's precedent backing this up by SCOTUS.

The government’s role is to remain neutral to the content of the speech, not to blanket prohibit it. Hence the specific protections built in to the constitution to prevent that.

Here's the crux of your problem. Nothing's being banned. They can Nativity Scene it and Atheist it up til their little hearts are content, just not on the public dime, since they can't do it equally, inherently creating one set of beliefs being placed above the other.

Your understanding of my argument would be greatly improved by reading the cases I cited. On every single point you are flatly wrong.

Your attempt to substitute opinion for logic is unpersuasive and your inability to recognize that each of your points has been summarily addressed with supportive authority calls into question your very ability to participate in the debate.

“Except you're missing anything substantive to support that fear. Nothing is being silenced. You can still go to the park and sing "Silent Night" or read Neitche out loud. You can still deck your halls to the gills, as long as it's private property.”

Religious displays are speech (see case law above). Atheist displays are speech (see case law above paired with logic)

Speech in public parks is a highly valued and protected right (see case law above)

Removing these displays from the parks is a silencing of speech (see case law above and logic)

“If your fear/argument had any credence, then all those cases where the government ruled against religious speech in publically owned/operated institutions, would have been ruled in the opposite way.”

The cases you cited had nothing to do with free speech in a public park (very special), they dealt with schools and government centers (use logic and above case law to appreciate differences). The establishment clause is not applicable to the present case as it was to those (see case law above)

“Right, the problem with your argument here, is that by putting it on publically funded land, that IS an endorsement, and unless they can endorse ALL beliefs which the Christians and vandals are seeming to not allow, there will be a bias towards Christians.”

Allowing religious displays in a public park is not an endorsement of religion (see case law above) And what of the atheists’ speech?

Christian vandals are not agents/actors of any government (see logic)

We have laws to deal with vandals and we don’t deal with them by eliminating free speech.

“You're talking more about street corner preachers here. Problem is this isn't what that's about. This is about one set of beliefs, ATHEISTS, not being afforded the same respect on public property, ergo setting up a situation where the tax payers were funding the religious decorations of one group, while the other was being forced out of the public sphere.”

I wasn’t talking about street corner preachers here; Capitol Square is about the KKK (again, read the cases). Again you revert to insinuating that vandals represent the government in some form. The actions of vandals have nothing to do with the government affording equal opportunity to both groups to participate in the speech. If the government controlled the vandals then your argument might make sense.

“The 9th circuit means nothing when there's precedent backing this up by SCOTUS.”

The 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals decision I cited is good law. It has not been overturned by any Supreme Court decision. In this case it is controlling law, unless you can point me to a case the SCOTUS decided on nativity scenes in a public park as a violation of the establishment clause.

“Here's the crux of your problem. Nothing's being banned. They can Nativity Scene it and Atheist it up til their little hearts are content, just not on the public dime, since they can't do it equally, inherently creating one set of beliefs being placed above the other.”

If nothing is being banned, then why the lawsuit or the news story? These groups and everyone else lost a piece of their free speech rights: the ability to perform this form of speech in a public park. This is a dangerous precedent to set. The government was doing nothing to favor one type of content over another. Additionally, the argument fails when you account for all the other speech that was banned by blocking this speech that have nothing to do with atheism or Christianity. None of this other content was receiving preferential treatment or particularly negative treatment. Yet, it is all banned under this ruling.

This isn't about Atheists or Christians. Its about eroding our fundamental rights. Its just playing out in a Atheists versus Christians fact pattern.

These groups and everyone else lost a piece of their free speech rights: the ability to perform this form of speech in a public park.

Except you're wrong. They can still perform any speech they want except unattended displays.

This is akin to saying you can yell anything you want in a crowded theater except bomb, gun, or fire. SCOTUS has already ruled on reasonable limitations in public arenas.

Allswell,

Thank you!

Craig,

You're confusing a free speech issue with an establishment clause issue. Your whole argument is based on an incorrect premise.

Again, if your baseless fear had any grounding or substance to it, all those cited, Establishment clause cases, would have been ruled in the OPPOSITE way they were.

These groups and everyone else lost a piece of their free speech rights: the ability to perform this form of speech in a public park.

Except you're wrong. They can still perform any speech they want except unattended displays.

There is no hope for you. I had no idea literacy had disintegrated to this point in our country. You block quote me, say I am wrong, and then reaffirm my point. Notice:

“these groups and everyone else lost a piece of their free speech rights: the ability to perform this form of speech in a public park.”

Again, I am not arguing about a particular content of speech being banned. I am arguing about a class of speech being banned. Namely displays of the type banned by the park. It’s your inability to see the larger picture here that has led to your ignorance of the whittling away of your rights.

This is akin to saying you can yell anything you want in a crowded theater except bomb, gun, or fire. SCOTUS has already ruled on reasonable limitations in public arenas.

I am not sure how you could believe this is anything like falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater. I would encourage you to review Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919) (finding that FALSE speech causing a clear and present danger, such as shouting “Fire!” in a theater to cause panic, is not protected by the First Amendment) to educate yourself on how senseless your argument is.

The case law I sighted above extensively covers the ruling regarding reasonable limitations in public parks (special) and leads squarely to the conclusion that this is not a reasonable limitation.

“Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.' Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939)." Kunz v. New York, 340 U.S. 290, 293 (1951). See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147, 152 (1969). The right to use a public place for expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons … The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. Our cases make clear that in assessing the reasonableness of a regulation, we must weigh heavily the fact that communication is involved; the regulation must be narrowly tailored to further the State's legitimate interest. Access to the "streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places . . . for the purpose of exercising [First Amendment rights] cannot constitutionally be denied broadly . . . ." Free expression "must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104 (1972).

I already quoted your own decision as showing you that it can be limited. The city and the court weighed in on this and found their weighty reasons.

Idly, belief can be defined as false speech: it can't be proven.

You guys are lost. This is probably too dense of subject matter for you to have waded in to. I am starting to question my own intelligence for continuing to try to explain things that are clearly over both of your heads. So, I will leave you with this as you are clearly not trying to learn anything here:

Sarah- You are only confusing yourself further. You are the one trying to conflate the establishment clause and free speech aspects of this issue. As per on-point case law that I have shared, this is not an establishment clause issue, but a free speech issue and the cases you cited have next to nothing to do with the circumstances of the present case. I beg of you to read the cases you cited. That said, I am glad you share an interest in constitutional law and I encourage you to develop your understanding of it. Perhaps enrolling in a law school would help mature your understanding of constitutional issues and equip you to combat arguments like mine with case law that supports your position rather than case law that points to the existence of a clause in the constitution applicable to entirely different fact patterns. If you are a law student or have graduated from a law program, perhaps requesting a refund is your best route.

Allswell- There isn’t much to say. You clearly brought a knife to a gun fight, but I commend your persistence. I think you have continued to miss my point, but I do think you got closer to it than Sarah … the court did find this was a reasonable restriction and I think they got it wrong for all the reasons laid out above (I swear I have told you this a million times). Judges get things wrong, hence the appeals system. As I shared, you were close here though. The proper route to combating my argument was to collect precedential case law and logic supporting banning speech of this type in a public park as a reasonable restriction of free speech. You likely could have found something suggesting that. However, you chose to simply restate what happened in this instance, which is not incredibly effective in convincing others that what happened was the correct outcome. Simply calling something weighty does not make it weighty. “Weighty” is specific language with a specific meaning. Hence, the need to support your position with precedent. As for your statement:

belief can be defined as false speech: it can't be proven

I have no idea what you are even getting at with that. I assume you are trying to say that speech with religious content is based on a belief and belief is false because it can’t be proven. You should understand that just because something can’t be proven does not mean it is false (e.g., the countless theories that form the basis of much or our scientific understanding of the world, yet are incapable of being presently proven, your belief that a particular presidential candidate is better than another, or almost any opinion you share). But, what does that have to do with anything? I think, once again, this is a reading comprehension problem. Are you, with a straight face, making an argument that displays in a park are false speech causing a clear and present danger on par with shouting “Fire!” in a crowded movie theater. If so, you have clearly dismissed logic to blindly reach an outcome.

Thank you both for engaging in this contentious bit of free speech with me. Hopefully, this form of free speech is not itself banned one day, at which point I am sure you would both support such a ban.

The amount of boneheadedness above cannot be understated.

Sure, I could've wasted my time researching case law. But it wasn't necessary: your own case law quotes provided the only justification needed by the city.

What's more, you can't provide a shred of evidence as to the banning or harm to free speech: they can still go out and speak. The only thing they can't do is leave @!$%# out there unattended. Hell, if they wanted to they could call the @!$%# littering and fine everybody who does it after they remove the sponsored program.

As to belief being false speech? The moment you present something unprovable as truth, you are lying.