Jesus Versus the Atheists :: Bill O'Reilly

Frank,

Governments come and go, but God is eternal and a just God as well as a merciful God.  Lighten up a bit and let Him do His job. The government is as temporal as our physical bodies.

frank,

So if there is no hell, Hitler got off scott free!!  As well as Timothy McVie, Joseph Stalin, the guy who killed the 32 people at Virginia Tech,  and so on....  What the Gov. is saying is there is no accountability.  How awful is that!!!

What is being said is that what happens in this life must be paid for in this life, there is no other. There is no god, no devil, no demons, no angels...unless it's the name of a sports team.

Since Hitler killed himself, and Timothy McVeigh was executed, I do not think either of them "got off scott free". 

If you are an atheist, life is all you have, so if you are dead before you would be, that is your punishment.  It seems to me that a lot of Christians feel that way also, or they wouldn't be trying to stay alive at any cost and bankrupting their families.

Since a holiday tree has absolutely NOTHING to do with the birth of Christ (Christmas), and Santa Claus has NOTHING to do with the birth of Christ (Christmas), but are symbols of pagan Germanic solstice rituals.  I think the whole Keep Christ in Christmas arguments are totally ridiculous.

If you are a Christian and want to maintain Christmas as a religious holiday, no tree, no Santa Claus, no presents, no wreath, and no lights, just go to church and pray that this "Christian" nation can overcome its greedy, sinful nature and become as Christ intended when he took human form in order to save our sorry souls from damnation. 

Frank,

It may make you feel better to imagine evil people burning in Hell, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true.  "Justice" is a human contruct.  If you want these people to get what they have coming, you'll have to rely on humans to catch and punish them. 

There is no god, no devil, no demons, no angels...unless it's the name of a sports team.

The first thing I'm wondering is how you happened upon this 'inside information'.

The second thing I'm wondering is what the extreme, anti-religion left's response would be if Christians calling themselves "The Team of God" as you suggest above.  You guys would have a fit.

It may make you feel better to imagine evil people burning in Hell, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this is true.  "Justice" is a human contruct.  If you want these people to get what they have coming, you'll have to rely on humans to catch and punish them.

Ahhh.  You're one of those 'prove it' people, eh?  Since you have no 'proof' that your friends like you and no 'proof' that your parents love you; no 'proof' the your next door neighbor isnt a seriel killer...as well as no 'proof' that the sun will come up tomorrow, I suspect you're a very lonely, paranoid person.  Or WAIT!  Do you possibly have FAITH in those things?

Pat,

It's the religious nuts that would have a problem with the whole Team of God thing. They would be killing each other over who's god was the right one.

Ahhh.  You're one of those 'prove it' people, eh?  Since you have no 'proof' that your friends like you and no 'proof' that your parents love you; no 'proof' the your next door neighbor isnt a seriel killer...as well as no 'proof' that the sun will come up tomorrow, I suspect you're a very lonely, paranoid person.  Or WAIT!  Do you possibly have FAITH in those things?

Little lesson in basic logic for you here pat, there are degrees of faith. Your attempt to put faith in an imaginary invisible friend in the sky on the same par with faith that the sun will rise tomorrow is ludicrous. You see, the sun rises every day, no one has seen the slightest sign of god, till they do. I'll stick with my statement, "There is no god, no devil, no angels and no demons, it doesn't even make sense that there could be."

"Ahhh.  You're one of those 'prove it' people, eh?  Since you have no 'proof' that your friends like you and no 'proof' that your parents love you; no 'proof' the your next door neighbor isnt a seriel killer...as well as no 'proof' that the sun will come up tomorrow, I suspect you're a very lonely, paranoid person."

Umm, this would be easier to refute if it made sense in the first place, but I'll give it a go.  Yes, I am one of those "Prove it" people.  I use evidence to judge the likelyhood of something's existence.  Do I have "proof" that my friends like me?  I have "evidence" to that fact yes, since they are nice to me. Can I prove one of them doesn't secretly hate me?  Nope, but until some sort of evidence presents itself I don't really worry about it.  The jury is still out on my parents, I get evidence for love and hate from them.  And sure my neighbor could be a serial killer- luckily they rarely kill the next-door-neighbor, so I think I'm good there. 

But the sun Pat??  Are you kidding about the sun Pat????  Although it is possible that the sun won't "come up tomorrow" it would only be because it exploded or the Earth was knocked off its axis, in which case we'd all be dead pretty quickly. 

So basically I take nothing on faith, only on evidence.  And I don't worry about things for which there is NO evidence- like God.  If you come up with some evidence I will be glad to mull it over.

So Frank, this isn't so much of an issue of there being representation for the atheists as what it says.  Your statements don't support the existence of a hell so much as an inferred need for people to believe in it to maintain social order.

Sorry, but despite your quoting Scripture, I see your statement as support of the idea that those in charge primarily use faith to control people and get money and power, not because they have any sense of accountability to the Divine.  How else could a "man of faith" like W grin like he has a clear conscience after starting a war based on lies, then announces when his cause for war is found to be fiction unapologetically declares "it doesn't matter."

Little lesson in basic logic for you here pat, there are degrees of faith.

Thanks for articulating my point.  Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Wiccans all have various degrees of faith.  You have you're particular degree of faith (or lack there of).  For you to claim your degree of faith is 'right' and all other degrees of faith are 'wrong' is the height of arrogance, narrowmindedness and lack of tolerance.

Your attempt to put faith in an imaginary invisible friend in the sky....

OK.  Here we go.  I love it when people start making assumptions about my faith.  What religion am I, Wheel?  You seem to have some ideas in that regard.

Kaviaq, you should read Douglas Adams' approach to the "proof of God" thing.

OK.  Here we go.  I love it when people start making assumptions about my faith.  What religion am I, Wheel?  You seem to have some ideas in that regard.

You seem to pretend there is a difference in relgions. There isn't, one imaginary invisible friend in the sky is much like another.

You seem to pretend there is a difference in relgions. There isn't, one imaginary invisible friend in the sky is much like another.

Youre doing it again, Wheel.  Assumptions will back you into a corner quicker than you can blink.  How do you know I'm not an athiest or an agnostic that simply believes in the practice of religious freedom?  How do you know I'm not Zen Buddhist?  There's no 'friend in the sky' on that one.  How do you know I'm not whatever religion that is that worships the sun and the earth?

Keep assuming though.  It's fun watching you squirm.

Maybe I'm a worshipper of 'wheel' and you've convinced me the world revolves around your belly button.  Afterall, if there is no power greater than yourself...that must make you god, right?

Maybe I'm a worshipper of 'wheel' and you've convinced me the world revolves around your belly button

Yes, it does. I often wondered how the rest of you keep from falling off.

I think you're the one who's squirming, but keep trying.

Pat just a heads up:

How do you know I'm not an athiest or an agnostic that simply believes in the practice of religious freedom?  How do you know I'm not Zen Buddhist?  There's no 'friend in the sky' on that one.  How do you know I'm not whatever religion that is that worships the sun and the earth?

I don't think Wheel is assuming too much....

I'm more of a bare-bones-deism type person myself.  Kind of a "there is a God and I'm not him." belief.

But I do think Wheel's being pretty straightforward and sticking to the words on the page.

Whether or not you believe, to say that Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism all ask the same from their followers flies in the face of the facts which you claim to worship.

Whether or not you believe, to say that Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism all ask the same from their followers flies in the face of the facts which you claim to worship.

You're kind of right, Buddhism is really a philosophy more than a religion and so it is outside the whole thing.

If you think there is any difference between superstitious people who believe a zombie is god's son and superstitious people who believe a man rode a horse into heaven and had a conversation with god you're wrong. They both are willing to kill, die, lie and pay in support of their particular brand of superstition. And they both claim to be right, and anyone who disagrees with them is a heathen or infidel doomed to burn.

Yeah, big differences.

Ok, so you realize that Buddhism is not the same. Bravo. Now read the other two Books. I believe I suggested this to you before.

Bad logic, Frank. Hitler paid in this life. His life was ended prematurely as a result of his crimes. His family paid. The nation of Germany paid. Humanity paid. 

Sure we could have drug out his punishment in this life, had he not killed himself before we captured him, but punishing him excessively via abuse or torture would have showed us to be no better than him. That would have sucked, because he was about as bad as it got. 

Some base part of me likes the idea of Hitler and those like him grilling over an open flame in some eternal BBQ. However, my intelligence and experience tells me that such thoughts aren't productive and are the seeds of Hitler and characters like him in this world. 

This is the same part of my consciousness where the teachings of Christ resonate. Things like 'Love thine Enemy', 'Turn the other Cheek', etc... Christ's teachings, or the wisdom attributed to him and other religious figures recognizes that Destructive Acts can create a sort of feedback loop in all that are affected by those acts. It's the old 'Violence begets violence' paradigm. 

It's the same feedback effect that occurs when folks do really good things for the world. 

Frank, to say that he wasn't punished or had to endure life altering hardships as a result of his criminal actions isn't accurate. However it may indicate that the vengeful part of you (And us all) feels that his punishment wasn't extreme enough. 

Vengence is in our nature, but we have the intelligence to understand that it is an empty reward at best, and highly self-destructive at worst. 

I know that it is hard to do, as I struggle to restrain myself when faced with blatent abuses, but we must avoid overreacting in violent retalliatory ways. It really doesn't do any of us any good in the long run. 

It is OK to stop a violent act with violent action, so long as there isn't a more readily available, less violent means of stopping it. However, we aren't supposed to continue acting in a violent manner after the initial threat has been neutralized. 

So if there is no hell, Hitler got off scott free!!  As well as Timothy McVie, Joseph Stalin, the guy who killed the 32 people at Virginia Tech,  and so on

Conversations With God by Neal Donald Walsh has a great passage on Hell. It's an incredible book. I highly recommend it.

Yeah, it *is* shocking.

You even made sure to *point out* who the author was in the title of the article, for no very good reason, probably in the hopes that someone would bitch about him, so that you could then ask why people bitch about authors, even though it's obvious why people bitch about biased partisan assbags and that they *will* bitch about biased partisan assbags.

I'm so sorry that it took so long for people to rise to your bait. Perhaps next time you can sauce up the title a bit more, to *make sure* that people are annoyed enough to ignore the idiotic ramblings of the author?

In other words, Rob, don't try to play innocent about *why* you point out the author when it's Coulter or O'Reilly. You *know* what's going to happen when you do it, so the little game you play about mock surprise when it happens gets a little old.

Had I wanted to get a real response I would have manipulated the title like some of you buddies do.

Which buddies are those?

Hell I even took down my usual disclaimer to let the asshats have a run today. The funny thing is how you seriously reacted to my snarky comment, I mean honestly Ford don't you have something better to do?

Nope. Just got back from a leisurely birthday party with the nephews, took pictures of ice skating, and now I'm reading Newsvine. Your article was on the front page, so I dropped in. I always like to see the back and forth between those who seed partisan blowhards and those who trip over themselves to talk about the partisan blowhards. You guys make a great comedic team, and I enjoy pointing out the games you guys play with each other. They need you, and you need them. Otherwise articles like this would languish in obscurity.

I mean is it to much to ask for an honest discussion, who gives 2 @!$%#s who wrote this peice it brings up good points and can actually generate a positive discussion if people would act like grown ups.

Yeah, it's too much to ask, quite obviously. People have been seeding O'Reilly and Coulter (and feel free to insert leftist assbags if you must, same result) for as long as newsvine has been around, as have you, and those authors, quite appropriately, are always at the center of the discussion, because their douchebaggery informs their views. 

You know that, because you deal with the fallout almost every time you seed it. If you really wanted a calm, rational discussion, you would learn the obvious lesson and you wouldn't seed content from dickheaded blowhards whose primary objective is to rile up the opposition, like Bill O'Reilly. He's a partisan pundit, spewing partisan rhetoric, and that's what pundits do.

There are any number of ways to get the discussion you want to get, but I submit that seeding O'Reilly clearly isn't one of them, because it never works. Sensible, reasonable discussions aren't born of right-wing (or left-wing) rants from the likes of Bill O'Reilly, and if you can't see *why* that might be, you're either faking, or...? Or, if they do, they require a style of moderation that rarely accompanies the content.

You reap what you seed.

This invites a discussion between left wing nutbags and right wing nutbags and those in the middle get to come in and watch it -- or point out that Bill O'Reilly and the article are on the side of the right wing nutbags.

Hey rob, I like a free for all, you keep it up buddy. :)

Hey rob, I like a free for all, you keep it up buddy. :)

But, it seems to me that Rob *doesn't* want a free for all. 

I just think that moderation has to scale with the content. I think if you seed O'Reilly, you have an obligation to put more work into the seed. Why? Because you're *going* to get the people who hate Bill O'Reilly. And, face it, his opinions are usually extreme enough that there's a lot of room for people who are goiing to but heads with his views. 

Because of that, I don't think you can seed his content and simply say "well, I just like what he said and thought I'd see what happens." Or, you *can* do that, but I think you have to accept what you get if you don't want to take the time to respond to every comment, accept the clash of liberal vs. conservative ideology and work to make sure both sides manage to put something into the discussion.

The more divisive the content (and Bill O'Reilly is way up there on divisive rhetoric) the more the onus is on the moderator to make sure that people come to the discussion they want to have.

Yeah, I wonder what Jesus would have to say about Billy O speaking on his behalf... "thanks, but no thanks!"

It's the purpose of the sign, and the placement that is wrong to me.  Can these folks not come up with some non-combative symbol that represents their belief? 

Excellent point, Juno.  Placing this next to the Nativity just shows that their goal is to draw attention to their pathetic, little selves, stir up some crap and start controversy.  So much for their 'peace, love and joy...let's all be tolerant' stance, eh?  It's only the right and Christians that are supposed to be tolerant. 

Actually as I think about it, the poster does state an obvious misconception that has destroyed the true essence of religion in every form: enslaving of minds.  Religion is all about freedom of choice, not control over choice.  When someone tells you that this is how is it and you have to believe as they say, that is the time to say, "Thanks for your opinion but I choose my own path".  God himself has been shut out of many organized religions today.  He advocates knowledge and free will.  They advocate denying knowledge and controlling thought.  It's the other guy (Satan) that promotes using religion to control, manipulate, judge and hurt.  I find it very odd how easily the other guy has taken control of religions especially in the Fundamentalist Churches. 

Religion is all about freedom of choice, not control over choice.  When someone tells you that this is how is it and you have to believe as they say

This is a common misconception of many people who have a closed mind re: religion and refuse to open yet.  Ironically, most of those people refer to themselves as 'progressive', 'tolerant', 'peaceful' souls.

I've been to so many different places of worship, I lost count.  Hell, I even went to a Catholic High School for 2 years...not because we were Catholic, but because they had a Gymnastics team.  On not one single occasion, did I hear "You have to believe as we do, or you're going to hell."  What I HAVE heard is "This is what we believe".  Like minded individuals who believe the same and find comfort in the message, tend to go back.  People who don't gain anything from that particular denomonation tend to seek something else.

Thank you, Pat.  The reports I saw said that they wanted this sign close, to be in direct opposition of the Nativity.  To bash the Christian belief, is the only reason I can see.  

Land:  Yes, "Out of Bondage" is the message that Jesus brought.  If a banner were displayed atop the manger that said, 'Believe in Him or Burn!" I'd be offended as well.  It would be a strong-arm tactic that is anathema to the message.  

I'm not going to touch your "fundementalist" statement without clarification.

Juno and Pat, how bout this, put them bout side by side and let people decide for themselves, no bashing, no hate, just equal time for someone else's view. Or, and this is the best solution, don't allow religious displays of any kind in gov't buildings.

Wheel:  The flaw I see with the "no religion" on gov. grounds in this case, is, well, that it would not remove the sign in question would it?  As it isn't "religious." We would need to classify them as such for your solution to work . . .

I thought I was clear, that a non-combative, non-bashing expression wouldn't be at issue with me.  Does "atheism" have a symbol?

Juno and Pat, how bout this, put them bout side by side and let people decide for themselves, no bashing, no hate, just equal time for someone else's view.

I'll go for that.  I want to start at the NAACP office or the Congressional Black Caucus office with a sign that says:  "Kwanzaa is a fake holiday made up by anti-white leftists with a low self esteem".

Then, I want to move on to an Islamic School with a sign that says "All Muslims are Terrorists and there are no virgins waiting for you" during Ramadan.

Gee...wonder what the left would do if I actual did these things..Would like to hear what YOU think they would do, but I suspect you will ignore the question.

Actually, I don't WANT to do either of these things.  I'm not like the athiests in WA that seem to have no other intent than to thumb their nose at people who don't believe what they do.

I agree with the idea of finding some less confrontational form of atheist representation.  It makes me wonder if the designer was truly trying to represent the majority of atheists, or just ( excuse the term, but it conveys the attitude I suspect they had ) trying their best to piss people off. 

And Juno Hera, the definition of religion ( not Webter's, perhaps ) that I'm familiar with is that it's an individual's or group's expression of their relationship with their concept of God.  As such, atheism would be a religion even though the "relationship" is to deny the existence of God bcause they don't have faith in an intangible concept.

Actually, I don't WANT to do either of these things.  I'm not like the athiests in WA that seem to have no other intent than to thumb their nose at people who don't believe what they do.

You mean like the way true believers thumb their nose at the law, which separates church and state? You could really be this dumb, but I'm beginning to think you're just a troll.

 On not one single occasion, did I hear "You have to believe as we do, or you're going to hell."  What I HAVE heard is "This is what we believe".

You clearly went to a very different Catholic School than my wife.

You clearly went to a very different Catholic School than my wife.

I keep hearing how tough nuns are in Catholic Schools.  It wasn't my experience.  In fact, the Catholic School I went to was even looser on some of the guidelines than the small town school I came out of.  Being non-Catholic, I didn't even have to go to Mass on Wednesdays.  (Study Hall instead)  The uniforms sucked, but that was about it.  Maybe it's a generational thing?  I wen't there in the early 80's.

http://www.dowlingcatholic.org/

It's the purpose of the sign, and the placement that is wrong to me.  Can these folks not come up with some non-combative symbol that represents their belief? 

You can't make a cartoon with Ghandi, but you can sh-- all over the Christian faith. What a country. From the ACTIONS of athiests, I see they are a confrontational and discontented group.

From the ACTIONS of athiests, I see they are a confrontational and discontented group.

Yep.  I have yet to see any self proclaimed athiests celebrate their beliefs as a group, rather than waste breath trying to supress Christian beliefs. 

I think Christians should pray for them and really tick them off.  =)

I agree with the idea of finding some less confrontational form of atheist representation.  It makes me wonder if the designer was truly trying to represent the majority of atheists, or just ( excuse the term, but it conveys the attitude I suspect they had ) trying their best to piss people off. 

Glad to know we can find common ground.

As such, atheism would be a religion

I wound tend to agree with this, but I've seen and heard many who balk at the very notion.  The sign in question itself tends to disagree with you when it says religion is bad.  

YHS and Pat:  Atheists that I know personally, celebrate Christmas, as a purely secular holiday.        

YHS and Pat:  Atheists that I know personally, celebrate Christmas, as a purely secular holiday.

Same here.  They put up a tree. They take the kids to see Santa at the local mall.  They exchange gifts....maybe even suck down too much eggnog.  I take no issue with how they decide to celebrate Christmas and can't for the life of me...figure out why they take issue with the way others celebrate the holiday.

The placard next to the nativity scene can be boiled down to one, simple word.  Rudeness.  For those who claim it was placed there as a presentation of a different point of view...I wonder how effective they think their message was.  Seemed to be a pretty depressing message to me.

Pat:  It seemed an intolerant message to me.  

Was it a NYC group that put up "Be good, for goodness' sake" banners?  I think they were on to something there.  But I seem to recall that those too had a anti-God, message added.  Drop the anti, and we've got a winner, imo.   

  How are they jerks they stated their beliefs which on par is just as powerful as christian beliefs. They are both beliefs without proof.

Belief: Which is a synonym for faith.

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing2: something believed ; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

I still say take down all religous displays because no matter which you put up it is going to offend another group.

    According to the bible Jesus practiced seperation of church and state when he ran the money changers out of the temple and thats the way it should be. You cannot combine religion and governement or you end up debating issues like this. As Thomas Jeffersons letter said there should be a wall of seperation between Church and state.

 Thomas Jeffersons letter said there should be a wall of seperation between Church and state.

To protect the "Church."

Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

This statement is intolerant, jerkish, and aggressive.  

To protect the "Church."

Funny, I've read the letter in question, and I can't find your assertion in there... Care to support that with anything?

This statement is intolerant, jerkish, and aggressive.

It's "jerkish" alright. Possibly even "intolerant", but "aggressive" is really stretching a bit beyond the bounds of reason. There's no force, no injury... Where's the aggression?

Gee, I suppose I came to that since the letter was in response to a missive sent him by the Danbury Baptist Association who were worried about the state infringing on their freedoms to exercise.  His letter was an assurance to them that he had no intentions of supporting a national or state(s) religion. 

.  Government buildings should put up no religious displays so that all religions will be honored and respected. 

OK.  Now define 'religious'.  Santa has roots in religion.  As does the Christmas tree.  So do gifts.  If you're serious about your above statement, you then object to Santa's going to hospitals to see terminally ill kids.  You also object to the White House Christmas tree.

 As for the poster in front of the Nativity display, why is this offensive?  All it does it suggest a different line of thought. 

I'm not sure where to start here....

OK.  For starters, you just contradicted your first statement.  You object to the nativity in a government building, yet you DONT object to a statement saying that mentions religion, hell, heaven, angels, etc?  Is the poster not a display of atheism?  Technically, secularism?

Second of all, you truly don't see anything wrong with the placement of the sign?  Does that mean a straight, christian gov't employee can hang a sign on the door of an openly gay, athiest co-worker that says "gays are Going to Hell"?  Or does 'tolerance' only apply to one side?

No, I simply said that since the Nativity had been placed in a government building, that other people had the right to place their thoughts and religious convictions in a government building also.    In other words, no religious symbols should be place in a government building.  

Or does 'tolerance' only apply to one side?

Exactly:  by putting up the Christian Nativity scene we are showing tolerance toward Christianity.  By not letting others such as the secular viewpoint be displayed we are showing intolerance of theirs: a direct violation of our constitution.   Our country is based on freedom of religion and the separation of church and State. 

As far as Santas going into hospitals, if it is good and brings happiness you are rather splitting straws.  For my children 'Santa' represents the spirit of giving and sharing with others.   I don't know about the White house tree.  I would not find it offensive if of a different faith.  However, that would be because it represents to me the spirit of giving and caring and that is a concept in every true faitih.   But one must think about it.  If a President is elected that is of a different faith, would you then be as tolerant as a Christian to his/her display of his faith as other religions are of our putting the tree up?  You can not demand that other religions be more or less tolerant than you would be. 

Again, have we then classified "atheism" as a religion?  Again, their input isn't unwelcome, it is their direct intolerance for the Christian's input that is unwelcome. 

No, I simply said that since the Nativity had been placed in a government building, that other people had the right to place their thoughts and religious convictions in a government building also.    In other words, no religious symbols should be place in a government building. 

Once again...I will ask you to define 'religious' symbol.  Gifts, Christmas Trees and Santa could all be called 'religious' symbols.  Heck...even an olive branch could be called a 'religious' symbol.

Whoah, Pat, BIG difference between "secularism" and "atheism!"  Atheism is a lack of faith in any kind of Divinity.  Secularism doesn't deny the existence of a God, it's just attempting to minimize undue religious influence on government.

Once again...I will ask you to define 'religious' symbol.  Gifts, Christmas Trees and Santa could all be called 'religious' symbols.  Heck...even an olive branch could be called a 'religious' symbol.

So could the FSM, what's your point? You've been doing a lot of name calling, a fair amount of subject changing, a deal of definition demanding, more than a little deriding...yep, you're a troll.

I love the Christian's use of a Christmas tree as a symbol with religious origins.  The religion it originated with was Paganism!  Last time I had such a laugh on that general subject it was after a woman wrote a letter to the editor that included bringing back Maypoles as a part of cultural change to reduce sexuality and obscenity in our sociesty and "bring back family values."  The Maypole was a Pagan fertility rite and was a phallic symbol.

Last examples I'll include: where are rabbits and eggs mentioned in the resurrection story?  Their origins were as fertility symbols of another Pagan celebration at the equinox, placing it close to Easter ( scheduled on the 1st Sunday after the 1st full moon after the equinox in most denominations ).

Please send more.  I need the laughs.

So could the FSM, what's your point? You've been doing a lot of name calling, a fair amount of subject changing, a deal of definition demanding, more than a little deriding...yep, you're a troll.

Funny that you accuse me of name calling and then turn around and call me a troll. 

I've called NO ONE a name, anywhere in this thread and I challenge you to show me where I have.  If you can't post supporting evidence of me 'name calling' then I anticipate that you are mature enough to issue an apology.

I HAVE been very, very blunt.  This is a topic that I'm thoroughly sick of and am very passionate about.  The athiests and others have assulted others religious freedoms long enough.  The fake offense you people take at Christmas is nothing more than a ploy to gain attention.  If you're really that sensitive to people celebrating their beliefs, I feel for you.  Life has got to be tough for you.

Landspirit suggested removal of 'all religious symbols' from government property.  Fine.  I want a definition of what a religious symbol is and where the line is drawn.  The left has a tendency to try and take a mile when the right gives an inch. 

It's a legitimate question.  Just because you can't answer it, doesn't make me a 'troll'.

Pat N and others,     I guess we should take stock and find out if what we have in our government buildings are religious symbols.  If all of you see 'Santa' as a religious symbol then I guess we cannot put a picture of santa in a governement building.  I think Pat that it is not the atheists that are insulting you.  I think it is yourself not wanting to see other viewpoints or religions other than your own that is insulting you.  We are actually insulting them by insisting that only our viewpoint be displayed and celebrated.   And for

I want a definition of what a religious symbol is and where the line is drawn. 

I guess the solution to that if one wants to be picky would be to form a committee with representatives of all religions in the US and decide what is a religious symbol that is something that would be offensive to another faith if displayed in a government building.   It is not their intolerance of Christianity that is the problem, it is our intolerance of other viewpoints and religions that is the problem.  If Christmas trees and Santa Clauses are symbols of Christianity than I would say that other religions have been extremely tolerant.  By making an issue of it, you are only supporting removing the Santa's, trees and lights from every government building, as it is a demonstration then of one religion only. 

landspirit - Hear, Hear!

Thanks, I was feeling a little alone here.

 it is not the atheists that are insulting you.

In this case, in fact, they are, and imo, purposely.  

It's the purpose of the sign, and the placement that is wrong to me.  Can these folks not come up with some non-combative symbol that represents their belief? 

The sign just says to me that those people are intolerant jerks.  

Guess the right thing to do is to pray for them . . .

Juno's comments and some other similar comments have a crucial flaw. The statements on the plaque factual represent the Athiest's beliefs (They don't disbelieve or do not believe in God or Religions based upon the existance of God/s). Their beliefs are contrary to the Christian beliefs, this is a previously well established in the public domain. 

Juno and others seem to see the actions of the Athiest group as an attack on their beliefs. The Athiest actions seemed to be clearly rooted in disputing the display as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm assuming that the judge didn't agree that the display should be removed, but agreed that the Athiest's have the right to erect their own display. 

They chose a plaque, stating their beliefs. 

I would have of elected to put up a picture of the constitution next to the large and bold Text of the 2nd Amendment. For added spice, I'd throw in some John Locke quotes in there, possibly others. 

My strategery tends to be more ironical. ;^)

A plaque stating the actual beliefs of Athiests isn't an attack on Christianity in the context of that it is an accurate reflection of what they believe... Just because someone publicly disagrees with you, doesn't mean their attacking you. 

My display (Described above) suggestion would be a reflection of my belief in the rule of law, the values our founding fathers were trying to instill in us and protect, and the legitimacy of the constitution as the law and legal framework of our country. 

It would be a redundant reminder to every American that the Nativity Scene in question was a blatently religious display on Government property in violation of the 2nd Amendment. It could also be construed as an attack on the judge that allowed all this to continue in the first place. It throws the judge's contitutional law knowledge and interpretation into a very questionable light. 

Juno's comments and some other similar comments have a crucial flaw. The statements on the plaque factual represent the Athiest's beliefs (They don't disbelieve or do not believe in God or Religions based upon the existance of God/s). Their beliefs are contrary to the Christian beliefs, this is a previously well established in the public domain. 

Juno and others seem to see the actions of the Athiest group as an attack on their beliefs. The Athiest actions seemed to be clearly rooted in disputing the display as a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I'm assuming that the judge didn't agree that the display should be removed, but agreed that the Athiest's have the right to erect their own display. 

Gotta admit.  This is all the further I read.  You seem to be ignoring the fact that a representative of the group responsible for the sign said that it was intended to be a wake up call to Christian zealots that they don't own December.  They admitted that it was placed there as an attack.

Oh...the 2nd Amendment is the Right to Bear Arms.  This has nothing to do with that.  I think you meant to say the 1st Amendment.

They could have offered the atheists a space for an equivalent display. It should have been a non-verbal symbol of atheism. There are a few. The most familiar is the Darwin fish. I forget the other one. The word God with the international symbol for 'not allowed.' Maybe a collage of all of their figures? Be creative. Just can't be an essay. Tell your story in an equivanlant manner and it will be allowed.

Outstanding suggestions!  As Juno mentioned earlier, another thing they can do is pictures that represent the winter solstice.  Or maybe even a display that celebrates Mother Nature or the Earth as a whole.

Pat,

Are you saying that if the atheist display was not offensive then it would be ok?

The most familiar is the Darwin fish.

Speaking of that, and considering that anecdotal evidence concerning the flaws of the side we're not on seems to be all the rage with this crowd, I know of multiple people who have been 1) yelled at 2) lectured or 3) victims of symbol defacement by Christians who just couldn't handle that someone else might have a humorous symbol which represents darwinism (or more generally, evolution) affixed to their vehicle.

Now, unlike some on this thread, I don't happen to believe that these minor personal experiences sum up Christian tolerance, but I guess if we have to fight worthless personal evidence with worthless personal evidence, there you have it. Christians (sigh) are vicious too. Take that!

(For what it's worth, the darwin fish is a defense of evolution as much as or more than a rallying cry for atheism.)

It's worth noting that it too, is often seen as a rude defacing of a Christian symbol, so I'm not sure that suggesting they use it would be any better than the note that is currently in place.

Are you saying that if the atheist display was not offensive then it would be ok?

If it were non-offensive and a celebration of whatever the athiest belief this season is...I would not be offended.

I was just curious.  As an atheist, I agree with the sign (just like most Christians would agree I’m going to hell for not believing in god), but I also think that a display that is not offensive would have been better.  I’m not sure what exactly that would say because as you have pointed out, people are easily offended. 

I was just curious.  As an atheist, I agree with the sign (just like most Christians would agree I’m going to hell for not believing in god), but I also think that a display that is not offensive would have been better.

Yep.  And if the Christian display were a simple sign that said "All Non Believer's Are Going to Hell"...I'd be just as ticked off.

  I’m not sure what exactly that would say because as you have pointed out, people are easily offended.

Hmmm.  I'm feeling creative.  How 'bout a nice backdrop with a large, beautiful picture that represents the Winter Solstice.  (there are some great ones on the internet..)  Then, in front of the backdrop....on a table draped in black... a nice Earth on a stand made of some sort of naturally found ore.  Maybe put the darwin fish on it or a tastefully prepared sign that says 'Celebrate Mother Earth'.  I don't think anyone would take offense to something like that.

I really wanted to stay out of this conversation.  However, and at the likely risk of being labeled 'easily offended,' I would offer the fact that the so-called darwin fish was actually in itself an irreverent absconding of a well known Christian symbol, ICHTHYS.

I really wanted to stay out of this conversation.  However, and at the likely risk of being labeled 'easily offended,' I would offer the fact that the so-called darwin fish was actually in itself an irreverent absconding of a well known Christian symbol, ICHTHYS.

Good point, Ellie.  (And don't you DARE stay out of this!)

Maybe something like the below poster would work?  I wouldn't find it offensive if I saw it on display.

http://myspacemagick.com/store/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=10&products_id=85

First, no one including me has a right to not be offended.  I am offended daily by billboards, radio disc jockeys, leaf blowers, television ads and inappropriate programming, etc.  It's not really about offense; it's about citizenship.  As fellow countrymen, we should allow one another the right to celebrate  holidays in peace without mocking or denigrating each other. Atheists are failing miserably at that.

What confuses me about atheists taking upon themselves to defend winter solstice while simultaneously bashing Christmas (and/or symbols thereof on public property) is that atheists are de facto A-theistic (without a god).  It is nonsensical for them to make the argument that Christianity stole their holiday because it's not theirs.  It's a pagan holiday (many gods).  Furthermore, the day wasn't stolen and doesn't even coincide.  Winter solstice coincides with the shortest day of the year, usually Dec 21-23; the observance of Christmas is, of course, Dec. 25.  American pagans (and anyone else, for that matter) are allowed to celebrate solstice.  There are no restrictions.

If atheists want to observe a day unto themselves, go for it.  If they want to take that day off, do it.  The vast, VAST majority of atheists claim to enjoy a secular "Christmas."  That does not offend me in the least.  I would hope they would continue to do so.  I just see no legitimate reason why atheistic Americans should seek to remove a good thing from so many other Americans when it hurts no one.

Post offices and banks everywhere are closed on far more obscure dates including Columbus Day, Patriots' Day, etc.  The smaller percentage of Americans who do not belong to the large constituency of Christians plus others who enjoy celebrating Christmas, can do their government work on one of the other 364 days per year.

Atheists are failing miserably at that.

Heheh, no, they're not. What we have here are people *claiming* that without actually providing any real or substantial evidence of people, let alone atheists, actually *doing* that.

 I just see no legitimate reason why atheistic Americans should seek to remove a good thing from so many other Americans when it hurts no one.

Yay! You say it again, sentences later, without putting evidence between the sentences to back up your claims.

You guys really need to stop making it sound as though "atheists" (the big bullies) are lobbying to make sure that people can't celebrate Christmas.

I realize that, as you've been doing in this entire thread, you'll simply ignore a comment which challenges you to back up your rhetoric (it's *so* much easier to keep repeating bull@!$%# if you refuse to recognize those who call you on it) but one more time:

1. Private homes
2. Private businesses
3. Private functions
4. Private lives
5. Churches
6. Private schools
7. *Any* place not funded by public taxes or affiliated with the government.

Not a single person claiming some sort of atheist agenda to destroy Christmas has provided evidence that it's under attack in any of the above scenarios. (You know, the vast majority of places in which we go about our day to day lives.) Why? Because it doesn't fit in with your theories of the oppressed Christian in America, which is a laughable, hilarious myth. A quick google search shows anywhere between 75% and 85% of Americans *identify* as Christian. To claim that there's some sort of risk that Christianity is "under attack" because a few people would prefer to keep Christian iconography out of Government buildings is, quite simply, ridiculous. My thinking isn't so much that it bothers you that it might not be there -- if it weren't there in the first place, I doubt you'd care -- but that some people might have an opinion that it's place is somewhere else. 

However, and at the likely risk of being labeled 'easily offended,' I would offer the fact that the so-called darwin fish was actually in itself an irreverent absconding of a well known Christian symbol, ICHTHYS.

Thanks for pointing that out again, 4 comments after I already pointed it out. 

What confuses me about atheists taking upon themselves to defend winter solstice while simultaneously bashing Christmas

There's no reason a person who doesn't support or follow one Religion can't argue in favor of equal representation of *all* Religions. 

First, no one including me has a right to not be offended.

Sure, but *everyone* has a right to take offense, and to lodge a complaint. Turning that into a silly "war on Christmas" is childish, and absurd.

And, in addition to all of the places I listed above, the number of complaints about "christmas" displays in government buildings etc. is ridiculously minimal, and in most cases, it's Christians getting all uptight about people *voluntarily* deciding that they'd rather say "holiday display" to pre-emptively avoid controversy. 

People have the right to do that too, or do feel differently?

1. Private homes
2. Private businesses
3. Private functions
4. Private lives
5. Churches
6. Private schools
7. *Any* place not funded by public taxes or affiliated with the government.

Would yards be part of 'private homes'?

Well, that depends on if they're involved in a home owner's association and in violation of the rules, but, in general - yes. If you can find me more than a handful of isolated incidents out of the *millions of homes every year with Christmas and Christian themed displays* in which those people are forced to take down their displays, due to a mob of angry atheists, or even *one angry atheist* I'll take it back.

Can you do that?

I'll wait here. Eagerly.

In general, private homes means private property.

Well, that depends on if they're involved in a home owner's association and in violation of the rules, but, in general - yes. If you can find me more than a handful of isolated incidents out of the *millions of homes every year with Christmas and Christian themed displays* in which those people are forced to take down their displays, due to a mob of angry atheists, or even *one angry atheist* I'll take it back.

Can you do that?

I'll wait here. Eagerly.

In general, private homes means private property.

I was only asking your opinion, Bri.  I wasn't leading into some "us against them" thing.  I have no idea how many people are forced to take down displays or how many angry atheists there are over this issue.

The only reason I ask is because there always seems to be at least one story about it every year and I was wondering where you thought 'private display' ended and 'public display' started.

You seem to be in a bad mood tonight.  Merry Christmas and God loves you!  (running and ducking...)

Brian Ford,

Just a brief reply.  I do see this particular objection to displays as a beachhead for those who seek further action.  At its heart is federal identification in a fundamentally religious holiday, even though that religion has had more impact on this nation than any other and is at least significantly responsible for its founding.  Let's set that aside for the moment.

It logically follows that a ban of anything relating to religion on public grounds will soon lead to other separations -- removal of 'in God we trust' and/or the 10 commandments from currency, courthouses, buildings and monuments, cessation of pre-session prayers in congress, removal of the federal holiday Christmas, etc.  In effect, the "religion" established by the country would become atheism.  The bigger question is, therefore, at the heart of the argument.  Do we identify as an essentially God-fearing nation that allows all faiths?  Or, do we identify as a God-rejecting nation that recognizes no faith?  

From a cultural aspect, religion has mostly enriched the US and continues to do so daily.  I urge you to find atheist soup kitchens, crisis pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, etc.  There may be one or two; but most are Christian.  Nativities are speech which is not outlawed in the public square.  The state, by allowing an homage to this important symbol of this important benefactor of the culture, does not in any way establish any religion.  It allows its free expression in a public space.

imho.  I'll check back tomorrow.  I would still like to hear from you on the citizenship aspect as well as obvious (atheist) red herring of winter solstice.

I'm *always* in a bad move when people persist in arguing against straw men and misrepresentations of the *actual* complaints.

Sadly, it happens fairly often 1) around Christmas and 2) around election time.

I have no problem admitting that the sign was ill-conceived, combative, and rude. I also have no problem admitting that I think people have a right to contest a religiously themed display on taxpayer funded property. 

In general, though, I think the War on Christmas is a joke, a gross distortion conceived by the religious right and pundits like BIll O'Reilly (or entirely created by Bill O'Reilly and seized upon by his viewers) and I think that those who are arguing on this thread are doing a poor job of offering evidence to support their opinions and are instead falling back on misrepresentations and out-and-out distortions of the views held by 99.9% of atheists.

Whether you're doing that because you want to play devil's advocate or whether you're doing it because you honestly believe it makes little difference to me -- a misrepresentation and straw man argument annoys me either way.

My request for evidence stands, and until someone can give it to me, or address my points made in 7.25 and 7.26, I'm going to be convinced that you guys are arguing whatever comes to mind, simply to argue.

Brian, seen this yet?  Heh.

 I do see this particular objection to displays as a beachhead for those who seek further action.

And that is what we call FUD, or a conspiracy theory. Arguing against what you *believe* may happen is the sort of thing you see people doing when holed up in a bunker built in their backyard with a chest full of weapons, due to the impending government invasion.

1) Provide evidence. 2) Then argue. So far, all you've done is step 2.

It logically follows that a ban of anything relating to religion on public grounds will soon lead to other separations

Sure, if you're paranoid. However, given that you've offered no evidence of this, the logic is as made up as most of the other complaints on this thread.

-- removal of 'in God we trust' and/or the 10 commandments from currency, courthouses, buildings and monuments, cessation of pre-session prayers in congress, removal of the federal holiday Christmas, etc. 

In effect, the "religion" established by the country would become atheism.

That doesn't follow from what you just said. Celebrating *no* Religion in government functions but allowing *all* religion to be celebrated in the areas I listed above isn't an establishment of atheism, it's an establishment of the freedom to celebrate whatever Religion we like.

Ellie, you've -- as usual in threads like htis -- ignored a direct request for evidence. That's all I needed to know that there's absolutely no reason to continue debating with you, but I must, for just a few more comments:

I urge you to find atheist soup kitchens, crisis pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, etc.

Despite the fact that I'm 100% certain that I could do so, starting with my place of business, I'd like you to describe the relevance, unless you're honestly asserting that atheists don't provide help to the needy. You're even less reasonable than I thought, if that's the case.

I would still like to hear from you on the citizenship aspect as well as obvious (atheist) red herring of winter solstice.

Sorry, but don't bother. I could give two @!$%#s about winter solstice, and I'm not going to address points you want to see addressed when it's *you* that is creating the red herrings and the distractions without providing evidence that is requested of you over and over, simply because it allows you to continue to pretend that there's some sort of coming atheist attack against Christianity. How's that tinfoil hat fitting, these days?

 I argue with the atheists who think that their atheism is a superior point of view for what ever reason they believe it to be.

If you're arguing, you're *also* claiming to have a superior point of view. Here's the thing: Everyone always thinks their views are right. I'm not Christian (or Religious) because I'm certain that it's all wrong. You're not an atheist because you believe my views are wrong.

Etc. 

Everyone could save each other a lot of trouble if they'd just accept that we can celebrate the things that we each *think* are right in our own ways, in our own private lives.

On moral grounds, they argue that religious actions have not been moral.

I love that you make this argument right after Ellie claims that I can't come up with secular examples of charitable efforts.

So many reasons I wanted to stay out of this conversation...beginning with the headline.  This topic is, frankly, too seious to be discussed in the context of O'Reilly.  So, here are my "proofs" as you so inaccurately accuse me of not providing "in threads like these."

Atheist Sues to Remove "In God We Trust"

10 Commandments Banned in KY and moved in Texas

Next, you accuse me of saying atheists are not moral which, frankly, Brian is a lie.  Not only have I not said that, I have said the opposite in many, many comments.  You and I have been debating long enough for you to know that.  Please notice the use of the word 'most' and italics/bold in my statement from 7.30:

I urge you to find atheist soup kitchens, crisis pregnancy centers, homeless shelters, etc.  There may be one or two; but most are Christian

The relevance, Brian, is that Christians as a broad group have been critically important in not only the founding of the nation, but in seeing to its daily needs.  It is reasonable for the nation to allow its members a holiday.

As to what has become an atheist religion, please refer to the following:

Atheism

1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2.

disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

and
Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods, or the rejection of belief in deities. -wiki
and
Religion\

editor messed up...continued:

Religion
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

So while it may be quite unorganized I hate to be the one to inform you atheism (aka humanism) has become a religion. 

As for what renderedtruth has to say, I agree.  Anecdotally, here on NV, I have been called everything from a believer in fairies to delusional.  Never have I responded in kind.  You know, Brian, Jews and Christians are living quite well together in the US.  Many churches, my own included, participate in joing community outreaches.  The subject of our differing religious holidays doesn't arise.  I hope the day will soon come when Christians and atheists can do the same.

You know, Brian, Jews and Christians are living quite well together in the US.  Many churches, my own included, participate in joing community outreaches. 

Statistics show that christian conservatives are the #1 contributors of time and money to charitable causes.

Seems odd for atheists and others to want christians and conservatives to INCREASE their giving to the poor and disadvantaged and then thumb their noses at christian beliefs.  Isn't that a classic example of 'biting the hand that feeds you'?

Okay, coffee is beginning to kick in.  One slight modification to 7.38: Jews and Christians participating in JOINT community outreaches...religious differences do not get in the way. 

Have a good day, all.

I hope the day will soon come when Christians and atheists can do the same.

See, that's what's ridiculous.

The vast majority of Christians and atheists get along *just fine*. As I've said over and over, and which neither of you have yet to contest with evidence, instances in which these challenges arise are minimal, and when they *do* arise, it's almost *never* a private property issue, it's always a public space issue, and -- quite frankly -- people have the right to be annoyed or offended by something, and the right to protest it and try and have it removed if they so desire.

And then, a blowhard like O'Reilly picks up the scant evidence, makes a major issue of it, and declares a ridiculous war on Christmas because he knows it's a topic that won't invite reasonable discussion, focusing instead on strawman attacks and anecdotal evidence. Just like it has here.

So while it may be quite unorganized I hate to be the one to inform you atheism (aka humanism) has become a religion. 

Sure. If you want to take a literal reading of the word Religion and try and force it upon your idea of atheism, I suppose that's okay. But, in any popular understanding of what "Religion" entails, it's simply not a Religion.

Anecdotally, here on NV, I have been called everything from a believer in fairies to delusional.

Great. Stand in line. I'm a stalker and any number of other insulting things that people decide to accuse me of when they're annoyed that someone might dare to contest their opinions. I've (laughably) been threatened with lawsuits.

The relevance, Brian, is that Christians as a broad group have been critically important in not only the founding of the nation, but in seeing to its daily needs.  It is reasonable for the nation to allow its members a holiday.

Hrm. I don't believe one follows the other, and if it did, no one would ever work, because hundreds of groups deserve Holidays. I don't think Christianity deserves one any more than any other group.

Brian,

People may have a right to be annoyed, but they have no right to not be annoyed. 

IMHO, Americans have a responsibility to respect one another and there just seems to be no other purpose to this atheist advertisement (and the 'be good for goodness sake' campaign) than to stick their finger in the eye of Christianity. 

Hrm. I don't believe one follows the other, and if it did, no one would ever work, because hundreds of groups deserve Holidays. I don't think Christianity deserves one any more than any other group.

Seems your earlier statement about this being strictly a disagreement over the use of public space is not so reliable.

Live and let live seems a much better philosophy here.  And, btw, sorry I overlooked your initial reference to ichthys as it would have kept me out of this conversation.  It was unintentional.

People may have a right to be annoyed, but they have no right to not be annoyed. 

Great. Thanks for pointing this out. When have I ever suggested otherwise? 

Seems your earlier statement about this being strictly a disagreement over the use of public space is not so reliable.

Now you're not even making sense. What? Is the goal to keep throwing arguments against the wall, whether they address my points or not, to try and discourage people who disagree form trying to keep up?

Jeebus. You guys have made more points than are even possible to address and I realize that -- as a debate strategy -- it keeps people guessing but, you're not really proving any points by simply making up *new* points every time you comment.

Once again, you've dodged having to present evidence to support your points. I should probably go back through and try and piece together the number of times that you guys have tried to confuse the issue rather than simply answering some simple questions, but I don't have all day.

Okay, slowly now....

You say you are a one-issue complainer here...use of public space.  Then, you say Christians don't deserve the holiday (psst...that was my point about the beachhead).

Once again, you've dodged having to present evidence to support your points.

You're just not paying attention.  I've provided two media links and three definitions.  You provided a definition from ask.com.

Then you say I'm not making sense after this exchange:

Brian said:

it's always a public space issue, and -- quite frankly -- people have the right to be annoyed or offended by something, and the right to protest it and try and have it removed if they so desire.

Ellie said:

People may have a right to be annoyed, but they have no right to not be annoyed.

Then Brian said:

People may have a right to be annoyed, but they have no right to not be annoyed. 

Great. Thanks for pointing this out. When have I ever suggested otherwise?

Damage of some sort must be present.  Annoyance is not standing.

But, on this we do agree:

I don't have all day.

Okay, slowly now....

Type it as slowly as you like, you're still not addressing the points that have been made, and you're mangling them when you *do* try to address them. For example:

You say you are a one-issue complainer here...use of public space.

No, I never said that. What I've done, throughout this thread, is request some evidence that this is an issue worth discussing. I asked *specifically* for evidence in comment #7.25. Since then, no one has proffered evidence, but you've touched on plenty of arguments that aren't relevant to the evidence I requested.

it's always a public space issue, and -- quite frankly -- people have the right to be annoyed or offended by something, and the right to protest it and try and have it removed if they so desire.

Yes, I did say that. But not in the context you're re-posting it in. 

I stand by what I said, but only if you don't begin quoting me in the middle of my sentence so that you can pick and choose your context.

Further, when I said I never suggested otherwise, I'm saying i never made a claim against the idea that:

but they have no right to not be annoyed.

But, your use of double-negatives in your arguments which have nothing to do with my request for evidence (are you ever planning on addressing that?) certainly don't make this as easy to follow as it could be.

This isn't *about* annoyance. We can't even *get* to annoyance because *you* cannot provide evidence that these issues are anywhere near as widespread as they would need to be to support most of the arguments in this thread, nor that people's private observances (the vast, vast majority of the ways in which we as Americans observe religious holidays) are inconvenienced by atheists.

Any other argument you want to put in my mouth will be ignored, because those are *your* arguments, not mine.

Why is atheism a superior point of view?

I never argued that it *was*.

I happen to think it's the *correct* view, but if you want to believe otherwise, I don't particularly care.

I saw you most recently on a page that asked the question 'do viners hate Christians?' Your purpose for being there was to complain that it was a toss-off article that did not deserve the attention it was receiving.

No, my complaint was that a paragraph of text and a poll isn't an "article". You can disagree if you like, but Tyler (the moderator) also showed up to let him know that he improperly posted the content to the front page, and the article was eventually removed. 

The user who placed it was not available for comments at a time when it was flagged for being 'meta'and it was removed after it was left in the wrong publication mode for awhile.

Take it up with Tyler. I didn't remove the article, nor did I report it. If it's still down, that's between the column owner and Tyler. It has nothing to do with me, and my complaints had nothing to do with Religion. 

I've been here for far longer than you, and I've spent more time than you'll ever know having quality discussions on articles about Religion, by Christians, by atheists, so your assertion that I "have a problem with" religion is both ignorant and insulting, and I would suggest knowing what you're talking about, and who you're talking to, before you make claims about that person's history or views.

So what you are saying is that most Christians are practicing hypocrasy, and Athiests aren't Satanic? 

Well, the rest of the non-christian world already knew this... 

I'd also suggest that you not communicate this knowledge to your fellow 'Christians', for they don't really seem to believe that the laws apply to them, it's likely they'll percieve you as attacking them, and there's really no telling what they might do to you as a result. 

Some sort of smiting may occur. 

Don't say I didn't warn you... 

Except for the atheists, I think most people see the difference between "God" and "Jesus" in the cases you mention.  The former, despite the assumption in it's original use, still leaves room for the individual to see the non-specific "God" as Jahovah, Yahweh, Allah, Zeus, FSM, or Pooka the Great Tomato God, to name a few.  "Jesus" would undeniably promote one range of faiths.

you do hear about them all the time pat, lots of people think god should be removed from the money and every other symbol or emblem of the govt. After all, pastafarians don't get money that says: "In Pasta we Trust" so let's do away with all the god delusions.

In fact, let's bar people with irrational belief in the supernatural from holding office because they are brain damaged, retarded or psychotic.

In case you didn't recognize it, that last statement was sarcasm.

Except for the atheists, I think most people see the difference between "God" and "Jesus" in the cases you mention. 

Your buddy Wheel would disagree with you.  He would refer to both as an 'invisible, imaginary friend in the sky'.

you do hear about them all the time pat, lots of people think god should be removed from the money and every other symbol or emblem of the govt. After all, pastafarians don't get money that says: "In Pasta we Trust" so let's do away with all the god delusions.

Therein lies the problem.  For the majority of the country, God is not a delusion.  We are a majority rule country and it's worked well for us.  My point is that the ONLY time anyone makes any noise about this is during the Christian holidays.  They hypocrisy is mind boggling.

In fact, let's bar people with irrational belief in the supernatural from holding office because they are brain damaged, retarded or psychotic.

In case you didn't recognize it, that last statement was sarcasm.

Of course I recognized it as sarcasm.  I'm a big fan of sarcasm.  All I ask is that if you want me to recognize your blunt sarcasm, you need to recognize mine as well, and not refer to me as a 'troll' for it.  C'mon!  buck up and argue like a man! (that was sarcasm, BTW)

Pat,

You can't get anything at all right can you?

Your buddy Wheel would disagree with you.  He would refer to both as an 'invisible, imaginary friend in the sky'.

Only one is imaginary and in the sky, really, try to keep up here.

Only one is imaginary and in the sky, really, try to keep up here.

So which one?  God or Jesus?

Pat, basically I'm with you so I thought I'd give you support. In essense, whichever post it was, the same people attacking outward displays of Christianity are rarely seen when discussing other types of support.

Pat, basically I'm with you so I thought I'd give you support. In essense, whichever post it was, the same people attacking outward displays of Christianity are rarely seen when discussing other types of support.

Thanks, Socrates1.  Good point, too.  I don't think I've ever seen any of these people in ANY threads, supporting any religious group, yet they tell me to support muslims, etc.  I'm not sure what they're protesting either.  Why is the following phrase so difficult for them to understand?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....."

Jahovah, Yahweh, Allah

These are the same.  Like, yes, ya, and oui. Though I agree with you basic point that "god" is a generic term, like cola is to Coke or Pepsi.

Pat:  I think many believe that following that intro, that it says they have freedom From religion.  Or that it actually reads "from."  I don't know.  Very confusing to me.

I know that, Juno.  Thanks for proving that those who also know are more common that I thought.  I had the different names for the same being because my experience is the majority of Americans don't know this.  Just look how many times people have said insulting things directed at a belief in Allah.

Yes, and "turn the other cheek" means the same as "kill the infidel"

Socrates!  LOL.  Of course not!  A difference in the how, just not the Who.  LOL

As for a different take on turn the other cheek, I read long ago that offering the other cheek for striking was tempting the striker.  If the bait was taken, and the other cheek was hit, then the "slave" was then elevated to equal and made free . . . so who knows, eh? 

   My opinion is they should change that to the true meaning of the constitution. In God we may trust.

Think about it. The founding fathers and the immigrants that first came to this country were fleeing their homeland because of religious persecution. The Church of England etc. They wanted to get away from the states that used religion as means of control of the poulace. To think for one minute these people wanted to establish a country based on what they were fleeing from is downright wierd.

There isn't an "established" religion in this country.  You are, in fact, free to choose what you believe, unlike the countries that our forefathers fled.

   It would get really crowded if we represent all religions in such a small space.....There is a guy in California who has followers and is an ordained minister who believes his hamster is God... There is another guy who worships heads of cabbage.... Last night I saw an article on TV that a picture of a womans brain scan may contain a picture of the Virgin Mary....

      A giant box with a big red ribbon on it and a large bow should be the holiday symbol. The meaning of Christmas to many would be contained in that symbol. How did the dayof the birth of one of the greatest synbols in religion become so commercialized in the first place?  

Logdump, 

How did the dayof the birth of one of the greatest synbols in religion become so commercialized in the first place?

Religion was exploited by capitalists... Many of the religious commenters on here give evidence to the ease of that process... 

I think it is you are promoting allowing Christian symbols but not others.   It is hard to discern religious freedom as a whole from your posts.  

Once again, this seed is about the public display of a Christian symbol vs an atheistic placard.  While the majority of my posts have remained on topic regarding Christianity, I have indeed, stated several times that I have no issues with any religion.  Now...I preface that with saying I do not necessarily AGREE WITH THE TENANTS of every religion, but I DO support the right of the followers of said religions to freedom of expression of their faith.

 There is absolutely nothing in any of Purple's post to support your attack  on this Newsviner. 

I would suggest you go back and re-read her comment to me in 10.5

If you want to defend a religion, try Muslim.  There are no Muslim displays in government buildings because it would cause such an outcry. 

OK.  Is there a Muslim vs________thread out there?  If not, will you start one so I can comment on it?  I would agree that there would be an outcry, BTW.  And as I have stated throughout this whole thread, if there were a thread about a muslim symbol being trounced on during a Muslim holiday, I would protect their right to freedom of religion as well.

 If you truly are tolerant of other religions, you would be defending the right of the Atheists to express their view rather than denouncing them for doing it.   Your posts are rather contradictory and circular.  

Atheism is not a religion.  In fact, it is the antithesis of religion.  

My turn....

Do you believe nativity scenes are OK on a persons front lawn?

Almost every state constitution includes a reference to God.  What should we do about that?

What should the States involvement in private religious schools be?

Now...I preface that with saying I do not necessarily AGREE WITH THE TENANTS of every religion, but I DO support the right of the followers of said religions to freedom of expression of their faith.

So do I, but not in buildings taxpayers pay for.

Do you believe nativity scenes are OK on a persons front lawn?

That is a perfect example of changing the subject to a straw man argument. Has NOTHING to do with the topic under discussion.

Atheism is not a religion.  In fact, it is the antithesis of religion.

1/2 of a correct statement, atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, it is not a religion.

Almost every state constitution includes a reference to God.  What should we do about that?

They're historical documents, what was included in them at the time of their writing can't be judged by our current standards. Another attempt to change the subject by the way.

What should the States involvement in private religious schools be?

Still another attempt to change the subject.

Still another attempt to change the subject.

For starters, the post wasn't addressed to you. Your comments are welcome, even though they look like a lot of sidestepping.  But I'm hoping landspirit will address as he/she seems more interested in open minded discussion than you do.

Secondly, isn't asking me why I'm not defending Muslims in a thread about a Christian symbol also an attempt to change the subject?

pointing out flaws is not sidestepping, failing to address those flaws and continuing to persist in them is trolling.

As for for your "question"

  Is there a Muslim vs________thread out there?

What exactly is it? What is the blank? That's not really changing the subject, it's just lack of organization. If you're asking if there are any muslim bashing seeds around,  I'm sure you can find some if you look.

Wheel, remember the old proverb, "Never argue with a fool.  Spectators can't tell the difference."  I'm already embarrased by the amount of time I've wasted on this guy.  While I may post corrections to whatever I may see from him later, I'm sure as hell not bothering to attempt discussion or debate.

Landspirit

I think it is you are promoting allowing Christian symbols but not others.

No she is just saying it's really f'ed up that they had to degrade a Christian symbol to "express their beliefs". That's not promoting a symbol. It's promoting hate. What about children who believe in God? Do you think it's okay to blatantly state that you think their religion is complete bunk? No, it's not okay. I would be jailed if I said to a Muslim child their religion is false and a religion of hate. People would burn me at stake. But it's okay to deface Christianity openly in a government building?

I think it is you are promoting allowing Christian symbols but not others.

YHS is correct, this statement is wrong.  

The community has equal access, as it should, to display and celebrate.  The sign in question is not a celebration, it's purpose is denigration.  I promise you, that if this sign were placed next to any other symbol, I would say it is wrong.  

The community has equal access, as it should, to display and celebrate.  The sign in question is not a celebration, it's purpose is denigration.

The purpose is to present an alternative view, no denigration. None stated, and none implied. Just a statement of an alternate point of view.

Rob,

Your basic prejudice is showing. The people who put up the sign are being '@!$%#s' in your lexicon. The people who are making such a big deal about the sign are 'victims'. Maybe, just maybe, the people who put up the sign feel their point of view is as valid as any and deserves the same consideration and display.

In my personal experience the 'poor little christrians being put upon' hue and cry is a knee jerk response to every case of dissent from the christian view. The discussion in this thread proves my point.

You see it as celebrating, I see it as false advertising. Selling snake oil. Getting people to feel good and go along with the program when the program goes nowhere.

Since the atheist group is titled Freedom from Religion Foundation, the message on the sign seems to be in keeping with the tenets of their "non-religion".  Since Christianity tells us to love our enemies and turn the other cheek, we should not be offended by their sign, but we should greet their inclusion in the holiday display with love, and pray for the group and all its members.

After all, WWJD? 

Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Joyful Solstice, and Happy Holidays to all!

Trying:  All Good Tidings to you as well!

The atheists' sign was a "statement" up to the point that it said "There is only the natural world."  The line about religion was directed at others and was the only thing about it that made it confrontational.

Of course, if we accept atheism as a religion ( their relationship with the Divine being to deny its existence still being a belief ), they're dissing on themselves as well.  Atheism can be used to enslave minds as well as any dogma about what the atheists call "imaginary friends" and such.

Of course, if we accept atheism as a religion ( their relationship with the Divine being to deny its existence still being a belief ),

Wow.  I never looked at it that way.  I always viewed atheism as non-religion.  They DO have a relationship with the 'Divine'.  A fairly unorthodox one...but still a relationship.

Yosho, in order to try and bury the hatchet...(I think we got off on the wrong foot)....I want to try and reiterate my position a little more diplomatically. 

I have no problem with the expression or rejection of faith from anyone.  I DO have a problem with disrespect for someone else's faith during a holiday season that is considered sacred for that person(s).

I HAVE heard one excuse for the sign saying it was celebrating the 'Winter Solstice'.  I would be fine with that IF it were truly a celebratory sign and if they also made as much ado about the Summer Solstice. 

Heck...A guy defending the sign from a group called "Freedom From Religion" was on one of the Sunday Morning programs today.  He even admitted that it was intended to be a 'wake up call' to the 'religious zealots' that they 'don't own December'.  If a representative of the group who placed the sign admits that it was placed there to stir the pot...I get a little frustrated when people here continually make excuses for them that they didnt place it there for that very reason.

Pat: bygones, water and bridges, etc., no problem.

I agree with the celebratory aspect and the sign's creators crossing a line, as I stated.  The fact that someone in charge of it admitted such intent is disappointing.  If the Governor authorized the sign, she should have also taken a role in avoiding such a fuss by approving something non-confrontational ( unless, of course she was wanting to stir things up as well ).

Hopefully, this fuss will result in a revised version of the atheist sign that will leave out the last sentence next year.  Though some may be offended at the denial aspect of what the sign says before the last sentence, I would see it to be a statement of ( lack of ) faith not involving the word "religion" or the actions who believe in a divinity and thereby a LOT more defensible as a reasonable compromise.

Hopefully, this fuss will result in a revised version of the atheist sign that will leave out the last sentence next year.  Though some may be offended at the denial aspect of what the sign says before the last sentence, I would see it to be a statement of ( lack of ) faith not involving the word "religion" or the actions who believe in a divinity and thereby a LOT more defensible as a reasonable compromise.

Agreed.  Since it's Hannukkah time, I wouldn't object to a Jewish display.  I also wouldn't object to a statement of a lack of faith as you suggest.  I just object to the dissing. 

One thing that hasn't been mentioned was the theft of the original sign.  That was wrong too.

Regardless of whether people decide to celebrate this season in a secular fashion or a religious one, I think we can all agree it is traditionally a season of peace and good will.  I guess I frustrated (read 'saddened') that we can't all pull that off for one month without controversy.

Yeah, if only we can get past the "Merry Christmas" vs "Happy Holidays" issue. 

Troll.

Say, wheel, isn't that a coward's insult?

troll-definition?

Trolling

Say, wheel, isn't that a coward's insult?

what insult?

So Pat is a woman, so what? Troll is troll, you're confused on a fundamental level.

 Socrates1:  troll-definition?

Rendered Truth:  Pat is a woman. You are gender confused Wheel.

 I'm thinkin' that to Wheel, anyone who presents a case that he can't debate is a 'troll'. 

Wheel, the "troll" comments are rude, a personal attack, and imo, unwelcome in civil discourse.    

I'm thinking anyone who fit's the definition I supplied is a troll. As for a case, Pat, you have no case, nothing but straw man arguments and attempts to change the subject.

Juno, my statements are accurate, to the point and in the interest of keeping the discourse civil by noting trollish input and remarking on it.

I provided a definition of troll, if the shoe fits, wear it. Pat's frequent attempts to set up straw men and change the subject hardly qualify as 'thoughtful input'.

I provided a definition of troll, if the shoe fits, wear it. Pat's frequent attempts to set up straw men and change the subject hardly qualify as 'thoughtful input'.

Obviously, you do not have an 'ignore author' button.  I would contact Newsvine about that if I were you.  (Just a suggestion of course.  Not a 'demand')  If I am a troll and you find my input distasteful, feel free to put me on ignore.  Then you won't have to be bothered by my 'trollish' behavior.  Problem solved.  Of course, if you decide not to take this course of action, it will be obvious to everyone here that you simply just want a target to b*tch to.

Still waiting for my apology, BTW.

Apology for what? As for ignore, I never use it, ever.

Pat being a person, means her input requires thought.  You do not have to like her thoughts, as you obviously do not, but you should remember that we here are looking for a place to express our respective positions without being attacked for those positions.  Which is why NV has a code of honor.  

Your repetition of "troll" is not valueable input, is off-topic, and is a personal attack. All CoH violations. 

Your "shoe" (link for trolling) could fit all of us here to one degree or another.  

Give over, ignore, or just leave-off.  

So, Pat is the original Christian sign, and Wheel is the attack on the sign.  Without the sign what would be the point of the attack.  Which belief is a positive expression and which is not?

So, Pat is the original Christian sign, and Wheel is the attack on the sign.  Without the sign what would be the point of the attack.  Which belief is a positive expression and which is not?

Hey!  Good Analogy!

I do not like the idea of any government facility sponsoring a religious theme of any kind

I think I know what you're saying, but I'm going to bite my tongue until you clarify what you mean by "sponsoring"

My choice of the word "sponsoring" is probably not the best, but the intended meaning behind my statement is the provision/allowed use of government facility space for the purpose of displaying material that is religious in nature.

Good for you Pat!  Since the sponsoring bodies were outside groups and not the government.

The people are the owners of this property, they pay the bills.  Why should groups within the citizenry not be allowed to place celebratory imagery there?  

These signs are up in multiple places now.  

The people are the owners of this property, they pay the bills.  Why should groups within the citizenry not be allowed to place celebratory imagery there?  

If "the people" own it, and if some people don't "agree with" the thought behind the religious iconography or if it directly conflicts with their *own* deeply held beliefs, why should *those people* have no say in whether or not the display stands?

We don't have to always agree, but we are suppose to tolerate others.  I've said before, imagery outside of Christianity isn't a problem for me.  I am tolerant of other religions.  So must we all be, in this country.  

The sign mentions winter solstice and natural world, why not put up an image that exemplifies those things?  I ran a search for pictures and there really are some beautiful pictures out there.  

The spokesman for this group said the purpose was to attack religion, btw.

Juno - I feel compelled to point out that a great many of us feel that organized religion is not only wrong but directly responsible for many of the worlds problems. It is part of our belief system. Therefore, by what you said above, you need to tolerate it. Simple as that. You don't have a discussion by stopping it.

 I feel compelled to point out that a great many of us feel that organized religion is not only wrong but directly responsible for many of the worlds problems. It is part of our belief system. Therefore, by what you said above, you need to tolerate it. Simple as that. You don't have a discussion by stopping it.

This is interesting.  I'm going to change only one word in your above quote.  Looks like we have ourselves a stalemate.  See below:

 I feel compelled to point out that a great many of us feel that Atheism is not only wrong but directly responsible for many of the worlds problems. It is part of our belief system. Therefore, by what you said above, you need to tolerate it. Simple as that. You don't have a discussion by stopping it.

Pat N I agree. And therefore either all points of view need to be represented, nearly impossible, or none. So what's it going to be?

The hilarious thing is that Pat doesn't understand that He/She just perfectly pointed out the futility of allowing either/any party to erect a display promoting personal religious beliefs/non-beliefs on Government property... Not to mention that anyone's personal religious beliefs/non-beliefs are protected under the law, therefore to be respected (Legally) by all other citizens of differing beliefs... 

The hilarious thing is that Pat doesn't understand that He/She just perfectly pointed out the futility of allowing either/any party to erect a display promoting personal religious beliefs/non-beliefs on Government property... Not to mention that anyone's personal religious beliefs/non-beliefs are protected under the law, therefore to be respected (Legally) by all other citizens of differing beliefs... 

Rabid, had you actually taken the time to read what I've writted here...you would know it's not the displays I take issue with.  It's the attack of the display. 

Now before you echo that it wasn't an attack, a representative from the group that put it up freely admitted...on national television...that it was intended to be a wake up call to the Christian zealots that they don't own December.

If you find this 'hilarious' you must be easily amused.

Rapidsquirrel - agreed.

Pat N - But it is our beleif that it must be attacked. Therefor it must be displayed in fairness to all.

Pat N - But it is our beleif that it must be attacked.

I seriously hope you're kidding here.  I searched the web and I can't find anywhere that it's atheistic 'belief' to attack other religions.

I searched the web and I can't find anywhere that it's atheistic 'belief' to attack other religions.

And thus ends the argument.

Hey, Brian, hold on, I haven't gotten to respond to this:

Juno - I feel compelled to point out that a great many of us feel that organized religion is not only wrong but directly responsible for many of the worlds problems. 

I'm not sure why you feel compelled to tell me this, since I'm perfectly cognizant of it . . .

The fact is, many faiths would consider the denial of God, damnable.  Now, IF a religious group decided to put up an aggressive display saying such, I'd bet money it wouldn't be allowed up.  

Christianity has become the kicking-boy in this nation, imo, and the allowing of such a sign legitimizes that mind-set.  

Christianity has become the kicking-boy in this nation, imo, and the allowing of such a sign legitimizes that mind-set.  

Sigh, if you want to believe that one sign, or even 100 signs is proof that Christians live hard lives in a Country in which they hold an 80% + majority, that's your issue. I suspect muslims or wiccans would love to have to deal with that sort of "oppression" though, compared to the sort of respect they're used to receiving.

Hey, Brian, hold on, I haven't gotten to respond to this:

I didn't say that, so if someone else feels like responding, they're welcome to, but it doesn't change the fact that Pat N. provided a comment that backs up every point I've made in this thread.

I know, Brian, I was speaking to your last comment that said it was over.  Because I wanted to respond to another comment, addressing me . . .  Sorry you missed the playfulness in my response.

As yet, I don't feel "oppressed."  I am speaking to the general attitude toward Christianity in the last years, being the "group" that it's okay, and here even encouraged, to bash.  

I appreciate that you find that the sign in question goes farther than it should.  

It is particularly baffling to me that a group would hope to promote itself in this fashion since this message isn't celebrating their thoughts, but lends to the belief that they are together in hating other beliefs . . . which, btw, is contrary to those I know who do not believe in God.  

It is particularly baffling to me that a group would hope to promote itself in this fashion since this message isn't celebrating their thoughts, but lends to the belief that they are together in hating other beliefs 

The only thing it proves is that there are some assbags who like to stir the pot. It doesn't represent anything *other* than their own pocket of assbaggishness. Bill O'Reilly loves to pick and choose a few assbags and try to use them as representatives of atheist thought, but I don't think that works unless you also accept that people can then legitimately pick and choose Christian assbags to represent all Christians.

That Bill O has taken up this issue, is irrelevant to my position on the issue.

The Nativity, (or any other religious symbol, for that matter) only holds meaning for the viewer.  Not unlike an Art display.  I am a Christian, therefore this is a scene that represents my faith.  If I look upon a Menorah, it represents a story from the Jewish history.  

If you aren't a Christian, is it not possible to merely see a scene from history?  Or the birth of a good teacher?       

Since we both agree that the purpose here was to 'stir the pot,'  what's your take on the appropriateness of the plaque?  Do you feel that the governor(s) should practice some discretion?  I personally don't feel like they have a duty to allow a platform for intolerance or hatred directed toward other groups.  

Juno

Christianity has become the kicking-boy in this nation, imo, and the allowing of such a sign legitimizes that mind-set

Uh, no Christianity is just the biggest kid on the block in this country. I really wouldn't care if the display was Muslim, Jedi, FSM, Wiccan, or any other. I would be apposed to it.

Now, IF a religious group decided to put up an aggressive display saying such, I'd bet money it wouldn't be allowed up.

But it is allowed up. The nativity is an aggressive display because it is promoting a point of view above all others.

Since we both agree that the purpose here was to 'stir the pot,'  what's your take on the appropriateness of the plaque?

I've already offered my point of view on the plaque. At least twice. Feel free to scour the comment threads.

PP:  LOL.  

And this is the problem real problem, the one that you inadvertantly pointed out, but are too blinded by the self-righteousness that your belief system rewards you with...

time to read what I've writted here...you would know it's not the displays I take issue with.  It's the attack of the display. 

Most Christians see any opposing set of beliefs as a direct attack on theirs... What I don't get is, that if Christians possess the true word of God, perfect by definition (Their beliefs, not mine), then why do opposing beliefs threaten them? Why is merely the statement of what another group believes or, in the case of Atheist's, disbelief, viewed as an attack? 

Have some self-confidence, FOR YOUR GOD's SAKE. The very fact that your team reacts like a bunch of insecure bullies when ever they encounter someone of differing beliefs says it all. 

Jesus lead by example. His example was extreme tolerance and non-violence in the face of intolerance and violence. 

Many modern American Christians set an example akin to an insecure childhood bully. Everyone else being a threat, and the best defense being a good offence. Hit first. 

The example of Jesus is lost upon you when you view this as an attack. 

Let there be no mistake. I'm not selective in my interpretation of the 1st Amendment. I don't care who's religion is displayed on Government property, I have and will vehemently oppose it. 

The exception being museums... And in that case, religious displays would need to be balanced or rotated in a balanced manner. 

I put the constitution first. Because it safeguards our rights to believe whatever we want... 

No religious or anti-religion/non-belief displays on Government grounds or officials, period... 

The first amendment also applies to religious people and their right to free speech.  Some here would silence religious voices in the public square.  They fail to see there is no difference between a person's right to dissent or protest, which they would defend, and a person's right to silently express or celebrate their religion, which they oppose.  And yet, they twist and misuse scripture to fit their own agenda.