Is a mountain being made from a mole hill? (myths, atheist, quote)

[Clintone]

Santa Nailed To Cross Angers Leesburg Residents (http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/virginia/santa-nailed-to-cross-angers-leesburg-residents-120511 - broken link)

Here are two websites about the same article. Probably with equal agendas in opposite directions. The top is "Fox 2 News." The Bottom is the "Friendly Atheist."

Thanks to Christians, Atheist Holiday Displays Will Flourish in Loudoun County | Friendly Atheist

The skeleton Santa and several other more or less anti-religion-related posters have been, or will be, placed in front of a courthouse. This is the second year this will occur.

There had been debate over whether everyone would be allowed to place displays in front of the courthouse, on a first-come, first-serve basis, or no one would be allowed to do so. It was decided anyone would be allowed to place displays. Most of the displays will be anti-religion related, as they came first.

It seems obvious that the goal of the less pleasant, anti-religious-related displays is to encourage the banning of all displays, therefore keeping religious displays off public property.

Here's a question: Is there a good reason to remove nativity scenes from public property if a local group wants them there?

I like Richard Dawkins...from what little I know about him. I think his children's book on evolution which refers to various religions as myths seems like a fine idea, so long as there's no propaganda inside it encouraging children to merely believe its concepts without question (I haven't read it).

However, what is the point of removing nativity scenes and crosses from public property if they were not paid for through tax dollars?

I could see removing them from the point of view of it being fair, but could the problem not be solved merely by ignoring them, or rather than an unpleasant depiction, such as a skeleton Santa, replacing it with a pleasant one? Most people like the Flying Spaghetti Monster for example...although the concept may be beginning to get old.

I am highly against putting "In God We Trust" on license plates...and would eagerly sue the government to stop that, but what's the point of removing "In God We Trust" from the dollar bill...crosses from public property...etc?

For whatever reason, it seems to make Christians happy. Does it anger us, or is it more of an urge for fairness?

Granted I don't understand why theists (primarily Christians...being the most populous group in the nation) would want "In God We Trust" spread over much of the nation anyway...

However, I was always taught that one should pick one's battles. Pulling down crosses from public property and removing nativity scenes don't seem like important battles to win...or are they?

[whoppers]

I agree with you that people's time could be spent on better ventures.

The important point you make is the acidity of most anti-christian displays and signage. The difference this makes is the following, in my opinion:

1- Religious signs: they don't seem to be offensive to non-religionists on principle, or as a direct reaction against non-religious signs/displays; they usually just express a religious doctrine or pithy saying.

2- Non-Religious signs: they DO seem to be offensive to Religious people for the most part, and they are usually a retaliation against Relgious signs/displays; rather than expressing a Non-Religious doctrine for it's own sake, they usually display a reactive message, directly attacking.

This starts giving the impression that Atheists, or Non-Religious Groups, don't have messages of their own that are important - but are merely in reaction to Religious Groups. I believe that morality CAN exist apart from Religion, but these examples of sign wars and lawsuits certainly do not contribute to that claim!

[MysticPhD]

Originally Posted by whoppers

I agree with you that people's time could be spent on better ventures.

The important point you make is the acidity of most anti-christian displays and signage. The difference this makes is the following, in my opinion:

1- Religious signs: they don't seem to be offensive to non-religionists on principle, or as a direct reaction against non-religious signs/displays; they usually just express a religious doctrine or pithy saying.

2- Non-Religious signs: they DO seem to be offensive to Religious people for the most part, and they are usually a retaliation against Relgious signs/displays; rather than expressing a Non-Religious doctrine for it's own sake, they usually display a reactive message, directly attacking.

This starts giving the impression that Atheists, or Non-Religious Groups, don't have messages of their own that are important - but are merely in reaction to Religious Groups. I believe that morality CAN exist apart from Religion, but these examples of sign wars and lawsuits certainly do not contribute to that claim!

Whoppers . . . your sagacity and scholarship (as displayed elsewhere) are impressive. This is a salient and major contributor to the animosity to atheist signage . . . it does tend to be predominately abreactive. Apparently there is a great deal of pent-up frustration with religious evangelism and attempted intrusions into laws and science curricula.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by MysticPhD

Whoppers . . . your sagacity and scholarship (as displayed elsewhere) are impressive. This is a salient and major contributor to the animosity to atheist signage . . . it does tend to be predominately abreactive. Apparently there is a great deal of pent-up frustration with religious evangelism and attempted intrusions into laws and science curricula.

Thanks heh heh. I'm just echoing Clintone's thoughts here, though, and I think that most people realize the nature of the signs/lawsuits - they just don't come out and admit it to themselves: it may bring up a twinge of intellectual dishonesty.

The frustration you mention is certainly a factor - but I think it can easily be exaggerated, or dependant on where one lives (as Asheville Native pointed out concerning his hometown).

[axemanjoe]

It appears a major point was missed, it's not the signs that are an issue with most folks, it's the fact that religious items/signs/displays are placed on government property. The establishment clause is very clear regarding governments involvement with religion.

As far as the first article, the santa skeleton was rather extreme, however the point that the person who conceived it was trying to make has merit. But it is what it is, christmas is very commercialized and it certainly wont change anytime soon. I think that display was in poor taste, even as an atheist.

The holidays are certainly something everyone should enjoy regardless of their religious choices. It's not about getting one's way when it comes to displaying this or that, or winning an argument about what to believe, it's about acts of appreciation, kindness and compassion for each other and your family and friends, which should be practiced all year, not just at holidays. We're all human, but I try to remember that.

[Manss]

Mountains has a root under ground and I personally suppose those grow up like a tree but only hasn't any fruit ......

[Fred314X]

Hasn't anyone looked at the calendar? 'Tis the season for making mountains (fa la la la la, la la la la!)