Pennsylvania Town Rejects Atheist Holiday Display

Mtn Gramma wrote: Inasmuch as it is a holiday display, I see no problem with any of the holiday items displayed. What holiday is the atheist group wanting to celebrate and add to this Holiday Display?

It is a holiday display on public land. When they exclude any group from a display on public land, it is a problem.

Yep!

“At this season of the Winter Solstice, may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

So, do the actual symbols that are set up say, for the nativity scene, "This is birth of Jesus Christ, son of God, and if you don't believe this, you are unreasonable?"

Does the menorah have a sign that says, "If you don't believe there was enough oil for eight nights, you are unreasonable?"

Let the atheists come up with a symbol of their natural world, without the yakking. Besides, who are these particular atheists to determine what should actually be put up?

At least these other groups have some consistency in their symbols.

2wlady wrote: Let the atheists come up with a symbol of their natural world, without the yakking. Besides, who are these particular atheists to determine what should actually be put up?

At least these other groups have some consistency in their symbols.

Since you are obviously speaking from ignorance, without doing any checking, the statement they wished to put up on their sign is the same statement of purpose of the Freedom From Religion Foundation for the last 30+ years. It is consistent with other plaques in other state capitols and on display in other venues...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Fr ... Foundation

Your ignorance of the "consistency" of this message is irrelevant. And their message is just as relevant as the other two; and therefore just as worthy of display if invited to participate in a PUBLIC PROPERTY venue. If the city had wanted to ban displays on public property, they were free to do so. If they wanted to open it up to other groups to be inclusive, they have no right to tell one group, who they happen to disagree with, what they should be able to express. If they wish to display their message in lieu of some irrelevant "symbol", that is also their right.

But here...If you REALLY need a symbol:



The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[/url]

2wlady wrote: Let the atheists come up with a symbol of their natural world, without the yakking.

They have already.



Who doesn't have a flying spaghetti monster on top of their tree?


No God? No Problem! This year be good for goodness sake.

Photo-fish wrote:

2wlady wrote: Let the atheists come up with a symbol of their natural world, without the yakking.

They have already.

Who doesn't have a flying spaghetti monster on top of their tree?

No God? No Problem! This year be good for goodness sake.

Oooo... Yours are MUCH better than mine....

No fun in being good.

Then at least be careful.

I LOVE that spaghetti monster tree topper!!!

cydl wrote: I LOVE that spaghetti monster tree topper!!!

I love all the conservatives who have been whining for the last 20 years that the public venue has been stripped of Christian imagery and good old-fashioned Christmas display. Now that many local governments have found ways to accommodate the multiple interests of various groups during this time of year, even sponsoring public space, with public funding, to enable these conservatives (and others) to make a statement at this time of year... and suddenly these two-faced conservative are pulling the same stunts that they accused the local government of... denying people the right to make a statement during this holiday time. Thanks goodness I don't have to identify myself as a member of the GOP to call myself a conservative. If that was the case, I'd shoot myself first.