Atheists displace nativity scenes in California

I lol'd. Anyways the church should have sent more people to enter the lottery also screw tradition. Snooze you lose.

[QUOTE="Hatiko"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Christian's think they're so high and mighty because they're celebrating for these "real reasons" but when you can't even get your savior's birthday right....Nibroc420

No we don't. The point is the celebration, not the day. Many people are well aware that Jesus was not born on December 25. It's the spirit that counts. But if the ruins the whole point of the holiday for some then go right ahead and don't celebrate it.

And really what was the point of this? Ypu sound like some high school kid who just goggled this and found out and thought it was relevant. Jeez.

Lutz...:lol:

If your going to throw something or someone under the bus..you should know a bit more about the topic..or you come off as an ignorant fool..but again it's for the Lutz..so no need to go further..

Why is it that when Christians do it they're just expressing their beliefs, but when another group playing by the same rules does it to promote their message they're "trolling" or being "dicks" or "shoving it down people's throats"? It's this double standard that I take issue with. As if somehow non-Christians are not deserving of the same right to speech as Christians are.

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

How dare they use the space they purchased in the manner they see fit!

whipassmt

You could make the same argument for the churches that were buying the spots to promote their message. Would not their money be better spend helping people as well? And, afterall, Christians have a moral obligation to help those in need.

Why is it that when Christians do it they're just expressing their beliefs, but when another group playing by the same rules does it to promote their message they're "trolling" or being "dicks" or "shoving it down people's throats"? It's this double standard that I take issue with. As if somehow non-Christians are not deserving of the same right to speech as Christians are.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

How dare they use the space they purchased in the manner they see fit!

worlock77

You could make the same argument for the churches that were buying the spots to promote their message. Would not their money be better spend helping people as well? And, afterall, Christians have a moral obligation to help those in need.

And I know what you're going to say: but legally they have a right to do it. I get that. We all get it. But do you really have no problem with what happened here? I sound like a huge hippie right now but: can't we all just get along?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

You're implying I'm a christan. I love this. Conclusions drawn right away.

Besides if it was a nativity scene on public land atheists would cry for it to get taken down as well.

Simple fact is that these people knew what they were doing to another group of people. It doesn't matter what you label the groups.

sonicare

Didn't imply you were a Christian, impled you were part of the group that regularly argues on the Christian side here in OT.

Public ground isn't supposed to be used for religious purposes. I would say the same thing about a minorah, a statue of the Buddha, or one of Ganesh.

Christians don't own the right to ad space just because they've been buying it for a long time, and neither does anyone else. No one's stopping them from doing anything, they just have to *gasp* change their arrangments slightly and *double gasp* allow other people to use the ad space to express their beliefs.

would you call this spiteful?

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Why is it that when Christians do it they're just expressing their beliefs, but when another group playing by the same rules does it to promote their message they're "trolling" or being "dicks" or "shoving it down people's throats"? It's this double standard that I take issue with. As if somehow non-Christians are not deserving of the same right to speech as Christians are.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] well they may have the legal right to do so, but don't you think the money would've been better spent on helping poor people rather than buying property in order to prevent Nativity Scenes from being displayed?

limpbizkit818

You could make the same argument for the churches that were buying the spots to promote their message. Would not their money be better spend helping people as well? And, afterall, Christians have a moral obligation to help those in need.

And I know what you're going to say: but legally they have a right to do it. I get that. We all get it. But do you really have no problem with what happened here? I sound like a huge hippie right now but: can't we all just get along?

In what manner were they insulting the Christians? What does it matter how long the church had been using that space? The space does not belong to them and someone else rented it. How was it childish?

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Oh, now they're ruining traditions? What happened to all that "it's a free country, they can choose to not let it affet them," stuff?

Wasdie

I would say 60 years of doing it would be considered a "tradition" in the area...

I don't know where this whole "free country" nonsense you spouted came from.

I'm not even a christian but I call out a dick move when I see one.

So i take it what they did was legal?

Meh, i sympathize more with atheists so my question is moot anyway.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Didn't imply you were a Christian, impled you were part of the group that regularly argues on the Christian side here in OT.

Public ground isn't supposed to be used for religious purposes. I would say the same thing about a minorah, a statue of the Buddha, or one of Ganesh.

Christians don't own the right to ad space just because they've been buying it for a long time, and neither does anyone else. No one's stopping them from doing anything, they just have to *gasp* change their arrangments slightly and *double gasp* allow other people to use the ad space to express their beliefs.

theone86

Could be to get equal representation. I think the messages themselves might be a little aggressive, but as far as just having more than one message advertised I see no problem.

If they were just buying whatever ad space or ad location to get an intended message out, then I have absolutely no problem. If they outbid the other group, that's justhow things go. But if they were just buying up this space to prevent some other group from doing their normal routine, then that's kind of a dick move.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You could make the same argument for the churches that were buying the spots to promote their message. Would not their money be better spend helping people as well? And, afterall, Christians have a moral obligation to help those in need.

worlock77

And I know what you're going to say: but legally they have a right to do it. I get that. We all get it. But do you really have no problem with what happened here? I sound like a huge hippie right now but: can't we all just get along?

In what manner were they insulting the Christians? What does it matter how long the church had been using that space? The space does not belong to them and someone else rented it. How was it childish?

it is childish because christians will find offensive and insulting and many more negative adjectives anything that is not pro christianity, they feel even though the move was completely legal there is an unspoken law christians have extra rights to the land because "its been there for x time".

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"] True, but it's still a dick move if you are specifically buying the space simply to spite the other group.

sonicare

Could be to get equal representation. I think the messages themselves might be a little aggressive, but as far as just having more than one message advertised I see no problem.

If they were just buying whatever ad space or ad location to get an intended message out, then I have absolutely no problem. If they outbid the other group, that's justhow things go. But if they were just buying up this space to prevent some other group from doing their normal routine, then that's kind of a dick move.

Eh from what I gather from the article (most of it required me to sign up, nothin doing), a ton of churches in the area all had their own individual nativity scenes. Seems a bit excessive, I really don't feel all that bad seeing as how they can still have multiple nativity scenes. I think that perhaps a more tasteful message, though, would be to use the different spaces to depict different faiths, they could include a humanistic display.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

You could make the same argument for the churches that were buying the spots to promote their message. Would not their money be better spend helping people as well? And, afterall, Christians have a moral obligation to help those in need.

And I know what you're going to say: but legally they have a right to do it. I get that. We all get it. But do you really have no problem with what happened here? I sound like a huge hippie right now but: can't we all just get along?

In what manner were they insulting the Christians? What does it matter how long the church had been using that space? The space does not belong to them and someone else rented it. How was it childish?

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Could be to get equal representation. I think the messages themselves might be a little aggressive, but as far as just having more than one message advertised I see no problem.

If they were just buying whatever ad space or ad location to get an intended message out, then I have absolutely no problem. If they outbid the other group, that's justhow things go. But if they were just buying up this space to prevent some other group from doing their normal routine, then that's kind of a dick move.

Eh from what I gather from the article (most of it required me to sign up, nothin doing), a ton of churches in the area all had their own individual nativity scenes. Seems a bit excessive, I really don't feel all that bad seeing as how they can still have multiple nativity scenes. I think that perhaps a more tasteful message, though, would be to use the different spaces to depict different faiths, they could include a humanistic display.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

If they were just buying whatever ad space or ad location to get an intended message out, then I have absolutely no problem. If they outbid the other group, that's justhow things go. But if they were just buying up this space to prevent some other group from doing their normal routine, then that's kind of a dick move.

sonicare

Eh from what I gather from the article (most of it required me to sign up, nothin doing), a ton of churches in the area all had their own individual nativity scenes. Seems a bit excessive, I really don't feel all that bad seeing as how they can still have multiple nativity scenes. I think that perhaps a more tasteful message, though, would be to use the different spaces to depict different faiths, they could include a humanistic display.

Well, it wouldn't be going after Christianity so much as breaking the Christian monopoly these nativity scenes seem to have. Some faiths are atheistic, Buddhism doesn't require a belief in a deity and Taoism's deity might actually not be a deity at all. It would require portraying some non-atheistic beliefs, but then you just get back into the point of pushing beliefs, which I don't really advocate. That and I think it would take the high ground away. If there was a space where all the major religions had representation and the Christians got bent out of shape over it I think it would really make them look like pricks, but because this group decided they were simply going to push their own agenda that was also excluding other religions they're not doing a whole lot more than stirring the pot.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

How dare they use the space they purchased in the manner they see fit!

Ncsoftlover

The money from any religious institution used to promote their thing, can also be used to help poors.

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

[QUOTE="whipassmt"] well they may have the legal right to do so, but don't you think the money would've been better spent on helping poor people rather than buying property in order to prevent Nativity Scenes from being displayed?

whipassmt

The money from any religious institution used to promote their thing, can also be used to help poors.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Ncsoftlover"]

The money from any religious institution used to promote their thing, can also be used to help poors.

Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] And the Churches do help the poor quite a bit.

whipassmt

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] after filling their pockets.Nibroc420

Please try to be a bit honest in your arguments. Save the Children is not affiliated with any Christian organization.

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Not most of them. Maybe a few. Most Churches are actually in poor financial conditions.

worlock77

Please try to be a bit honest in your arguments. Save the Children is not affiliated with any Christian organization.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] after filling their pockets.Nibroc420

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Not most of them. Maybe a few. Most Churches are actually in poor financial conditions.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Really? Can you support your claims with evidence? Last i heard ~$0.20 of each Dollar you give to Christian "Save the children" funds actually goes to the children.Frame_Dragger

And the Vatican has less money than you think, Pope Benedict XV gave most of the Vatican's money away after WWI to help the victims of that war. By the Way the annual Vatican budget is five times smaller than that of Harvard or Yale.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] if the Churches are so rich as you claim why have so many churches and parochial schools shut down?

And the Vatican has less money than you think, Pope Benedict XV gave most of the Vatican's money away after WWI to help the victims of that war. By the Way the annual Vatican budget is five times smaller than that of Harvard or Yale.

What a bunch of dicks, those christians.... spreading false claims that Jesus's mother was a virgin when that was actually just a mistranslation in the bible.Brean24

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Really? Can you support your claims with evidence? Last i heard ~$0.20 of each Dollar you give to Christian "Save the children" funds actually goes to the children.Nibroc420

Please try to be a bit honest in your arguments. Save the Children is not affiliated with any Christian organization.

Perhaps you should not use the name of a specific organization if you do not wish to imply that specific organization. And quoting your entire post is not quoting out of context.

Wow.:| A tradition for California for 60 years has been 14 stands displaying the birth of baby Jesus, and now some a-hole atheist group bought out all but two to convince people how much of a "myth" it is. Kind of sad, really. Here's the link: http://www.sddt.com/News/article.cfm?SourceCode=20111213cb&_t=Atheist+messages+displace+park+nativity+scenes

the_plan_man

So what??? Believe it or not, not everyone wants Jesus shoved in their face. I say good for California.

[QUOTE="Brean24"]What a bunch of dicks, those christians.... spreading false claims that Jesus's mother was a virgin when that was actually just a mistranslation in the bible.GreenPatchSky

My guess is it wasn't from Joseph, hence the story about god getting her pregnant. Joseph, being the sucker that he was, bought it and told all the neighbors. Now you've got Mary faced with the decision of either playing along or losing her husband, which was a much bigger deal back in those days, so she played along, and before you know it her little pregnancy fib has become the basis for a religion with billions of followers. Let this be a lesson to you kids, don't lie about your unplanned pregnancies. Oh, and use birth control.

I'm tired of these christian groups pushing their agendas on all of us. I'm tired of these atheist groups pushing their agendas on all of us. You know what nihilists push on people? Nothing. Because that what they believe in, and they're probably right. I demand an end to billboards.

How dare they use their own property however they want to.

How dare they use their own property however they want to.

789shadow

I'm tired of these christian groups pushing their agendas on all of us. I'm tired of these atheist groups pushing their agendas on all of us. You know what nihilists push on people? Nothing. Because that what they believe in, and they're probably right. I demand an end to billboards.

sonicare

I actually agree with this last sentence, and not because of what these religious people are doing, but rather because I f*cking hate advertising in general.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

I'm tired of these christian groups pushing their agendas on all of us. I'm tired of these atheist groups pushing their agendas on all of us. You know what nihilists push on people? Nothing. Because that what they believe in, and they're probably right. I demand an end to billboards.

I actually agree with this last sentence, and not because of what these religious people are doing, but rather because I f*cking hate advertising in general.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Because the catholic church has and continues to be all about centralizing wealth in the Vatican.Frame_Dragger

And the Vatican has less money than you think, Pope Benedict XV gave most of the Vatican's money away after WWI to help the victims of that war. By the Way the annual Vatican budget is five times smaller than that of Harvard or Yale.

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] The Vatican doesn't get money from the local churches besides what people donate.

And the Vatican has less money than you think, Pope Benedict XV gave most of the Vatican's money away after WWI to help the victims of that war. By the Way the annual Vatican budget is five times smaller than that of Harvard or Yale.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] That's laughable as hell, and ignores one word: "ASSETS"Frame_Dragger

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"][QUOTE="whipassmt"] Assets? you mean the Church buildings?

whipassmt

You seem to have lost track of this debate in a short period of time.

if the Churches are so rich as you claim why have so many churches and parochial schools shut down?whipassmt

Because the catholic church has and continues to be all about centralizing wealth in the Vatican.The Vatican doesn't get money from the local churches besides what people donate.Frame_Dragger

And the Vatican has less money than you think, Pope Benedict XV gave most of the Vatican's money away after WWI to help the victims of that war. By the Way the annual Vatican budget is five times smaller than that of Harvard or Yale.Whipassmt

That's laughable as hell, and ignores one word: "ASSETS"Frame_Dragger

The point is that if the Vatican wanted to increase their liquidity, or even invest more heavily it would be no problem. As it stands, the budget is low because of the very point I've made; they centralize wealth and tend to distribute it poorly. A budget describes both income and expenditures; The CC doesn't need to have much income because it's already flush with valuable assets and has a steady income/tax breaks which support it. Rather than liquidate assets which represent centralized wealth to support outlying dioceses/parishes, they simply allow them to act indipidentaly (read: die).

Nasty vindictive people is all I have to say. How sad that their beliefs are so weak that they have to attack others.

[QUOTE="whipassmt"]

[QUOTE="Frame_Dragger"] Highly valuable art... books... property... and much more.Frame_Dragger

You seem to have lost track of this debate in a short period of time.

if the Churches are so rich as you claim why have so many churches and parochial schools shut down?whipassmt

Because the catholic church has and continues to be all about centralizing wealth in the Vatican.The Vatican doesn't get money from the local churches besides what people donate.Frame_Dragger

And the Vatican has less money than you think, Pope Benedict XV gave most of the Vatican's money away after WWI to help the victims of that war. By the Way the annual Vatican budget is five times smaller than that of Harvard or Yale.Whipassmt

That's laughable as hell, and ignores one word: "ASSETS"Frame_Dragger

The point is that if the Vatican wanted to increase their liquidity, or even invest more heavily it would be no problem. As it stands, the budget is low because of the very point I've made; they centralize wealth and tend to distribute it poorly. A budget describes both income and expenditures; The CC doesn't need to have much income because it's already flush with valuable assets and has a steady income/tax breaks which support it. Rather than liquidate assets which represent centralized wealth to support outlying dioceses/parishes, they simply allow them to act indipidentaly (read: die).

As for the Budget of the Vatican City it is generally around $320 million (I think the latest figure is for 2007), which is less than the amount of money the Federal and State governments give to Planned Parenthood. Most Donations to the Holy See go to Peter's Pence (The U.S. is the biggest donor, followed by Italy and Germany) which supports the various charities of the Pope.

Oh and the Vatican does not receive tax breaks as it is a sovereign state and sovereign states are not taxed by or subjected to other states.

Nasty vindictive people is all I have to say. How sad that their beliefs are so weak that they have to attack others.

peter1191

[QUOTE="peter1191"]

Nasty vindictive people is all I have to say. How sad that their beliefs are so weak that they have to attack others.

MannyDelgado

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="peter1191"]

Nasty vindictive people is all I have to say. How sad that their beliefs are so weak that they have to attack others.

whipassmt