Vandalism/destruction #s of christian displays on govt. ground versus non-christian?

Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Explorer, Dec 24, 2015.

  1. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Who was it claiming that Abbott wasn't supporting one or more of the 20,000 versions of christianity by illegally ordering the other seasonal display to be taken down? Abbott's at it again, supporting yet another 1st Amendment violation: Texas Gov. Greg Abbott backs crosses on police cars - San Antonio Express-News

    According spokesman John Wittman, the governor’s position is “[t]he Constitution demands respect for religious expression rather than hostility towards it and Governor Abbott fully supports Sheriff Dodson’s decision to allow his deputies to display the Cross on their patrol vehicles.”

    Wow talk about ignorance. First, The Constitution in now way demands respect for any mythology, let alone his subjective interpretation of his preferred version, of the over 20,000 versions of christianity. Second, the crosses are a clear, undeniable 1st Amendment violation. Third, keeping the government neutral is not a hostile act against, or persecution of, the versions of christianity that agree with Abbott's subjective beliefs.
     
  2. ElRay

    ElRay Mostly Harmless

    Messages:
    3,171
    Likes Received:
    436
    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2006
    Location:
    NoIL
    Dude, your reading comprehension is abysmally poor, and your tolerance for cognitive dissonance is phenomenally high.

    The only one proclaiming nonsense, denying reality, tap-dancing around the facts, diverting, etc. is you. Talk about a bad case of projection.

    You claim not to be a christian, but your irrational behavior and insistence, despite the facts, that Abbott did not abuse his position and violate The Constitution, is indistinguishable from any other irrational rant by a christian.

    The facts are:
    • The Constitutioanal Navity scene was setup in accordance with all the requirements for displays
    • Abbott has ZERO authority to demand that the display be taken down
    • Abbott LIED about "educational" and other requirements in his justification for removal
    • Abbott demenaded his made-up reqirements be applied to the Secular display, but hypocritically did not requre the christian display to follow the same false requirements
    • Abbott LIED about statements from and about The Founding Fathers
    • Abbott has a history of supporting 1st Amendment violations, in addition to his own personal violations
     
  3. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    231
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    Says my reading comprehension is "abysmally poor" and goes on to put words in my mouth. :rolleyes:

    Pretty sure I've said, over and over, that whether he violated the constitution is for the courts to decide, should FFRF sue.

    How about instead of raging at me on a guitar forum, you help FFRF figure out their legal options. I'm sure they'd appreciate your expert analyses & insight. :yesway:
     
  4. estabon37

    estabon37 Melodica Attack!

    Messages:
    628
    Likes Received:
    67
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2008
    Location:
    Fury Lane (it's quieter than Fury Road)
    First up, thanks for finally responding directly to one of my questions. A big chunk of your posting in this thread consists of dismissing the claims of others in detail, and making claims of your own with little support. This is the first time you've tried to actually support the claim that the FFRF nativity is a mockery, and it would have made the conversation much easier much earlier if I'd had this knowledge when you first made the claim.

    So, it seems that replacing the Jesus character specifically is what makes it a mockery. Pig-Jesus is fine; Stormtrooper-Jesus is fine; Bacon-Jesus is fine; Constitution-Jesus is not acceptable. I'm still a little lost. And while I disagree that this analogy is false (at worst, it focuses on a side-issue instead of the central argument), I'm happy to move back to the prop in question and the context in question.

    The prop in question is obviously deliberately provocative, but that doesn't in itself make it a mockery. If you can see that replacing Jesus with a Stormtrooper isn't an overt attempt to offend Christians (even though you could choose to interpret it as saying that Jesus is a representative of an evil Empire), surely you can see that replacing Jesus with the Bill of Rights might have been intended as a positive message (because you could choose to interpret it as saying that the Bill of Rights was created by a more powerful and ethical force than the average person in the interests of saving and protecting everybody). Yes, the prop in question was designed to elicit a response from people that saw it, and yes, that includes prompting critical thought from Christians regarding the values that all of these figures represent.

    Those that are taking offense, those that are claiming mockery, are by and large making the claim without qualification. They are claiming to be offended because when it comes to religious and spiritual matters, they tend to get what they want without having to justify their reasoning. I know why people were upset when Prince Harry dressed up as a Nazi. I know why people were upset when five dudes did blackface on Australian commercial TV in 2009. There are obvious historical and cultural markers and efforts to educate people around these events, and it's totally understandable when offense is taken. There is nothing inherently offensive about the FFRF nativity. Not one individual element included in the display is offensive, and the claim that it becomes offensive when those elements are brought together should be explained, not just used as a means of shutting down a message that distracts from (not even contradicts) a mainstream message.

    At the end of the day, it seems that Abbott and others in power in the Texas legislature are using their status to shut down a message they don't like. It's not quite censorship, but it's pretty damn close. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights supports freedom of expression, freedom of religion (including freedom from religion), and features the Establishment Clause, effectively banning governments from favouring one religion over another. The only reason the FFRF created their display is because a private group already received permission to create a Christian nativity for the public building.

    You've implied over the last few posts that those that have a problem with Abbott and his cohort are deflecting and obfuscating on the issue, despite the fact that you repeatedly trash the stances of others and then refuse to take a stance of your own because "it's up to the courts to decide". In other words, you're baiting and deflecting. You also brought up the relative futility of going to this level of trouble on a forum instead of doing something about it in the 'real world'. Thanks for the advice; I'm going to make a donation to the FFRF, being that I don't live in the US, and can't contribute in any direct sense.

    Thanks for the interesting discussion, but at this point, you've not really contributed much of value, and more antagonism than I would normally bother with, and it doesn't seem that's going to change.

    In any case, it'll be interesting to see how the story pans out.
     
  5. Explorer

    Explorer He seldomly knows...

    Messages:
    6,393
    Likes Received:
    970
    Joined:
    May 23, 2009
    Location:
    Formerly from Cucaramacatacatirimilcote...
    It's funny to complain about someone else discussing these issues on a guitar forum... when one is guilty of discussing these issues on a guitar forum.

    Insight just can't be bestowed on someone about how humorous that is, if one lacks such insight to begin with.
     
  6. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    231
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    Explorer putting words in my mouth. Where have I dealt with that before? :rolleyes:

    Raging at someone with personal attacks =/= discussing issues.
     
  7. sevenstringj

    sevenstringj Banned

    Messages:
    3,061
    Likes Received:
    231
    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Location:
    ny
    Only questions you asked prior to the last one were rhetorical. Of course I'm not going to directly answer them, by definition. :lol: Though I did address them. Just because my replies are shorter than yours doesn't mean I'm not backing up my claims. I could flip that theory but I'll refrain. :)

    Pig jesus in the context of pig people isn't mocking christianity. The whole scene is anthropomorphic and conveys the concept that jesus was god's son & savior. So it's a false analogy. And I did explain how the "individual elements coming together" in FFRF's prop constitute a mockery of christianity. Just because you can find a way to interpret it another way, doesn't mean the mockery is absent. I've BEEN saying that it both promotes the bill of rights AND mocks christianity. There are plenty atheist props, like the beer can festivus pole :lol: or this extensive display in Nebraska's capitol, that don't specifically lampoon christianity. This wasn't one of them.

    A layman exercising caution on a complex legal issue isn't baiting or deflecting. It's being reasonable. FFRF is "weighing their legal options."

    And as far as contributing, let's not forget that we're only talking about the actual substance of this scenario because I provided links to the full story & Abbotts letter, whereas the op deliberately obscured it so he can complain about a "persecution" as hyperbolic as the sort he accuses christians of complaining about and bait people into pointless arguments over it. You're welcome.
     

Share This Page