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



## Explorer (Dec 24, 2015)

I'm always fascinated by the narrative spun by some about claimed persecution of christians in the US, especially when the "persecution" is just that other groups are given the same rights as christians.

One of the biggest indicators of who is attempting to suppress whom can be found in court cases regarding someone of one belief system attempting to impose their religious beliefs upon others. I don't believe there is more than a handful wherein the person imposing the beliefs is *not* a christian. 

This year, now that more groups have had more success setting up non-christian displays alongside nativity scenes in and on government-owned spaces, I've been watching various news stories regarding vandalisms and outright removals. 

And it's looking like the groups and individuals targeting one type of display over another only target non-christian displays. 

I know that some claim that such facts contain some kind of antichristian bias, but that implicates *all* christians as being violence-prone and intolerant, which is not the case, just as it's not the case for muslims.

But there are definitely extremists who are against the American values of free speech, and who perceive the Constitution to be their enemy. 

In one good example, Texas governor Abbott ordered a display honoring the Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights removed from a government buiding because it was offensive to him, while leaving up a nativity scene. 

----

Although I don't think it is possible to change the minds of those who hate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, I do think it's worthwhile to call out such behavior. Calling attention to those who oppose (whether openly or from the shadows) freedom of speech and religion for Americans helps others make decisions about whether they also support getting rid of the Bill of Rights and its freedoms. 

And that makes it harder for enemies of the Constitution to use religious freedom as camouflage for their actions. 

----

Anyway, I've been keeping an eye on news reports about how non-christian displays have been fariing this year, and also about those places where rather than allow non-christian displays to have equal access, christians in government have shut down *all* access while blaming non-christians for wanting that equal speech. 

And, given that there are many more christian displays on government grounds than non-christian, it stands to reason that if the persecution narrative is true and not just camouflage, then there must be more cases of christian persecution to outweigh the non-christian persecution. 

I welcome stories of where christian displays were vandalized or removed while leaving up displays from other religions unharmed. 

If they don't exist... that's pretty telling.


----------



## SeditiousDissent (Dec 24, 2015)

Goddamn, dude. Why do you constantly have a major hard on for ....ting on christians?


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 24, 2015)

What is the percentage of Christians in the U.S. Relative to the total population?


----------



## Explorer (Dec 24, 2015)

SeditiousDissent said:


> Goddamn, dude. Why do you constantly have a major hard on for ....ting on christians?



Hmm. 

So, using your logic, talking about racists like the KKK lynching blacks is denigrating all white people, or talking about the Nazi Holocaust is denigrating all Germans. 

I wish you hadn't skipped the part where I pointed out that fallacy before you pulled it out. 



Explorer said:


> I know that *some claim that such facts contain some kind of antichristian bias, but that implicates *all* christians as being violence-prone and intolerant, which is not the case, just as it's not the case for muslims.*
> 
> But there are definitely extremists who are against the American values of free speech, and who perceive the Constitution to be their enemy.



Could you explain why you think that criticism of those who are violence-prone and intolerant should be extended to cover those who are not?

If you can't think of a reason to apply criticism of violence and intolerance to those who aren't actually engaging in those actions... why are you attempting to apply my criticism of such to those who are innocent of such? That just seems ill-considered. 

I'm genuinely curious, assuming you're up to defending your extension of the guilt to innocent parties. 



chaneisa said:


> What is the percentage of Christians in the U.S. Relative to the total population?



According to Gallup, in 2008, membership in christian religions was at 80.6%, in non-christian religions at 5.1%, and non-religious at 14.6%. As of 12/20/2015, the numbers are now at 75.2% for christian, 5.% for non-christian, and 19.6% for non-religious. 

Which would mean that for every four non-christian display removed from government space or vandalized, there should be one christian display treated the same... assuming that such groups have the same percentages of potentially intolerant and violent people. 

And that's why I welcome stories of where christian displays were vandalized or removed while leaving up displays from other religions unharmed. Again, if they don't exist... that's pretty telling.


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 24, 2015)

Except I'm sure that such situations exist. I'm just saying that it's similar to saying that colorblindness is more common in right-handed people. There's more right-handed people, so it's a semi-skewed sample. Yes, there's bound to me more situations regarding Christians doing something like that than non-Christians, because there's a much lower number of non-Christians. Christians as a whole are not intolerant and violent, and saying that it's telling of Christians is just as skewed. Searching the internet I find a much higher ratio of atheist to Christians attacking the other, but that doesn't speak to all atheists. Just as those intolerant Christians, do not speak to all Christians.


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 24, 2015)

And while I know you said you're not stating anything negative about Christians as a whole, stating that a lack of opposite stories is "pretty telling" IS applying negativity to all Christians. Which, given you're intentionally doing so, makes you as intolerant as you claim them to be.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 24, 2015)

chaneisa said:


> ...Yes, there's bound to me more situations regarding Christians doing something like that than non-Christians, because there's a much lower number of non-Christians. Christians as a whole are not intolerant and violent, and saying that it's telling of Christians is just as skewed. *Searching the internet I find a much higher ratio of atheist to Christians attacking the other*, but that doesn't speak to all atheists. Just as those intolerant Christians, do not speak to all Christians.



First off, i noted that these people did not represent all christians. I even stated my thought that these extremists are merely using christianity as camouflage for their bigotry.

You made an assertion that you have just what I'm looking for. Could you post the counterexamples, wherein atheists are attempting to remove all voices but their own from government spaces?

Or, do you mean that atheists are criticizing christianity in greater numbers than christians have been attacking those who don't live according to the christians' beliefs... like the whole opposition to equal rights for LGBT citizens? (Gee, aren't there even presidential candidates who have argued against non-christians?)



chaneisa said:


> And while I know you said you're not stating anything negative about Christians as a whole, stating that a lack of opposite stories is "pretty telling" IS applying negativity to all Christians. Which, given you're intentionally doing so, *makes you as intolerant as you claim them to be*.



I pointed out (in the Orson Scott Card topic, and in others) that some attempt to claim that intolerance of bigotry is also bigotry, or attempt to handwave away the difference between bigotry and intolerance of bigotry.

Using your example, those who were intolerant of the KKK lynching blacks were just as intolerant as the KKK, and America's intolerance of the Nazis' attempts to exterminate the Jews made America just as intolerant of the Nazis.

Is that really the best case you can make?

I'm not destroying anything, or stating that my viewpoint should be the only one allowed in government spaces, so your claim equating those two different approaches is badly supported.


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 24, 2015)

You misread. I didn't say that you being intolerant of that specific group of people makes you as bad as them, I said being intolerant of the group as a whole because of that small group makes you just as bad as that small group. Also, I didn't state that atheists were trying to remove all but there own voices from government spaces. I said that just looking about the Internet, I see more atheists attacking Christians, but that doesn't speak to atheists as a whole. Read that last bit. You're nitpicking pieces of a statement, and using those for your argument, out of context.


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 24, 2015)

Also, I'm not being aggressive or in any way argumentative. I'm being conversational and posing a point. Where you are being passive aggressive and doing exactly that.


----------



## chaneisa (Dec 24, 2015)

I will restate that I know you said that you were not speaking to Christians as a whole, but to an extreme group. But, you're statement of saying that a lack of counter arguments is "pretty telling" is implicative that you are speaking against them as a whole.


----------



## Action (Dec 26, 2015)

I don't think that most sources for reports of vandalism are going to be consistent with how much vandalism actually happens (all vandalism, actually, not just religious). I fear you're not going to approach the real story, even if you had a database of police reports. It is the nature of vandalism, that a lot of it goes unreported. At the same time, I imagine the media, and those who absorb it, find it much more newsworthy when a non-christian display is vandalized, and would be more apt to report it as something less typical. How do we compensate for any of that? So, I don't think anything telling can be learned here. Even a small amount of intolerant and/or intentionally disrespectful people is enough to explain all instances of religious vandalism.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 27, 2015)

Action said:


> At the same time, I imagine the media, and those who absorb it, find it much more newsworthy when a non-christian display is vandalized, and would be more apt to report it as something less typical.



I'm not so sure. A church being vandalized sounds exactly like the kind of thing the media would report on to get those precious clicks.

I know this isn't really a high-quality scientific metric or anything, but I did I google search to see how many results I got for each of the following searches:

Non-christian display vandalized. 152k results
Non-religious display vandalized. 195k results
Synagogue vandalized. 360k results
Mosque vandalized. 364k results 
Church vandalized. 487k results
Religious display vandalized 736k results

Of course, there are other things to consider here. Some of the results for "Church vandalized" were for Satanic or Luciferian churches, and obviously there are likely far more churches and religious displays out there than the opposite, so even if vandalization of them is under reported, a small percentage of vandalizations reported could still outnumber the entirety of non-religious vandalizations.

I don't really have any thought on what Explorer is or isn't trying to say here, I just don't really think the part of your post I quoted is very likely to be the case.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 27, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I'm not so sure. A church being vandalized sounds exactly like the kind of thing the media would report on to get those precious clicks.
> 
> I know this isn't really a high-quality scientific metric or anything, but I did I google search to see how many results I got for each of the following searches:
> 
> ...



But you didn't give any evidence either way. And as far as what Explorer is or isn't trying to say...

Atheist 'Nativity' Removed from Texas State Capitol

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/12/22/abbottsneed122215aas.pdf

...what he's not telling you is more important than what he is telling you. Ironically, that stunt implies the founding fathers thought the bill of rights is holy; probably not what the "Freedom From Religion Foundation" intended. 

This whole thread is based off a dishonest spin of that 1 story. That no one bothered to look it up is what's really "telling" here. That the op continues to cherry pick and spin it--and even equivocates it with muslim fundamentalists KILLING people--is also telling...


----------



## Explorer (Dec 27, 2015)

I was surprised at Texas Governor Abbott ordering a non-christian display removed from the Texas State Capital building while leaving a nativity in place in the same government building. He was very direct in his statements about havng done it for religious reasons.

That led me to wonder if there were any instances where only non-christian holiday displays were allowed based on religious discrimination.

----

I also had been watching stories of where, having won the right to have a parallel display, non-christian displays on government grounds were vandalized.

It just seemed a bit one-sided when it came to displays on government property, contradicting the persecution narrative which is invoked by parts of the population.

Last year or the year before, i had a topic asking for examples of where christians were stopped from putting up displays based on their religion while other groups were allowed to do so. This year, there is only one place I'm aware of where christians didn't apply early enough for a space, but that wasn't based on their faith, but purely on their only submitting an application months after submissions were accepted, and the christians assuming that they would get preference on their late application.

----

In any case, it looks like yet another year has passed with no examples to support the persecution narrative, and multiple counterexamples to show that the persecution (as defined by those pushing the narrative) is actually against non-christians.

Edit:

Here's a news story about the removal by governor Abbott.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/12/22/freedom-religion-display-ordered-removed-capitol/

Here's the display.






Here's the nativity.






Here's Abbott's words about the display which educates about church/state separation:



> &#8220;The Constitution does not require Texas to allow displays in its Capitol that violate general standards of decency and intentionally disrespect the beliefs and values of many of our fellow Texans,&#8221; Abbott wrote.
> 
> The display is offensive, doesn&#8217;t serve a public purpose and doesn&#8217;t educate anyone, he wrote."



The Freedom from Religion Foundation had previously used just this same display in another state capital, where it was stolen.



> The Freedom From Religion Foundation, a Madison, Wisconsin-based nonprofit organization that describes itself as dedicated to promoting &#8220;the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.&#8221;



One more bit.



> The (Texas) display was originally permitted because it was sponsored by state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin. Howard said she found out about its removal Tuesday afternoon. &#8220;I was told by someone that the governor had ordered it be removed,&#8221; she said. The decision, she said, is disappointing, especially since many state leaders have raised concerns about freedom of religion and freedom of expression.



So, now there is the story with pictures, the sponsorship and approval of the alternate display using the established process, and the offense taken by someone who decided to take action based on his faith instead of his oath of office. 

Me personally? I'm very much against religionists who take action against things which they offensive against their faith, which allows me to easily be consistent with my reaction against both this kind of stuff and the shootings at Charlie Hebdo... but am willing to hear arguments justifying such on the part of christians while arguing against such actions by, say, muslims.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 28, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> But you didn't give any evidence either way.



Well, no _scientific_ evidence, no , and I admitted as much.

I wasn't trying to definitively prove anything. I just saw dude say that news outlets would be more likely to report on vandalism of non-religious displays than of religious ones, which didn't sound right to me, so I checked the interwebz to see what I could find more reports on. 

I don't think I've proven anything beyond the shadow of a doubt, but what I found certainly supports my thoughts on the matter more than the original statement. I'm of course more than open to being proven wrong.

Or were you saying I pulled those numbers out of my ass and gave no evidence? If that's the case, I'm happy to report that my research can be easily and quickly repeated by anyone with the internet.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 28, 2015)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I just saw dude say that news outlets would be more likely to report on vandalism of non-religious displays than of religious ones



No, that's not what you saw. Scroll back up.  And since your google searches evidence nothing either way--you even threw in a bunch of death knell caveats--there's no need for anyone to repeat them. We believe you. 

This is all diversion. The real story is atheists put up a display in a govt building that simultaneously promotes the 1st amendment and mocks christianity, the governor had it removed, and the organization that put it up is weighing its legal options. The *rational*  thing to do is simply wait and see if they have a case and win, and put aside the high drama about enemies of the constitution or whos being persecuted more or drawing lines to massacres


----------



## Explorer (Dec 28, 2015)

Sevenstringj, do you think it's possible that the FFRF has had more than one successful lawsuit in this kind of case?

Just as an aside, my grandfather the attorney would always advise against asking a question to which you don't know the answer in court. 

That aside leads to my second question: Do you think *I* know about the FFRF being successful in various actions against government officials who tried to impose their own religious beliefs while keeping other beliefs out of government buildings and ceremonies?

Would the existence of such cases make you change your stated position that this is just "high drama" and not actually happening? Or would evidence have no effect on your stance?


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 28, 2015)

I love how you're the one who obscured what really happened in this case so you can indulge in drama & drag people into worthless arguments until *I* posted links to the actual situation, and now you wanna pretend that my position is it's "not actually happening."


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 28, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> No, that's not what you saw. Scroll back up.







Action said:


> At the same time, I imagine the media, and those who absorb it, find it much more newsworthy when a non-christian display is vandalized, and would be more apt to report it as something less typical.



Am I reading that wrong? Is that not saying that the media is more likely to report vandalization of non-christian displays? Or at least that it's more likely to report them as being less typical? Is that distinction the thing that's making you think I'm off base here? I'm not arguing to be difficult or because I disagree with your side or agree with Explorer here. I really have no dog whatsoever in this fight, I'm just talking about that one point, completely apart from whatever the rest of the thread's about. 




sevenstringj said:


> And since your google searches evidence nothing either way--you even threw in a bunch of death knell caveats--there's no need for anyone to repeat them. We believe you.



I dunno, man. I still think being able to find more articles about the vandalization of religious displays than the that of non-religious displays at least suggests that the media is more likely to report on one than the other, even with the "death knell caveats."

Why does it bug you so much that I feel this way? I really don't know what I'm missing here. You usually only go on your tirades against people with whom you disagree on a fundamental point in a thread topic, but as I said, I'm not making any statements either way about the topic of the thread.

Do you disagree that the media is more likely to report vandalization of religious displays? Is that the issue here? Do you think that the bit I quoted from the original post I was discussing isn't suggesting that the media is more likely to report vandalization of non-religious displays?

Seriously, I wish you'd come out and directly say what the issue is here. I'm used to seeing you jump on people that are taking a stance that opposes yours, but this seems to be mostly semantic, and I'd like to know where we're differing on our interpretation of what homeboy originally said.

Do you think you can point that out to me without being condescending or insulting, or pointing out to everyone that google searches aren't real evidence?


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 28, 2015)

Action said:


> I imagine the media, and those who absorb it, find it much more newsworthy when a *non-christian* display is vandalized





Grand Moff Tim said:


> I just saw dude say that news outlets would be more likely to report on vandalism of *non-religious* displays than of religious ones





Grand Moff Tim said:


> Am I reading that wrong?



Yes. "Non-religious" & "non-christian" don't mean the same thing and are not interchangeable. 



Grand Moff Tim said:


> I still think being able to find more articles about the vandalization of religious displays than the that of non-religious displays...


There you go again. [Reagan voice] Besides the fact that your searches are littered with results that are irrelevant to the searches themselves, we're talking about religious displays in public spaces, not churches & mosques & synagogues. You also lumped christian displays into "religious displays," so you're literally not citing anything contrary to what Action said, even though you insist that you are. You also admitted that christian religious displays far outnumber displays of other religions or atheist displays. So even if you found more reports of christian display vandalism/removal, you still don't have any evidence as to whether it's underreported relative to others.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> I wish you'd come out and directly say what the issue is here.


I did. In fact, I was the first to provide a link to the actual story along with a link to gov Abbott's letter in its entirety.



Grand Moff Tim said:


> Do you think you can point that out to me without being condescending or insulting, or pointing out to everyone that google searches aren't real evidence?


I said _your_ google searches aren't evidence of _any_ kind, whether "real" or scientific or otherwise, and explained why. What's condescending & insulting to my intelligence is that you invite us to repeat your useless, straw man google searches. It's hard to see how you're "not arguing to be difficult."

Like I said, these needless arguments and indignation stem from Explorer's spin, not the news story itself. So I suggest everyone just read gov Abbott's letter and keep an eye out for developments. Here's the link again: http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2015/12/22/abbottsneed122215aas.pdf


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Dec 28, 2015)

Ah. I see the problem. I was equating vandalization of religious displays with vandalization of religious_ buildings_. Now I see why you had a problem with what I was saying. See, it'd have been helpful to point that out from the beginning. You weren't being helpful at all before. 

I legitimately didn't see where I was going wrong, but rather than just directly pointing out the conflict, you were an ass about it. Instead of "Actually, you said ______ but he said ______," you gave me "But you didn't give any evidence either way," and "That isn't what you saw, scroll back up ." It was obnoxious and unnecessary.

I'm perfectly willing and able to admit when I'm wrong about something. In this case, I can see that I was. There was absolutely no reason for this sidetrack to have gone on for more than two posts, apart from your apparent need to feel superior to everyone. Not that I expect you to take any of that to heart. Your posting history in here demonstrates a prevailing attitude that's in no danger of changing any time soon.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 29, 2015)

I don't need to feel superior to everyone. Just Rosie O'Donnell. So, point taken.


----------



## Explorer (Dec 30, 2015)

sevenstringj said:


> I love how you're the one who obscured what really happened in this case so you can indulge in drama & drag people into worthless arguments until *I* posted links to the actual situation, and now you wanna pretend that my position is it's "not actually happening."





sevenstringj said:


> I love how you're the one who obscured what really happened in this case so you can indulge in drama & drag people into worthless arguments until *I* posted links to the actual situation, and now you wanna pretend that my position is it's "not actually happening."



Wait... what?

I stated that Governor Abbott ordered the removal of an opposing point of view from government property because it ran counter to his religious beliefs, while leaving the display supporting his religious beliefs in olace.

He even used a manufactured quote, falsely attributed to George Washington, to argue not just against church/state separation, but also the true history of that separation of church and state in the US.

http://ffrf.org/images/abbott-nativity-letter.pdf

How do those facts obscure the lack of examples of christian displays on government property being either vandalized, or ordered to be removed while non-christian displays remain on the same government property? I don't know, but we might have different definitions of "to obscure."

----

Just as a funny datapoint, I had no idea that the "War on Christmas" claims actually go back to Henry Ford, who claimed that the "war" was being waged by the Jews.



> Henry Ford was an avid proponent of the idea that someone&#8212;or more precisely, some group&#8212;was waging a war on Christmas. &#8220;Last Christmas most people had a hard time finding Christmas cards that indicated in any way that Christmas commemorated Someone&#8217;s Birth,&#8221; according to The International Jew: The World&#8217;s Foremost Problem, a widely distributed set of anti-Semitic articles published in the automobile magnate&#8217;s newsweekly during the 1920s. &#8220;People sometimes ask why 3,000,000 Jews can control the affairs of 100,000,000 Americans. In the same way that ten Jewish students can abolish the mention of Christmas and Easter out of schools containing 3,000 Christian pupils.&#8221;



----

sevenstringj, ultimately my point is that there is a beloved but false narrative embraced by many in is country, that there is a war on christmas, but there is much more evidence that there is a war on non-christian beliefs and displays during december, waged by christians. 

That's why I am still waiting on examples from this year of where christian displays were removed while non-christian displays were left up. That seems like low-hanging fruit... at least if the narrative is not a complete fabrication in support of a persecution fantasy.

Wouldn't it be easier to just provide such examples than to argue? That would completely disprove my point. You would be right, and I would be wrong.

Why wouldn't you want that, if such examples exist?

Heck, even *I* would want to increase my knowledge base, and avoid being mistaken in thinking and claiming there aren't examples of exclusively christian displays ordered down on government property in December while leaving up other displays of non-christians.


----------



## sevenstringj (Dec 30, 2015)

We can see what you originally said (and conveniently left out) vs what you're now claiming you said. That's backpedaling (which is ok as long as you're honest about it). And you got some ways to go still.

You continue to misconstrue Abbott's letter. He didn't use that quote to argue against separation of church & state. He used it to show that the founding fathers wouldn't substitute the bill of rights for jesus. And he's right. He gave the wrong reason, but the point is valid: the constitution isn't holy.

No one's bothering with your question because it's disingenuous. This was not simply a case of christian vs non-christian displays. This was a christian religious display vs a display that specifically & overtly mocks christianity. So you gave 1 example that isn't even a valid example of what you're talking about, but you expect counterexamples.  Your other spin was that gov Abbott had it removed because he "hates the constitution and bill of rights." That's for the courts to decide, if the Freedom From Religion Foundation even sues.


----------



## estabon37 (Dec 31, 2015)

On the original post: 

As much as I agree that the existing persecution complex felt by many of the world's Christians is a false and manufactured narrative, I don't see how finding a counter-narrative is going to do anything other than add fuel to the fire. When one thinks the world is out to 'get them', every action undertaken by somebody that isn't 'on their side' is interpreted as an attack. Even if a large counter-narrative existed, I doubt it would sway the opinion of those that feel oppressed, for the same reason that multiple religious counter-narratives (Judaism, Islam, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Pastafarianism, etc...) tend to make them double down on their own faith rather than question it or explore other possibilities. Unfortunately, a stance that is taken largely on the basis of tradition and emotion isn't easily shaken by logic. This is as true of things like ideology and nationalism as it is of religion. Speaking of which ...



sevenstringj said:


> This was not simply a case of christian vs non-christian displays. This was a christian religious display vs a display that specifically & overtly mocks christianity.



If we're talking about the display in the picture earlier in the thread (Statue of Liberty and Winter Solstice), I don't see how it "specifically and overtly *mocks* Christianity". Is it mockery to hold one thing in higher regard than another? Is it mockery to hold secular values of freedom and justice in higher regard than religious values? If we're talking about the holiday season in particular, is it mockery to celebrate holding any kind of values at all in higher regard than the birth of a baby two thousand years ago? 

If the answer to those questions is seriously "Yes, promoting non-Christian ideas and values during Christmas makes a mockery of Christianity", I have to wonder why the vast majority of Christians aren't more upset by the existence of Santa Claus as a character. Every time somebody promotes the story of a jolly red weirdo using magic and elves to give 'free' shit to children it's not only making a mockery (one definition being "an absurd misrepresentation of something") of the Christmas story, it's overtly breaking a commandment by elevating a fictional character to god-like status. This literal mockery has been woven into Western culture so deeply that the first thing most people do on Christmas morning is open their gifts from 'Santa'. 

This is why this 'issue' (not that it's actually a fucking issue) continues in the culture. Every time a Christian is confronted by a non-Christian display it adds to their feeling of being mocked and persecuted, despite the fact that they represent the majority and are usually not being mocked so much as ignored. The display that was taken down was not trying to cater or appeal to Christians; it was intended for secular people that still like to celebrate and have fun at this time of year because what the fuck else is there to do when the religious majority have all gone on holiday? If anything, this will just lead to secular people using the religious loophole to create displays for Satanism and The Flying Spaghetti Monster. Surely this:







Is more worthy of display in public than these:


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 1, 2016)

estabon37 said:


> If we're talking about the display in the picture earlier in the thread (Statue of Liberty and Winter Solstice), I don't see how it "specifically and overtly *mocks* Christianity. Is it mockery to hold one thing in higher regard than another? Is it mockery to hold secular values of freedom and justice in higher regard than religious values? If we're talking about the holiday season in particular, is it mockery to celebrate holding any kind of values at all in higher regard than the birth of a baby two thousand years ago?


Its not just a statue of liberty & winter solstice, its a mock nativity scene. I could answer your rhetorical questions no and not change the fact that it specifically lampoons christianity. The only question is whether its removal was constitutional, and thatd be up to the courts.



estabon37 said:


> If the answer to those questions is seriously "Yes, promoting non-Christian ideas and values during Christmas makes a mockery of Christianity", I have to wonder why the vast majority of Christians aren't more upset by the existence of Santa Claus as a character. Every time somebody promotes the story of a jolly red weirdo using magic and elves to give 'free' shit to children it's not only making a mockery (one definition being "an absurd misrepresentation of something") of the Christmas story, it's overtly breaking a commandment by elevating a fictional character to god-like status. This literal mockery has been woven into Western culture so deeply that the first thing most people do on Christmas morning is open their gifts from 'Santa.


Christians dont worship Santa, so theyre not breaking any commandments or mocking jesus.



estabon37 said:


> If anything, this will just lead to secular people using the religious loophole to create displays for Satanism and The Flying Spaghetti Monster.


Flying Spaghetti Monster On Display At Florida State Capitol Next To Festivus Pole, Nativity Scene 



estabon37 said:


> it was intended for secular people that still like to celebrate and have fun at this time of year because what the fuck else is there to do when the religious majority have all gone on holiday?


 Staring at a cardboard prop in a govt building doesnt sound like fun to me. Id rather go to a christmas party. &#128540;


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 3, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> Its not just a statue of liberty & winter solstice, its a mock nativity scene. I could answer your rhetorical questions no and not change the fact that it specifically lampoons christianity. The only question is whether its removal was constitutional, and thatd be up to the courts.



You assume that the point of the 'nativity' is to lampoon Christianity more so than to promote the values that the entire community can embrace instead of just the Christians; I don't think this is a safe assumption, as it ignores the display's strongest message (delivered with all the clunkiness of the average political cartoon: that the Bill of Rights and secular values should be given at least as much regard as a magical baby's birthday). 

I suppose this is part of why I find your argument confusing. In the space of three sentences you assert that the display has greater significance than I'm acknowledging ("not just a statue of liberty & winter solstice, its a mock nativity scene"), that its status as a mockery is the larger issue ("the fact that it specifically lampoons christianity"), and that its status as a mockery is irrelevant ("The only question is whether its removal was constitutional"). If the 'only question' is the constitutional status of the display, then any mention of mockery becomes irrelevant. That you've insisted yet again that the purpose of the display is to lampoon Christianity suggests you think there should be more than one question. 



sevenstringj said:


> Christians dont worship Santa, so theyre not breaking any commandments or mocking jesus.



This is exactly the point. Secularists don't worship anything. If paying more attention to Santa than to Jesus is not considered either worship or a mockery of Christianity, then logically, paying more attention to an overtly secular display than to Jesus is not a mockery Christianity. The display does not attack or make fun of Christianity. It just takes a form that you find familiar and sends an alternative message. If borrowing from somebody else's belief system to support and promote a different message is considered a mockery, then Christians make a mockery of Judaism every time they quote the Old Testament.




sevenstringj said:


> Flying Spaghetti Monster On Display At Florida State Capitol Next To Festivus Pole, Nativity Scene





sevenstringj said:


>







sevenstringj said:


> Staring at a cardboard prop in a govt building doesnt sound like fun to me. Id rather go to a christmas party. &#128540;



I have to agree with you that it doesn't sound like fun. That said, nor is anything else most people propose for Christmas celebrations. I think the overemphasis on gift-giving and feasts is pointlessly wasteful, particularly when so many people recognise the fact. 

I guess I just like the idea that the secular display offers a 'third choice'. I don't have to participate in or be overwhelmed by either the pro-Christian messages or the pro-spend-too-much-money-on-things-that-might-be-thrown-away-immediately messages. If you seriously can't see anything more than a mockery in the display then I'm at a loss.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 3, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> You continue to misconstrue Abbott's letter. He didn't use that quote to argue against separation of church & state. He used it to show that the founding fathers wouldn't substitute the bill of rights for jesus. And he's right. He gave the wrong reason, but the point is valid: the constitution isn't holy.



You do know that the George Washington quote in his letter was a fabrication, don't you? The quote comes from a fabricated prayer journal, misattributed to Washington. It's been rejected by those who study Washington and even the Smithsonian Institution, because of little details like : The handwriting doesn't even match Washington's. 

Here's a link to info about the book, with some pages showing the difference in handwriting, of interest to those who might like to see how obvious the difference is (and it really is).

https://books.google.com/books?id=k9o6wEiANYcC&pg=PA53&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

If the governor has to rely on false sources to support his case, that doesn't help that case.

Getting to the argument that the government can't allow something secular alongside something holy, the government shouldn't be holding *anything* as holy, or making judgments based on holiness. The US isn't ISIS.

Unlike some other groups and governments, the US government shouldn't ever be worried about whether something gives offense to something holy. That's the path that leads to murderers like the religious terrorists who killed the staff at Charlie Hebdo.



estabon37 said:


> I suppose this is part of why I find your argument confusing. In the space of three sentences you assert that the display has greater significance than I'm acknowledging *("not just a statue of liberty & winter solstice, it&#8217;s a mock nativity scene"*), that its status as a mockery is the larger issue (*"the fact that it specifically lampoons christianity"*), and that its status as a mockery is irrelevant (*"The only question is whether its removal was constitutional"*). If the 'only question' is the constitutional status of the display, then any mention of mockery becomes irrelevant. That you've insisted yet again that the purpose of the display is to lampoon Christianity suggests you think there should be more than one question.



Estabon37, this is a great point. He's expended a lot of effort on the mockery idea, but if he really agrees with that last point, why did he keep going with the mockery thing?

I'd invert that last point, and ask if the nativity display and the display of the bill of rights were both equally constitutional. That then allows leads to the answer of that subsequent question, whether removal of one constitutional display over another shows favoritism based on religion on the part of a government official.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 3, 2016)

estabon37 said:


> You assume that the point of the 'nativity' is to lampoon Christianity more so than to promote the values that the entire community can embrace instead of just the Christians; I don't think this is a safe assumption, as it ignores the display's strongest message (delivered with all the clunkiness of the average political cartoon: that the Bill of Rights and secular values should be given at least as much regard as a magical baby's birthday).
> 
> I suppose this is part of why I find your argument confusing. In the space of three sentences you assert that the display has greater significance than I'm acknowledging ("not just a statue of liberty & winter solstice, it&#8217;s a mock nativity scene"), that its status as a mockery is the larger issue ("the fact that it specifically lampoons christianity"), and that its status as a mockery is irrelevant ("The only question is whether its removal was constitutional"). If the 'only question' is the constitutional status of the display, then any mention of mockery becomes irrelevant. That you've insisted yet again that the purpose of the display is to lampoon Christianity suggests you think there should be more than one question.


I wasn't assuming anything. Different sides will stress different aspects of the prop. But it was removed because it mocks christianity. "The only question..." means that the prop's mockery of christianity is fact, not that it's irrelevant.



estabon37 said:


> This is exactly the point. Secularists don't worship anything. If paying more attention to Santa than to Jesus is not considered either worship or a mockery of Christianity, then logically, paying more attention to an overtly secular display than to Jesus is not a mockery Christianity. The display does not attack or make fun of Christianity. It just takes a form that you find familiar and sends an alternative message. If borrowing from somebody else's belief system to support and promote a different message is considered a mockery, then Christians make a mockery of Judaism every time they quote the Old Testament.


And jews would agree. But that doesn't change the fact that the prop mocks christianity. You're teetering on semantics. At best, you could call Abbott a hypocrite, though he seems like the type who actually does "pay more attention to" jesus than santa. 



> I have to agree with you that it doesn't sound like fun. That said, nor is anything else most people propose for Christmas celebrations. I think the overemphasis on gift-giving and feasts is pointlessly wasteful, particularly when so many people recognise the fact.
> 
> I guess I just like the idea that the secular display offers a 'third choice'. I don't have to participate in or be overwhelmed by either the pro-Christian messages or the pro-spend-too-much-money-on-things-that-might-be-thrown-away-immediately messages. If you seriously can't see anything more than a mockery in the display then I'm at a loss.


I'm not saying that the _only_ point of the prop was to mock christianity. Just pointing out the fact that it does and that that's why it was removed. These important facts were omitted from the op.



Explorer said:


> You do know that the George Washington quote in his letter was a fabrication, don't you? The quote comes from a fabricated prayer journal, misattributed to Washington. It's been rejected by those who study Washington and even the Smithsonian Institution, because of little details like : The handwriting doesn't even match Washington's.
> 
> Here's a link to info about the book, with some pages showing the difference in handwriting, of interest to those who might like to see how obvious the difference is (and it really is).
> 
> https://books.google.com/books?id=k9o6wEiANYcC&pg=PA53&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=2#v=onepage&q&f=false


I know all about it. Hence "he gave the wrong reason."


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 5, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> I wasn't assuming anything. Different sides will stress different aspects of the prop. But it was removed because it mocks christianity. "The only question..." means that the prop's mockery of christianity is fact, not that it's irrelevant ...
> 
> ... You're teetering on semantics.



No, we're both fully embedded in semantics, and that's not a bad thing. We're talking about the message and purpose of an installation in a government building, the intention of its creators, the interactions between its creators and the person that had it removed, and the reasoning behind the removal. There are few better examples of a semantic discussion, and you've provided at least one decent example yourself:



sevenstringj said:


> "Non-religious" & "non-christian" don't mean the same thing and are not interchangeable.



That's an important detail, and we couldn't have continued the discussion effectively if you hadn't pointed it out, even though it's not central to the overall discussion. Semantics can be useful and important.

So, with that in mind, I'd like to try to determine what part of the installation makes it a mockery, because you've reiterated three more times that its status as a mockery is a fact. 

The letter by Abbott highlights a couple of elements in particular. The first is that the scene takes place in a 'manger'. Being that the crib is the only evidence of this, would the display no longer be a mockery if that object were removed? What if, instead of being on a crib, the Bill of Rights were placed in an open box that had been wrapped like a Christmas present? Would that mean it was mocking Christmas traditions? If not, why not? 

The second is that the figures are 'worshipping' the Bill of Rights. By looking at it. Speaking as a non-American, the amount of time and effort American society seems to dedicate to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights admittedly looks a lot like worship at times, so maybe Abbott's concern is well placed. That said, if worshipping a legal document is normally somewhat acceptable, why would that not still be the case during Christmas? If it's normally not acceptable, do Abbott and his cohort spend time throughout the year campaigning against the promotion of legal documents over Christianity? (That commandment on idolatry is coming back into play a little bit here.)

Finally, let's play out the scenario in which Abbott is correct. Let's say the display was designed with the primary (but not sole) intention of provoking and mocking the sincerely held beliefs of Christians in public in a government building in Texas. Abbott supports this theory by pointing out that the display "does not educate ... does not depict any other religion, much less does it depict religious 'diversity'.". How is this substantially different from the arguments supporting 'teaching the controversy' when it comes to teaching evolution vs creationism in Texan high schools? It seems that merely possessing a dissenting opinion is good enough reason for Texan legislators to create loopholes that allow teachers to promote creationism over evolution. There is no educational value in teaching creationism, particularly if you're avoiding religious diversity by not promoting the creation myths of other religions and cultures while blatantly attacking evolutionary science. Taking the same approach to the (far less insulting and damaging) display created by the FFRF would have seen it staying where it was in the interest of 'teaching the controversy'. Where's the legislative consistency?

That last point seems to be where the problem lies. The only consistency to be found seems to be the self-interest of the legislators, including the promotion of their own faith and stamping out anything that promotes an alternative.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 6, 2016)

estabon37 said:


> No, we're both fully embedded in semantics, and that's not a bad thing. We're talking about the message and purpose of an installation in a government building, the intention of its creators, the interactions between its creators and the person that had it removed, and the reasoning behind the removal. There are few better examples of a semantic discussion, and you've provided at least one decent example yourself:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


FFRF themselves call it a nativity scene, so mocking christianity isn't semantics, it's fact.


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 6, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> FFRF themselves call it a nativity scene, so mocking christianity isn't semantics, it's fact.



Is this one mocking Christianity?:






How about this one?:






This one might be; I mean, it seems it's trying to be the real deal, but it's failing miserably:






I'm not debating whether or not the FFRF considers their installation a nativity scene, I'm analysing the installation itself and trying to determine what part of it makes it a mockery. I'm asking because it's really not as apparent as you seem to think it is. Help me out here. Simply recreating the nativity scene using alternative characters doesn't itself signify an attempt to mock. Look:















These blocks allow you to alter the characters, meaning you can turn Mary into one of the shepherds. Is that mocking Christianity? No? How about this one?:






There's a pretty good chance this was made by a Christian, but does that change its status as a mockery? Is it even a mockery? It looks tasty, and because I'm hungry, maybe that makes it seem less offensive.

That last point allows me to cut to the chase. What about any of the nativity scenes presented above or by the FFRF is offensive / mocking? If we have a concrete answer, then we can come up with a solution to the problem. Simply reiterating yet again ...



sevenstringj said:


> mocking christianity isn't semantics, it's fact.



... doesn't explain a single damn thing, and every time you dodge the question by changing the premise it makes you look like you're being belligerent just for the sake of it.

The question again, as simply stated as it can possibly be:

How is the following image offensive / mocking to Christianity?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 6, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> FFRF themselves call it a nativity scene, so mocking christianity isn't semantics, it's fact.





sevenstringj said:


> Its not just a statue of liberty & winter solstice, its a mock nativity scene. I could answer your rhetorical questions no and not change the fact that it specifically lampoons christianity. The only question is whether its removal was constitutional, and thatd be up to the courts.



Well, you seem to be skipping over a question prior to whether its removal based on religious grounds was constitutional: Does the Constitution forbid someone from mocking religion?

So far, no, the Constitution doesn't forbid such. As far as I know, that's generally the province of groups like the Taliban and ISIS, not the US.

That's not germane to the conversation, yet you keep bringing it up.

----

Since you seem to want everyone to know the whole story, when the Orange County Atheists asked for permission to put up a holiday banner in the same space as a nativity display, the city banned all displays, rather than allow atheists to use the space in any way.

In addition to his tweet, Abbott released a statement which said the city of Orange should...



> ...stand up to the demands of a select few who wish to see God thrown out of the public square....



And here's that display.






You've got a government official who is demonstrably wrong in his letter about the display having no educational purpose, wrong in claiming that atheists had shut down recognizing religion, and wrong in other ways as well.

It looks like a christian who just doesn't want government to be neutral in advancing christianity over all other religions. 

Does the Constitution permit the government, including government officials acting in their official capacity, to favor one religious viewpoint over another?

----

*sevenstringj, could you do me a favor, and explain how having that banner recognizing many faiths could be a mockery of christianity?

If it's not, and instead recognizes other religious holidays in December, could you explain how Abbott is not just promoting one religion over the others?*

I'm sure your answers to these last two questions will be informative.


----------



## ElRay (Jan 6, 2016)

Your posts on this topic are typical christian ignorance, retelling of misinformation (i.e. lies), cherry-picking (i.e. lies), distortions (i.e. lies), diversions and expectations of special privilege.


sevenstringj said:


> ... This was not simply a case of christian vs non-christian displays. This was a christian religious display vs a display that specifically & overtly mocks christianity. ...


First off, it doesn't mock any of the over 20,000 varieties of christianity. Second, the government providing protection for christianity over other forms of speech is a 1st Amendment violation. Third, the LIES that Gov Abbott used as justification were inappropriate and yet more evidence that he used his position to enforce exclusive access of a christian message. Fourth, the *authors* of The Constitution would likely have gotten a laugh out of the display, because they were non-christians (diets and unitarians are not christians).Fifth, if your mythology is so fragile that it can't stand-up to competition around the Winter Solstice, then it's not very powerful to begin with.

This last one is important, because for nearly the first half of christianity's existence, they didn't celebrate the birth of the Christ character. Then, when they did, they made it historically inaccurate by latching on to all the existing Winter Solstice celebrations and through the years, christians has usurped the traditions of the original holidays/celebrations.


sevenstringj said:


> ... So you gave 1 example that isn't even a valid example of what you're talking about, but you expect counterexamples.


You want Counter examples? Here, Let me Google that for you. If you actually bothered to look, you'd see plenty of examples. And these include the benign "Reason for the Season", "You're not alone.", "Celebrating ALL the Holidays that occur at this time.", etc. banners and displays. Christians expect special privilege and their beliefs are so fragile that they cannot tolerate any message other than their own, ESPECIALLY during the winter holiday season which they usurped from older mythologies and non-mythological celebrations.

And these are just the displays that went up. There have been plenty of legal cases where governments have tried to suppress non-christian displays on government property and have not yet been taken to court. Then you have the christians that get all pouty like a six-year-old and shut down all displays, instead of sharing, and then blame the non-christians for ruining their unconstitutional activities.


sevenstringj said:


> ... Your other spin was that gov Abbott had it removed because he "hates the constitution and bill of rights." ...


Oh, he very clearly loves them, he just either feels they provide christians special privilege, or he's actively lying/ignoring them to pander to Texan voters.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 6, 2016)

@ you guys bending over backwards to skirt facts & deflect. I'm now christian because I provided a link to the full story & Abbott's letter, and _your_ "misinformation, cherry-picking, distortions, diversions" don't hold up. Kinda like when Explorer repeatedly insisted that liberal legal scholars were really "contrarians on the extreme right" because they disagreed with him on 1 point. 

"Do these other nativity scenes mock christianity?" No, because they're not replacing jesus with the constitution, so they're not mocking the idea that he's god's son or savior. How about sticking to the prop in question in the context in question, instead of digging up false analogies?

"Does the constitution forbid someone from mocking religion?" A rhetorical question AND a straw man. The question is, does the constitution forbid Abbott from removing from gov't premises a prop that singles out christianity for mockery? Answer: it'll be up to the courts if & when FFRF sue. I'm sure you'll keep us abreast of developments. 

"You want Counter examples?" No, because Explorer's own example wasn't valid as I explained in the same post you quoted, plus the whole who's-more-"persecuted" angle is childish and non sequitur here.


----------



## vilk (Jan 6, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> @ you guys bending over backwards to skirt facts & deflect.



I'm sorry but as someone who has just been reading along it seems patently clear that you're the one who is doing this, not the others.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 6, 2016)

vilk said:


> I'm sorry but as someone who has just been reading along it seems patently clear that you're the one who is doing this, not the others.


You, like them, do nothing more than proclaim. The fact that you quote me but conveniently omit where I give examples & explain how they're deflecting and skirting facts tells me you're being biased & insincere. If not, then quote & address the rest of my post.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 6, 2016)

ssj, I think the problem you're running into is two-fold. 

People are seeing pictures of what Abbott has been attacking. 

You've argued about at least one of the displays as mockery, and therefore possibly not a valid expression of speech in a government building. 

Regarding the first problem, when people are seeing the displays, it's possible that they are not inclined to allow special pleading about why one possibly exclusive display trumps one which is inclusive, even of the possibly exclusive display. 

And that relates to the second problem, that you appear to be making that kind of special pleading, and they're calling it out as BS. 

That second problem, not necessarily about your own special pleading but definitely attributable to Abbott's, is his public statement about needing to keep that more inclusive banner out of the public square while having a nativity continue. 

When people see that second display, and then hear that it was opposed in favor of an exclusive one, it doesn't matter how much you argue about points being irrelevant, or strawmen, or whatever else you might say. The motivations for the actions against that last inclusive display are too obvious for the average person to ignore. 

The one other point that you might be missing out on is that the nativity is excluding all those who aren't christian, who don't follow that path. That means that a section of the population isn't being allowed to speak in the public square, and that a display acknowledging their Constitutional right to speak is being censored... which some might consider a mockery of Constitutional freedoms. I know, not a big deal to some. 

----

I do have my doubts that you might look at the displays and attempt to see any view of them other than the one you seem to have espoused.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 6, 2016)

Explorer said:


> ssj, I think the problem you're running into is two-fold.
> 
> People are seeing pictures of what Abbott has been attacking.
> 
> You've argued about at least one of the displays as mockery, and therefore possibly not a valid expression of speech in a government building.


No, that's your (and others') attempt to drag me into an argument or conclusion that's for the courts to decide. All I'm saying is Abbott removed it because it mocks christianity, which he argued, thus far successfully, violates Texas State Preservation Board's regulations. You omitted this info in your op.



Explorer said:


> Regarding the first problem, when people are seeing the displays, it's possible that they are not inclined to allow special pleading about why one possibly exclusive display trumps one which is inclusive, even of the possibly exclusive display.
> 
> And that relates to the second problem, that you appear to be making that kind of special pleading, and they're calling it out as BS.
> 
> ...


What you're calling "special pleading" is merely including all the facts and letting the courts decide. You're still straw manning the situation. It's not "an exclusive display" vs "an inclusive display." A nativity scene in and of itself isn't exclusive or inclusive; the SPACE is either inclusive or exclusive, and there are plenty examples of atheist & non-christian religious displays cohabiting with christian displays. This scenario is a christian display vs a display that specifically mocks christianity. To pretend that it _only_ honors the bill of rights is childish. Whether Abbott's "motives" or reasons for removing it are constitutional or "constitute a mockery of constitutional freedoms" as you put it is for the courts to decide.


----------



## RustInPeace (Jan 6, 2016)




----------



## ElRay (Jan 6, 2016)

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.


----------



## ElRay (Jan 6, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> You, like them, do nothing more than proclaim. The fact that you quote me but conveniently omit where I give examples & explain how they're deflecting and skirting facts tells me you're being biased & insincere. If not, then quote & address the rest of my post.



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


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 6, 2016)

Says my reading comprehension is "abysmally poor" and goes on to put words in my mouth. 



ElRay said:


> your irrational behavior and insistence, despite the facts, that Abbott did not abuse his position and violate The Constitution


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.


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 7, 2016)

sevenstringj said:


> "Do these other nativity scenes mock christianity?" No, because they're not replacing jesus with the constitution, so they're not mocking the idea that he's god's son or savior. How about sticking to the prop in question in the context in question, instead of digging up false analogies?



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.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/...capitol-on-friday-dec-18#sthash.oEoJsllh.dpuf


----------



## Explorer (Jan 7, 2016)

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.


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 7, 2016)

Explorer said:


> 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.


Explorer putting words in my mouth. Where have I dealt with that before? 

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


----------



## sevenstringj (Jan 7, 2016)

estabon37 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Only questions you asked prior to the last one were rhetorical. Of course I'm not going to directly answer them, by definition.  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  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.


----------

