I'm not sure I get the problem with a nativity scene on Christmas--it's a Christian holiday, no? Would you object to a Menorah on Chanukah?

I call my self agnostic because I don't have a sure belief in whether or not a higher power exists. I don't think I really give a **** either.

I think all religions are wrong though.

I also think that atheist who are trying to convert people need to realize that it's easier to win with sugar rather than salt.

Battling Christmas is just moronic to me. Satan Clause has transcended Christianity and has become a beast for all of us to bow before. If not he will consume you. Look, he's already consumed the whole month of November!

At the end of the day, how can any human tell any other human that they have the knowledge and understanding of what a higher power is or if it exists? I don't think we can even grasp the concept of eternity. So many people say that they'll love somebody else forever yet get divorced in 5 years. We can't even comprehend what free will is and whether or not it exists.

they say it shouldn't be govt funded or whatever... if it happens to be at a town hall or some govt funded place.

then there is the angle where they ask for all religious viewpoints to be given the same platform

problem being that atheism has no traditions or rituals or anything to really make the type of symbolic **** that a holiday is made of

so there really isn't a symbol or something that you could erect in honor of atheism and have people register it

so the atheists, when they got the platform they wanted, just put a bunch of preachy atheist bs

basically the atheist equivalent of a sign that says "repent or go to hell"

and of course people are offended by the displays and it causes a controversy so the city just decides to shut the whole thing down, nativity scene and all

and that's how the grinch literally stole christmas

"I am an agnostic; I do not pretend to know what many ignorant men are sure of." -Clarence Darrow

I'm agnostic too, it's the only stand that makes sense to me. some say it's not a stand all or that it is the stand of the undecided but idk if i would agree with that.

The problem isn't with nativity scenes in general, the problem is with nativity scenes on public property. In front of a church or someone's house is no problem. In front of city hall, however, can be seen as an endorsement of a religion, which is a violation of the separation of church and state.

But no one in local office, and nowhere in the local ordinance that says you must be a Christian or believe in Christianity. So in my opinion the separation of Church and State is respected. I don't see how the nativity is violating the separation of Church and State, because there is no compulsion to be a Christian just by looking at it or walking by etc.

The days of the week are named after the Sun, the Moon, Tiu (Týr), Woden, Thor, Freya, and Saturn. Does the government give up the use of the days of the week because by using them it's an "endorsement" of those gods?

Thanksgiving, some say is based on the Jewish harvest feast, others say it's based on pagan harvest feast. I don't see it as an endorsement of either Judaism or paganism since it's a government holiday.

I think that some traditions (Christmas, Thanksgiving, days of the week) that somehow enter into public conscientiousness are not threatening to the separation of church and state. They are just traditions and no one in government is compelling one to believe in a specific religion, doctrine, creed etc.

I think it probably is technically a violation of secularism for the same reason that crosses being hung in govt. buildings and schools would be, but imo it's one of those pick your battles scenarios. Bigger fish to fry, actual problems that need to be addressed. Plus, I really want fox news to shut the **** up about the War on Christmas.

:laughing:

Your comment about the days of the week is a non sequitur since the days of the week are actually named after the planets, the moon, and the sun, with only a very tangential relation to ancient religious characters who have zero impact on American politics. Likewise, Thanksgiving is based on an actual event which occurred Plymouth, MA in the 1600s. I'm not really sure how you can say that a city hall hosting an explicitly religious display every year isn't an endorsement of that religion and I have to say I somehow doubt you'd feel that way if it were a Satanic display rather than a Christian one.

I hear what you're saying and I agree it isn't the biggest fish to fry and may not be a battle worth fighting (in fact, I said that in a previous post). However, there is the whole "give them an inch, they'll take a mile" thing, which unfortunately has happened again and again in the US. For example, Christians successfully campaigned in the 1950s to have the phrase "under God" injected into the existing pledge of allegiance, something that seems a bit out of place for a country that's supposed to be secular, and it's remained there because people have had bigger fish to fry. Now, guess what, it's become something that Christian theocrat types use to point to as evidence of their claim that this is Christian country and that they should be allowed to push their religion even further into the government.

As far as Fox News and their viewers go, there's no chance they'll ever shut up. They want to be victims so badly that I'm sure they'd still be crying persecution even if they spent all twelve days of Christmas personally shoving figurines of the baby Jesus up the asses of every non-Christian in America.

Key point right there. As long as the folks like Ted Cruz and Mike Huckabee, who are running for high office based partly on their willingness to inject Christianity into policy, then the church and state line must be held very firm.

It's a very slippery slope in regard to Jesus and the Bible being force fed by law.

EDIT: I'm pretty much echoing the second part of Jans' post.