Instead of suing cities for Christmas displays, atheists should do something useful

Im not making it complicated; it is what it is.

IF you use publicly funded property to promote any religious cause, then you are using public funds. The US constitution does not allow that.

 

I can agree with that clarification for the sake of argument. That still has nothing to do with the constitutionality of religious displays on public lands for the purpose of promoting religion (see clarification below).

Here's my own clarification: it's unconstitutional if it's to the exclusion of other religions and if it's specifically for the purposes of promoting the religion. That is "respecting an establishment of religion" which is explicitly forbidden by the first amendment. When displays from all faiths, or lack there of, are welcome, or when the display is simply historical, then it's fine. I'm not sure what you're on about with the question of why it's being seen now as unconstitutional. These kinds of conflicts go back at least to 1984 (Lynch v Donnelly), and probably further than that. Much like everything else, you just hear more about it now with the 24-hour news cycle and prevalence of the internet.

I get Sundays (and Saturdays) off because my employer doesn't require me to work on them. And because labor leaders fought for 40-hour work weeks and the concept of "the weekend" back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Prior to that, most employees worked the entire week and were granted a break on Sunday for religious service (often at the church at the work site). I also get holidays off because my employer doesn't require me to work on those days. The government doesn't mandate that people not work on those days. That would be oppression. The only federal holiday relevant to the discussion is Christmas, which is basically a secular holiday at this point. Plenty of non-religious folks celebrate it, including most atheists. So, no oppression to be had in your examples.

 

Then don't look at it that way. other religions aren't excluded nor is the primary purpose to promote religion. It's simply the people expressing their culture and heritage, which is predominantly christian. If there's an area with mostly jews in it I'm sure they are allowed to do the same thing with jewish themes.

And it goes back as far as 84? I was wondering why people didn't seem to mind during the previous two hundred years.

sunday and saturday are chosen ultimately because of christianity and judaism, that's my point. I don't agree with christmas ever being secular, but let's assume I do in which case I ask you, why can't other displays of christianity also be seen as secular? what's the difference between the govenment recognising the christian holiday of christmas, and a federal court ordering the ten commandments statues in front of court? Both refer to americans' christian culture, so why the double standard?

 

So, any money the city of New Orleans spends on Marti Gra, is "promoting religious cause"?

 

How else can you look at a nativity scene than as an explicit celebration of the birth of Jesus? That's exclusively Christian. There is no other purpose for that than to promote the very basis for Christianity. Also, let's define what an expression of heritage means when it's on government land. If you go to the court house and see just the Ten Commandments displayed for "heritage" purposes, that says "our [as in the whole community] heritage is solely of the Abrahamic religions." That isn't true of a place's heritage except in the smallest of towns. However, if you see other law-related displays alongside the Ten Commandments, then you can argue that it is actually an inclusive display of the area's heritage. That's why the Supreme Court has upheld Commandments displays in some cases and struck them down in others.

To readdress the prevalence of these stories now, I'd imagine that the emergence of non-theists as a less oppressed group probably contributes to that. Up through the age of McCarthyism, it was extremely difficult to be an atheist and/or challenge Christianity in this country. As the likelihood of retaliation against atheists wanes, we become more vocal. And they may have been coming up earlier than 1984. That's just the first time the issue was brought to the Supreme Court.

So industry made a good business decision about which days to let most workers have the day off. I don't see how that supports your point that we (non-theists) should somehow feel oppressed when we get Saturday and Sunday to ourselves. Those days were chosen because workers would be taking one or the other off anyway if the days off were at another time during the week. That's not oppression. Oppression would be the government forcing people to rest on those days, not simply following the private sector's lead. The government only mandates that workers be compensated when working in excess of 40 hours per week. It says nothing about which days they must get off of work.

Finally, you may not agree with it, but the fact that non-theists observe Christmas means it has a secular place in our culture. Some of the most fundamentalist Christians will tell you the same thing. There is no double standard here. If a display is actually about expressing culture and heritage in general, without being exclusionary, then it's fine. Ten Commandments in a vacuum? Not okay. Alongside other cultural displays that aren't just about Judeo-Christianity? Totally fine.

 

If I'm dancing around the may pole during midsummer, am i 'promoting' swedish pagan tradition or am I just celebrating a traditional holiday? Why do you have to look at it that way? It's just people celebrating cultural stuff, there need not be any 'promotion' behind it. it's not like midsummer is for winning converts to norse paganism or anything.

that america's heritage is christian obviously doesn't mean all americans are christian. I think wheter to have ten commandments outside the courts should simply be up to the counties to decide. Communities sometimes do spend money on decorations and festivals, that some of them might be religious in nature doesn't matter. Isn't the government supposed to blind in regards to religion?

Those days were chosen because of christianity and judaism. they didn't choose days at random you know. Anyways, enough of weekends, it's a digression which was only meant ot be a little example.

Does the fact that I, as an atheist, could appriciate a nativity scene and ten commandments outside courts make them secular? Christmas is a religious celebration even if non-religious people celebrate it, but the thing is that it doesn't matter that it's religious.

 

If Christians want to use public land to hold displays, they should be allowed to file for a permit and do it, but no tax money should be used and they should have to pay for the use of the land.

 

That would be for a court to decide, if someone wants to take it on.

- - - Updated - - -

sounds fair to me.

 

that sounds fair to me.

but if a community votes to built say a decoration, like a statue perhaps, or hold annual festivities, it shouldn't matter that they might be of a religious nature

 

The SCOTUS interpretation of the first amendment doesn't agree with you, and they determine the application of the COTUS to law.
But it is fascinating to hear your opinion.

 

perhaps not. sadly, not everyone agrees with me.

 

Perhaps its not interesting to hear your opinion?
Perhaps you're right.

 

It would help a little if Christians didn't keep trying to say that "Christmas" is a Christian festival, it only became one after they stole it from Pagans (like a lot of their religion), seems very strange to celebrate the birth of such a "famous" person on the wrong day.

I really couldn't give two figs what you believe in, I just wish you would be more honest about the real reasons for celebrating.

 

I'd advise people who feel that way to not visit discussion forums. And I referred to your first line about the SCOTUS by the way.

- - - Updated - - -

just because it was originally pagan doesn't mean it can't change to being christian.

 

What did I write in my fourth paragraph? Can you read?

 

Instead of spending taxpayer money on unconstitutional promotion and endorsement of christianity, government should stick to governing. You know, what we hired them to do?

 

You can. On the lawn of your church, on your own lawn, on your friends and neighbors lawns (if they give you permission), you can rent billboards, hell, you can even buy time on the bigscreen in Times Square. What cannot happen is for a government entity to support and endorse a religion, which means no taxpayer funded displays on government property. Private party funded displays on public property is fine, too, so long as that property is made available to any other group who wants to put up display.

We do not live under christianity. We are a secular constitutional republic. And considering it's July 4th, I'm not completely clear why you felt the need to bring this topic up at all.

 

and by your own logic .. just because it is now Christian doesn't mean it can't change to being something else .. ie non-chirstian.

Tell me why do Christians celebrate the birth of their most revered person on the wrong day, in the wrong month?

 

exept that christians took this pagan tradition and replaced it with jesus' birth, thus making it christian rather than pagan. No such change has been made to rip out the christian element of it and make it secular. It's still about celebrating the birth of jesus.

They do it on the wrong day because the church felt like it could save some more souls in northern europe if they made christianity more familiar, that's why. And because some Roman emperor thought that he could sell christianity better if he made the great sun god gcelebration about celebrating the new god instead. Id est, pragmatism for the cause of advancing their religion.

 

Yet.

So basically they celebrate a lie purely brought about by the church in order to further their own ends.

 

are you always that rude or does it come in spasms?

 

I'll be waiting. Until then it's a religious celebration.

Mostly because it's a tradition. But ask yourself, does it matter that they're having a good fun time celebrating a lie? In my view no, let them do that. Many things are actually the result of 'lies' like that but it's no less enjoyable for it.

 

You really need to keep up.

 

America is no more a Christian nation cause the majority is Christian... any more then America is a white nation cause the majority is white

people may want this to be a theocracy., but it will never happen

.

 

If you are a Swedish pagan, then yes, you probably are promoting (through celebration) Swedish pagan tradition. You said you're an atheist, though, so I'm guessing you're just observing the secularized tradition.

Yes, government should be blind in regards to religion. When the sole decoration on government-owned land is specific to one type of religion, then the government is not being blind. It's being oppressive. This is not my standard, by the way, it's the standard set by the court that decides these things.

Those days were chosen because, as I said, if they chose other days, then the Christians and Jews would still take Sunday or Saturday off. It's a good business practice to go down the road that causes the fewest headaches. I agree we should drop it since it's pretty irrelevant to the conversation.

Appreciating a nativity doesn't make it secular. Somehow divesting it from its Christian meaning would make it secular. Non-theists, and a lot of Christians, have done exactly that with Christmas. Pick any random Christian household, outside of the bible belt, at Christmas and you're likely to find more Santas and snowmen than baby Jesuses. A Christmas celebration with Jesus as an afterthought (if he's mentioned at all) is pretty far removed from its religious meaning, i.e. secular.