The circus of tolerance

[Curtech]

Disappointed there wasn't any of this there after playing Dark Souls:

 

[Ultra CHEZ]

Disappointed there wasn't any of this there after playing Dark Souls:

Technically, the Christians were praising the Son.

Close enough.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

 

[Keleynal]

Because its public property. Its not a private residence or building. Its paid for by taxpayers. In other words, the entire community. And the Nativity scene being placed on display on public property is a tacit endorsement from local government of a particular religion. It does not demonstrate a separation of Church and State.

Lets imagine for a second that the nativity scene is poorly constructed. Its made from stick figures and ice cream sticks with faces drawn on. It now adheres to the same quality standards that you comment that the others possess. Do you have a problem now? Each display is now as slapped together as each other. How do you respond?

I'd say that something slapped together like that doesn't belong on display in a place that represents a state. It's not the content of the displays that my issue it with, it's the quality and the reasoning behind it. I haven't said anything against the atheist signs that were there. They had a good message, looked professional, and had meaning apart from just sticking their tongue out at Christians. In other words, I could see those signs there even in the absence of the nativity and they would still be relevant. The beer pole and office chair's sole purpose was deriding another group.

Why is no one upset about the atheist's display? Can the government tacitly sponsor unbelief in God and still remain neutral?

 

[PsionicFox]

Why is no one upset about the atheist's display? Can the government tacitly sponsor unbelief in God and still remain neutral?

Yes. Because Atheism is not a religion. Government must and should remain secular. It might seem like a double-standard, but its true. Real Atheism isn't about bashing Christians or the members of any faith. A lot of people give Atheists a bad name, much like extremist Muslims give true Muslims a bad name, or bible bashing Christians, etc. Now, one could argue that Atheist works or displays that support it shouldn't be on public property, and I'm totally fine with that.

I will fight tooth and nail to support your right to the belief system of your choosing. I will fight tooth and nail for you to be able to have a nativity scene in your front yard. But I will fight tooth and nail to prevent you from having that display on public property. Not because I'm not Christian, but because the government should not be allowed to support any religious group in such a manner.

That said, I applaud the state's willingness to allow other groups, ludicrous as their displays may have been, to display them. By giving everyone a chance to do something, they've demonstrated neutrality in a different way.

 

[Crake]

Maybe mean-spirited was the wrong word. The atheists seemed sincere, but I definitely think the Pastafarians and Festivus people were joking. It seems like they thought something like "Oh boy here we go again with this tolerance stuff." As such they were belittling the issue itself. So perhaps atheists should be concerned as well as Christians, because equality and religion are serious topics.

Sent from my SCH-I435 using Tapatalk

Well much in the same way that someone debating a religious person in their beliefs I would suggest reading some absurdist works such as the book of subgenius or the principia discordia. Again, this situation fits very much into the absurdist philosophy and, as an absurdist, I see this is a perfectly valid and useful expression of their belief system. It may not be a true 'religion' being expressed, but rather more a philosophy with a mascot, but does this make the imagery any less meaningful? I think it's condescending to say they are belittling other religions because of the lack of seriousness, a concept that aligns with the philosophy being represented.

 

[Keleynal]

Well much in the same way that someone debating a religious person in their beliefs I would suggest reading some absurdist works such as the book of subgenius or the principia discordia. Again, this situation fits very much into the absurdist philosophy and, as an absurdist, I see this is a perfectly valid and useful expression of their belief system. It may not be a true 'religion' being expressed, but rather more a philosophy with a mascot, but does this make the imagery any less meaningful? I think it's condescending to say they are belittling other religions because of the lack of seriousness, a concept that aligns with the philosophy being represented.

The terrible looking chair is easier to accept if it aligned with tenets of that particular belief system.

I think PsionicFox nailed it, though. Because they let one religion affiliated display in, they felt like they had to let anything in to remain neutral. Thus, this circus of tolerance is the government's fault. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Euchale]

Thus, this circus of tolerance is the government's fault.

Thanks, Obama!