Watch Live: Congressional Hearing on IRS Scandal

Live Now on TheBlaze Radio: ‘The Buck Sexton Show’

Faith

‘The Atheists Won’: CA Judge Denies Christian Group’s Last-Ditch Attempt to Restore Nativities

Nov. 19, 2012 5:25pm Billy Hallowell

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge on Monday denied a Christian group’s bid for a preliminary injunction to force suburban Santa Monica to reopen spaces in a city park to private, unattended displays, including Christmas Nativity scenes.

U.S. District Court Judge Audrey Collins formalized an earlier tentative ruling during a hearing.

William Becker, the attorney for the Christian group, said he expects the case will be dismissed at the next hearing and plans to appeal.

“The atheists won and they will always win unless we get courts to understand how the game is played and this is a game that was played very successfully and they knew it,” Becker said after the hearing.

Judge Denies Santa Monica Nativity Scene Displays

In this Dec. 13, 2011 file photo, a man walks past two of the traditional Nativity scenes along Ocean Avenue at Palisades Park in Santa Monica, Calif. (AP Photo/Ringo H.W. Chiu, file)

Christmas Nativity scenes had been erected in Palisades Park for decades. Last year, atheists overwhelmed the city’s auction process for display sites, winning most of the slots and triggering a bitter dispute.

Santa Monica officials snuffed the city’s holiday tradition this year rather than referee the religious rumble, prompting churches that have set up a 14-scene Christian diorama to sue over freedom of speech claims.

Under the city’s rules, the churches can still set up an attended display when Palisades Park is open and erect unattended displays in 12 of the city’s other parks with a special permit. They can also distribute leaflets, carol or hold a Christmas play, city officials said.

“It’s a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested,” Hunter Jameson, head of the nonprofit Santa Monica Nativity Scene Committee, said in advance of the hearing.

The atheists were not parties to the legal case. Their role outside court highlights a tactical shift as atheists evolve into a vocal minority eager to get their non-beliefs into the public square as never before.

National atheist groups earlier this year took out full-page newspaper ads and hundreds of TV spots in response to Catholic bishops’ activism around women’s health care issues and are gearing up to battle for their own space alongside public Christmas displays in small towns across America this season.

“In recent years, the tactic of many in the atheist community has been, if you can’t beat them, join them,” said Charles Haynes, a senior scholar at the First Amendment Center and director of the Newseum’s Religious Freedom Education Project in Washington. “If these church groups insist that these public spaces are going to be dominated by a Christian message, we’ll just get in the game – and that changes everything.”

In the past, atheists primarily fought to uphold the separation of church and state through the courts. The change underscores the conviction held by many nonbelievers that their views are gaining a foothold, especially among young adults.

The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study last month that found 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the past five years. Atheists took heart from the report, although Pew researchers stressed that the category also encompassed majorities of people who said they believed in God but had no ties with organized religion and people who consider themselves “spiritual” but not “religious.”

“We’re at the bottom of the totem pole socially, but we have muscle and we’re flexing it,” said Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation. “Ignore our numbers at your peril.”

The trouble in Santa Monica began three years ago, when atheist Damon Vix applied for and was granted a booth in Palisades Park alongside the story of Jesus Christ’s birth, from Mary’s visit from the Angel Gabriel to the traditional crèche.

Vix hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: “Religions are all alike — founded on fables and mythologies.” The other side read “Happy Solstice.” He repeated the display the following year but then upped the stakes significantly.

In 2011, Vix recruited 10 others to inundate the city with applications for tongue-in-cheek displays such as a homage to the “Pastafarian religion,” which would include an artistic representation of the great Flying Spaghetti Monster.

The secular coalition won 18 of 21 spaces. Two others went to the traditional Christmas displays and one to a Hanukkah display.

The atheists used half their spaces, displaying signs such as one that showed pictures of Poseidon, Jesus, Santa Claus and the devil and said: “37 million Americans know myths when they see them. What myths do you see?”

Most of the signs were vandalized and in the ensuing uproar, the city effectively ended a tradition that began in 1953 and earned Santa Monica one of its nicknames, the City of the Christmas Story.

The Santa Monica Nativity Scenes Committee argues in its lawsuit that atheists have the right to protest, but that freedom doesn’t trump the Christians’ right to free speech.

“If they want to hold an opposing viewpoint about the celebration of Christmas, they’re free to do that – but they can’t interfere with our right to engage in religious speech in a traditional public forum,” said attorney Becker. “Our goal is to preserve the tradition in Santa Monica and to keep Christmas alive.”

The decision to ban the displays also saves the city, which had administered the cumbersome lottery process used to award booths, both time and money while preserving the park’s aesthetics, Deputy City Attorney Jeanette Schachtner said in an email.

For his part, Vix is surprised – and slightly amused – at the legal battle spawned by his solitary act but doesn’t plan anything further.

“That was such a unique and blatant example of the violation of the First Amendment that I felt I had to act,” said the 44-year-old set builder. “If I had another goal, it would be to remove the `under God’ phrase from the Pledge of Allegiance – but that’s a little too big for me to take on for right now.”

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and religion, but also states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” That has been interpreted by courts as providing for separation of church and state, barring government bodies from promoting, endorsing or funding religion or religious institutions.

–

Related:

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Back to The Blaze »

Comments (185)

demsrtraitors
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:48pm
another death blow for Whites and Christians. And many of you have liberals as friends? um, why???
would you be friends with a pedophile knowing they want your kids? would you be friends with a rapist knowing they want your wife or daughter? would you be friends with a thief knowing they want to steal from you? so why on earth would you ever be friends with a liberal or democrat knowing they want to destroy you , your values and your life??

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- tamalezebra
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:28pm
  Couldn’t agree more.
  
  Report this comment
- tamalezebra
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:29pm
  I would recommend all Christians leaving the area as quickly as possible. California is a lost cause.
  
  Report this comment
- AnimalsAsLeaders
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:30pm
  Another death blow for white people? How does this have anything to do with race?
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:55pm
  Re: Animals…
  Because the Jewish-run FFRF was a part of the suit.
  
  Report this comment
- cotuglv739
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:04am
  Atheists Win. Give me a break. It’s a matter of the Separation of Church and State.. Read what Thomas Jefferson and James Madison had to say. Also read about how the Baptists felt about their being forced to support a the Anglican church. Understandably they objected. Unfortunately, too many Baptists, especially Southern Baptists, are not aware of that part of their history.
  
  The 1st Ammendment of our countries Constitution says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
  
  The Constitution of the United States is, or should be, ask a Constitutional Lawyer, the supreme law of the land. Nevertheless, all or almost all State Constitutions also include a provision that prohibits the governmental support of religion, or non-religion. I must ask. Are the atheists planing on exhibiting anything that supports their non-belief? If they are wise, they would not do that.
  
  If you argue that not allowing any displays that support a religion or religion in general, would be supporting non-religion; my response to that is that I don’t see how a park that with trees, shrubs, grass, etc. and possibly playground equipment, softball and baseball diamonds, a sandy area with a volley ball would in anyway support non-belief.
  
  Report this comment
- cotuglv739
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:40am
  One of the commentators to this story, ask if the other commentators would support pedophilia etc. So you think atheists are immoral through and through. You don’t know whereof you speak. Do some research. Check out the books published by Prometheus books. Prometheus books was established by Paul Kurtz, recently deceased, who was an atheist. Atheists are more moral than almost all believers with respect to their study of the Bible, not just reading the text, but reading about its authors and the nature of the times when they lived; in other words, engaging in scholarly research.
  
  I am an atheist and I struggled for a number of years with the question of: “Is there a god?” It began when I was in junior high, and the doubts kept growing. I finally said goodby to Christianity and religion in general when I was in my early twenties.. Heaven and Hell. Do we need the promise of Heaven or the threat of Hell to be good? Atheists are good people. They believe in being honest, dependable, all of the common moral decencies.
  
  I don’t believe that a benevolent god would send a person to Hell for even one instant, because based on the lack of evidence for a god, (why debate whether their is a god or not if it is obvious there is a god?). Hell and the Devil. Those concepts instill fear, and fear is no reason to believe. Only a monster god would support such nonsense.
  
  Report this comment
- Small_Al
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 5:28am
  This is why our country is doomed, we have abandoned the principles which made us great. Read fresh political commentary at: http://smallcraftadvisorychronicles.blogspot.com
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 7:57am
  Wow… people blaming this on non-whites and Jews, that’s terrifying…
  
  You might want to take a good, long look at yourself if you’re thinking that way and really think it represents an educated opinion based on good moral values and a belief in the principles that created this nation.
  
  Report this comment
- mr.goodvibe
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:39am
  Cotug-the post you speak of asks why conservatives would hang around with progs and used pedophelia as a metaphor, you completely missed the point and apparently wanted to be offended.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:08am
  ” Atheists are more moral than almost all believers with respect to their study of the Bible”
  
  Yea, that Pol Pot and Stalin were the pillars of morality. You a dunce and your knowledge of history is retarded. Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists (of which I am) was protecting the church FROM the state so your argument is at best, misguided.
  
  Secondly, the authors of the Bible were sinners. Nobody disputes that. Guess what? You are too. In fact, you’re a blasphemer which is even worse. But I digress…..
  
  Here your problem. Christmas is a federally observed holiday. The United States government decided that it would recognize the birth of a Jew. Putting up a picture of that birth does not force you infidels to believe that Jewish baby is God.
  
  So quit getting your “widdle feewings hut” and get over it. I’m not offended by a menorah or a stupid kwanzaa sign or whatever.
  
  Also, get some context the next time you going around talking about Jefferson and history. You’re knowledge of the biblical authors could use some work too.
  
  Report this comment
- The Third Archon
  Posted on November 21, 2012 at 12:42am
  LOL–hyperbole much? If you think what what passes for “liberal” in this country is Leftist and can’t handle DEMOCRATS, then you’re going to have a heart-attack when socialism sees a resurgence in popularity in this country (of course, depending upon your age you might not live to see it, as its a phenomenon unique among those around 18 that don’t have a knee jerk reaction to the “socialism” as a a scare word). About an equal proportion of people around this age express a preference for capitalism as for socialism. Of course, there’s a lot more nuance to tease out, people change, and what exactly each person understands to be “socialism” or “capitalism” bears explicating, but it is still a very interesting and novel portent–it is a relatively new thing for people to actually be free to critically and without bias consider the merits of various socioeconomic systems. For most of the last century, several generations of hysteria were swept up and their clarity of thought poisoned by fear of a name associated with anything called “socialist” or “communist” (nevermind the utter lack of any definition of what that was other than “that which we fear and hate”). But they turned out to be mere mortals like us, the threat collapsed in a far less exciting way than people had foretold, and now many people aren’t willing, and don’t see the need, to just credulously let fear and emotion, instead of calculated rationality, dictate their decision-making.
  
  Report this comment
InfiniteSolutions
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:30pm
Merry Christmas to all and to all a goodnight. Some of the best stories around Christmas and the mind flourishes with creativeness. Yes, this is a holiday and a National celebration of Jesus Christ. This proves we are a Christian nation. Folks, lets all stand together on this, say a prayer everynight until the January 1, 2013. Pray we become stronger and more folks with seek God. Christians march forward, god is calling you now!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txn4justice
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:39pm
  Amen
  
  Report this comment
- longknifed
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:25pm
  Christians and atheists are dead wrong. Our Declaration of Independence and Constitution is not secular or christian but DEIST. GOD is plastered all over it. NOT Jesus, not Gaeia.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:38pm
  You have to define ‘deism’, which can be divided into multiple types.
  
  Also the founders came from every walk of life. From christian, deist, agnostic, a few athiests, etc.
  
  Report this comment
- longknifed
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:37pm
  Deism is God created heaven and earth, but employs self-determination. the constitution smacks of deism: we are created equal…(but have the power to shape our own lives). Not Jesus said we have to die for a country that doesn’t even allow our citizenship, israel. It does not have Stalinist atheism.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:50am
  Actually, many Christians believe God created heaven and the earth. They also believe he gave people choice to determine their own lives. Now what choices they make they they have eternal consequences after they die. In Jefferson’s writings he also shares a similar view, right to determination, but that their maybe eternal consequences after death. However under deism there is question on if god still has direct miraculous influence on the world. Deist would differ with Christians in that they believe no. Some may not believe in an afterlife either.
  
  Actually there are other types of deism, one suggests that god was like a eternal clockmaker, stepped back and left the click to its own devices. Not watching his work again. This would generally avoid any belief in an afterlife as well. That analogy is somewhat flawed however as someone needed to wind the clock every once in a while. What good is having a clock if it’s not going to be used by its owner!
  
  Report this comment
Michele58
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:29pm
All the residents in the area should erect a nativity scene in their front yards. Then the atheists lose one and gain a few hundred. Funny, the video in which Sec of State Clinton falls asleep during the presidents speech; he’s speaking on religious freedom. Go figure .

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txn4justice
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:43pm
  Good idea on the nativity scene. I hope some will do it.
  
  Report this comment
- quiltgal
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:49pm
  Great idea! (Though I’m sure these intolerant anti-religion groups will come up with a reason why nativity scenes should not be on private property either.)
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:57pm
  You’ve got that right!
  It’s a lot better use of time and money than paying the ‘rigged’ courts.
  
  Report this comment
mcsledge
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:27pm
Congress shall not establish a religion, nor prohibit the free exercize thereof;

The Courts have established a religion (Atheism) and they prohibit the free exercize (of the most basic Judeo Christian beliefs) thereof!

This is one of the most blatant violations of the US Constitution.

And for the ignorant amatuers out there, no where in the US Constitution does it say separation of Church and State.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txn4justice
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:44pm
  You are correct!
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:55pm
  Rejecting the premise of a supreme being due to lack of evidence is not a religion.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:12pm
  It is a philosophy and a ‘belief system’ however, the belief that there is no god. Some philosophies are just detrimental as religions when taken to extreme…
  
  http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM
  
  But communists could not be wrong. After all, their knowledge was scientific, based on historical materialism, an understanding of the dialectical process in nature and human society, and a materialist (and thus realistic) view of nature. Marx has shown empirically where society has been and why, and he and his interpreters proved that it was destined for a communist end. No one could prevent this, but only stand in the way and delay it at the cost of more human misery. Those who disagreed with this world view and even with some of the proper interpretations of Marx and Lenin were, without a scintilla of doubt, wrong. After all, did not Marx or Lenin or Stalin or Mao say that. . . . In other words, communism was like a fanatical religion. It had its revealed text and chief interpreters. It had its priests and their ritualistic prose with all the answers. It had a heaven, and the proper behavior to reach it. It had its appeal to faith. And it had its crusade against nonbelievers.
  
  What made this secular religion so utterly lethal was its seizure of all the state’s instrument of force and coercion and their immediate use to destroy or control all independent sources of power, such as the church, the professions, private businesses, schools, and, of course, the fami
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:18pm
  No it isn’t even a philosophy. Perhaps a tool used to further a philosophy, but need I remind you Ayn Rand was an atheist? Communism and atheism aren’t one in the same.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:24pm
  I didn’t say ‘communism and athiesm’ are one and the same. I said that things can be taken to an extreme end. Again etremists don’t represent all members of a ‘type’.
  
  Even Randian ideals could be taken to an extreme outcome, and it wouldn’t necessarily be Utopian.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:30pm
  Also, if you look in many dictionaries, “Athiesm” it is sometimes categorized as ‘philosophy’ or a ‘doctrine’! Perhaps it doesn’t make it easy that there isn’t a straightforward definition (and perhaps several)!
  
  “atheism [ˈeɪθɪˌɪzəm]
  n
  (Philosophy) rejection of belief in God or gods
  [from French athéisme, from Greek atheos godless, from a-1 + theos god]
  atheist n & adj
  atheistic , atheistical adj
  atheistically adv”
  
  a·the·ism (th-zm)
  n.
  1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
  2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:36pm
  It’s also interesting to note that early ‘athiests’ (when the word was invented by the Greek) actually did believe in a “God”, just not the one that the conformist state mandated to believe in. For example early Christians were said to be ‘athiests’ because they didn’t believe in the greek or roman gods that most people believed in. Most people are unawhare of this definition of the word, although during the Enlightment era, that usage does crop up occasionally, among the writers of the time. So even though perhaps a person called themselves “athiest” doesn’t necessarily mean they were actually “non-believers” of the Judeo-Christian god, but perhaps not believers of a conformist view of the “God”. Perhaps a form of Deism, Agnosticism or other.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:48pm
  http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
  
  Also Ayn Ran didn’t like Libertarians, whom she thought basically hippies and anarchists.
  
  Report this comment
- 1snake1
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:56pm
  If atheism is a religion is not collecting stamps a hobby?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:19pm
  http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
  
  “As a legally ordained minister, you will be able to perform weddings, funerals, commitment ceremonies, and other functions that are reserved for members of clergy.”
  
  LOL.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:23pm
  http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2012/jan/26/alain-de-botton-temple-atheists
  
  Heh heh… Not all athiests are made the same, some do take their beliefs ‘religiously’!
  
  By the way the term “religion” doesn’t necessarily mean a belief in “god”, although it most often does..
  
  re·li·gion
  [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
  
  noun
  1.
  a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
  
  2.
  a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
  
  3.
  the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
  
  4.
  the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
  
  5.
  the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:27pm
  Oh, ya, and there are those athiests calling for Athiest chaplains in the chaplain corp! Ya, it does seem kinda oxymoronic when you first hear about it…
  
  Report this comment
- AnimalsAsLeaders
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:43pm
  @SACREDHONOR
  
  Atheism is a “religion” like not smoking cigarettes is an addiction. It’s like looking up the term “non-smoker” in the dictionary and saying “well, it’s a bit iffy about whether or not non-smokers are addicted to not smoking.” It’s really very simple.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:00pm
  Tell that to the athiests who consider themselves a ‘religion’, and want churches, temples, chaplains etc! Athiests can’t all agree on how they treat their non-belief! Kinda like denominations!
  
  Report this comment
- rollthebones
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 5:57am
  There are a few atheistic religions which are not founded on faith in a creator god.
  
  There are a few atheistic philosophies.
  
  YOU may not be a religious atheist, but there is such a thing as atheistic religion.
  
  YOU may not have guiding or underlying principles, but there is such a thing as atheistic philosophy.
  
  Many are in denial about this.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:06am
  @Sacred, Atheist that I knew while I was in the military wanted chaplains because the Chaplain corp offers more than just religious services. They are some of the only sources for non-combat related counceling available for most of the military and provide a safe place to discuss your problems outside of your chain of command.
  
  Atheists just want someone who understands their lack of faith and won’t try to steer them into worship. It’s just like how you might not want to discuss deeply personal things or ask advice about your life/morals/faith with a clergy member of a different faith (Hindu, Muslim, a different sect of Christianity, etc.). There isn’t much more to the request for Athest Chaplains than that.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:31am
  There is a psychiatric/councelor organization in the Military as well. That is science based, why isn’t that good enough? I suppose maybe the only problem being that maybe the councelors and psychs don’t travel out into the field often? Or do they?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:40am
  Also about the chaplain corps, everything I’ve read is that they have to be well versed in multiple belief systems, since they may have to be dealing with a diverse group of faith. So a Christian chaplain may have to step in to help a jewish with his services, or may need to do hindu service if their is no ‘hindu’ chaplain around.
  
  That’s the difficult challenge I see Athiest having to face, in that they would have to know multiple religions and be able to administer to the need of multiple people, if they are the only chaplains assigned to a unit. It’s probably hard enough for some who would want to join the chaplain service to have to ‘learn’ multiple religions in the first place, if they have any critical beliefs of any other religion.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:57am
  Those councilor services aren’t available everywhere and don’t offer the same types of confidentiality that the Chaplain corp does.
  
  In my particular navy rate, if I was having psycological problems relating to work stress I wasn’t allowed to go to the counciling services because it could revoke my security clearance and my Personal Reliability Program certification. What I could do was go to the chaplain and get counceling without fear of it getting back to my command unless there was a danger to myself or others.
  
  The problem with non-atheist Chaplains though is that anyone who is faithful is going to have a hard time relating to the lack of faith of a service member. I’ve seen good friends come back from the chaplain’s office angrier than when they went in because they would only discuss the problem in the context of faith. It isn’t something the faithful can understand as being frustrating because they cannot conceive of a world view without their faith. It just isn’t in their ability to understand it and it isn’t their fault.
  
  Report this comment
- SquidVetOhio
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:17am
  “Rejecting the premise of a supreme being due to lack of evidence is not a religion.”
  
  What do you consider evidence? How about miles of private property legally owned by God. How about a few billion people willing to testify of His existence and even willing to die rather than to deny Him. How about congressional and presidential statements acknowledging Him. How about His name on the very dollar you have.
  
  God Himself could send miracles to you but, you are like Pharoah of old. Your heart is hardened and a stiff neck. Acknowledging God is to acknowledge your base, sinful self and the demand of justice. That is what you fear and don’t want to face. I hope that you change your mind. Jesus paid your price and wants save you from the judgement you (and I) deserve.
  
  Report this comment
InfiniteSolutions
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:19pm
I have a hard time understanding why these groups are attacking religious beliefs. I don’t see folks going around attacking Athiest and their beliefs. So, get rid of religion and warship who, we are already plagued with Narcissism and a godless society in many respects. I guess Twilight and Hollywood will teach us the true meaning of spirituality, or, better yet, let’s worship our government. Ya, and while we are at it, let’s destroy any faith and believe in only ourselves. Let’s just show people how smart we are and destroy a society that’s been built on religion ever since anyone can remember. Oh, I believe religion shouldn’t be blind to science and maybe not everything is what meets the eye, I do know that I would rather live next to someone who believed in a higher authority then government or themselves and has some moral guidelines “WHICH COME DIRECTLY FROM THE BIBLE” and goodness does come from the bible. Let’s now destroy the one good thing left in the US. Please, if you are an anthiest and you are proactive against other religions” God Forgive You For You Know Not What You Do”. God Bless America and the World. Be Good!

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- txn4justice
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:45pm
  We are targeted as Christians because of our Christian values.
  
  Report this comment
- Pnis
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:28pm
  Nobody is attacking Christianity. They just think it shouldn’t be on public tax payer funded land. I’m sure the churches could put these displays up on private land if they wanted and nobody would complain.
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:04pm
  The attacks are from Jewish-run groups. FFRF and ACLJew. 2000 years of attacks, and counting. I argue that the Federal Judge has no authority here, since this was not on Federal land, anyway. He’s overstepping the 10th Admendment.
  
  Report this comment
nonofmybiznez
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:15pm
Churches everywhere, its time to purchase private property in every city center and join together to display and share God’s joyful message. All religions should join together on one parcel. Ask members of your church to participate. Decorate with lights and have bible readings and invite food trucks to reduce prices or ask for food and diaper donations. The churches can subsidize the cost for the food trucks and we can fill up the food bank for the poor.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Marine25
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:43pm
  Good idea. Put religious displays on your property. Not our property.
  I am an atheist and I would wager a hundred dollar donation to such a project that some Christians would object to such a solution.
  They want to be on public ground to make a statement of superiority to the other faiths. Thankfully the founders thought of this and prohibited it right there in the First Amendment.
  
  Report this comment
- txn4justice
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:48pm
  Those are good ideas. You should make it some of your business to make sure it gets started!
  
  Report this comment
- Kent Perry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:43pm
  Naaah That argument that these iconic American traditions and images put on display have just as much right to be there as their right to act like petty children with a chip on their shoulder so they wanna piss in everyone’s Cheerios,. I’m a Tax Payer too so I say it stays. The Genus Taxpayer is NOT comprised of only angry mouthy butt hurt little emotional tampons like these atheist’s. People are starting to get sick and tired of their silly victim dictum and the tender sensitivities always being offended etc,. Anymore, I call atheist’s “Just a punch in the face, waiting to happen”.
  
  Although they seem to believe they are the Philosopher Kings of Science, they have shown over and over they are nothing of the kind. In fact I would say the other reputation they have worked so hard to earn, fit them perfectly, as the “Biggest ****** and ********” in the universe.
  
  Report this comment
- Marine25
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:51pm
  @kentperry
  seriously, you’re a tax payer and you say it stays?
  The Bill of Rights were adopted just to make sure that no matter how many citizens, or tax payers, objected, the government could never abridge guaranteed civil liberties. One of those liberties is the freedom from having our government establish religion. So if all of the communities tax-payers vote unanimously, The Bill of Rights wins. You okay with your neighbor, also a tax payer, declaring an end to your right to own a firearm? Or your right to a fair trial? I didn’t think so.
  
  Report this comment
LeadNotFollow
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:03pm
.
Californication will break off and drop into the ocean some day soon.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- InfiniteSolutions
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:24pm
  I believe that was Edgar Cayce’s prediction in fact!
  
  Report this comment
- Little Johnny
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:30pm
  Will you rejoice in this loss of life? Is that Christian?
  
  Report this comment
- mr.goodvibe
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:47am
  Oh Little Johnny, nic SA tactic, do you feel content now?
  
  Report this comment
Little Johnny
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:01pm
Why not display your belief in some sort of “God” on your own property? Why do I need to endure your displays of it on MY property — that is, the public property in question?

Everybody’s got some kind of creation myth…………..do you want to be forced to have them all posted all over the public square?

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- usedCZARsalesman
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:06pm
  LITTLE JOHNNY…If you read the article, you’d have seen that those spaces were open for EVERYONE, so you could have set up right next to them with your display of…well…nothing-ness.
  
  You fools constantly whine about us FORCING our beliefs on you. If EVERYONE else’s personal displays can be allowed in that public area, and only the Christian display is protested and removed by atheists, who is the bully here and who’s beliefs are being FORCED
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:15pm
  Actually public property is not ‘your property’ it is shared property, and can be used for any number of things… Hell even gay pride parades, and druid/wiccan ceremonies on Solstices if they so choose… Each group gets to ‘use’ it at varying times of the year.
  
  Did you know native americans can practice their religious ceremonies and shrines on their sacred natural monuments on national park lands? They just can’t keep ‘climbers’ off off the cliffs, if they so choose to climb on the sacred days. The parks have to accomodate both.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:19pm
  http://www.pbs.org/pov/tvraceinitiative/ilr.html
  
  “Across the USA, Native Americans are struggling to protect their sacred places. Religious freedom, so valued in America, is not guaranteed to those who practice land-based religion. Every year, more sacred sites—the land-based equivalent of the world’s great cathedrals—are being destroyed. Strip mining and development cause much of the destruction. But rock climbers, tourists and New Age religious practitioners are part of the problem, too. The biggest problem is ignorance. In the Light of Reverence tells the story of three indigenous communities and the land they struggle to protect: the Lakota of the Great Plains, the Hopi of the Four Corners area, and the Wintu of northern California.
  
  Native Americans are struggling to protect sacred sites around the Grand Canyon, Devils Tower and Mount Shasta from desecration by industry, rock climbers and New Agers. Ten years in the making, In the Light of Reverence juxtaposes reflections on the spiritual meaning of place by Hopi, Lakota and Wintu elders with interviews of non-Indians who have their own ideas about how best to use the land. This film captures the spiritual yearning and materialistic frenzy of our time.”
  
  What did the government decide? Well they can’t prevent rock climbers from climbing or new age religious groups from worshiping on those sacred sites (despite it being ‘offensive’ to one group), and they had no plans to prevent native americans from usi
  
  Report this comment
- nonofmybiznez
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:21pm
  At least I don’t believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:23pm
  What did the government decide? Well they can’t prevent rock climbers from climbing or new age religious groups from worshiping on those sacred sites (despite it being ‘offensive’ to one group), and they had no plans to prevent native americans from using those sites (or restricting others on the native american’s own special days).
  
  Report this comment
- Little Johnny
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:27pm
  UsedCzar,,,,
  
  Thanks for the polite language. Heh.
  
  I’m a strong believer in religious freedom, and part of that includes not allowing religious icons and displays and propaganda on public lands. Doesn’t matter who it’s from and it doesn’t matter my own beliefs (as those are private), I feel the same.
  
  I say take your creation myths and chant or sing or teach or whatever you want with them on your own property, where it deserves to be protected in a free country.
  
  Report this comment
- mcsledge
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:30pm
  Why do I have to tolerate your presence on MY PROPERTY – public property. With your own logic, we will expect that you refrain from any apperance in public. It will not be tolerated.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:34pm
  No, you are not a believer in ‘religious freedom’ you are believer in ‘freedom from religion”. there is a huge difference.
  
  That puts you in the same position as Karl Marx and Lenin.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:56pm
  @Used
  
  ” If EVERYONE else’s personal displays can be allowed in that public area, and only the Christian display is protested and removed by atheists, who is the bully here and who’s beliefs are being FORCED”
  
  Did YOU read the article? There’s a lottery held so everyone has a “fair chance” to get a slot. Turns out a bunch of atheists submitted applications and Christians did not. When the atheist displays went up last year, they were vandalized. Christians protested and demonstrated, as was widely reported here on The Blaze. The town decided it was a headache, and just nixed the entire thing this year because if people can’t play nice together, they can’t play at all.
  
  So your claim that “everyone else’s personal displays” can go up is false. No one gets to, because the “personal displays” from last year were vandalized and the town decided it was too much trouble to be worth it. I think it’s a shame, really. The people who should be blamed here are the ones who vandalized the atheist displays last year. They ruined it for everyone.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:42pm
  http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/26/nation/la-na-air-force-pagans-20111127
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 7:45am
  @Sacred, What are you babbling about? You’re trying to compare apples to oranges here. Native American Sacred sites being used by another religion for worship on public land vs a display in a city not used for worship but also on public land
  
  This has nothing to do with prevent people from worshiping, this entire story is about how people couldn’t get along and ruined it for everyone. Public property is owned by all and if a religious display is allowed (like this one) it should be open for all religions or none at all. If they only allow a single faith to be showcased there and deny anyone else the ability it is basically government showing preference to one over another and that is what those particular atheists were protesting about
  
  Most people who comment on this site would probably think that if it was a Ramadan display rather than the birth it would be dangerous to our culture and an attack on their faith. They would encourage protests and court action
  
  No one is preventing the displays to exist on private property, so just move them there and maybe attract new followers instead of screaming about being persecuted (which isn’t what’s happening here)
  
  Also, what does the Air Force Academy allowing practicing pagans to have their own space to worship have to do with anything previously said? Most pagans just want to be left alone, which that story points out didn’t happen, it actually shows Christians desecrating the religious sites of the pagans which doesn
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:08am
  …which doesn’t help your case.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:30am
  They never let a single faith to be showcased. Actually as its been stated they have in the past let anyone who wanted to put up displays do so, but they had to win a lottery.
  
  Actually with the native americans, you have them putting up shrines that are only to their faith. But others like the wiccans can put up their shrines on other days as well. At the same time they couldn’t prevent non-religious hikers, climbers, etc from going to the places on religious holidays. In both places its still public use and shared by different religions and non-religions.
  
  You obviously don’t know what is ‘fair’ and shared, and think that only athiests should get their way.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:36am
  Also in another example there is the hindu shrine at Manzanar which is now a public land It’s still only ever used, when its used by Japanese decendents or survivors of those who lived at Manzanar. Now, I would not be for ‘removal’ of that shrine, because of its historical value. Nor would I try to prevent people from ‘using’ it or adding other shrine related material to it, simply because its being used for religious purposes. This is actually very similar to cross situation, where crosses have been put up on public land in the past, and have historical use, and are still used.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:47am
  Also there is an arguement that if its just a display, and its not for worship… Then what the hell does it have to do with “freedom of worship” at all? A display not used for worship, does not mean its an establishment of religion, and if its not an establishment of religion, the people still have ‘free exercise’ and “free speech’ backing up their ‘display’ …
  
  Now if someone does see it as an establishment of religion by the government, banning it also breaks ‘free exercise’ and ‘free speech’ clause as well. Of course if they said it couldn’t be up, unless it was intended, that might make more sense. But if they prevented people from ‘attending” for example carolers being blocked. You are not only messing with free speech, free exercise, but also the right to assemble peacibly…
  
  It’s opening up a huge can of worms…
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:52am
  Also there is nothng wrong with a rammadan display either. It’s only fair, if they go through all the same proper procedures as everyone else does. The lottery, or whatever other means of ‘sharing’ a spot, if they are assembled peacefully. They have equal right to the first ammendemtn as anyone. Religious freedom, free exercise, free speech, and freedom to assemble peacefully… People have a right to criticize them as much as people have a right to criticize Christians or any other other group if done so peacefilly and does not infringe on the other groups rights, to assemble peacefully, publically show religious beliefs, free speech, and free exercise, etc.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:29am
  Maybe I need to change the way I’m describing it (also, full disclosure, I’m not an atheist, but I know enough of them that I see their point here):
  
  This particular park had a display that could potentially have spots raffled off, that has not always been the case though and the city created the lottery because the atheists wanted to put in their own displays as well. The park is not a historical religious site like the Native sites in a national park, or the previously mentioned Hindu shrine. It’s a public park that’s just happened to have a display for the holidays for decades.
  
  The city tried to work with the community and accomodate everyone, they worked out the lottery to allow it. Last year there were a large number of protests and vandalism. The city, not wanting to deal with that ended the tradition because people can’t play nice with each other. The court case was an attempt by christian groups to force the city to put the displays back so they could put their religious displays in a public space that was no longer allowing these particular displays.
  
  It’s not saying they can’t worship, nor that they can’t put up these displays on private property, only that they can’t put them up on the public park grounds without the city’s permission. And the city said “No”.
  
  People couldn’t play nice, so the tradition ended because of it. Some of the atheists were jerks about it, but they weren’t the ones to deface anything, so really this is a great…
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:31am
  …example of a time when the groups involved could have shown how their faith reacts to this type of thing. Christianity is supposed to turn the other cheek and keep on with the faith, not letting oppression, evil, or bigotry slow them down or destroy their faith or principles. Living as an example of what you can be.
  
  Instead the faith groups threw fits, whined to big daddy government, and destroyed/defaced someone else’s property. In the end it made Christianity look mean-spirited, pathetic, and spoiled. Turning the other cheek would have shown those paying attention to the story the real character of what Christianity is capable of building, but instead, it showed the mentality that is behind what is driving people away from pews instead. Petty bickering, intolerance, and a complete disregard for what they claim is a major part of their faith.
  
  I don’t like siding with the atheists on this one, because there are some really mean spirited and stupid people who claim to be atheists for some really stupid reasons and they are likely part of the reason the manger scene was reduced to only 2 booths last year. I would have been on your side on this if it wasn’t for the reaction of the faith groups in this situation. They had a chance to show the real Christ-like character that those of the faith can display. Instead they showed a microcosm of the perversion the faith has become, especially when dealing with public policy.
  
  Report this comment
- MontaraMissileMan
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:45am
  If the display was on private property and the atheists were whining about it, I’d be standing there with you protecting the display, but this is a public park with no history of being a religious site. The city ended the seasonal display in a unanimous decision, not because of denying religious rights, but because people renting the spaces didn’t get along.
  
  This isn’t a war on Christmas at that point, it’s people being jerks to each other and the city not wanting to deal with it anymore. The fun/nice display was ruined by mean spirited people.
  
  If the people of the city have a real big problem with it they still have political means of getting those booths back. They can go through the city council, try to pass ballot measures, run for mayor/city council, etc. They tried a petition, but those are pretty useless, and then went directly to trying to get a court to force the city to put the booths back up at their expense on public land so that they could display their religious paraphenalia on public land.
  
  Like it or not, at this point, the Christians are in the wrong.
  
  I like what the lone Rabbi in all this is doing, putting up decorations elsewhere without much of a fuss. Simply stating that if one of his decorations get taken down, two more go up in its place. He’s practicing his faith and showing the character that his faith brings very well.
  
  Report this comment
LeadNotFollow
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:00pm
.
God’s payback is H*LL.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- nonofmybiznez
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:26pm
  I like the way you think.
  
  Report this comment
- The_Doors_Of_Perception
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:57am
  Just disgusting. haha the “creator” has to pay back humans?! I think you have created a god in your image… petty.
  
  Report this comment
straitshot
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:57pm
I do not understand why atheists are so fearful of anything pertaining to God? If they do not believe, it is their choice. But what about free speech and religious freedom? Doesn’t that go both ways? The way I see it, if you do not believe in Jesus, it’s your choice…and your loss. Just do us a favor: shut up, enjoy your day off and let us live our lives as WE see fit. Jesus is Lord.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mcsledge
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:34pm
  The godless have chosen which master they choose to serve.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:07pm
  Why do you believe every atheist thinks the same exact way based on a few lawsuits here and there?
  
  Report this comment
- drs1969
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:15pm
  It’s not God, it’s Jesus that they are after. They are insanely jealous of him. That’s why most of them worship Marx.
  
  Report this comment
- mr.goodvibe
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:50am
  Just-Why do you think every comment on atheists is directed at you?
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 9:22am
  @mr.goodvibe, I don’t. I’m just pointing out the hatred, hypocrisy and collectivism of many in the religious right and how easily they’re manipulated by media sensationalism and never digs deep or thinks critically about who the judges and lawyers are that are actually pushing this agenda.
  
  Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:54pm
“Vix hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: “Religions are all alike — founded on fables and mythologies.” The other side read “Happy Solstice.” He repeated the display the following year but then upped the stakes significantly.”

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/superstition-christianity-quotation

Spoken like a true idealogue and demogogue… Always putting false words and phrases into the founding father’s mouths… The quote on his sign is debunked by the Jeffesonian Monticello organization. Either sheer ignorance or intentional dishonesty…

Let this be a lesson my friends, always verify your quote or phrase if you are going to attribute it to someone. Make sure that the person you attribute it to really said it.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
rickc34
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:49pm
God wins in the end.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- lisalake
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:55pm
  Yes HE does. In the meantime– civil disobedience is in order. With CHURCHES organizing and LEADING the way.
  
  Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:46pm
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/superstition-christianity-quotation-0

Hey Jefferson never said religion is founded on mythology or fables….

Typical of idealogues and demogogues to misquote and put words into the mouths of the founding fathers…

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- mcsledge
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:52pm
  You speak as though Jefferson was the authority on ALL topics. Note: even Jefferson believed in God.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:59pm
  No, I’m pointing out that Vix posted a false quote which he misattributed to Jefferson. Jefferson never said what he put on his sign, and Jefferson’s own estate Monticello has debunked that claim.
  
  Either Vix is truly ignorant on this subject, or willing and knowingly lieing about Jefferson’s beliefs by putting words into his mouth.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:00pm
  “Vix hung a simple sign that quoted Thomas Jefferson: “Religions are all alike — founded on fables and mythologies.” The other side read “Happy Solstice.” He repeated the display the following year but then upped the stakes significantly.”
  
  Vix is a fraud or very ignorant….
  
  Report this comment
- Heffe44
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:21pm
  The thing about quotes from the internet is that it’s hard to verify their authenticity.
  -Abraham Lincoln
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:29pm
  Heffe44, snicker!
  
  I like your style!
  
  Report this comment
- mr.goodvibe
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 8:53am
  Since the Jefferson quote has been outed as fake, now we must attack Jefferson, because since he is not useful to the cause he is now the enemy, nice.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 11:57am
  Jefferson actually loved Christmas and celebrated in the White House (government property) and at Monticello. There is alot of history on the fact. You can find an article discussing it on the Whitehouse.gov website. He’s not going to be the best defense for people who want to get rid of the holiday.
  
  Report this comment
quiltgal
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:46pm
Whether you believe in God or not, the Nativity and the life of Jesus is a message of peace and tolerance. These militant atheist groups must really hate those things. They seem, simply, to be a relatively small group of hateful people, intent on spreading hate and intolerance towards religion.
The U.S. is going backwards, not forward. Religious intolerance in the Old World is one of the major reasons why Europeans were brave enough to come here. Now it is occurring here and being supported by our courts. Really sad.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:09pm
  Baby haters ;)
  
  Report this comment
- Kent Perry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:12pm
  Well you see them making comparisons to Santa Clause all the time and how they are exposing the myths we teach our children. But I just don’t HATE, Parents and Children enough to go around pulling beards off Santa Clause in front of all the kids at the mall during Christmas.
  
  At least I don’t hate them as much as atheist hate Christians and God.
  
  I think its time we start getting Cambodian on their asses
  
  I swear, they are like a gaggle of little bitches
  
  Ewww!! I spied a nativity scene!
  
  I’m melting, melting,,
  
  melting,, noooo
  
  Report this comment
The_Jerk
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:45pm
Ignore the courts. They’ve delegitimized themselves.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Little Johnny
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:45pm
Do you want your cities and towns filled with Buddhist or Hindu or Muslim statues and displays on public property? I sure don’t.

Why not keep whatever displays that support your own creation myth to yourself? Seriously.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:10pm
  I personally don’t mind the occasional yearly Buddhist or Muslim display on their related holidays… I don’t mind minora (sp?) and Hannuka (sp?), etc… Believe you me, I doubt the militant athiests ever go after those (except maybe the minoras if they are pro-palestine types)… Most of these marxist athiests are into the whole “diversity” thing, and just hate christians and maybe jews.
  
  Report this comment
- nonofmybiznez
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:35pm
  Maybe I was wrong when I called for open celebrations…
  Matthew 6.1 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven.
  2Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
  3But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth:
  4That thine alms may be in secret: and thy Father which seeth in secret himself shall reward thee openly.
  5And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.
  6But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:59pm
  Chinese new year celebrations with those centipede dragons are cool!
  
  It’s also fun to have Thanks Giving meals with full thanks giving decorations in a public park!
  
  Also quite fun to have those Halloween events in parks (ya that’s also a catholic/pagan holiday).
  
  Report this comment
- Kent Perry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:38pm
  Get OVER IT ya big cry baby! Is THAT all you atheist do is BlTCH? YoU ALL ACT LIKE A VAMPIRE CAUGHT IN THE SUNS RAYS IF YOU HAPPEN UPON A BABY JESUS BUT YOU ARE ALL FOR STANDING UP FOR GAYS AND THEIR RIGHT TO PRANCE AROUND NAKED IN A PARADE LOOKING LIKE SOME QUASI CAST MEMBER OF THE ROCKY HORROR PICTURE SHOW AND A CANDIDATE FOR SOME PROTRACTED HEALTH CURE.
  
  Report this comment
thibx
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:44pm
that state is so evil God is going to send an earthquake. the judge is athiest.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Little Johnny
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:49pm
  If “God’s will” is done like you say, and thousands die, will you rejoice?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:22pm
  Earthquakes do not discriminate on targets… They don’t pick or choose innocent or the good… They cause damage to all…
  
  Who are you to judge the people, who are hit by it..
  
  Report this comment
SacredHonor1776
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:38pm
They should do a live nativity scene, just switch out people when they get tired.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Exrepublisheep
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:38pm
If America doesn’t become completely secular how will we ever hate Israel?

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Wolfgang the Gray
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:38pm
“We are never defeated unless we give up on God.” – Ronald Reagan

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
Rothbardian_in_the_Cleve
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:35pm
Why do we (Christians) insist on this fight? If we win, then do I have to look at Ramadan and Bahia and Scientology crap too? Can’t they erect some giant religious junk in the park too? Why not buy or lease land to do the exhibits? Have church members donate it. Do it at the church sites. If the city/state tries to shut that down then you have a real legal case. Doing it on public property and then “winning” only opens the door to all the kooks to demand “equal” access to the same space.

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
bonesiii
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:34pm
Atheists are so cliche now. Do they have any thoughts in their heads at all? I keep hearing about all this spaghetti monster and the like, yet they can’t seem to realize that it’s more fitting as an analogy of their own beliefs — literally believing in nonsense originating our universe.

The real solution to this is for all of us who know better and love the lost to continue teaching them why atheism is wrong, and more importantly why the Bible is true. Competing symbolic displays and cliches won’t likely convince many, but atheism is a poison to all who fall for it, and if we show why that is so, maybe we will save more from it. :)

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:41pm
  “I keep hearing about all this spaghetti monster”
  
  I’m curious, do you know why the Flying Spaghetti Monster meme began? It’s actually a pretty interesting story, and I think the creator of the faux religion was incredibly creative to protest in the way that he did.
  
  Report this comment
- bonesiii
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:52pm
  Locked, it had its time, but it got old a long time ago. And the bigger issue is that so many seem to think it is a suitable stand-in for a rational argument. It illustrates their ignorance that their own worldview is imaginary (or if it is not, it wastes time that could be better spent explaining why not).
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:17pm
  @BonesIII
  
  ” it had its time, but it got old a long time ago.”
  
  Oh definitely. Like more memes, it got stale fast. I agree it’s no stand-in for rational argument.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 6:29pm
  Well first of all you need to stop lumping all atheists into a group militant activists and implying that just because we don’t believe in God we have no morals. And you’re not going to convince an atheist that the Bible is the truth until you have proof or even evidence. Perhaps the intolerance expressed in your post is what’s driving some atheists to lash back out at Christianity?
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:07pm
  Dr. Ben Carson of John Hopkins;
  
  “…John Adams…said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” I fully recognize that many in our society would prefer not ot derive their morality from the Bible and its teachings. Many such people are athiests and agnostics and claim to have their own internal moral compass. While their opinions diverge when it comes to sex outside of marriage, homosexuality, gabling, and use of illicit drugs and alcohol, and other social behaviour, I find it interesting to note, however, that their moral compass points in very much the same direction as Judeo-Christian values when it comes to such issues as murder, lying, cheating, and theft.”-America The Beautiful: Rediscovering what Made This Nation Great.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:21pm
  “Only I want to make something clear, I am not a conservative. I think today’s conservatives are WORSE than today’s liberals. If anyone destroys this country it will be the conservatives because they do not know how to preach capitalism. To explain it to the people because they do nothing but apologize and because they’re all altruists. They are all based on religious altruism, and on that combination of ideas you cannot save this country.” Ayn Rand.
  
  Report this comment
- Pnis
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:39pm
  @BonesIII
  
  ” it had its time, but it got old a long time ago.”
  
  Yeah, kind of like Christianity. That got old 2,000 years ago.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:47pm
  Ayn Rand wasn’t necessarily a “libertarian” either. Objectivism is not ‘libertarianism”.
  
  http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:51pm
  “They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
  
  I don’t think plagiarists are effective. I’ve read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn’t my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given. I didn’t know whether I should be glad that no credit was given, or disgusted. I felt both. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.”
  
  “Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program.”-Ayn Rand
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:53pm
  “Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks. I want philosophically educated people: those who understand ideas, care about ideas, and spread the right ideas. That’s how my philosophy will spread, just as philosophy has throughout all history: by means of people who understand and teach it to others. Further, it should be clear that I do not endorse the filthy slogan, “The end justifies the means.” That was originated by the Jesuits, and accepted enthusiastically by Communists and Nazis. The end does not justify the means; you cannot achieve anything good by evil means. Finally, the Libertarians aren’t worthy of being the means to any end, let alone the end of spreading Objectivism.”-Ayn Rand.
  
  She surely wasn’t the Libertarian’s friend. She thought they were worse than conservatives! Yet, I don’t think Objectivism in its purist sense is necessarily true to the founding father’s ideals either.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 8:11pm
  She apparently also said this;
  
  “I am certainly in favor of abortion … I’d like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo … The idea of some bitches – and I don’t apologize for that – trying to prescribe to all other women what they should do with their lives is disgusting. And they call it a right to life!”
  
  http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-Answers-The-Best/dp/0451216652
  
  Which the more left leaning libertarians might agree with, but definitley would get on the goat of the more conservative groups (as well as several of the founding fathers)…
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:24pm
  Sacred, I voted Libertarian this time around because Goode voted for the patriot act and wasn’t on half the states’ ballots. There’s a split between the Randians and Libertarians and there seems to be all kinds of in fighting between the Libertarians themselves. Lew Rockwell sounds great sometimes then other times he seems a little off. The Constitution party’s platform is more to my liking to be honest, but I’d happily take any over the two progressive parties we have now. Also Rand was talking about the spoiled college brats of the Libertarian movement in the 60′s. I’m not quite sure they’re the same. But yeah she wasn’t a fan of the Libertarians. I’m still trying to play catch up to really sort out what’s what and whether I fit in more with Rothbard or Rand. I know they were both brilliant, but there’s only so many hours in the day.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:26pm
  ““…John Adams…said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ”
  
  John Adams, The guy who imported “whores”? Multiple whores 2 and 3 at a time.
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 10:31pm
  @Resme, Let’s not forget the alien sedition act. That’s wasn’t very moral.
  
  Report this comment
- resme
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 11:04pm
  @justangry, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekOpqN3ik_g
  
  Talks about Adams and other loyalist to the British system.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:39am
  “RESME
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:26pm
  ““…John Adams…said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” ”
  
  John Adams, The guy who imported “whores”? Multiple whores 2 and 3 at a time.”
  
  Been Franklin also, he liked the older ladies , later in life he promoted monagamy over many however.
  http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/bdorsey1/41docs/51-fra.html
  You know they were probably followers of the early old testament patriarchs or Solomon! The ones with many mistresses and concubines.
  
  Alien and sedition act…
  
  Well, not in support of it, but George Washington also went after seditionists and rebels as well. Shay’s rebellion, iirc.
  
  Also they left a loophole within the constitution itself…
  
  Article 1, section 9, under limits of congress; “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
  
  Lincoln not a founder, perhaps can be blamed for sidestepping congress on this issue, when he went after secessionists. Although he had the backing of what was left of congress at the time. I also wouldn’t be surprised if this loophole was influenced by Shay’s rebellion under George Washington.
  
  Also for you Ron Paul fans he’s also quoted John Adams on that moral and religious quote as well on his website, as holding up his own beliefs! Most fans still think he’s a
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:52am
  Still think he is for freedom and liberty.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 1:57am
  The ultimate goal of the anti-religious elites is to transform America into a completely secular nation, a nation that is legally and culturally biased against Christianity. ~ Ron Paul
  
  “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever; That a revolution of the wheel of fortune, a change of situation, is among possible events; that it may become probable by Supernatural influence! The Almighty has no attribute which can take side with us in that event.”
  –Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, p. 237.
  
  Also note many of the signers if they were not fully athiest (although athiest may have had a different meaning in enlightenment times than now) had very similar sentiments. There was no seperation of church and state as we view it now, people could still choose to celebrate, pray etc in the public arena. They just couldn’t force anyone to join in if they didn’t want to.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:33am
  Also, I’m not sure Ayn Rand would have liked Ron Paul… He considers himself a conservative, he has particulary conservative values on many issues, including the ‘altruistic, and religious side’ of things. He’s been in the past anti-abortion, and also pro-states rights on the issue (she probably would have been critical of the former). She probably would have seen him as plagiarizing her ideas, and misuing them. He certainly falls more towards the conservative side of libertarianism.
  
  On the one hand, he was an experienced ‘career’ politician, which she had more respect for than those new to the system, with no experience. So i’m not sure she would be open to the idea of congressional term limits, which Paul supported (although a career politician himself). But Ayn Rand might have seen that as ‘hypocricy’ that his actions didn’t necessarily follow his ideas (which she was not really a fan of, from what I can see). Her view of Objectivism promoted a ‘consistent’ code, you do what you mean, and you mean what you say.
  
  They both share similar view on drugs I think, towards the liberal side of libertarianism. To her drugs should be accessable, and adults should be allowed to ‘poison themselves’ if they want to. She personally thought they were bad. Ron Paul likewise has a similar view as far as I know. Of course that places his view in like minded positon of Barney Frank as well.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 2:34am
  Also point of note, if you missed the context of Dr. Carson’s quote, it was not a crack at athiests. He was pointing out that Christians and Athiests can come together on similar beliefs. But that they may have some fundamental differences on some aspects “morality” but both have similar moral codes. He wasn’t criticizing athiesm, and waws quite respectful and inclusive of them. He does criticize athiestical Socialism and Communism though. The branch of athiesm which he sees as most detrimental towards freedom of religion, but that’s not the same group of course.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 4:23am
  I’ve also gotten from what little I’ve read of her writings that she was critical of altruism and charity even in the public sphere because it potentially had the chance of breeding users on society. People that wouldn’t learn to improve their own lives. Of course this is true to a point, but it overlooks the truly needy and infirm that can’t help themselves. Taken to extreme end could lead to a rather cold hearted society.
  
  That being said one of the charitable donations she supported was the Nation of Israel among all things. http://www.jewishjournal.com/rob_eshman/article/ayn_rand_rosenbaum_20120815 likely because she agrees to their right to self determination, make a life for themselved, and to survive. Ideals she had for self. Incidently her own heritage was Jewish, and thus understood first hand the mistreatment of her people around the word.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 5:36am
  Actually here we go, Ayn Rand’s reasons for defending israel in her own words apparently (does someone know the source);
  
  “Give all the help possible to Israel. Consider what is at stake. It is not the moral duty of any country to send men to die helping another country. The help Israel needs is technology and military weapons—and they need them desperately. Why should we help Israel? Israel is fighting not just the Arabs but Soviet Russia, who is sending the Arabs armaments. Russia is after control of the Mediterranean and oil.
  
  Further, why are the Arabs against Israel? (This is the main reason I support Israel.) The Arabs are one of the least developed cultures. They are typically nomads. Their culture is primitive, and they resent Israel because it’s the sole beachhead of modern science and civilization on their continent. When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are. Israel is a mixed economy inclined toward socialism. But when it comes to the power of the mind—the development of industry in that wasted desert continent—versus savages who don’t want to use their minds, then if one cares about the future of civilization, don’t wait for the government to do something. Give whatever you can. This is the first time I’ve contributed to a public cause: helping Israel in an emergency.”-Ayn Rand
  
  Surprising this would place her much closer to the so called “neocons” (liberals in conservative clothing) in
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 10:17am
  @SacredHonor, I don’t know what you’re trying to prove to me. Comments here towards atheists are hateful and collectivist in nature. My point is there are actually very few atheists that are suing Christmas or attempting to spread atheism as a religion or doctrine and that being an atheist doesn’t make one a commie freak. We’re also capable of having morals. Are you denying that these opinions don’t flourish here on the Blaze’s comment section? If you were in my shoes, would you not want to point them out? As for Rand, she was still human and susceptible to emotions, collectivism and hypocrisy as are all of us. Besides, we have a lot more information today with wikileaks and the internet. Would Rand still support giving Israel technology if she knew that when we have in the past they turned right around and gave it to the Chinese commies? Has she seen the database on Wikileaks of the illegal settlements or how they were essentially coercing us to attack Iran for them? Are the people making interest off our government’s war spending Zionists? There’s a lot of stuff I just have the answers to that she certainly didn’t have access to either. Would that change her opinion? We’ll never know.
  
  Report this comment
- SacredHonor1776
  Posted on November 20, 2012 at 12:01pm
  I’m not attackng athiests, let alone I’m not attacking you. My initital quote was actually in defense of what you said, that Christians and Athiests can come together on common grounds and similar beliefs. That not all athiests are ‘militant”.
  
  Then we got sidetracked into several other discussions, about Ayn Rand and other things. They really have nothing to do with the original discussion. Other than discussing how she was critical of other parties and belief systems. Actually she was somewhat ‘militant’ towards religious types in some of her writing. But she was still pretty much for ‘live and let live’ and individual choice, and not one to push her interpretation on others.
  
  Report this comment
justangry
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:30pm
Well this non believer doesn’t feel like we’ve won anything. I was hoping that they’d be allowed to put up their Nativity scene.

Report this comment
Log in to ReplyReply
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:01pm
  As a Christian, I had hoped an agreement would have been reached as well. I was ok with last year’s compromise but after all the vandalism and protests I can understand why the town wanted to nix the entire thing. It’s still a shame.
  
  On the plus side, it seems most of the displays have moved to private land, which I’m fine with. Christmas is still thriving; thank God :-)
  
  Report this comment
- justangry
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 7:15pm
  I celebrate it with my family. As I said earlier today, I don’t have to actually believe he was the son of God to recognize he had some great ideas and the spirit of the season and there’s something to be said about tradition as well.
  
  Report this comment
- Locked
  Posted on November 19, 2012 at 9:41pm
  Amen! I wish you and yours all the best this Christmas season :-)
  
  Report this comment
exfire
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:30pm
If you needed one more reason to move the hell out of Ca. this it it !!!

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply
ResistSocialism
Posted on November 19, 2012 at 5:29pm
Place is a dump anyway

Report this comment
Log in to Reply Reply

It appears that you have Javascript Disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser preferences for a better user experience on TheBlaze. You can not comment without Javascript enabled.