Friday, December 18, 2015

Nativity Scene Removed and replaced with atheist display

Atheists like to tell us that they're not at war with organized religion. That it's the other way around, and they want to live and let live. What an absolute crock. What these extremist atheists did in Nebraska would make the Grinch blush.

An atheist group has forced Nebraska to remove a nativity from its state capitol and replace it with an atheist display.

The nativity is allowed to stay up until Dec. 18 when it must be taken down so that an atheist display can be put up. The atheist display will feature a small model church and model capitol building with a large wall between them to symbolize the separation of church and state, The Lincoln Journal Star reports. The atheist display will be up through Christmas, but not the nativity.



Anonymous said...

I am an atheist and I do not have any objection to nativity scenes.
I only object to aggressive religious types who try to push their religion on to others.
There is not any constitutional "separation of religion"; the founders were all religious, it was pretty much required in those days.

Anonymous said...

I suggest an alternative. A model of the White House, Capitol, State House, etc. and a prison, with a wall between. This will serve to remind folks of the almost impossible task of putting politicians where they truly belong.

The proper holiday greeting to a politician? "Season's Thievings"

Bird of Paradise said...

The Separation of church and state is a big big lie there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that says anything about the separation of church and state it just prophits having a established religion like forcing landlords to study Islam or the imposible demands of self cenetered athiest fools

Alpha Skua said...

Its a wonder they did'nt have one showing a chimp and a fish in a evolution version over a tiny human figure

Anonymous said...

I defy anyone to tell me that atheism practiced by some is not a defacto religion.

Anonymous said...

I think it was an attempt to share the public space, but the so-called Christians should have had the period over Christmas itself (albeit that date was originally a pagan festival taken over by the Roman Christians).
Alpha Skua;- Some so-called atheists may well have turned their opinions into a quasi religion, but "atheism" just means the opposite of "theism" - aka. a non-belief in theistic religion or religiosity.

Anonymous said...

4:41 says sorry - the comment should have been directed at 3:17 AM (although Alpha's comment is risible!!)

Anonymous said...

If the concept of God is Truth, including individual freewill for men and women, and genuine consideration for others, then leftism is essentially Godless altruism.

Anonymous said...

The is nothing altruistic about socialism or communism. They are all about controlling you in order that you obey their will and forgo your freewill for the sake of society. Your subjugation is the so called altruism not any action from society.

Doug Indeap said...

1. Predicating a gripe on the supposition that “atheists” are some monolithic group that think alike and speak with one voice is just silly.

2. Unmentioned in the post is that the placement and removal of these displays was merely a matter of scheduling based on who had reserved time for displays at the capitol building based on a first come, first served process. Sure, those who first applied for the week in which Christmas falls knew that they rather uncharitably chose a week that others would want as well, but they plainly thought it more important to remind people of the separation of church and state.

3. Speaking of which, that is a bedrock principle of our Constitution, much like the principles of separation of powers and checks and balances. In the first place, the Supreme Court has thoughtfully, authoritatively, and repeatedly decided as much; it is long since established law. In the second place, the Court is right. In the Constitution, the founders did not simply say in so many words that there should be separation of powers and checks and balances; rather, they actually separated the powers of government among three branches and established checks and balances. Similarly, they did not merely say there should be separation of church and state; rather, they actually separated them by (1) establishing a secular government on the power of "We the people" (not a deity), (2) according that government limited, enumerated powers, (3) saying nothing to connect that government to god(s) or religion, (4) saying nothing to give that government power over matters of god(s) or religion, and (5), indeed, saying nothing substantive about god(s) or religion at all except in a provision precluding any religious test for public office. Given the norms of the day (by which governments generally were grounded in some appeal to god(s)), the founders' avoidance of any expression in the Constitution suggesting that the government is somehow based on any religious belief was quite a remarkable and plainly intentional choice. They later buttressed this separation of government and religion with the First Amendment, which affirmatively constrains the government from undertaking to establish religion or prohibit individuals from freely exercising their religions.

That the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the text of the Constitution assumes much importance, it seems, to some who once mistakenly supposed they were there and, upon learning of their error, fancy they’ve solved a Constitutional mystery. The absence of the metaphorical phrase commonly used to name one of its principles, though, is no more consequential than the absence of other phrases (e.g., separation of powers, checks and balances, federalism) used to describe other undoubted Constitutional principles.

To the extent that some nonetheless would like confirmation--in those very words--of the founders' intent to separate government and religion, Madison and Jefferson supplied it. Some try to pass off the Supreme Court’s decision in Everson v. Board of Education as simply a misreading of Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists–as if that were the only basis of the Court’s decision. Instructive as that letter is, it played but a small part in the Court’s decision. Rather, the Court discussed the historical context in which the Constitution and First Amendment were drafted, noting the expressed understanding of Madison perhaps even more than Jefferson, and only after concluding its analysis and stating its conclusion did the Court refer–once–to Jefferson’s letter, largely to borrow his famous metaphor as a clever label or summary of its conclusion. The notion, often heard, that the Court rested its decision solely or largely on that letter is a red herring.