On Public Displays

[JoeyKnothead]

I bet you guessed it already.

A town allows a nativity display. Atheists seek to place a display and they outlaw displays for everybody.

For debate:

Does a past history of allowing Christian displays, then banning all displays because atheists seek to place one, constitute an attempt to silence dissent?

Edit in the source...

Pennlive, Chambersburg Pennsylvania

[VermilionUK]

Does a past history of allowing Christian displays, then banning all displays because atheists seek to place one, constitute an attempt to silence dissent?

Yes, it's basically saying "Our way, or nothing"

[Nilloc James]

Really shows the close mindedness some people have.

DO they feel threatened by the occasional other opinion or, "God" forbid, Logic?

[Miles]

Does a past history of allowing Christian displays, then banning all displays because atheists seek to place one, constitute an attempt to silence dissent?

As has been alluded to, it also amounts to hypocrisy. Not at all surprising though.

[JoeyKnothead]

I too think it's hypocritical. They were fine with the displays when their viewpoint was the only one expressed. Then just as soon as a competing viewpoint comes along they muzzle everybody. Notice though, there's a church on the square that can rightly use its own property for the favored viewpoint.

Maybe atheists oughta start building churches so our voice can be heard.

This is not unlike this forum's rules allowing Christians to insult others with sanctions for those who may quote their own God in return.

[FinalEnigma]

[sarcasm] That was sure an obnoxious sign the atheists were trying to put up[/sarcasm]

honestly, I was confused about what kind of display atheists could even put up that anyone could complain about, however, I possibly agree with the ruling, becasue what they said was correct - if they allowed both those groups to put up sign's they would have to allow pretty much anyone to - and that would inevitably lead to some very obnoxious signs.

on the other hand, disallowing celebratory displays seems a bit ridiculous.

[Miles]

[sarcasm] That was sure an obnoxious sign the atheists were trying to put up[/sarcasm]

honestly, I was confused about what kind of display atheists could even put up that anyone could complain about, however, I possibly agree with the ruling, becasue what they said was correct - if they allowed both those groups to put up sign's they would have to allow pretty much anyone to - and that would inevitably lead to some very obnoxious signs.

on the other hand, disallowing celebratory displays seems a bit ridiculous.

As with all endeavors that require permission, those granting a permission can always set whatever standards of taste they desire, which would take care of any obnoxiousness--as they perceived it. And so such permission need never be a matter of who, but what.

[JoeyKnothead]

Oh, the irony. Now sigs are turned off.

[FinalEnigma]

I bet you guessed it already.

A town allows a nativity display. Atheists seek to place a display and they outlaw displays for everybody.

For debate:

Does a past history of allowing Christian displays, then banning all displays because atheists seek to place one, constitute an attempt to silence dissent?

Edit in the source...

Pennlive, Chambersburg Pennsylvania

This story has just been repeated in arkansas.

There is always a nativity scene displayed by some public building or another, and for the last three years, the Arkansas Freethinkers have been pushing to be allowed to put up a solstice display - celebrating solstice and well known freethinkers. This year, it was ruled that it would be allowed. it will be put up soon. Religious groups are claiming its an attack on the nativity display, the Arkansas Freethinkers say they merely wish to be included in the holiday.

[Jayhawker Soule]

I think it was an unfortunate and self-defeating response to pettiness.