Nebraska Capitol to Have Atheist Display Instead of Nativity for Christmas

[7_Sorrows]

What is the fuss?

The display areas can be reserved by each group for one week at a time.

The group wanting to put up the nativity scene booked the space for the week of Dec 11-18th…while the the Atheist group booked the space for Dec 18th-25th.

The only reason the “Reason for Season” display will be there on Xmas day instead of the Nativity scene is because they booked the space first. That is all.

The Thomas Moore Society displayed their nativity scene there on Christmas day last year. If they want to do it again next year, they better not be so slow to make the phone call to book it.

.

yes I understand that. but out of all the weeks of the year, why did the atheists choose the week of Christmas? why not the week of Hannukah or Passover? why not the week of a Muslim holiday?
there are 52 weeks in a year - why choose the week of Christmas to put up their display? what bothers atheists so much about Christmas?

 

[TheAtheist]

As was said, no one would make a cartoon of Moses, in an effort to ridicule Judaism. Not only because of the obvious anti-semitism outcry that would occur, but because the instigators know there wouldn’t be high publicity from such a stunt. Most people would go, meh.

Well its a little more than just the fact that the reaction would be muted (although i’m more than willing to concede that is part of the modus operandi - they must derive some sort of pleasure from it, otherwise why play the “martyr” so to speak).

The fact of the matter is that Judaism applies to about what… 0.2% of the world’s population? It really isn’t a factor in their minds.

Don’t get me wrong, they are more than willing to criticize say Israel foreign policy (although I’ve noticed that as time has gone on, the “New Atheist” position seems to mirror the Evangelical Christian position regarding support for Israel) - but the religion of Judaism just isn’t a factor in their lives.

So there’s really no need to do any sort of protest.

They only thing that actually comes to mind is a set of posters/billboards/ad-campaigns targeting an Orthodox Jewish community from…ex-Orthodox Jews.

You guys on the other hand… many of these New Atheists are either former Christians or have run up against Christian culture in some manner. It makes sense though - you are the predominate religion in the West.

Even then however, I can’t really say that their convulsions are directed against “all Christians.”

Catholics sure (lets be honest, its easier to ask who doesn’t take a pot shot at you all)
Mainstream Protestants - Check.
Evangelicals (honestly, their preferred target).

… but what about the Amish for instance? or Quakers?

When i’m in “full-on” debate mode with these people, and their going through their convulsions about how religion is holding back scientific progress, Western Civilization, etc. etc. etc. I usually speak sarcastically about “Staging a Protest in Lancaster County…”

For some odd particular reason, these people who feel perfectly fine in putting up displays in a state capitol… they’ll never bite when it comes to the two groups i’ve mentioned above. Make fun of them - sure… but do so in such a public manner?

I’ve never quite figured out why these 2 groups would be considered “blind spots” for them so to speak…

Islam is a low hanging fruit. You make fun of Muhammed, you get a public and disproportionate reaction. Much more rewarding than, meh, or risking people thinking to themselves something along the lines of “skinhead weirdos”. Now, being anti-Islamic puts you at risk of being aligned to a certain wealthy man who thinks he’s a politician.

I tend to think the targeting of Islam, either by the religious or non-religious, tends to fold into a bigger narrative about the threat presented by Political Islamism toward Western Civilization.

Or to be blunt - the more things blow up, the more I see a willingness of people who would normally be rhetorically at each others throats to…maybe not so much “mend fences” but rather put their debating on hold to go deal with a group of people who don’t really care to debate and see the

“Zionist Secular Christian Crusaders” (Yes, its an actual line I heard from a propaganda video), dead.

I’ve always wondered what they meant by that… is it some bizzare idea that when the Politicized Islamist leaves the room, i blow a whistle and huddle with the Jews and you guys and plot their downfall?

There are other methods that can be used, that are mature and civil.

Ah… I see where the problem lays.

Your actually expecting these people to be civil…

I don’t think that’s a possibility at this point. If there’s been a negative side effect to the creation of the Internet, its been the ability of social media to essentially to give public platforms to people with extreme views.

And the extremists feed each other. They Twitter at each other, Facebook their followers, create YouTube videos castigating their enemies, and hold rallies.

I’m sure your old enough to remember the claims that were made during the 90s when people were told that the “Internet will Unite the World.”

Well it did…by uniting people of similar viewpoints allowing them to stew and brood in their own little clubhouses about how everyone outside of their clubhouse is (fill in pejorative).

You can’t ask for civility in such a situation - especially of the new generation - some of these kids…(or in some cases “man-children” to quote a rather funny teaching assistant i know) don’t know how to interact with people who don’t agree with them.

I don’t know about you - but I find that absolutely horrifying.

And the ironic thing is from my “seat” so to speak, while all these little religious/political/philosophical groups are all shouting at each other like the Apocalypse were about to occur because - of say a Nativity scene being tolerated, or a certain type of video game being sold, or a certain movie allowed to be played…

…I’m stuck in “faculty meetings” on “sensitvity training” having to learn how to use “Trigger Warnings” and avoid statements that might be deemed “Microaggressions”

Because the real children, those probably a generation beneath the Nebraska folks, well…this is what they’ve become…

youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA

Universities used to be places where people came to be challenged - intellectually, socially, etc. And i’m sure in a certain sense, to get out their angst out of their system so they can enter into society and be civil as you put it.

If things keep going the way it does… say goodbye to that idea.

 

[Peter_J]

Yes I have. I thought however, that since we were speaking of Nebraska, it was implicit that we were speaking in the American context.

Well, alright.

From your earlier comment "can anyone really say anything ‘anti-Jewish’ " etc, I couldn’t tell if you meant specifically in the US.

 

[Peter_J]

Now look back at the post I was responding to -

is the person giving an account for why atheists can be moral?

Or is he denying the possibility that atheists can be moral?

Either questions has consequences of course, but the latter choice instantly moves a segment of the population into a rather shall we say, sub-human level.

You should see some of the things that have been posted about Protestants.

The thing is, though, that those posts are not representative.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I tend to think the targeting of Islam, either by the religious or non-religious, tends to fold into a bigger narrative about the threat presented by Political Islamism toward Western Civilization.

Or to be blunt - the more things blow up, the more I see a willingness of people who would normally be rhetorically at each others throats to…maybe not so much “mend fences” but rather put their debating on hold to go deal with a group of people who don’t really care to debate and see the

“Zionist Secular Christian Crusaders” (Yes, its an actual line I heard from a propaganda video), dead.

I’ve always wondered what they meant by that… is it some bizzare idea that when the Politicized Islamist leaves the room, i blow a whistle and huddle with the Jews and you guys and plot their downfall?

Ah… I see where the problem lays.

Your actually expecting these people to be civil…

I don’t think that’s a possibility at this point. If there’s been a negative side effect to the creation of the Internet, its been the ability of social media to essentially to give public platforms to people with extreme views.

And the extremists feed each other. They Twitter at each other, Facebook their followers, create YouTube videos castigating their enemies, and hold rallies.

I’m sure your old enough to remember the claims that were made during the 90s when people were told that the “Internet will Unite the World.”

Well it did…by uniting people of similar viewpoints allowing them to stew and brood in their own little clubhouses about how everyone outside of their clubhouse is (fill in pejorative).

You can’t ask for civility in such a situation - especially of the new generation - some of these kids…(or in some cases “man-children” to quote a rather funny teaching assistant i know) don’t know how to interact with people who don’t agree with them.

I don’t know about you - but I find that absolutely horrifying.

And the ironic thing is from my “seat” so to speak, while all these little religious/political/philosophical groups are all shouting at each other like the Apocalypse were about to occur because - of say a Nativity scene being tolerated, or a certain type of video game being sold, or a certain movie allowed to be played…

…I’m stuck in “faculty meetings” on “sensitvity training” having to learn how to use “Trigger Warnings” and avoid statements that might be deemed “Microaggressions”

Because the real children, those probably a generation beneath the Nebraska folks, well…this is what they’ve become…

youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA

Universities used to be places where people came to be challenged - intellectually, socially, etc. And i’m sure in a certain sense, to get out their angst out of their system so they can enter into society and be civil as you put it.

If things keep going the way it does… say goodbye to that idea.

I had to trim the quote of your post to fit into the character limit.

I view groups like daesh or al Qaeda as organized crime who use their culture, including religion, to further their goals. There are over a billion Muslims in the world and by far they are not criminals. The unity against criminals by people of good will is what needs to happen, otherwise we play into the hands of the scoundrels.

I don’t think the “melting snowflakes” constitute a majority. They might form into a political party, that the more hardy in character will view as wonky. Hard to say where the future will take us, but all who survive are part of the future and will have a roll in shaping it.

In regards to your point regarding natural law. Sure, Catholic teaching is that God creates us oriented towards Himself. But I think we’re talking about actions, and what constitutes a moral act. It is obviou that we are free to act against natural law. Atheism, has no moral foundation. There are humanists, whose footings are in altruism. There are nihilists, who view any moral or ethical code as a human construct. There are anarchists who are relatives of nihilists, and want to tear all the constructs down. Most atheists I know have all three traits, and will vary in what trait is dominant.

BTW I’m a convert to Catholicism, from atheism. My immediate family are atheists.

 

[thenobes]

I’ve never really understood this line of argumentation, especially coming from the Catholic viewpoint.

By your own traditions intellectual defense of the Aristotlean-Thomistic philosophy, man already has a natural inclination toward morality in the form of Virtue Ethics.

Its the basis of Natural Law Theory which your Church condones.

Its also how your Church Fathers explained why Graeco-Roman pagans could in fact be moral even without divine revelation. You know, Ambrose of Milan’s evaluation of Epictetus, etc.etc.

I also don’t know how people who happen to come outside of the Catholic faith or Christianity in general but who also happen to subscribe to a religious viewpoint should interpret the statement you’ve made.

Are you essentially saying “Only Christians are moral?”

If your not, then how does say a religion like Daoism, or Hinduism which is unrelated to Christian revelation, are capable of generating codes of ethics based of their own religious commitments?

I believe Cathoilic teaching assumes God’s illumination of man in a natural way, resulting in man’s awareness of “natural law”.

God is presupposed to exist and to give existence to natural law.

I am not saying non-christians cannot be moral, but only in spite of their beliefs
beyond “natural law as God-revealed”, not because of them.

An atheist, who does not believe in an over-arching moral law-giver, has no ultimate logical ground for his assertion of a moral system of any consequence, since such a system of oughts has no a priori reason for being superior to any other, insofar there exists no superior value to judge it by.

peace
steve

 

[TheAtheist]

You should see some of the things that have been posted about Protestants.

Peter, can you see why even that statement boggles the mind of one who is coming in from the “Outside”, given the emphasis your religion puts on love and charity?

I’ve said it once, and i’ll say it again - the credbility of any belief system rests on the actions of its believers → its but cold comfort to tell someone who has been wronged by a partisan that “Well… Doctrinally, no self-respecting (Fill in blank) would ever act like that.”

Either Deeds accord with Beliefs - or what we have instead is a situation less about people being “followers” rather instead being “fans.”

The thing is, though, that those posts are not representative.

Well, we have been given clarification already by the original poster.

I find it funny really, so much emphasis is thrown on characterizing an alternative belief system - by your fellows, any of the other religious who hang around here, or even the bits and bobs of atheists who make their way on here.

Its kind of like i was reading in Epictetus’ on moral education - he spoke that the one pitfall many of his students ran into when discussing matters of morality was their being “enamored by argument” rather than trying to commit themselves to action…

…for the obvious reason that its easier to talk about morality in terms of patting yourself on the back for following a specific code while denigrating another’s.

Didn’t your Savior or someone of that importance say something to that effect? The oddness of human beings pointing out specks in another person’s eyes while ignoring a plank sticking in their own?

But that’s what people do at the end of the day don’t they? Mother Theresa is held up to be a Paragon of what it means to be Christian, rather than say…that funny little cult leader in Waco Texas back in the 90s.

The truth of the matter is that they are on opposite ends of the Bell Curve of Believers if you will - extraordinary in both positive and negative ways, yet miniscule in size/number when compared to the vast majority of people who share their label.

The “Median of Believers” if you will wishes they were that kind…and denies the possibility they could ever be associated with something that bad…

And so at the end of the day…all they can do is… Talk… about morality.

 

[TheAtheist]

I don’t think the “melting snowflakes” constitute a majority.

You’ve been out of the Ivory Tower for a very very long time haven’t you Ms. Rebecca…?

reason.com/blog/2015/10/26/new-poll-most-students-favor-mandatory-t

reason.com/blog/2015/12/17/yale-students-eagerly-sign-petition-to-r

These kids crave Comfort. And the new Privilege of our Time seems to be the Right not to be Offended…

In regards to your point regarding natural law. Sure, Catholic teaching is that God creates us oriented towards Himself. But I think we’re talking about actions, and what constitutes a moral act. It is obviou that we are free to act against natural law. Atheism, has no moral foundation. There are humanists, whose footings are in altruism. There are nihilists, who view any moral or ethical code as a human construct. There are anarchists who are relatives of nihilists, and want to tear all the constructs down. Most atheists I know have all three traits, and will vary in what trait is dominant.

This is the part where I tend to have a headache - no one ever said atheism has a moral foundation…because atheism is merely a position about the existence or lack thereof of a deity or deities.

There seems to be this weird driving need to bunch us altogether under this label and treat anyone who might be an atheist as a uniform condition.

Yet…if we were to look at a Stalinist style Communist, or a Cultural Libertarian, or a Socialist Humanitarian, or an Ayn Randian Capitalist, beyond their lack of a belief in god(s), they would generally be at odds with one another in terms of what constitutes a moral action, what is the acceptable role of the state in an individuals life, etc…etc…etc…

My concern stems from the idea that because a person may lack a belief in a deity, this somehow puts them beyond the boundaries of moral action - because if a person starts thinking in such a manner, then you’ve essentially removed a group of people from “Common humanity”.

Besides, as i commented in a response to PeterJ, i think most people put way too much emphasis on attempting to validate their specific moral codes…and a lot less on actually producing moral people…

I suppose this is the part where someone starts chiming in about moral relativism or some such nonesense…even though an atheist, a Jew, a Christian, a Buddhist, or what have you can point to the common virtue of say Courage as a social good.

…and then start arguing about how their particular tradition produces the most courageous people…

That’s…kind of like propaganda in my opinion.

It would be much more appropriate to identify examples of what its means to be courageous and figure out how those people’s minds operate, what experiences in their life have they had that lead them to act in a certain manner. Combine with this with some standard basics to evolutionary psychology, behaviouralism, and neuroscience and we might actually begin to puzzle out how Courage operates…or even better how we might be able to inculcate the behavior we identify as Courage into people.

…Seems alot more productive to me than well…the alternative of just sitting around yelling at each other.

 

[Peter_J]

Originally Posted by Peter J
You should see some of the things that have been posted about Protestants.

Not entirely, no. Granted, that may be partly because, as a lifelong Catholic, I’ve had many opportunities to learn about anti-Catholic protestants like Jimmy Swaggert – or, if we want to look at the extremes of anti-Catholic, Tony Alamo or Jack Chick.

So encountering Catholics who are anti-[fill in the blank] doesn’t surprise me. That’s not to say that I’m blazé about it though. Indeed it’s one of the many reasons that I try to severely limit (even if I’m not always successful ) my time on CAF … and, as a matter of fact, why I don’t go to a certain parish in my town.

given the emphasis your religion puts on love and charity?

I’ve said it once, and i’ll say it again - the credbility of any belief system rests on the actions of its believers → its but cold comfort to tell someone who has been wronged by a partisan that “Well… Doctrinally, no self-respecting (Fill in blank) would ever act like that.”

Either Deeds accord with Beliefs - or what we have instead is a situation less about people being “followers” rather instead being “fans.”

Well, we have been given clarification already by the original poster.

I find it funny really, so much emphasis is thrown on characterizing an alternative belief system - by your fellows, any of the other religious who hang around here, or even the bits and bobs of atheists who make their way on here.

Its kind of like i was reading in Epictetus’ on moral education - he spoke that the one pitfall many of his students ran into when discussing matters of morality was their being “enamored by argument” rather than trying to commit themselves to action…

That may be true. But I also think a very significant issue is that a great deal of argumentation happens on un-level playing fields.

 

[eddie_too]

I think what the atheists did in Lincoln reveals the contents of their hearts. they were not ignorant. they deliberately chose those days. like I said, what they did reveals the contents of their hearts.