Posted on 12/09/2013 12:09:27 PM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
TALLAHASSEE —A nearly 6-foot-tall "Festivus" pole made from empty beer cans will be put up in the Florida Capitol this week as a not-so-subtle protest to the recent placement of a Christmas nativity scene.
The mock monument will be erected most likely on Wednesday in the same first-floor rotunda as a nativity scene depicting the birth of Jesus Christ put up last week by the Florida Prayer Network.
"I still chuckle, I literally can't believe there will be a pile of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans in the state rotunda," said Chaz Stevens, a Deerfield Beach resident who applied to the state Department of Management Services to put the Festivus pole on display.
Stevens, who operates a blog that focuses on South Florida politics, said the intent of the Festivus pole is to make a political statement on the need for the separation of church and state.
He compared the Festivus pole with the nativity scene as "my ridiculous statement versus what I consider, as an atheist, as their ridiculous statement."
(Excerpt) Read more at orlandosentinel.com ...
Can we have an airing of grievances against the Democrats?
And emphasize that they are angry and spiteful... as most anti-Christian, atheists are.
And point that they really don't want to have their own representation of their faith, or lack there of for atheists, and live and let live, but their goal is to prevent Christians/Jews from expressing their faith publicly. And some would call that hate and intolerance.
Exactly. They don’t wish to coexist like the famous bumper sticker says, but to stop all public expressions of Christian and Jewish faiths.
Empty beer cans is not a proper Festivus pole.
How does this “Festivus” pole harm Christians’ First Amendment rights?
It doesn’t but the guy is working hard to be a jackazz.
“”I still chuckle, I literally can’t believe there will be a pile of Pabst Blue Ribbon cans in the state rotunda,”
It looks ugly— there’s the nativity scene with a 6-7 ft of stacked beer cans next to it.
It isn’t for a sincere wish to be recognized, it’s his sincere wish to upset Christians.
It’s his version of piss christ.
If you don’t approve of religion...don’t have one.
Let the airing of grievances begin!
Doesn’t. Unless you think Christ, the Bible and Christianity will be “brought down’ by a little silliness.
IMO he would have done a lot better to put up a proper Festivus pole. He could have at least pretended to be serious about it.
Jefferson used the phrase, describing church/state separation as a “wall” in his letter to the Danbury Baptists. What is always forgotten, however, is that he used this phrase not to assert that religion must be expunged from the public square, but rather to reassure the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment prohibited the government from infringing upon their religious liberty. Specifically, he assured them that the Constitution protected their right to worship as they saw fit as it was a natural right, given by God, that government had no authority to limit or control.
The modern-day “establishment clause” debate is ridiculous. Relying upon contemporary judges to “interpret” the Founders’ intent is wholly unnecessary as the Founders were quite clear in both words and actions. In fact, all that is needed is to look at how the people who wrote the “establishment clause” acted immediately afterward.
And what do we find? We see Congress appropriating public funds to purchase Bibles to be used to evangelize the Indian tribes. We find in the Massachusetts constitution (which was a template for the U.S. Constitution), a clause encouraging the use of public funds to hire Christian ministers (a clause which interestingly enough is still there today), and we see the Chambers of Congress and even the Supreme Court used for weekly church services, at which President Thomas Jefferson was a regular attendee!
It is therefore not difficult to determine the true intent of the “establishment clause”, unless you happen to be a deranged liberal (I know, redundant) who hates God and wants to twist the Constitution to prohibit anything that will remind him of God’s existence. That’s what is really at the heart of this issue, and really every issue when it comes to liberalism. They want license to do as they please without consequence, and absolutely despise anything that would call their behavior into question. That’s liberalism in a nutshell.
Guy has a major penis fixation.
We are a Christian nation and as a Christian nation our public spaces and buildings should reflect our common faith. Any additional displays, except for Hanukkah, should not be in those same public places as it will dilute the expression of Christian faith.
Before, you know it there will be a hundred displays from people of different beliefs and the Nativity Scene will have to become much smaller and be dwarfed by that six foot Festivus pole.
Thus, the First Amendment Rights of Christians will be diminished.
bump
I haven’t put up a beer can pyrimid since college. What a great way to demonstrate one’s theological maturity. //sarc
For sure - thus his "Festivus pole."
Nonsense. The government should not be in the business of picking and choosing between which religions should be entitled to expressions in public spaces. A government that has the power to decide which religions do and do not have First Amendment rights has the necessarily has the power to shut down all religious expression.
Yeah. I really hadn’t put two and two together. I was afeared to. But you are correct, as usual.
HOw stupid are the people in FLorida?
(FReepers excepted, of course)
He's got nothing else. How do you build a monument to atheism? All the options are ridiculous.
Recommendations for an atheist monument:
Consider this, to remove any ‘creator’ from our very existence including the beginning of our universe is to remove any ‘thought or intelligence’ from the equation. By definition, you are ultimately left with an existence from stupidity.
…that if we would maintain the value of our highest beliefs and emotions, we must find for them a congruous origin. Beauty must be more than accident. The source of morality must be moral. The source of knowledge must be rational.
- Sir Arthur Balfour
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.