War on Christmas: Atheists Threaten to Sue Ohio Town for Nativity Scene

Breitbart ^ | 18 Dec 2016 | Ken Klukowski

[detective]

Militant atheists at the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) are threatening to sue St. Bernard, Ohio, over the city’s Nativity scene — a Christmas display depicting the scene of Jesus’s birth in Bethlehem in the Holy Land. If FFRF follows through and files in federal court, that case could result in a historic restoration of religious liberty nationwide.

St. Bernard is a suburb of Cincinnati. For many years, the city has displayed a crèche — i.e., a Nativity scene — during the Christmas season. It is accompanied by non-biblical seasonal holiday displays as well, making this outdoor crèche similar to the one the Supreme Court upheld in its 1984 case Lynch v. Donnelly.

[joedish]

How would you know it won’t satisfy them. I cannot recall any argument of presentations on private property. Here in my area there churches/religious venues every block. Why doesn’t it satisfy you to have all these presentations. Why is there the need to also the local government also sponsor a presentation. I assume you would be comfortable with concurrent presentation honoring Zeus in the courthouse square? I am not happy if any presentation is done at taxpayer expense. If these are completely privately funded, as long as ANY presentation is allowed and rotated among requesters if there are conflicts on date requests, then I would be OK.

[GailA]

[GenXteacher]

Atheists are the children of Marx and the enemies of America.

[48th SPS Crusader]

Ah the Christmas season. The most hated and feared time of the year for Christophobes!
Brings them to little more then slobbering animals!

[Vigilanteman]

FFRF has been around since 1978, to pick up the slack left by the waning popularity of Madalyn Murray O'Hair, the founder of the American Atheist movement.

[Carthego delenda est]

“How would you know it won’t satisfy them.”

Because they are inherently unhappy, fighting against something they claim they don’t even believe in. They’re atheists first, concern about taxpayer waste, constitutional issues, or whatever, is only a method to fight that which they don’t believe in.

“Why doesn’t it satisfy you to have all these presentations.”

I didn’t say I was dissatisfied.

“I assume you would be comfortable with concurrent presentation honoring Zeus in the courthouse square?”

Nope.

“If these are completely privately funded, as long as ANY presentation is allowed and rotated among requesters if there are conflicts on date requests, then I would be OK.”

You’re entitled to your opinion.

[\/\/ayne]

Apparently Justice Scalia came down on the "liberal" side of a similar case before the Supreme Court.

I tend to agree with his rationale on this. A government building is no place for a religious exhibit in this country. It's perfectly acceptable for private organizations to sponsor religious exhibits in public spaces, on the other hand.

That would be a change of the Founder's intent and a violation of Separation of Church and State. To stop communities from religious freedom would require a Constitutional Amendment and I just don't think there are enough religion haters to make that happen.

Besides which, the examples of mandated State atheism we have seen are not examples of freedom but Marxist slavery.

[Eddie01]

Their rinky dink websight suggests they couldn’t afford a lawyer.

Suspect backed by well healed subversive.

[Alberta's Child]

That won’t satisfy them.

It's not about satisfying anyone. It's about protecting your own interests.

[Alberta's Child]

Whenever an issue like this comes up I always organize my arguments based on a scenario where my local government decides to fly an Islamic flag and etch Koran verses all over the government buildings.

There's no way in hell would anyone here on FreeRepublic accept that kind of sh!t.

[stars & stripes forever]

[Their rinky dink websight suggests they couldn’t afford a lawyer.]

The organization primarily intimidates lawmakers with the hopes of ignorant ones backing down on their legal rights if fear of a lawsuit.

[\/\/ayne]

They would still need a Constitutional Amendment to ban religious freedom.

[Rebelbase]

“These people need to be beaten senseless. It’s the only way they will learn.”

It that’s not in the Old testament it should have been.

[DungeonMaster]

These people need to be beaten senseless. It’s the only way they will learn.

To be more like the Lord would be to take the beating and "the pilfering of your things" in His name.

[Alberta's Child]

The point -- which the Supreme Court (with Scalia in the majority) had made in the County of Allegheny v. ACLU Greater Pittsburgh Chapter -- is that it's not a matter of "religious freedom" at all when you have government making the decisions about which religious content to display.

[danaterry]

I think we can thank the founders for having the foresight to NOT allow government to mandate a particular belief system.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or PROHIBITING 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.”

This was a genius move. Had this NOT been included as the first amendment to the constitution ANY religion could be MANDATED by congress, including Mormonism, Hinduism, Islam or anything else.

The government has no place telling anyone what they should believe in regards to religion or who or how they should worship religion.

[\/\/ayne]

I frankly don’t care what Scalia said as much as I care about the Founders intent, the history of religious freedom in America and the Constitution. I’ll go with them every time so we’ll have to agree to disagree, my FRiend.

[Alberta's Child]

Like I said — I suspect our views of “religious freedom” would change dramatically when there’s an Islamic crescent flying over your local government building.

[Balding_Eagle]

"How would you know it won’t satisfy them" Your answer is given in the seventh sentence of post #21 on this thread.

[angryoldfatman]

How would you know it won’t satisfy them. I cannot recall any argument of presentations on private property.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/04/21/santa-clara-atheist-sues-city-over-christian-cross-at-public-park/

http://www.newsmax.com/US/atheist-group-destruction-cross/2016/04/06/id/722578/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mojave_Memorial_Cross

Would you like some more?

You can’t make leftists happy via appeasement. The Democrats prove it, homosexuals prove it, feminists prove it, race-baiters prove it.

That’s why Trump is going to the White House. Normal working family-loving God-fearing patriotic Americans have gotten sick and tired of the insatiable hunger for power possessed by the radical Left.