Atheist display: Skeleton Santa nailed to a cross

[rug]

21 minutes ago
By msnbc.com and NBCWashington.com

The skeleton in a Santa suit didn't survive for long outside the Loudoun County courthouse lawn, but it generated plenty of controversy in Leesburg, Va.

The skeleton was nailed to a cross on Monday by a mother and son associated with an atheist group, one of the nine approved displays for the Christmas season. But the macabre Kris Kringle was not standing for long. Someone tore the skeleton down, sparking a debate about free speech.

It's not a new argument. In 2009, Christmas displays on the courthouse lawn were banned after the constitutionality of a Nativity scene was questioned. Last year that decision was overturned, and 10 displays were allowed on the lawn based on a first-come, first-served basis.

Leesburg council member Ken Reid spoke out strongly against the skeletal Christmas display. "I think that it's just extremely, extremely sad," he said, "that somebody in this county who would try to basically debase Christmas like this. This really crossed the line."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9247743-atheist-display-skeleton-santa-nailed-to-a-cross

Video here: http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/weird/Skeleton-Santa-Controversy-at-Loudoun-County-Courthouse-135070748.html

[Ian David]

1. I don't think that was the way to win hearts and minds. However...

... "In the meeting, some suggested a complete ban of public displays in front of the courthouse."

Well, I guess it might work after all, then.

[hlthe2b]

2. I just don't understand the need to do this...

I believe in being tolerant and respectful towards others and their beliefs and cultural norms, no matter how much they may differ from my own. Standing firm on the line between church and state is admirable and one with which I can totally agree-- but I guess I'm old fashioned enough to think we needn't be so damned militant towards who hold ideas that are in opposition to our own. :shrug:

[murray hill farm]

4. I agree!

No need to be ugly! And that was just ugly!

[MADem]

5. I have to agree. Traumatizing little kids is just not a smooth move and

certainly not a way to win hearts and minds to your POV.

It's just a "piss in the punch" type display--not terribly intelligent, either.

The point could have been better made with a less dire display. People respond to wit and humor much better than deliberate attempts to provoke or revile.

[Jim__]

6. I agree. At best this will alienate public opinion. - n/t

[trotsky]

11. Being in the closet and remaining quiet has worked so well to this point?

:shrug:

[hlthe2b]

21. Becoming as bad or worse as that which you disdain will work, why?

I know some here do not like Gandhi, either, but still his words hold weight: "Be the change you want to see in the world." I respect atheists, agnostics and the basic right of believers to practice their religion to the extent it does not trample on the rights, health, or safety of others. Would you not at least consider doing the same? :shrug:

[trotsky]

23. "to the extent it does not trample on the rights, health, or safety of others"

And the skeleton Santa violates this how...?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[humblebum]

54. Hate speech is hate speech whether it is free speech or not. It is quite obvious

that the act was designed to offend. And, that is how it should be taken.

[cleanhippie]

71. You have no right to not be offended.

Sorry. Better luck on something else.

[humblebum]

74. I think you can do better than that. nt

[cleanhippie]

75. Again, you make no sense. The fact remains that you have no right to not be offended.

Stick to the militant atheist schtick. You are much better at that.

[humblebum]

76. And you equally have no right not to be offended, nor to be automatically accepted. nt

[cleanhippie]

77. I never claimed that right, but you sure did, and it's not your right to not be offended.

[humblebum]

78. When and where did I make such a claim? Just more deceptive blather. nt

[cleanhippie]

79. You have no right to not be offended. I'm glad we agree on that.

[humblebum]

80. So does that hold true for anyone in all cases, or just as you so decide?nt.

[cleanhippie]

81. You have no right to not be offended.

Not sure how much clearer that can be.

[humblebum]

82. I realize the tough questions require exercising the grey matter, so I won't

burden you further, except to say that you have no right not to be offended.

[cleanhippie]

83. Yeah, thats what I said, you have no right to not be offended. Glad we agree.

[humblebum]

85. It is such a great load lifted off of my shoulders to finally realize that it's OK

to point out the historical and philosophical parallels between the organized atheist movements of 18th and 19th Century France and Europe, to the movements in 19th and 20th Century Russia and China, etc., to the organized atheist movements in the early and middle 20th Centuries in N. America, to the New Atheist movement of the 21st Century. I no longer have to try not to offend anyone, because the right not to be offended doesn't exist. It is perfectly acceptable to refer to them as hate movements and to point out the millions that perished at the hands of militant atheists - all because hippie said that no one has a right to not be offended. Boy, that's a load off my shoulders. Thanks hippie for clearing things up.

[cleanhippie]

86. Using that "other way of knowing" again? All I said was you have no right to not be offended.

Thats it, nothing more.


Oh wait, I see. You are trying to bait me into yet another one of your idiotic, nonsensical "arguments".

Sorry, find someone else. Talk to me when you get some new material, your current schtick is old and tired.


In the meantime, try not remember that you have no right to not be offended.

[humblebum]

87. I would try "bait" you into an argument, but you have none. nt

[cleanhippie]

88. You have no right to not be offended.

[humblebum]

89. But, I always approach an argument with the expectation of an attempt being made to offend.

Because that is the way of radical atheists.

[cleanhippie]

90. You have no right to not be offended

[humblebum]

91. What's funny is that while you're busy doing your parrot imitation, you

don't have time to offend anyone.

[cleanhippie]

92. You have no right to not be offended.

[humblebum]

93. You have no right to not be offended. nt

[cleanhippie]

100. Yeah, thats exactly what I have been saying. Glad we agree.

[humblebum]

101. You have no right to not be offended. Go ahead, it's your turn. nt

[cleanhippie]

105. Its not my turn, thats exactly what I stated at the start. You have no right not to be offended.

Not really sure just why you choose to keep repeating exactly what I have said, but if thats what floats your boat...

[humblebum]

106. You also made the claim that I claimed the right to not be offended.

[LeftishBrit]

96. So in other words you start with a self-fulfilling prophecy

If someone does try to offend you, then it's proof that those evil radical atheists ALWAYS seek to offend. If someone doesn't try to offend you, you will nevertheless assume that they must be trying to so, and your resulting belligerence may provoke them into eventually snapping at you, which you will interpret as further proof that those evil radical atheists ALWAYS seek to offend. Even if people remain civil throughout, you will generally find a way of interpreting their remarks as proof that those evil radical atheists ALWAYS seek to offend. You've more or less admitted it in this post. So basically anything that happens will be used to support your existing prejudices.

[cleanhippie]

99. Its funny how everyone can see that but him.

I guess ignorance really is bliss.


Great post.

[humblebum]

103. You still avoid pointing out where I ever made such an implication.

You have no right to not be offended.

[humblebum]

102. I have no right to not be offended.

[LeftishBrit]

97. The only rights that I claim...

are to be accepted as an equal CITIZEN; and to not have people impose religiously based moral rules into law.

I don't demand that everyone should like me, never offend me, or never talk about their religious faith, etc. But if they use their religious faith to promote right-wing politics, well, they have the right to do so, but I have the right to HATE them! And because you will probably misunderstand this - no, I do not hate Christians or religious people in general; I hate the religious right - and indeed all forms of the Right.

FWIW, I don't approve of this particular display.

[LeftishBrit]

94. It's not a matter of staying in the closet.

I'm all in favour of things like the 'atheist bus ads' for example. But there's a difference between being in the closet, and this sort of display. I don't think it should be illegal or banned or anything, but Christmas is a special occasion for kids (atheist and religious) and I don't think it's worth upsetting them in this way. Also, whether one believes in Jesus or not, crucifixion as a brutal punishment is a real and horrible part of history, and this display is a bit like showing Father Christmas being burned alive, or stoned, or broken on the wheel, etc.

In any case, the cross is associated with Easter, not Christmas.

[Humanist_Activist]

14. Really, are you respectful of those who practice FGM? How about honor killings...

those are beliefs and cultural norms in some parts of the world, are they not?

[hlthe2b]

20. No, it is a bastardization of Islam, as true Muslims will tell you.

and it dates back to Bedouin customs... Tolerance of religion does not equate to tolerance of gross illegality and immorality. You know that, but choose to equate cultural and religious tolerance with abetting mass murder and other horrible misdeeds. Perhaps you may take some time to consider this. You really should... :shrug:

[trotsky]

24. The people doing the honor killings think they're True Muslims too. n/t

[hlthe2b]

28. One can say that of many who use some excuse to commit evil deeds...

Across the board. Religion is simply a simple scapegoat.

[trotsky]

53. One can say that.

One can also say that they are earnestly following their deeply-held beliefs. Can you read their minds to tell which is the case?

[Humanist_Activist]

30. How do you tell false Muslims from true ones?

By how liberal they are? By what standard are you to judge this?

In addition, on a moral level, what's the difference between letting a woman die from a pregnancy that can't be survived and requires an abortion to save her to honor killings?

The obvious objection is that one is active killing, and the other negligent, but in both cases the women in question are dead.

My tolerance for cultural and religious beliefs ends where it negatively affects others, whether its oppressing those of differing beliefs, races, sexuality, or gender, or endangers their well being.

Take this crucified Santa, it harms no one, its offensive to some, to be sure, and is designed to provoke, but again, it harms no one.

[hlthe2b]

33. When you have actually read the Koran, you can ask that.

I have. Those who promote a bastardized extremist view of Islam, like many Xian fundamentalist "Christians" more often have not.

[Humanist_Activist]

38. Uhn, to be frank, I don't care where their beliefs come from, they are still wrong. n/t

[LeftishBrit]

98. Except that I don't care if people are false or true Muslims

As an atheist, and certainly a non-Muslim, I can't make that decision anyway.

I do care whether they use their religion for good, or in the cause of oppression or violence or authoritarianism.

Same for Christians, Jews, etc.

[DCKit]

3. Busted. Now they know that Halloween is our OTHER favorite holiday. nt

[saras]

7. So can we do this with any mythologized person, or just Santa?

I'm tired of people making a hero out of that adulterer Martin Luther King. Can I put up a display killing HIS myth?

How about Mohammed?

How about President Obama?

How about Ronald Reagan?

In all cases, the truth is vastly different than the myth, and the myth is harmful.

[laconicsax]

8. Each of those examples are free (read: protected) speech. n/t

[Speck Tater]

9. That's just stupid. "Let's see how we can get MORE people to hate us."

This just proves that one can be an atheist and STILL not have any brains at all.

[trotsky]

12. "Let's see how we can get MORE people to hate us."

A lot of people said that about PRIDE parades too.

[Speck Tater]

15. There was nothing inherently offensive about pride parades.

I am an atheist, but that doesn't mean I'm going to walk into a church, pull down my pants and shit on the altar.

There's a big difference between doing something to raise awareness of a legitimate issue, such as pride parades, and doing something ugly, deliberately meant to inflame the negative reactions of those we SHOULD be trying to reach out to.

Crucifying a skeletal Santa does nothing to promote the message of reason and rationality. It insults and denigrates two iconic cultural symbols for no purpose other than to be confrontational. It's stupid and counter-productive.

[trotsky]

16. To many people indeed there was something offensive about PRIDE parades.

Obviously, since they offended. QED

But given the bit that Ian David posted above, perhaps skeleton Santa worked better than any safe, squishy, timid display or request could have ever possibly done.

[deacon_sephiroth]

58. You can't say that, "offensive" is subjective

There's nothing INHERENTLY offensive about ANYHTING, someone has to TAKE offense to it, by definition. So that entirely depends upon whom you ask.

[humblebum]

10. This is certainly not an isolated incident. Such actions are becoming more common.

Of course, the group has the same freedom to speak as anyone else. That fact of course implies that it is also OK to burn a cross on the courthouse lawn, or hold a mock lynching with racial over tones, or to erect a huge swastika.

This does nothing for atheists and lends much credence to the image of organized atheism as a hate group.

[MarkCharles]

13. Have you checked out the video of hundreds of children being indoctrinated in

public school to Christianity?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QVaMjeTaNDM

Which is more offensive? A plastic skeleton in a Santa suit a few weeks after Halloween, or using taxpayer paid public school time to force the Christian religious viewpoint into hundreds of captive audience junior high school kids' minds?

[humblebum]

17. Dear Mr. Pot, I guess it's a matter of perspective.

Which perspective will be more acceptable to the majority of people? BTW, the same argument can be made for a forced indoctrination into secularism.

[MarkCharles]

18. So if a majority of people are OKAY with a skeleton on Halloween but

not on December 1, that's just fine with you? We now rule by majority? All minorities would be just out of luck?

By the way, where is that "forced indoctrination into secularism" happening? I thought our nation was a secular nation by law, Now you're saying it's a majority Christian religious nation that can choose which days of the year a skeleton does or does not offend them? A nation that can force majority Christian beliefs upon any child they want to?

[humblebum]

19. I think you know the meaning of vacuous argument. And red herring.

[cleanhippie]

25. I think you do too, as you have demonstrated that with your OP.

Of course, the group has the same freedom to speak as anyone else. That fact of course implies that it is also OK to burn a cross on the courthouse lawn, or hold a mock lynching with racial over tones, or to erect a huge swastika.

This does nothing for atheists and lends much credence to the image of organized atheism as a hate group.




yep, you seem to know all about it.

[MarkCharles]

26. Yep, two rogues who might be atheists put up a skeleton Santa on a cross, and..

of course, it's "freedom of speech" equal to the horrors of the KKK (a white, racist, anti semitic Christian group, by the way).

Only in the mind of some religious folks is there any statement about free speech of equal offensiveness there.

[humblebum]

31. It is what it is. nt

[humblebum]

34. Why are you always so dishonest about things that I have said?

"So if a majority of people are OKAY with a skeleton on Halloween but not on December 1" - this wasn't just a skeleton. It was a skeleton nailed to a cross. I doubt very seriously that it would have been acceptable at Halloween either. And, if by "secular" you mean absolute separation, then you are wrong. That has never existed in the US. It is a "free" nation. Limited separation is reality and constitutional.

[dmallind]

22. Not sure what they are going for there

Satirical comment on the feedback loop between commercialized and co-opted religiouus symbolism would be best guess, but not sure what the skeleton is supposed to mean.

Bit silly really.

[Iggo]

29. Well, I thought it was funny.

What is any of that shit doing on the courthouse lawn anyway?

[Taverner]

32. I'm sorry, that's just funny

Says so much with so little - genius in a way

[darkstar3]

35. Suuuuure. The people who did this want to "debase Christmas".

It couldn't have anything whatsoever to do with pointing out the absurdity of putting holiday decorations on government property.

[humblebum]

37. "pointing out the absurdity of putting holiday decorations on government property."

Some one needs to point out the absurdity of objecting to holiday decorations anywhere.

[darkstar3]

40. Religious decorations, holiday-based or not, do not belong on government property.

It's so simple a four-year-old can figure it out. You may not like the fact that there is one place in this jesus-fellating country where religion is not immediately and automatically welcome, but that doesn't change facts. Religion doesn't belong on government property.

[humblebum]

41. Tell that to the US Senate. nt

[darkstar3]

42. Oh please, like the Senate can't do, and hasn't done, something unconstitutional.

Get a better argument.

[humblebum]

43. Unconstitutional in your book, which is not always the consensus opinion.nt

[darkstar3]

44. Baseless opinion is worthless in a discussion about fact.

[humblebum]

48. So the fact that OJ was found innocent negates any opinions to the contrary?

Interesting.

[darkstar3]

49. Where criminal law is concerned, it most certainly does.

[humblebum]

50. Don't look now, but the varying opinions still exist. Though he can no longer be tried

for that crime, they do in fact still exist. And, the latest is that he admitted to the murders. Baseless?

Does the Constitution unquestionably dictate absolute separation? Apparently not, because those who wrote it were at the very same time disregarding such. Still, your opinion is your opinion. And you are entitled to that opinion, but it doesn't line up with reality.

[darkstar3]

51. And that matters...how?

Oh right, it doesn't, because it doesn't change the facts. From the perspective of the law, he's innocent.

[humblebum]

59. "From the perspective of the law, he's innocent" - but that isn't the only

perspective. He was found liable in civil court (the law), if I recall correctly. And, in the court of public opinion, it has been a different story entirely. Baseless opinion? You claim absolute separation on public or government property, but neither history, nor government, nor the Constitution support you claim. Is your opinion then baseless?

[Goblinmonger]

64. Civil court has a MUCH lower standard burden of proof.

But again, silly stupid facts.

[humblebum]

67. And the court room was decorated in cherry wood, too.

[darkstar3]

73. It seems facts just get in the way.

[Goblinmonger]

63. OJ was found "Not Guilty." He was NOT found "innocent."

But don't let silly things like facts get in your way.

[humblebum]

66. Point taken, but not germane to this argument. nt

[NMMNG]

36. It's tacky

But I've seen things that debase Christmas more.



People trampled in Black Friday Stampede

[Silent3]

47. There's probably a button on the lighting controls for that tree...

...that'll make the cross inside the tree burst into artificial flames.

[NMMNG]

72. Real flames would be better

That tree is very deserving.

[frogmarch]

39. It's much worse than

Jesus nailed through the wrists to a cross with blood running from his side. Much worse. :sarcasm:

[struggle4progress]

45. NOVA Atheists needs to ponder coherent message delivery

It's not really very clear how mishmashing together various cultural images associated with All Hallows Even, Christmas, and Good Friday can send the message "We abhor the commercialization of Christmas" -- the mishmash will rather convey visually to most people "NOVA Atheists are stark raving mad"

Of course, the American commercialization of Christmas ought to be something of a outrageous scandal to the Church, since the ancient Christian narratives are much more challenging and frightening than tinsel and bright lights: they tell of empire and despotism, a woman pregnant (but not by her husband) giving birth uncomfortably in filthy circumstances, a refugee family fleeing a massacre of innocents ...

But it is not nearly so clear why NOVA Atheists would be outraged by "the commercialization of Christmas" -- Christmas itself being a holiday that has no obvious significance to them. Of course, there are good secular reasons to decry the crass conspicuous commercial consumerism of our society, so excessively celebrated at this time of year -- but nailing a skeleton in a Santa suit to a cross is unlikely to communicate such a critique to anyone

Filed under: still more noisy bloviating

[darkstar3]

46. Sounds like the proper file.

;)

[trotsky]

52. NOVA Atheists didn't put up the display.

Did you read the article before bloviating?

[struggle4progress]

55. Jonathan Weintraub of the NOVA Atheists is all over the media about this:

Here's some video of him on the topic, for example:

... Jonathan Weintraub of the NOVA Atheists took pictures of the vandalism for the Heflins. "It was meant to show the over commercialization of Christmas," Weintraub said ...
Santa Nailed To Cross Angers Leesburg Residents
http://www.myfoxdc.com/dpp/news/virginia/santa-nailed-to-cross-angers-leesburg-residents-120511

... "The message to me at least," said Jonathan Weintraub, of the group NOVA Atheists, "is that the meaning of Christmas, which is about faith and family, is dead and has been replaced by commercialism" ...
Atheist display: Skeleton Santa nailed to a cross
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9247743-atheist-display-skeleton-santa-nailed-to-a-cross

Coverage suggests this is more than incidentally associated with the NOVA Atheists

[trotsky]

56. Yet NOVA Atheists didn't put up the display.

Did you read the article?

[MarkCharles]

60. Come now, there's no reason to read an entire article before one

voices one's opinion of people who are not Christians, now, is there!

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

The actions of two or three non-Christians, or 19 or so fundamentalist Islamists should be reason enough to condemn an entire movement, or, in the case of Peter King, reason enough to launch an unending series of Congressional investigations into their 1400 year old faith and status as American citizens!

[trotsky]

61. There's a super-special hypocrisy going on too...

when it's the same person who looks for ANY nit to pick in an article that's less than flattering about religion (HEY, this article from the India Times says the village is 1900 kilometers from Bombay, but this one from CNN says it is 1200 miles!) in order to cast the whole thing in doubt.

[humblebum]

62. Yes, I agree. and atheists do that here on a regular basis. nt

[MarkCharles]

65. They DO WHAT? They don't read through mis-statements of fact and...

logically fallacious arguments they have seen in print 100 times before?

Heavens, I'm sure it is beneath you to come up with ONE CONCRETE EXAMPLE to prove your accusation!!!

"and atheists do that here on a regular basis"

Show us ONE!

[humblebum]

68. How about hundreds and thousands going back to 2001. Don't be absurd. nt

[MarkCharles]

69. Unfortunate for you that you do NOT understand the challenge and...

refuse to produce evidence.

I bet it would come as a relief to you if I were to put you on ignore and allow you to get away with dozens of posts a week where you insult people you never met, thinking they are, like me, the spitting image of the mind of Pol Pot, as just yesterday you decided I needed to be accused of being.

Oh yes, I have the "example" here...and you cannot erase it.

Now, back to your accusation and your lack of proof.

Your accusation: "Yes, I agree. and atheists do that here on a regular basis"

Your PROOF? Zilch!!! ZERO! NADA!

So typical of religious believers, not one scintilla of proof of their statements.

[humblebum]

70. What's not to understand? That certain atheists here use isolated

events involving religion and religious to rationalize broad-brush attacks on an entire group? And, this coming from one of the premiere radical atheists on DU. LOLOLOLOL!!!

[jeepnstein]

57. Free Speech is, well, free.

Doesn't mean it has to be pretty, or nice, or even smart.

[beam me up scottie]

84. Oh my Gawd, they killed Jack Skellington!

[WolverineDG]

95. While it did get approved

I seriously doubt the display was designed to get people engaged in rational discussions.

dg

[ZombieHorde]

104. That is pretty interesting commentary on today's consumer-based Christmas.

The intent of the artists may be been to offend, but as social commentary, it is pretty good.

Santa (consumerism) has replaced Christ, but the Santa is now a skeleton (our financial depression).