Atheist display in Leesburg VA
Offline Atheist display: Skeleton Santa nailed to a cross
View more videos at: http://nbcwashington.com.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/12/06/9247743-atheist-display-skeleton-santa-nailed-to-a-cross
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."
After laying face down in the grass for several hours, the Santa-suited skull and bones was taken away on Monday night.
"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of the group NOVA Atheists, "is that the meaning of Christmas, which is about faith and family, is dead and has been replaced by commercialism."
Read full coverage on NBCWashington.com
According Julie Withrow, a Loudoun County administrator, the display belonged to Middleburg resident, Jeff Heflin Jr.
She told the Loudon Times that Heflin described the display in his application as an “art work of Santa on a cross to depict society’s materialistic obsessions and addictions and how it is killing the peace, love, joy and kindness that is supposed to be prevalent during the holiday season.” Heflin was not part of any organization and sponsored the display himself, the newspaper reported.
The display was discussed Monday night at a Loudoun County Board of Supervisors meeting, where it was labeled "provocative" and "obscene." In the meeting, some suggested a complete ban of public displays in front of the courthouse.
County officials are still meeting to decide on what to do with the displays.
>>>
I think he could have gotten his point across by putting a little more thought into his display. To just put a skeleton in a ‘santa suit’ and drape it over a crucifix made of plywood…just doesn’t make the point, IMO.
Christmas is about bribing the kids to pretend to believe in the story about a baby being born (maybe in Bethlehem). A simple display about the inconsistencies in the biblical story might have been better.
Could have been done with the plywood even.
“Hey…was Jesus born in Bethlehem or Nazareth? Do you know there was no such place as Nazareth until after 70CE? How could Jesus have been born in Nazareth?
“If they were wrong about where Jesus was born…Bethlehem or Nazareth…what else could they be wrong about?”
Big letters so it can be read clearly.
Save the crucifix for Easter, dummy.
>>>
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
Respectfully, Lyz
- Login to post comments
Santa is the gateway drug to magic babies. Ply them with toys then pop the "real" meaning on them.
I find it funny some would get offended by this. Even atheists. These same people read a book that has stories about infanticide, incest, genocide and slavery and sexism. But they never tell the kids those horrible scary stories. I'd say this display is tame compared to the bible.
"Let them have their religion",
Not if they are going to monopolize the venue. If they are going to have a display then we can too. I am sorry that they get offended by us pointing out that they worship a torture device.
If they wont let atheists have a display, then all holiday symbols should be as neutral as the flag. But as soon as they interject a specific religion, the Constitution forbids monopolies in the First Amendment.
The truth is they don't want their super hero picked on. Unfortunately for them, there is no law setting up taboos to protect any religion from ridicule. If they want that, they should move to Iran.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I don't think any thing to do with religion should be posted on a courthouse lawn. It's seperation of church and state. If somebody put up a Ten Commandments or a Manger with a baby Jesus, it would have been taken down and rightly so.
If somebody wants to display a Santa nailed to a cross or a Manger with baby Jesus, they can do it on their own property.
Gees, and I thought somebody would jump my throat for the crack about Nazareth.
But then you (Brian37) knew about that. Can't slide anything past you.
I'm just saying...that was a pretty bad 'display' when it could have been handled without the 'sledgehammer'.
I'm pretty good at rubbing a theists nose in their own bull$hit. But, I'm not playing with children.
Yes, I agree that the bible (OT/NT/Quran) is full of hateful speech, threats and acts of violence, and evidence of the hand of man (revisions not revelations or spiritual inspiration). The bible (et al) is also full of inconsistencies. Get the kids thinking about that...not images of a skeleton in a 'santa suit' draped over a plywood crucifix. (And...really, the crucifix is for Easter not Xmas).
Once a parent backhands his kid for asking questions...and justifies it by quoting the bible...the kid will know the truth (hopefully). Then the kid can call the cops and report his parents for child abuse. Deprogramming the kids after that will not be as difficult to accomplish. Especially if the kid has access to the internet.
>>>
"Faith must have adequate evidence else it is mere superstition"...Alexander Hodge (1823-1886)
"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes"...James Feibleman (1904-1987)
Respectfully, Lyz
Not so Cpt in the whacked out state where I live. God & Country is emblazoned on our foreheads.
If this had of happened a hundred miles south & a bit west there would be some dead people right now or at least a number in jail.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
The way Jefferson's wall when he talked about "separation of church and state" was not through banning it, but through the demand that government cannot play favorites on the issue and must remain neutral. It is not illegal for example, in the private swearing in Ceremonies of Congress to swear in on a holy book or a god. What is NOT legal is for the state to demand that you do it if you get elected.
The separation works by giving the person who wants a display a choice. "Let it all in, or keep it all out" Jefferson knew that people were selfish enough that when given that choice, they would choose to keep the venue neutral.
So I wouldn't go around demanding religion be banned. It will police itself with that choice because it exposes them to allowing others to do the same. Or at least that was Jefferson's intent.
Jefferson was basically treating religion like a couple of kids in a sandbox, if they couldn't share the sandbox, then the sandbox would not be used by either. What they cannot do is say "I get to do it, but you cant".
I would say a better tactic is to simply put his words next to these displays. How anyone could object to the words of Jefferson on government grounds is absurd.
His quote about Jesus being in the same category as Minerva being born out of Jupiter's brain. "Question with boldness even the existence of a god". I think that would send them running because they certianly don't want us even proposing that their god does not exist.
The neutrality is the key, the choice of letting it all in or keeping it all out AS A CHOICE can and does lead people to simply keep the display neutral.
I personally don't think religious displays belong on government property either, but the way to combat it is not to ban it, but to use the same venue to SHOW how absurd their claims are.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
I'd agree to that if the nativity scenes and references to Jesus went as well. But as long as they insist on a government venue in a country that does protect blasphemy and ridicule, they cannot complain. If they don't want us doing that, then they too should not be using that venue.
You do not understand that the people who put religious displays up, want a monopoly.They want to say "I get to do what I want, but when you do it it violates separation of church and state".
No, that is not the way our Constitution works. If someone chooses to use government for a display, then every citizen has the right to use that same venue.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog