62028 Views
172 Comments

Nativity showdown

Published December 12th, 2010 by Bobby Henderson

nativitypetitionhq

There’s some drama over a Christian Nativity scene displayed on the lawn of a county courthouse in Indiana.  The Freedom From Religion Foundation demanded the removal of the display on first amendment violation concerns and now locals are fighting.  It’s the same fight every Christmas and I get tired of writing about it.  

Now for the shock:

These Christmas fights bug me, honestly.   I am a supporter of the FFRF and of some of these secular and atheist organizations, but sometimes I am shaking my head and wondering what they are thinking.  You might get this scene removed but you do so much damage to our cause in the process.  You don’t think these perceptions matter?  Then what is this all about?  These Christmas fights make us look like such assholes, that’s all I’m saying. They are not reciting prayers in a state building or anything on that level.  A Nativity scene is barely religious, it’s like a cross necklace.   End of rant.

What do you guys think?



172 Responses to “Nativity showdown”

  1. Marlene Usry says:

    There’s noticeably a bundle to learn about this. I assume you made sure nice factors in options also.

  2. Judy Wallenstein says:

    Hi there, I discovered your blog by means of Google at the same time as searching for a similar topic, your site came up, it seems great. I’ve bookmarked it in my google bookmarks.

  3. vexorian says:

    “DEMANDING THEM BE REMOVED is the LEAST skillful way. DEMANDING that our MESSAGE BE INCLUDED is the SMARTEST. ”

    The problem is that Bobby has been the victim of bad reporting. The FFRF is issuing these attacks precisely because after the nativity scenes were added, attempts of atheists and secular groups to be included failed.

    Also, I think public image is less important than freedom of religion. Endorsement of a religion in front of a court house is not all right.

  4. Joseph Coyle says:

    ONE of the myriad problems is polarization. As is no secret very frequently the right is some variation of Christian and the left frequently consists of those who have been disenfranchised because of their views.

    Perception is one’ reality (at least inwardly). They fear disenfranchisement as well. It’s critical to understand that as we often see Christian or religious individuals as these angry people who are trying to destroy our rights to their own selfish ends, Christians often feel and fear the same thing from the left! So it’s entirely pertinent that the author of this post says we look like assholes. We’re fighting fire with fire. And the more we do that the more we isolate ourselves from each other. Fears only deepen this way.

    If you ever read fantasy there’s often mention or discussion of this little isolated villages. And the inhabitants there have little to no contact with the outside world. And almost inevitably the community has juggled old rumors and hearsay into a place where they start to fear this boogie man (Spaghetti Monster?) of sorts and having no real interaction with the real thing the rumors of that horribleness go crazy. Often when the real thing shows up, if there’s no liaison, no one who engages that person on a real level then the community’s reaction is frequently very bad.

    The analogy falls short in many ways but I think you get my point.

    I’m a degree bearing ministry major who was at one time a fundie, now a fairly left gay agnostic. We see their actions as hate driven by… whatever. arrogance? fear? ??? But they see thier actions as doing right. In in a way, though we all know how it actually comes across, it’s an attempt at compassion for many of them.

    NOTE: I’m not justifying bigotry. I’m not condoning their views. Just trying to close the communication gap in some tiny way.

    From personal experience I’ve found that relationships, learning to listen to them instead of react, learning to shut my mouth when what they are saying is ridiculous to my ears, actually works to make them feel somewhat comfortable with a card carrying liberal gay if not (as in some cases) redirect the course of their thinking entirely.

    So even as I don’t condone a nativity scene on a government site I do condone a response that listens as opposed to reacts (which seems to be a slight malady of organizations like the FFRF).

  5. Rasputin says:

    I used to tell my friends that there is something known as the “Christmas Monkey”. He was in the manger with Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the shepherds, the three kings, the ox, the ass, the little drummer boy, Santa, Santa’s elves and the lamb. Every time I see a nativity depiction, I always point out this exclusion to my friends.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Rasputin, you may not have seen Mr Bean’s Nativity scene, which included a T-Rex. Keith knows the full guest list and, with any luck, he’ll provide it, yet again.

      • Keith says:

        It has quite a cast list so here is a link to the scene in question. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8tSq-fNNyk

        • Keith says:

          PS: The two “tanks” are a Jagdpanther and a Somua S35. Both, I htink, were made by Solido. The Dalek was a Dapol 1990’s re-release of the Louis Marx friction drive Dalek from the mid 1960’s.

        • The Sauceror says:

          No Naivete display is complete without a T-Rex, a Dalek, and a “ChriFSMas Monkey”.

  6. Rasputin says:

    Thanks Keith, I’ve just watched it. Hilarious. My six-year-old likes Mr. Bean. I will show him the clip later.
    If Rowan Atkinson did his sketch a few hundred years ago, he would have been burned at the stake.
    If the world really was made six thousand years ago and humans co-existed with dinosaurs, any t-rex which survived The Flood could indeed have been near Bethlehem in Year Zero.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      Rasputin, T-Rex didn’t need to be a good swimmer; a pair of them was taken onto Noah’s Ark. I believe they lived on coconuts.

      • The Sauceror says:

        If T-Rexes lived on coconuts, how did they keep from falling off. Your hi-pasta-this is well rounded but may fall flat on its face when you see how wobbly it is. You can tell by the coconut-eating grin on T-Rexes’ faces that they are always off center and completely off balance.

        But there’s always the off-chance that coconuts are flat like the Earth.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          The Sauceror, T-Rex PICK coconuts, they don’t climb trees! it’s why they were created so tall. In contrast, lions are short so they were forced to eat meat.

        • The Sauceror says:

          But can you ever really believe a vegetarian? They might be lion.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          I think you tigress!

        • The Sauceror says:

          It’s plain to sea.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          You seem to like cross porpoises!

    • Keith says:

      Don’t forget that the Daleks have time travel. Apart from the Grenadier Guards, the moving van, the helicopter and the WW2 vehicles, it’s all pretty accurate as far as a reconstruction of events goes.

  7. Captain Birdseye says:

    Rasputin, Honest! The Discovery Institute revealed that T-Rex was vegetarian, evidenced by their teeth, that are clearly designed for opening coconuts.
    You may confidently assure your kid that Mr. Bean’s Nativity scene is real, though missing the Christmas Monkey.

    • Apprentice Frederic says:

      T-Rex’s teeth were clearly designed for biting creationists on the ass. Too bad that T-R disappeared rather more than 6,000 years ago.

    • The Sauceror says:

      Not to milk the coconut theory dry, but according to evolutionists, coconuts have been dated to have evolved around 40 million years ago. According to their foolish theory, T-Rex went extinct about 65 million years ago. 25 million years is a long time to wait for your first meal. If evolutionists were correct, that would mean that T-Rex didn’t go extinct because of some “Big Bang Theory”, but rather because they all starved to death while they waited for their food to evolve. Of course, none of this can be true since we all know that T-Rex lives on coconuts in Naivete displays.

      On a related note, I see nothing wrong with dating coconuts. While they do have really hairy meatballs, I’ve heard that they are excellent kissers. They are not as good of dates as dates, but what do you expect of a nut?

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        The Sauceror, your source of information is from Satan: both T-Rex and coconuts were present in the Garden of Eden. That’s why T-Rex was vegetarian: no animal ate meat until Eve stuffed-up.
        From my experience of ‘dating’ coconuts (only when marooned, you understand), they give as good as they get, are very good listeners and never have headaches.

        • The Sauceror says:

          While discussions of T-Rex food may seem a bit nutty to many pirates, it’s a good idea to float these theories around and sea if they take root on some distant sure. For those of us Satinists who worship the silky essence of Satin, we wear our love of Satin on our sleeves. According to Satin, the fruit that the talking snake persuaded Eve to eat was the fruit of Adam’s loins. Many X-trians may find this hard to swallow, but others will lick it up with gusto. Apparantly, Adam had no problem beating his meat, and Eave was happy to eat his meat (with a helping of creamy sauce). The sky daddy was the only one with a headache, and that was because Adam discovered that Eve gave better head than he did.

          For Chinese pirates, this whole conversation can be translated as, “the creme of sum yun gai”.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          So, is it concluded by the Expert Panel that T-Rex was black, Kosher, vegetarian, untrustworthy, had remarkeable balance, nested in the tops of coconut palms and was present when a four-legged Virgin Mary gave birth to the Christmas Monkey?
          Isn’t it fantastic how Creation Science reveals the truth to the World?

        • Keith says:

          So if Tyrannosaurs were untrustworthy, that means they were probably loan sharks and therefore aquatic. They died out not because of the flood but because they were eaten by (well, I think we can guess this one).

        • The Sauceror says:

          A bunny rabbit!

        • Keith says:

          It could have been a vicious bunny rabbit but I’ll take bets that it was a borched mesom.

        • The Sauceror says:

          Oh.

        • The Sauceror says:

          ……. but a Romulan bunny rabbit with vicious English teeth could have done it. Yes?

  8. Saint Gnocchi says:

    Dear Captain Birdseye. Don’t let me have to go that route again. I’ve had to take a stance to defend the honour of Womanhood with Rasputin early in my Pastahood. You say EVE stuffed things up? Adam – we suppose, had been designated to do Eve, but quite clearly, he was incapable of stuffing anything up. Had he been able to get it up, there would have been the patter of little feet in the Garden of Eden. Eve had no babies, ergo it was ADAM who stuffed things up big time. Logical, innit?

    • The Sauceror says:

      I once had to defend the honor of my borched mesom from St. Gnocchi. Fortunately, since borched mesoms have so little — if any– honor, it wasn’t hard to do.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        The Sauceror, my dictionary translates ‘borched mesom’ as ‘vomited Slovakian pork pie’. If that definition is correct, I can understand how St.Gnocchi may have been disappointed by your enterprising use of recycled ingredients.
        Remind me to never accept an invitation to dine on your ship!

        • The Sauceror says:

          Yes, but did you Google ‘borched mesom’? Google knows everything. Google is magic.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          The Sauceror, thank you, it would never have occured to me to use a dictionary from a country that can’t spell, let alone speak, English.

        • The Sauceror says:

          This coming from from someone who can’t spell simple four letter words like “humor”.

        • Captain Birdseye says:

          Or harbour, or through etc……enuf said?

        • The Sauceror says:

          “Throw” is kinda close to a four letter word spelling of that big, long word that no one can spell, let alone pernunciate. More importantly, we ‘murcans can use “throw” properly in a sentence. Fer ‘xample, “Ah’m throw with thinkin’. Ah’m gunna go out an’ git jaysus in ma hart”. Try saying that in your funny sounding for’n English language.

    • Captain Birdseye says:

      St. Gnocchi, You seem able to raise some better points than Adam managed, however, I always thought that Eve had been assigned to ‘do’ Adam. At least, that’s my holy vision.
      Referring to my Penguin book of True Religious Scenes, I notice the FSM, cunningly disguised as a snake, and Eve passing Him a coy smile. It’s obvious She has had Him on the boil for quite some time, enjoying His noodly charms. Modesty requires censure of the pasta-based union, but, needless to say, Eve was not stuffing her cannelloni.
      Any man forced to watch such debauchery, and listen to the pasta of tiny feet, would have his ardour seriously cooled. The bit about apples and God was just made up.

      • Captain Birdseye says:

        Edit to: “…was not stuffing her cannelloni with spinach”.

Leave a Reply