Numbers, they got.

Falls under the category I like to call "people who need real problems".

Fun quest: find the basis for a "nativity" scene in the Bible.

Good luck!

Rad, leaving aside whether you believe it or not, the manger and the shepherds stuff comes from the second chapter of Luke. The Wise Men part comes from the second chapter of Matthew. Seems like I remember reading somewhere that while the events described would have happened at quite different times, artists would combine the two scenes for the sake of convenience, giving us the crèche we see today.

Also, St. Matthew never names the Wise Men. Neither does he say how many there were. I read somewhere that artists' depictions of three guys is based on the gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh that St. Matthew does specify. Three gifts? Then paint three guys.

There's some ridiculous Face Book chain status going around asking people to show they are not ashamed of saying that Jesus Christ is their Savior and to please copy and paste this on your status. I had to laugh when it was posted on a few of my friend's statuses who happen to be Jewish. Praise the Lord!

Amy, why do you rail against the TSA when their are so many other worse rights violations in the world? Just sayin.

Amy, why do you care if the courthouse in Henderson County, Texas has a nativity scene or not?

Someone is being a fascist here, and I'm pretty sure it's not the 5000 religious Texans.

You're seriously taking the side of a group of people from Wisconsin who want to tell some other people in Texas what to do? Whatever happened to your oft-bragged-about live-and-let-live philosophy? Or does that not apply to religious people?

Personally I don't believe in God, but I refuse to call myself an "atheist" because the term has been tarred by people like that Wisconsin group, Chris Hitchens, and apparently you. Atheists are just another sort of religious fanatic, and shit like this is Exhibit A for that assertion.

"Falls under the category I like to call "people who need real problems"."

--

The Wisconsin atheist group is concerned about a holiday display a thousand miles away from where they live. The Texans are upset that people who live a thousand miles away are telling them how to decorate their town.

Which group has the more valid concern, and which group should STFU and mind their own business? Pretty sure that Texas nativity never killed anyone.

There's some ridiculous Face Book chain status going around asking people to show they are not ashamed of saying that Jesus Christ is their Savior and to please copy and paste this on your status.

I keep seeing the "If you're not afraid to say 'MERRY CHRISTMAS,' please re-post this!!1!!" status.

I can tell you, having just finished all my Christmas shopping, having gone to my city's Christmas festivals and having been out in public more than once since Halloween, Christmas is alive and well and nobody is afraid to say "Merry Christmas."

...Every time someone posts that dumb status, I want to send them the most generic "Seasons Greetings" snow scene card I can find.

"Do you not understand the separation of church and state? "

I understand it better than you do. I also understand the nuance that a courthouse nativity scene doesn't constitute establishment of a state religion, which is what the Constitution actually forbids.

Atheists who get exercised about piddly shit like this happening a thousand miles away from where they live are being assholes. If it's your town and it bothers you, speak up. If it's some redneck Texas town you'd never visit even if they paid you, why do you care? Making a stink about it is just you being an asshole. Self proclaimed atheists see nothing wrong with this, and I don't want people thinking I'm one of them.

The term "atheist" has a lot of baggage, just like the term "christian" or the term "muslim". I'm more of an "apatheist", I don't care until any one of them starts throwing their weight around and telling other people how to live.

Just IMO. I normally like your work, Amy. You get a little nuts about the religion thing though, and you come off pretty intolerant sometimes. ;)

I am the first to say, yeah for seperation of Church and State, and should not have religious displays on gov't property, etc. Unfortunately these are fake battles, which get a lot of pres.

However, there is an actual problem, as we all have noticed, gov't is growing, and invading all aspects of our lives. We live in a world where places are taxed too much and then offered their own money back, but now it is gov't money with strings attached.
This is most noticeable in Universities and medical institutions. One of the real battlegrounds that people hear about the least is in hospitals, where if the hospital gets gov't money, dpending on who is pushig the idea this can be as little as having one patient pay using medicare. Then they "recieve gov't funds" and lose, all private, choices.
When a private religious hospital is being required to perform abortions, then there is something to be said for is this a war on religion.
Basic thought chain, is With Obamacare, more people than ever will be under gov't health insurance. People in gov't are trying to pass laws, that basically state, any hospital, which recieves any gov't money you must staff people who do abortions. Other lawmakers are trying to pass laws which guard against this. Depending on which side and the exact wording, this could be the end of most religious based private hospitals.

A second thought experiment, no religious displays on gov't land + loose eminent domain rules = a possible scary war on religion.

I have to agree with TFG; didn't someone once say something about the wise general picking his own battlefield?

Henderson, Texas is not the best battlefield for this particular battle. I agree in principle with everything you say about separation of church and state and public property versus property, but atheists do not and will not win hearts and minds with this sort of provocative action. Henderson, Texas has very little in common with Madison, Wisconsin; I can assure you that almost everyone in Henderson likes it that way.

I have to agree with TFG; didn't someone once say something about the wise general picking his own battlefield?

Henderson, Texas is not the best battlefield for this particular battle. I agree in principle with everything you say about separation of church and state and public property versus property, but atheists do not and will not win hearts and minds with this sort of provocative action. Henderson, Texas has very little in common with Madison, Wisconsin; I can assure you that almost everyone in Henderson likes it that way.

On a lighter note... There was Hanukkah music playing on the loudspeaker at HEB (grocery store) when I was shopping on Sunday! That was fun.

@ahw was it the one up on Far West in Austin by any chance? Its Kosher section is like a store within a store. My friend works there, and she says people come from as far as Houston to get Kosher food.

I love that place -- and all HEBs in general.

When television censors criticism of Muhammed but will have a show about Good Christian Bitches, when a crucifix in a jar of urine or covered in ants is given a museum showcase, when a football player is mocked on a comedy show for his Christian faith, yet actors go on apology tours for using the word "faggot", singers get fired for comparing Obama to Hitler, Christians are certainly entitled to feel a double standard is at bay. American Christians do not suffer as much as their brethren in Egypt or Iran, but it's not for the lack of desire. Suffering in Egypt and Iran does not give one permission to persecute Christians to a lesser extend elsewhere with the excuse "See, it's not so bad compared to Egypt and Iran."

Happy Chanukah.

@sofar: Yes, that one. A jewish friend calls it the "Hebrew HEB." Cat Mountain and Northwest Hills have a big Jewish population, and the J is right there off Hart Ln.

I live in Wisconsin, fairly close to Madison, and I saw a snippet about this story on the news last night. Unfortunately I wasn't paying a lot of attention to it, so I didn't catch all of it, but what I did see/hear was that someone in Texas contacted this group of atheists in Wisconsin, and that's why they are getting involved. Because they were asked to.

They mentioned something about their goal not being to admonish Christians or any group, in fact, the lady who was interviewed actually said that if you want to believe in "the flying spaghetti monster" that it was fine, no joke! Their goal was to get representation for all religious groups or none, I think is what I heard them saying.

@ahw Awesome, I love that place. I moved to that neighborhood recently, and that store was a big draw for me. Their sushi is also great, and I love getting their fresh-squeezed OJ.

@Angie, that was my impression as well-- that someone contacted the organization (the Freedom From Religion Foundation) and complained, and the organization decided to take this case on because, well, it was right up their alley.

A lot of people on here are wondering why a "Wisconsin group" is worried about what's going on in Texas. But, while this group is located in Madison, it's not a "local" group. According to their website, they take on cases from around the country.

btw, their website is full of all kinds of interesting things -- they just put their own nativity scene in the Wisconsin Capitol featuring a female black babydoll to counter the religious nativity scene already there. So they might be a bit wacky, but no more than your average "War on Christmas" types.

The idea that a nativity scene on a courthouse lawn is worth filing lawsuits over is ridiculous.

The entire thing is just a foolish proxy war to prove whose in-group wields the biggest stick. These Madison folks need to grow up and learn some fucking tolerance.

I see rude people... who interfere in a dispute in a town a thousand miles from where they live involving no harm to anyone.

What could be ruder than that?

Christmas is a Federal Holiday. That is why the 25th of December is the day off, not just some random winter date for winter solstice. The manger scene depicts the birth the Christ, the whole point of Christmas. I don't think the manger seen is proof of the government forcing any certain religion be practiced. If you don't like this Federal Holiday then change it. To pretend Christmas isn't about Jesus and his birth is pretty lame. But if you demonstrate the obvious you are violating other's rights? Come on Amy. You are better than this.

I don't mind Happy Holidays if is done off the cuff but when there is memo specifically telling store employees they can not mention Christmas that bothers me. Pretending its not Christmas for the massive majority of Americans is again just another lie and annoying bow to political correctness.

Reminds me of this old joke:

Politically Correct Nativity

And Joseph went up from Galilee to Bethlehem with Mary, his espoused wife, who was great with child. And she brought forth a son and wrapped him in swaddling clothes and laid him in a manger because there was no room for them in the inn. And the angel of the Lord spoke to the shepherds and said, "I bring you tidings of great joy. Unto you is born a Savior, which is Christ the Lord."

"There's a problem with the angel," said a Pharisee who happened to be strolling by. As he explained to Joseph, angels are widely regarded as religious symbols, and the stable was on public property where such symbols were not allowed to land or even hover.

"And I have to tell you, this whole thing looks to me very much like a Nativity scene," he said sadly. "That's a no-no, too." Joseph had a bright idea. "What if I put a couple of reindeer over there near the ox and ass?" he said, eager to avoid sectarian strife.

"That would definitely help," said the Pharisee, who knew as well as anyone that whenever a savior appeared, judges usually liked to be on the safe side and surround it with deer or woodland creatures of some sort. "Just to clinch it, throw in a candy cane and a couple of elves and snowmen, too," he said. "No court can resist that."

Mary asked, "What does my son's birth have to do with snowmen?" "Snowpersons," cried a young woman, changing the subject before it veered dangerously toward religion. Off to the side of the crowd, a Philistine was painting the Nativity scene. Mary complained that she and Joseph looked too tattered and worn in the picture. "Artistic license," he said. "I've got to show the plight of the haggard homeless in a greedy, uncaring society in winter," he quipped. "We're not haggard or homeless. The inn was just full," said Mary. "Whatever," said the painter.

Two women began to argue fiercely. One said she objected to Jesus' birth "because it privileged motherhood." The other scoffed at virgin births, but said that if they encouraged more attention to diversity in family forms and the rights of single mothers, well, then, she was all for them. "I'm not a single mother," Mary started to say, but she was cut off by a third woman who insisted that swaddling clothes are a form of child abuse, since they restrict the natural movement of babies.

With the arrival of 10 child advocates, all trained to spot infant abuse and manger rash, Mary and Joseph were pushed to the edge of the crowd, where arguments were breaking out over how many reindeer (or what mix of reindeer and seasonal sprites) had to be installed to compensate for the infant's unfortunate religious character.

An older man bustled up, bowling over two merchants, who had been busy debating whether an elf is the same as a fairy and whether the elf/fairy should be shaking hands with Jesus in the crib or merely standing to the side, jumping around like a sports mascot.

"I'd hold off on the reindeer," the man said, explaining that the use of asses and oxen as picturesque backdrops for Nativity scenes carries the subliminal message of human dominance. He passed out two leaflets, one denouncing manger births as invasions of animal space, the other arguing that stables are "penned environments" where animals are incarcerated against their will. He had no opinion about elves or candy canes.

Signs declaring "Free the Bethlehem 2" began to appear, referring to the obviously exploited ass and ox. Someone said the halo on Jesus' head was elitist. Mary was exasperated. "And what about you, old mother?" she said sharply to an elderly woman. "Are you here to attack the shepherds as prison guards for excluded species, maybe to complain that singing in Latin identifies us with our Roman oppressors, or just to say that I should have skipped patriarchal religiosity and joined some dumb new-age goddess religion?"

"None of the above," said the woman, "I just wanted to tell you that the Magi are here." Sure enough, the three wise men rode up. The crowd gasped, "They're all male!" And "Not very multicultural!" "Balthasar here is black," said one of the Magi. "Yes, but how many of you are gay or disabled?" someone shouted. A committee was quickly formed to find an impoverished lesbian wise-person among the halt and lame of Bethlehem.

A calm voice said, "Be of good cheer, Mary, you have done well and your son will change the world." At last, a sane person, Mary thought. She turned to see a radiant and confident female face. The woman spoke again: "There is one thing, though. Religious holidays are important, but can't we learn to celebrate them in ways that unite, not divide? For instance, instead of all this business about 'Gloria in excelsis Deo,' why not just 'Season's Greetings'?"

Mary said, "You mean my son has entered human history to deliver the message, 'Hello, it's winter'?" "That's harsh, Mary," said the woman. "Remember, your son could make it big in midwinter festivals, if he doesn't push the religion thing too far. Centuries from now, in nations yet unborn, people will give each other pricey gifts and have big office parties on his birthday. That's not chopped liver."

"Let me get back to you," Mary said.

"The manger scene depicts the birth the Christ, the whole point of Christmas. I don't think the manger seen is proof of the government forcing any certain religion be practiced."

Probably not.

But the government will make you cry
when Christ died for our sin.

@Brett

That's not quite right.

When the Federal holiday of Christmas was officially signed into law (by Grant), the wording didn't mention Jesus at all. AND! At the time it was signed into law, it was less of a religious holiday and more of a cultural celebration of goodwill and family. With the same pen, Grant signed into law other federal holidays that had nothing to do with religion (like New Year's Day).

Also: You probably know this, but Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. It was arbitrarily chosen as the day to *celebrate* his birth, so, in fact, it IS "some random winter date" that was melded with winter solstice celebration traditions (trees and gifts) to make it more palatable to the masses.

The best way to gauge if you are really being a religious bigot is whether you would allow another religious group to display its faith on public property - in a way that shows it is endorsed by government officials.

I don't think most Christians can do that, and that such people are simply hypocrites chivvying for personal advantage.

Of course, if this does not describe your position, I am not talking to you. Right?

Meanwhile, the "nativity" itself remains a fabrication - a representation of fond wishes.

They mentioned something about their goal not being to admonish Christians or any group, in fact, the lady who was interviewed actually said that if you want to believe in "the flying spaghetti monster" that it was fine, no joke!

So, you're not going to admonish a religious group, but you are going to mock their belief system by equating the object of their worship to a made-up joke diety?

I see.

The area is probably predominantly Christian and it's likely that most citizens are not offended by a nativity scene at the courthouse (after all 5,000 of them showed up to defend it). That a few citizens are offended merits consideration and possible removal of the religious display. It does not merit mockery of the religion.

==============================

Christmas and Hannukah, with all of their religious overtones, are considered traditions and celebrated by millions. Some even regard them as holy.

Do we have to ruin everything because someone gets their nickers in a twist over someone else's happiness? Do we really want to sacrifice the few remaining spriritual aspects of Christmas in favor of the blatantly commercial aspects?

If we turn Christmas into strictly a secular mid-winter holiday, I doubt it would inspire the same reverence.

We don't talk about "peace on earth and goodwill to men" at Christmas because Macy's is having a sale. We talk about these things at Christmas because a majority of people still regard it as a holy season.

And we will lose something very important in our humanity if we lose the concept of "holy."

"And we will lose something very important in our humanity if we lose the concept of "holy.""

Really? What is that?

Sunday morning theater, where people go to make excuses for the way they treat their neighbors the rest of the week?

"Holy" items, scoffed at by others because they're obviously just plain ol' water, wine, perfume or figurines while their own fetishes are the real thing?

Icons used to excuse heinous behavior towards others who don't carry those icons? Icons used to excuse the bulldozing of acres of natural habitat for the installation of an air-conditioned building?

The principal value of Christianity is the unheralded sacrifice for another. Just where is that even approached in these arguments about public rituals, designed purely to show others our feet do not stink, we're blessed?

(About public display - have you ever noticed that Jews don't die in car crashes? When have you seen a Star of David sticking up on the right-of-way?)

rad, I wrote the concept of "holy," not a bunch of outdated rituals.

The concept that we are a part of something greater than us. The idea that humanity is not just a lucky evolutionary lottery winner, getting thumbs, speech, and self-awareness ... even if that's all we are.

The things that allow us, as Terry Pratchett put it, to be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? [Santa Claus]"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

Sorry about the extra indentation in my post ... i missed a closing blockquote command. It's all one quote from Pratchett's Hogfather.

Sofar ~ So what you said is that the Federal Holiday was "less of a religious holiday and more of a cultural celebration of goodwill and family" and also that "but Jesus wasn't born on December 25th. It was arbitrarily chosen as the day to *celebrate* his birth". Yes, I know that. It doesn't matter what day he was born. The holiday "Christmas", notice the name of Christ there?, was done on the 25th because as you say it is the day to "celebrate his birth". Then in the same breath you say it had little to do with his birth. Your whole post was nothing but one contradiction after another. Amy, I said you were better than this not because I meant you should revere something you don't but because your exquisite logic is faltering on this one.

And I'm not going to take your word, Sofar, that Grant meant this generally cultural day for love and family. How do you know that? If so, then why is it on the day universally celebrated as the Savior's birth? He could have done it on the day of solstice like I said. It's about Jesus Christ weather you admit or not. You attempts to refute the obvious are comical. Yes, nowadays it has lost much of its religious meaning due to Santa Clause and commercialism but manger scenes are still very much a part of it. And listen to some Christmas carols and theme found in many therein. Your explanation sounds more like what it is today to some people who have lost the religious significance of it.

"rad, I wrote the concept of "holy," not a bunch of outdated rituals."

In decades of discussion about religion, I find that Christians, obviously the most vocal of people, defend emotions and objects, not ideas.

I accept the nobility of a man who rushes into the surf to save a stranger's child. I do not accept anything at all from the man or woman who insists the Bible, for one example which will immediately be strewn with straw, is God itself.

The Wisconsin atheist group is concerned about a holiday display a thousand miles away from where they live. The Texans are upset that people who live a thousand miles away are telling them how to decorate their town.

Which group has the more valid concern, and which group should STFU and mind their own business? Pretty sure that Texas nativity never killed anyone.

Posted by: TFG

Which sublty implies that Wisonsin athiests have killed someone?

I understand it better than you do. I also understand the nuance that a courthouse nativity scene doesn't constitute establishment of a state religion, which is what the Constitution actually forbids.

Posted by: TFG

Why is it then I can get taxpayer funding and placement on government property for my Satanist nativity scene showing the devil fucking Mary in the ass while being she is being choked with the entrails of a slaughtered baby Jebus as the wisemen fuch the barn yard animls being force feed peices of Joseph?

And sofar is right, in the modern era Dec 25 was arbitrarily chossen, and a several centuries ago the winter solstic celeebrations were co opted by the catholics to help convert the remaining pagans that their predecesor werent able to completly wipe out

What we need is more supportive atheists willing to provide needed services for the believers who have won the love of the creator.

Here's a good example of what I'm talking about:

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/oma/2372505317.html

The core value of libertarianism is tolerance for other people's choices.

Demanding that a small town 1000 miles away from where you live cannot put a simple nativity scene on their courthouse lawn that hurts no one is the very definition of not being tolerant. If that's your position, you should stop misleading people by referring to yourself as a libertarian, because you simply aren't one.

Hope that helps.

TFG you are a moron.

I hope that helps

The group is based in Wisconsin, much like facebook, though being based in California is still sueing some guy in Irsreal even though facebook isnt from Isreal

I hope that helps

The group was contacted by a texan living in that town

I hope that helps

Are we caught up yet sweethart? Now that we had to spoonfeed yopu the relevant data does our little bundle of stupidity want to try playing in the deep end again?

Looks like TFG hit a nerve with lujlp. When you have to resort to name calling you've lost the argument.
It doesn't matter if Christmas were celebrated on March 3rd. The day is based on the birth of Jesus Christ. A religious event most people would agree accept a few here who seem bent on dismissing the obvious. I mean really now. If you can't agree Christmas is a religious holiday you have no respect for facts commonly understood by millions. For some the earth is still flat.

Wikipedia on the selection of December 25 as Christmas:

For centuries, Christian writers accepted that Christmas was the actual date on which Jesus was born. John Chrysostom preached a sermon in Antioch c. 386 which established the date of Christmas as December 25 on the Julian calendar since the conception of Jesus (Luke 1:26) had been announced during the sixth month of Elisabeth's pregnancy with John the Baptist (Luke 1:10-13) as dated from the duties Zacharias performed on the Day of Atonement during the seventh month of the Hebrew calendar Ethanim or Tishri (Lev. 16:29, 1 Kings 8:2) which falls in September–October.

In the early 18th century, scholars began proposing alternative explanations. Isaac Newton argued that the date of Christmas was selected to correspond with the winter solstice, which the Romans called bruma and celebrated on December 25. In 1743, German Protestant Paul Ernst Jablonski argued Christmas was placed on December 25 to correspond with the Roman solar holiday Dies Natalis Solis Invicti and was therefore a "paganization" that debased the true church. In 1889, Louis Duchesne proposed that the date of Christmas was calculated as nine months after the Annunciation, the traditional date of the conception of Jesus, which itself was based on a traditional belief that he was conceived and crucified on the same date, 15 Nisan.

In the early 4th century, the church calendar contained Christmas on December 25 and other holidays placed on solar dates: "It is cosmic symbolism...which inspired the Church leadership in Rome to elect the winter solstice, December 25, as the birthday of Christ, and the summer solstice as that of John the Baptist, supplemented by the equinoxes as their respective dates of conception. While they were aware that pagans called this day the 'birthday' of Sol Invictus, this did not concern them and it did not play any role in their choice of date for Christmas," according to modern scholar S.E. Hijmans.

Who said christmas wasnt a religious holiday Bertt? And yes TFG did hit a nerve as the one thing I cant stand is adject stupidity

Also when did condecendingly calling someone 'sweetheart' constitute name calling?

And the point Brett izsnt that we think christmas isnt a religious holiday, its that we think the decorations shouldnt be paid for by the government or set up on government property

If your christian chistmas decorations are paid for and maintained by the government then so should EVERY religion holiday decorations - otherwise the government is tacitly endorsing one religion over the others

Bit you called him a "moron". And someone on this string said it had little to do with religion. That is factually wrong! And if it were a Federal holiday called "Hannuka" it would be entirely appropriate to put up menorahs all over the place.

By the way, when I do see the menorah publicly displayed in communities with a large Jewish population during the holidays it doesn't bother me one bit.

All these folks need to do is call it Occupy Nativity and the atheists will leave 'em alone.

Atheists are as deity-obsessed as any fanatical christian. Imagine feeling so strongly about someone else's deity that you would file a lawsuit about it 4 states over (asked or not)! I don't like Islam, but I'm not going to file a lawsuit about a sickle raised in Nevada, in a town chock full of muslims. I have a life of my own.

I tend to favor state's (and, to be more specific, localities) rights in almost anything outside the Bill of Rights. I think states that want to be atheistic and proabortion and legalize marrying dogs should be able to, and states that want nativities and live babies and male-female marriage should be able to have that, and people live where they think best suits them. Seems easy enough.

So what you are saying momof4 that if the only legal action group willing to help you is not in your state of residence you need to suck it up and just let the mob break the law?

Do you feel the same about project innocence? Afterall they dont have legal incorperation in every state

And yes Brett I called TGF a moronm but then again they were BEING one by making comments and assertions not based in the fact of the story - which is moronic

And yes momof4 I agree, individual states and communites should be able choose - within the bounds of the law.

So unless these communites using tax payer money and government grounds to display and maintain christian icons are willing to do the same for every other religions observances and icons they are breaking the law by endorsing one religion over another

And please note you never see athiests protesting nativities on private property or on church property - or even in government venues where every belief system is given the opportunity to participate - only where its clear only one religion is allowed to have a display

Why does he need a legal action group? Is there some reason he couldn't sue on his own behalf? Did it not mean quite enough to him, to spend his own money? It's not as if he's living in some theocracy somewhere that protesting would mean his life.

Perhaps he couldnt afford to do it

Amy couldnt afford the lawyer who defended her against the suit by the TSA groper - are you suggesting that she shouldnt have bothered to defend her self and her beliefs simply because she couldnt front the cash?

And again your missing the point, because somehow if your local town decided to put a shrine to Moloch Devourer of Children with tax payer money on tax payer property and refused to put up christmas lights that you would be just fine with it, or that you would spend several thousand dollars in court costs of your own money to protest it

"I think states that want to be atheistic and proabortion and legalize marrying dogs should be able to, and states that want nativities and live babies and male-female marriage should be able to have that, and people live where they think best suits them. Seems easy enough."

Are you sure you're raising your kids right? Because it seems that you're not thinking carefully here, and that might be putting them at risk.

See, you've just put forth the opinion that your rights are subject to what state you live in. This, of course, means you are stripped of them, on this principle, when you travel to another one. It's a viewpoint that enables police to demand your papers.

Nice going.

Meanwhile, government is a business, and a business run correctly admits all customers and gives them all the same fair deal.

The current meaning of the 1st Amendment, which is binding on the states, is that government entities shall not endorse any religion.

That is the law of the land, and this Texas town clearly violated it.

Anyone want to guess how loud its citizens would squawk if Muslims demanded to put up some model minarets during Ramadan?

Meanwhile, government is a business, and a business run correctly admits all customers and gives them all the same fair deal.

Not quite.

A business run correctly earns a profit. And it does that by taking care of its profitable customers. That's why frequent flyers go to the head of the line. That's why "executive" members at Costco get an extra hour of shopping time. That's wny many coupons set a purchase limit you must reach before the discount kicks in.

A business run correctly might admit all and give them all the same fair deal, but it gives its more profitable customers a better deal - lest it see them go to a competitor who gives them the better deal.

Since a government is required to give all citizens the same fair deal and give no special treatment to its "better" customers, it cannot be a business and it cannot be run like one.

Besides, many government functions are not profitable and could not be administered evenly to all citizens if they were profitable (i.e., charging for police and fire services).