This reminds me a few years back a store had a nativity thing in one of their windows with a Bart Simpson doll as Jesus. The Catholic League raised a fuss and they took it down. Too bad they didn’t have you around to remind them that because nativities outside of churches are ‘folk art’ there was no need to have taken offense!

Seriously do you really want to stick by this line of argument? That religious speech in the public square is just random stuff with no meaning at all other than what the viewer wants to assign to it? Sure people perceive different messages but let’s get real here. If the KKK burns a cross on the lawn of a black family, the message isn’t “remember Jesus died for our sins”….although if the black family just arrived from Africa with no knowledge of the KKK’s history maybe they might misread the display. The reason to put up a nativity display isn’t to ‘celebrate family’ or ‘cute babies’ but to celebrate a real doctrine of a real religion. Is squashing religious freedom so important to you that would reduce religious speech to meaningless mush?

These free speech public forum invariably only occur once each year during the week before and after Christmas, and not during rest of the year when the holidays of non-Christian minorities may take place. Furthermore, a government need do little more than erect a crèche to create a free expression public forum, the burden is mostly on the dissenters to prove it isn’t a free expression public forum. Clearly this is a biased legal precedent that is unfair to non-Christian minorities.

Now, to make it even worse, a federal court unilaterally decides, against the existing precedent, that it isn’t a free expression public forum after all. Instead it’s government speech, and therefore government can censor any speech that disparages ALL religions (not just Christianity), while somehow the government sponsored speech on behalf of Christianity, a religion that itself disparages atheism, is still not government establishment of Christianity.

But that is not the point of my comment. If I understand you correctly, we support the same goal for all persons of good will – that their public speech be treated with respect. I am of the opinion that certain things can only be taught one person at a time. There is dignity in refusing to personally participate in abusive behavior and in providing a counter example.

History provides some comfort. Persons holding strong opinions have throughout history been subjected to harsh criticism and worse. That is the basis for the praise given to those who have the “courage of their convictions”. I am a Roman Catholic; you are an atheist. Only time will tell which of those principled commitments will be subjected to persecution. I tend to think it will be mine.

Best wishes. And, again, “Pax hominibus bonae voluntatis” – to all men and women of good will.

I am saying that a nativity scene in the public square is received in different ways by the passers-by.

Is there any message that isn’t perceived in multiple ways? Is the intent of the people who put up the display irrelevant? If someone puts up a nativity scene, do they intend a doctrinal statement?

The thing is, nativity scenes don’t get vandalized at anything like the rate atheist displays do.

I’d trust ‘kindliness, “tolerance with principle,” respect for the common good’ more if it were actually displayed toward atheists more frequently.

I am saying that a nativity scene in the public square is received in different ways by the passers-by. Christmas has different meanings for different people. Some meanings are secular but kindly and humane; some are doctrinal and specific; some are simply hopeful in the sense that there may be higher things.

Your last sentence indicates your annoyance with my argument. Please be assured that I value and respect our cherished right to free speech. I am not offended by public displays of convictions completely and utterly opposed to mine; rather I respect serious commitments held by persons of good will.

The point I would like to make is one I would impose on myself and recommend to others. I would not intrude on religious observances of others by insisting that my symbols be displayed at the same time and in the same place. I consider our treasured right to free speech invaluable, beyond price. Nothing short of egregious obscenity or malicious criticism would bring forth a complaint from me.

I am arguing for kindliness, “tolerance with principle,” respect for the common good – those things which are learned and learned only by living them

A nativity scene placed in front of a church makes a doctrinal statement. A nativity scene or a Christmas tree in the public square on the other hand has a folk art quality; its meaning is received by the passers-by in diverse ways.

Hmmm. Just to be perfectly clear, you’re saying that a nativity scene in the public square does not make a doctrinal statement? It’s only when it’s in front of a church (or perhaps a home) that it becomes a religious statement?

How ’bout a Buddha statue? Some Ramadan lanterns? A Pentacle? The ‘Sigil of Lucifer’? How and when should those be displayed in the ‘public square’?

Mother, father, child – a simple family. A decorated tree to light the winter darkness. Or, for a Christian, the birth of Christ and a joyful symbol of that birth. For some it may be “mushy”. But at least for now citizens of the United States of America are still free to be “mushy” if that is their choice. .

Given the fact that almost all citizens are now carefully educated to observe individual rights and not educated in the arts of kindliness, courtesy, and grace that are so necessary to human happiness and peaceful common life, it is possible that Christmas displays will be forbidden by law. Something intangible yet invaluable will be lost. You will have the victory.

If we no longer understand the necessity of consideration and respect for the things that are put forth and valued by our fellow citizens – atheist philosophical concepts, religious beliefs and philosophical reasoning, political philosophy as a basis for our common life -and must depend on the courts for decisions that could be settled with the smallest amount of kindliness and generosity, we have in my opinion become uncivilized.

You are of course correct. I am defending an intangible. Nothing that would be upheld as a matter of law.

I think many symbols have become so mundane people neglect to note just how serious they are.

A nativity, while non-textual, announces a particular set of beliefs about the nature of Jesus. Namely that he was both a man and God. That an infinite God can also be a finite man as well as this all happened at a point in history as opposed to being some type of theoretically abstraction. Taken seriously this is more than a mushy belief that ‘Baby Jesus was cute”. It’s a bold assertion about the nature of reality that’s a serious challenge to competiting assertions. That is indeed disparaging to those who do not have such beliefs.

You’re right, it ‘singles out no one’. It doesn’t say “Mary Smith on 124 Main St. is WRONG! for having a Jewish/Hindu/Unitarian view”, but it does indeed say her view is wrong.

Likewise this message singles out no particular person of any non-atheistic faith. So what’s the problem? The problem seems to be that ‘religious freedom’ isn’t really what it say it is. It seems to really be about a religious entitlement to occupy a portion of the public square provided it is used in only a mushy manner expousing a belief that has more tradition behind it than others. In other words ‘religious entitlement inertia’ more than anything else, so much for a diverse public square carrying on a serious discussion!