One down, Hundreds up!

[Christians4LessGvt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlGShJtKEK0

[Xavier_Onassis]

There certainly is a need for hundreds of nativity scenes.
No doubt God will reward this town for its hundreds of Baby Jebuses.

But the point is not that people do not have a right to have all the mangers they want. They just don't have the right to religious idolatry on public property.

[Christians4LessGvt]

We both know for most of the Haters it has nothing to do with gvt property
they just hate Christians and/or are Leftists
So the fact is the Haters got one taken down
but now there are hundreds of new ones.
They can pretend that doesn't bother them
But they know in their heart it does....
Can you say "BACKFIRE"?

by the way.....
manger scenes on gvt property is no more an "establishment of religion"
than a National US Government CHRISTmas Holiday is an "establishment of religion"
did you refuse the GVT CHRISTmas Holiday and go into work that day to grade papers?

[Xavier_Onassis]

A holiday is not the same as a physical religious display on public property.
I don't actually care whether people put up nativity things on the courthouse steps.

In my home town, the local merchants put up a little "Santa House" on the courthouse steps, ten days before Christmas, they had a Santa there so the little kids could sit on his lap and tell him what toys they wanted for Christmas. When they closed the house every night, they closed the door.

One night, some high school students sprayed a crescent on Santa's little house. It looked just like Christmasy outhouse. They would spray it over and every night, the crescent would reappear. This went on for years. Then they built a mall out by the highway and by then most of the  the town merchants has retired or moved out to the  highway.

One year they stopped putting Santa's House on the Courthouse steps, and claimed that someone had complained for religious reasons, which I hear was simply untrue.

Traditionally, people cut a crescent into outhouse doors. I don't think it had anything to do with Islam

It does not bother me at all that anyone wants to put a nativity thing anywhere.

In Spain, no Nativity scene is complete without a caganer somewhere in the background.  Finding the caganer is like playing "here's Waldo?"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caganer
\

[Plane]

  If you don't like your little sisters song , the last thing you ever want to do is let her know how much it bothers you.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is an infantile response to do something that you know is deliberately annoying.
It is legal to display all the nativities you wish, but to do so out of spite to annoy people hardly seems like a proper Christian .

Manger scenes do not annoy me in the least.
At one time, I bought two dozen manger scenes (without caganers)  in Michoacan and sold them at a nice profit in West Virginia. They were very pretty examples of handmade folklore. Everyone loved them.
I sold dozens of Last Supper and Manger scene paintings on black velvet to put myself through college.
I sold at least as many bloody Jesus as Elvises and JFK's in those days.
I doubt that any were put on display in any public place.
Of course, you can display a velvet Elvis anywhere. Nowadays, the painters have to pay Elvis royalties. I suspect many claim they are selling velvet Elvis impersonators.

[Plane]

It is an infantile response to do something that you know is deliberately annoying.

  So, isn't an infantile response deserved?

[Xavier_Onassis]

I don't see why.

The purpose of the veiled idolatry inherent in displaying Nativity scenes is worshipful reverence, not juvenile spite.
The people who want to do away with taxpayer supported religious displays are overreacting, most likely because they were spurned for their views when they were children. Those who want to "show them" by putting these everywhere are certainly no better.

[Plane]

  You get it , no better either way.

  The easily offended that try to erase the least religious reference are being childish.

   An equally spiteful reply does not really advance the cause of Christ, but it is what the easily offended should expect.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It is stupid to make a huge fuss over what are essentially religious idols.

There is no power given to a Nativity scene, none is claimed, they are no more a sign of religious devotion than images of Macy's red-nosed magical reindeer mascot.
Give Rudolph another tree or four centuries, and mystical powers might be bestowed on Rudolph, just as they have been bestowed on Mohammad's horse.
I don't think that we will be rid of superstitions of this sort in the future.

Newspapers still run horoscopes daily, even though they are seen as heretical by Christians (except for the Magi and the Star of Bethlehem of course). Any editor that has tried to pull horoscopes from a dail newspaper has been attacked by swarms of  readers.

The actual Jesus, whoever he was IF he ever was, was not born on December 25, anyway; that was a winter solstice date and the alleged birthdate of Mithra.
The Star of Bethlehem is a myth, shepherds would not be grazing at that time and place, due to the absence of grass.

The idea that the Romans, who were most interested in tax receipts, would require people to go to their birth places to be taxed, is absurd.  The logical way to collect taxes is to tax people where they are, not where they were born. Think about it: how could that possibly make sense?

The myth was created in conformity with the prophesy that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, and Mary & Joseph were from Galilee.

But of course, I personally do not care about manger scenes, or the right to have many or one, or none, I will admit that the Mexican pottery ones were adorable. But then again, some of the greatest sculptures ever created were of  imaginary figures: the Winged Victory of Samothrace, those Babylonian angels, statues to Athene, Zeus, Mercury, the Venus de Milo and so on.

It is a more artistic expression to put under a Christmas tree than gaily wrapped packages, after all.