Rows over the Nativity

No crib for a bed

A Christmas mix of church and state

See article

Readers' comments



AR Freethinker

D.Gunz let me correct you, for you are quite wrong on a couple of things. The Freethinkers are not crying about anything. They simply would like to celebrate this holiday season like many of their neighbors. And it sounds like they too want to exercise the same freedom as those that display the nativity. There are many cultures that celebrate different things all throughout December, they are celebrating HumanLight, which falls on the 23rd. What allergic reaction were you referring to? They asked to have a display alongside the nativity. You make it sound as if the secular group wanted to do away with the nativity: Not the case at all!!!


Since I am the one quoted in the article as a representative of the group, let me clear up what exactly it is our group wants, since there is no shortage of wrong guesses and faulty arguments in these comments. The article clearly states:

"The Arkansas Freethinkers do not want the Little Rock Nativity scene removed. They simply want the state to set up a 'free-speech zone' and let them be part of it, along with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and Muslims. 'The holiday is big enough to accommodate everyone,' says Tod Billings, a Freethinker."

We DO NOT want to take away Christian's right to celebrate Christmas as they see fit and EVEN to do so on public property; we simply want the right to do the same thing. We do not, let me repeat, want to take away the Nativity Scene, and pointing to the fact that other groups have tried to do that very thing to establish that we have the same motive is misguided and mistaken to say the least.

Christmas is a federal holiday which means two things: 1. it is by definition for ALL Americans, not just Christians and 2. it is IMPOSED upon everybody. That second point is supported in the fact that federal offices and most businesses close on Christmas. You need to work that day? Tough luck for you... All TV programming goes on hiatus for the season. All public schools are out, so parents must make childcare arrangements. If you want to go to Wal-Mart in the days leading up to Christmas for toilet paper, get ready to wait in long lines of last minute shoppers. There is no way to avoid Christmas no matter what your ethnicity or religious preference.

If this holiday is to be imposed on everybody and is to be a federal holiday involving and affecting Christians and nonChristians alike, then everybody should be able to celebrate the holiday in whatever way they want, and if ANY group gets to do so using public land, so should other groups that meet all reasonable criteria for submission, as we have. I, and many of my fellow freethinkers, would be the first to speak out for the rights of Christians to put up a Nativity Scene in a free speech zone so long as it truly was a free speech zone. We only want the same rights that Christians enjoy without bias or favoritism on land and on a day we all share in common.

Besides, many freethinkers enjoy the secular aspects of the holiday: time off from work, gathering with friends and family (some you only see this time of year), exchanging gifts, etc. It isn't that we don't like the holiday season, but that we don't feel we are able to participate to the same level that Christians, and even other nonChristian groups, are.

To address D. Gunz's complaint that Dec. 25th is celebrated as an exclusively Christian holiday, he has missed part of the whole point. The Christians adopted the preexisting holiday of Winter Solstice as their own to make it easier for them to live among and convert the pagans surrounding them. The gospels don't say what season Jesus was born in, let alone assign an actual month and day! The Winter Solstice predates Christmas by millennia: we aren't introducing something new, but pointing out the original "reason for the season," a holiday which isn't biased towards one group over another.

If December 25th is to be imposed on us as a federal holiday, we have the right to celebrate the occasion in the way we find most meaningful. We obviously don't want to celebrate Christmas, Hannakah, or Quansa, because they are religious or ethnic holidays we don't identify with or find particularly meaningful. However, the Winter Solstice is not only a secular reference point used even by astronomers, but the object of its celebration, the sun, is something many of us freethinkers can genuinely honor as truly life-giving and worthy of celebration. After all, without the heat, light, and gravitational pull of the sun, we'd all be in dead really quick.

So please, if you must bash us, at least bash us for what we are actually trying to do, instead of erecting false strawmen for you to attack. It might be so much easier than sticking to the actual facts, but it does both you and us a tremendous disservice. You because you look ignorant, and us because you are demonstrating how nonbelievers are still the last lot it is okay, from the social to the government level, to display bigotry against. If we were Jewish people trying to erect a menorah in front of the capitol during the holiday season, I doubt we'd be getting this level of opposition and vitriol.

Tod Billings, President of the AR Society of Freethinkers

Jumping Flapjack

Lets also toss ol' Santa Claus under the bus of PC because he might inadvertantly be confused with his radical right-wing religious zealot cousin St. Nick, a most offensive fellow if ever there was one.
In keeping with todays new penchant for instant tradition lets not forget to have some naked fire dancing from our Wiccan winter solstice fans and some live goat sacrifices for our voodoo adherents as well.
Its well past time to liven up the village green with much more than that staid, fusty old nativity scene.

The Freethinkers are really going to have to come up with something a bit showier than "philosophers in a box" to compete. How about a co-display with Scientologists with aliens?
All the kids love aliens. Big scary aliens.

Merry Xmas to all and to all a good night...

Anthony Probus


Thank you for providing facts on the Michigan case. It seems a lot more nuanced now.

HOWEVER, you cannot deny that the text provided by the article on the case makes it appear to be a LOT more confrontational. Just read this.

"Other states face similar dramas. In Ann Arbor, Michigan, the Freedom from Religion Foundation complained about a Nativity scene on a highway median that has been displayed for 63 years. The same group filed a similar lawsuit in Wisconsin last year. That case is continuing, but in Michigan, local authorities refused permission to the Nativity display this year."

AR Freethinker was still wrong to conclude from this text that it's somehow the religious (who are always narrow-minded of course) who are the aggressors, not the Freedom from Religion Foundation.

And even with the Michigan case explained, how can you explain the fact that the group filed a similar lawsuit in Wisconsin? And no one still hasn't answered my point on the narrow-mindedness presented by the very name of the organization, 'Freedom from Religion'. It seems almost tantamount to calling one's organization 'Freedom from (Insert a demographic group here) Foundation'.

The underlying fact is, this group still seems to be on a hunt to snuff out displays of religious symbols on a national level. Can you tell me this hunt is not a waste of energy?

PS. If you think spaghetti gods should be displayed alongside the Nativity scenes as a part of a 'religious' decorations during Christmas, you are gravely mistaken. Why don't you display blackfaces during Kwanzaa while you are at it? The intent of this 'spaghetti god' is clearly an unwarranted mockery of a specific group of people. Keep your spaghetti gods in the Internet and local comedy bars where they belong; they do not belong in a serious cultural celebration that is supposed to be conducive to peace and make everyone come out feeling happy.

Anthony Probus

And another thing, Christmas is a global holiday for those who do not travel a lot, even in regions where Christianity isn't exactly at its strongest. Christmas is celebrated less for religious reasons than for cultural reasons today, and to scream that the state-church separation is not complete because Christmas is designated a public holiday is to completely ignore its cultural and social value that gained a life of its own outside of Christianity.


How about we celebrate the Nativity scene until Christmas is over, then the free thinkers can put their own decorations for whatever they want to celebrate afterwards?

Why do they have to coincide with Christmas?

Anthony Probus


Since both of our comments got deleted en masse, let us merely agree to disagree, ok?

I argue that governments and public realms ought to represent all faiths and opinions, instead of trying to stifle it in the name of public good (what public good does it serve anyways?). Furthermore, I believe that setting up 'box of knowledge' and putting up Lincoln figurines as an atheist Christmas decoration, while it would be allowed, is just really arbitrary; what does it have anything to do with Christmas?

Even if Christmas originated from the pagan celebrations of Winter Solstice (only in the northern hemisphere though), the fact is that for almost 2,000 years Christmas has been associated with the birth of Jesus Christ. And to somehow argue that the state-church separation is not complete just because the Christmas is a public holiday is to completely forget its cultural meaning that developed both within and outside of Christianity.

That's my position in short, and I really don't think this is in any way narrow-minded or unfair.


Yeah unmix Christmas Holidays from the face of the American world and lets see if USA can still remain top of the RETAIL TRADE and boast the largest economy in this world.

Anthony Probus


I must have missed it in your comment, but I don't see why anyone would particularly want to celebrate Winter Solstice. I am not saying you can't, but I don't see any pros for it either.

Winter Solstice happens during June in the Southern Hemisphere. Plus, it hasn't been celebrated in the West for almost two thousands of years. I don't see any compelling arguments for celebrating it other than 'Why not?'.

PS. You can't assign Hitler to the Christian category, and at any rate to denigrate a whole religion just because of several individuals seem futile, as Christianity includes up to 25% of the human population on Earth.

As for Hitler's faith, he was certainly born and raised a Catholic - but his religious attitudes remained ambiguous. He felt Christian teachings of compassion and turning the other cheek was weakness and in private circles professed to be feeling disgusted with it. Several of high-ranking Nazis also had a very publicized breakup with the Church, and the Nazis savagely persecuted the Catholic Church in Poland as a part of its murderous cultural genocide programme. His references to religion were probably more political than personal in an era where the Church was still very powerful.

Be thankful that the age was still a very Christian one, and that agnostics/atheists were still rather rare at the time, because Hitler might have qualified as one if he was around today. Propaganda films used by the western Allies to attack Nazi Germany often refer to its persecution of the Church, real or imagined.


Google or some other tech biggie should come up with a hitech virtual display visible to people who wants to see what they imagine... a nativity scene to christians, a jewish symbol to jews, a muslim symbol to muslims so on and so forth catering to different religions.


"At the risk of being somewhat hypocritical, I don't think spaghetti gods, spider gods, the elder gods, the Greek pantheon, etc. should be considered; a way has to be found to allow all members of the community to express their legitimate holiday cultures."

Well, it's not "at the risk", it IS hypocritical. How exactly are you going to decide which religious holiday culture is "legitimate"? Keep in mind that there were once some Romans who didn't find Christian holidays and culture "legitimate" either.

Look at those here arguing that there's not even legitimacy in erecting a solstice display ON DECEMBER 25th, asking "why now" etc. They don't just want their freedom of speech -- they feel their own freedom is inherently "less valuable" unless someone ELSE'S speech is restricted. They have to have the whole holiday, all for themselves. That is inherent in a belief system that says anybody who doesn't share their beliefs is condemned, and all who share their beliefs are special and saved forever. Those aren't views that suggest an assessment of other beliefs as equal, and they don't promote equal treatment of other beliefs -- hence the desire to restrict displays to only their own personal religious beliefs during this holiday. Hence their instant hostility toward people only asking FOR THE SAME RIGHTS in Arkansas.

When people who tell me that if I don't adopt their beliefs, I'll burn for eternity, and that I shouldn't display my own beliefs on the same day they display theirs, and that they should have the sole right to erect their own religious display on government and public properties, simultaneously try to tell ME that I'M the intolerant one, it's transparently disingenuous and laughable.

But when someone who claims to support separation of church and state says they favor restricting equal rights of religious expression only for "legitimate" views and cultures, it doesn't make me laugh -- it makes me cringe.


I am a believer in the almost absolute separation of church and state. One should not be able to force ones religious dogma on others using state power.

Never-the-less, attacking the cultural impedimenta of the majority and trying to banish all religious expression is not only the same sort of church-state perversion [albeit in reverse], it is more likely to irritate and cause a backlash.

The Arkansas authorities are [or look like] Christofascists, and the anti religion bunch look like secular fascists. We should follow King Solomon's advice. Find some way to divide this baby, i.e. let all recognized* faiths be represented.


AR Freethinker

Just because the state of Michigan and those holding the respective offices have decided that "OK, well if the freethinkers want in, we'll just no longer make having a display from everyone an option" seems that the xtians are the close minded ones who either want things their way or no way at all.
So again, these Freethinkers are not trying to do away with the Nativity, just to simply have the right to exercise the same freedom as those displaying the Nativity. As far as why in December, well, first the pagan community might ask the same of the xtians about their adoption of the 25th (for I've never seen any indication in the bible of Dec. 25 being a date of significance). Secondly, there are numerous celebratory cultural activities occurring in December, would you have them all stop celebrating in December for the sake of the xtians, or just the Freethinkers?
No one here is offended by the Nativity here, however, one has to wonder why the religious organization that donates the Nativity isn't happy displaying that scene on their property. For that would seem the most appropriate and less likely to violate any laws or rights.
Happiest of Holidays to you too :)


"The name "Christianity" is overtly, clearly stating a singular religious belief that only ONE SPECIFIC MAN is the savior of all mankind and the son of God etc, and that his teachings -- contained in one holy book -- are the only ultimate truth and the only path to saving your sinful soul. Narrow-minded, eh?"

Why exactly is narrow-minded a bad thing? If a thoughtful person considers all the options and realizes that, for example, 2+2=4, being narrow-minded is probably better than remaining willing to consider errors. Just because some people haven't found the answer doesn't mean there isn't one, or evidence provided.


Probus wrote: "If you think spaghetti gods should be displayed alongside the Nativity scenes as a part of a 'religious' decorations during Christmas, you are gravely mistaken."

Um, no, if you think that you have a special superpower that lets you pick whose beliefs and views are valid and whose are not, you are gravely mistaken.

Probus wrote: "Why don't you display blackfaces during Kwanzaa while you are at it?"

Why don't you dance outside of a Hanukkah celebration with a sign reading "Disbelieving Jews Will Burn In Hell"? Since, you know, that's what Christianity really believes anyway.

And for the record, are you arguing that there should be a law against racists being racist in public? Should the KKK be denied permits to hold marches and rallies, for example? Because I happen to (a) hate racists and hate the KKK, but (b) still believe that even people with views I personally oppose still have a right to free speech, too. See, I'M not the one arguing that viewpoints I oppose should be outlawed or banned from public display -- YOU are.

Moreover, the fact -- and it's a fact -- is that ANY religious display, be it the spaghetti monster or Hindu, would be "offensive" to Christians if displayed alongside a Nativity scene, since ALL other religious beliefs are counter to Christian assertions that only ONE true God and savior (Jesus) exists and is the ONLY path to salvation.

And in fact, an even clearer comparison would be the fact that it is CHRISTIAN displays that have the potential of being FAR more offensive and insulting to other religions. You think a spaghetti monster is mockery of your faith and thus too insulting to allow beside a Nativity? How do you think Jews feel about Christians claiming Jesus is the Jewish messiah and that JEWS will go to hell for not accepting their "true" savior? Which is more offensive, a joke religion or a SERIOUS religion that actually PREACHES and BELIEVES everyone else is going to burn forever and that tries to CONVERT other people while CONDEMNING those who do not believe?

The problem is that you are only concerned with what offends YOU, while not recognizing or caring or admitting that your OWN religious views -- and those of ANY exclusivist religious beliefs -- are equally if not more offensive to other belief systems. And you think you have the ability and right to decide which belief systems are valid and which are not, and which have a right of free expression and which don't, and it all centers around which ones you find most offensive to YOUR beliefs. Talk about narrow-minded.


How about "keep your Jesus Nativity in your church where it belongs, and not in my face on government property or public grounds" -- how's that sit with you? And how about not assuming that your OWN views are the ones really "conducive to peace and make EVERYONE" feel happy, since it's the typical arrogant self-righteous and self-centered assertion of Christian mentality that their actually EXCLUSIVIST views "make everyone come out feeling happy"? You think your Nativity celebrating the birth of Jesus as savior of all humanity makes JEWS feel "happy"? You think it makes Hindus feel "happy"? You think it makes atheists feel "happy"? No, you simply assume that since it's what you support, it must be right, and you resort to the typical error that can be summed up like this: "those who believe as I do" = "everyone".

Because honestly, that's the only "everyone" you really seem to care about. Anyone else who is offended doesn't matter, because only your own sense of "offense" is important, since only your own belief is "right", since it's the only one that is the "word of God" and thus the only one that matters or that NEED be treated with any respect. It's a transparent A to B to C progression of thought, and it's typical. And it's exactly why it's so important to stand up to such bullying mentalities that demand special privileges and rights you would so willfully and eagerly deny others.


RE. Probus

By reading these articles I have gathered the AR Freethinkers have no desire to impinge on the Christians Nativity, they just want to have their views displayed also. Reading Anthony's posts, I have gathered that he believes that for freethinkers to have their views included is a threat for some reason. Does he believe that if people see what true freethinkers believe it will make others believe that humanists are not evil people who want to destroy their beliefs and customs? Are their views so disturbing that Freethinkers should be quieted and pushed aside? AR Freethinkers just seem to want to be included, not to exclude anyone. It seems strange to me that anyone could see that not wanting to have to endure others beliefs and the inconveniences of the season, such as stated by Tod1972 that some organizations would arise like the Freedom from Religion. Would Christians like to endure Muslim customs or Hindu? No, most Christians don't seem to want to hear or see anything other than their own customs, as seen by this even being an issue.


Oh, and as for that whole Michigan situation? The family erecting the Nativity scene -- they were putting up a giant, glass-enclosed Nativity at a busy intersection WITHOUT ANY PERMIT. The Road Commission, as soon as they were made aware of the non-permitted display, sent a letter to the family informing them that the non-permitted display had to be removed.

When the man the following year (this year) applied for a permit to display the Nativity, he was indeed denied a permit. This is a busy intersection, and in fact the Freedom From Religion Foundation explained that the size of the display makes it difficult if not impossible to see around the display. The display is set up directly across from a CHURCH who in fact were the original owners of that Nativity, but at the time (in 1945) they decided it was too large for them to want to display it, so they gave it to the family who have been displaying it ever since (aside from when road construction made it impossible to display).

There is now room for it to be displayed at the church, where it will not present the traffic hazard duly noted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation. The denial of the permit on the grounds of separation of church and state sounds questionable at first glance, in light of the median being "public space" -- however, there is ample precedent for denial of such displays (not to mention political demonstrations) on median areas of the road.

In this situation, there is -- as noted explicitly by the supporters of the Nativity -- a townwide "tradition" of support for the religious messaging on public land in front of the church (their attorney in the case states his belief that the case represents "hostility towards Christianity"), and in these conditions the granting of a permit that would in fact be IN SPITE OF the clear complaint about the public hazard involved (as vocalized by the Freedom From Religion Foundation) and would requite IGNORING those dangers in favor of giving way to the religious views of the family and the townspeople.

It would also require the Road Commission to ignore the previous years of illicit display of the Nativity on the Road Commission right of way without a permit, sending a message that people and groups can erect displays without permits and just apply for one later if they get caught, appealing to the argument that regardless of past violations and any potential hazard to public safety, the religious preferences and desires of the community should be the driving force behind the Road Commission's decision.

With the man's attorney arguing that this is a town tradition and that denial of the permit is "hostility towards Christianity", he is arguing that this is an explicitly RELIGIOUS tradition and that it should even supercede the PERMITTING requirement -- notice that this is in fact a rather overt aspect of his argument, inherent in his declaration of the legitimacy of the six-decade "tradition" regardless of the fact that it violated permitting requirements during a large portion of that time period. By casting the situation as one of local RELIGIOUS tradition that is supposedly under attack, the attorney has in fact pretty strictly limited the question of motive and arguments in favor of allowing the display despite the counter-arguments regarding the hazard to public safety.

The situation, then, is obviously more complicated and nuanced than the simplistic version of events that some of you clearly favor here.


It is so easy to be an armchair critic! Has anyone critically examined the origins of the December 'holidays' as they are now called? Who can cite any Christian scripture that unequivocally identifies the birth date of Jesus Christ? While we think about that, let's look some key pagan festivals that pre-date Christ:
Suturnalia (17th December), Roman Solstice (25th December), Mithras Sol Invictus (25th December) and Natalis Invicti(25th December).

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.


To the commenter claiming atheists look like "secular fascists" -- there is a big difference between opposition to the state or other government agencies erecting or promoting specific religious denominations, symbols, etc, and a case of private individuals using public space for such things. The Michigan situation is not the norm, it's the exception. Most cases of atheists challenging such displays are within the bounds of explicit state/government actions. Further, it matters a lot whether or not other religions and groups have been denied permits for such things while the Christians were granted permissions.

When atheists challenge government displays and other forms of religious endorsement, it is absurd to refer to it as "fascist". Would you say that a group fighting against government banning of all guns is "fascist"? Would you say that a group fighting against banning of political parties is "fascist"? Of course not, and people tend to recognize the legitimacy and liberty claims behind most other forms of protest against clear government violations of the Bill of Rights. Yet when it comes to religion, groups opposing overt government endorsement of a particular religion get called all kinds of names, including "fascist".

Even in the case of Michigan, to toss out the good ol' Hitler/Nazi analogy is banal. You really think that a group that seems to overstate the argument against government sanctioning of a specific religion is "fascist"? Do you know what fascism even IS? The equating of anything and everything one disagrees with, with "fascism" does nothing but call into question the rationale of the speaker. Such hyperbole adds nothing to the discussion, and in fact detracts from it by dumbing-down the comparisons and facts.

Just as a family wanting a permit to display a Nativity scene on public space is not "fascism", nor is it "fascism" to oppose examples of religious endorsement that call into question the government's commitment to avoidance of overt endorsement of one religion over another. Even when either side pushes too hard or focuses in an uneven manner against the other side, it is not automatically "fascist". There are a few million dead Jews and Roma and homosexuals and Slavs and Poles etc who might find the inability to distinguish between "things I don't agree with" and "fascism" more than just a bit offensive.


The frauds at the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster should be banned. They and everyone else knows that they have completely stolen and transformed the original religious tenets of the Church of the Crawling Lasagna Monster.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
World Cup predictions: Scoring ourselves
Graphic detail July 12th, 19:03
Car technology: Turbocharged
Schumpeter July 12th, 9:00
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40


Products and events



