Local newspaper opinion pieces
Here is commentary from local folks regarding the Chambersburg controversy.
Much thanks to those who submit their opinions to the editors!!! It makes a difference.
22 Comments
Leave a comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
QUESTION: Where was your sign during VETERAN’S DAY?? WHY IS IT SUDDENLY SO IMPORTANT THAT THE MANGER SCENE GETS BOOTED FROM TOWN SQUARE? YOU SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT HONORING YOUR ATHIEST VETERANS ON VETERAN’S DAY—A HOLIDAY THAT IS DESIGNATED TO HONOR VETERANS WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR OUR COUNTRY! I CHALLENGE SOMEONE TO GIVE ME A LOGICAL ANSWER TO THIS, BEING THAT THIS IS A ‘FREE THINKERS’ FORUM. LETS SEE HOW FREELY YOU FOLKS ARE ABLE PONDER THIS ONE AND RESPOND.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
wvjaybird: Our sign was to celebrate the solstice, and to honor atheist vets, in keeping with the established policy of displays at the fountain.
The bottom line is that Christians do not, according to the first amendment, get a 6-week lock at the fountain where they get to keep their own display to the exclusion of everyone else. The Solstice is a recognized religious holiday in many traditions, and is favored as a holiday by most atheists. In fact, we plan on continuing to celebrate it regardless of the outcome at the fountain with our own group’s Solstice party.
Also, since this question has been answered many many times, I’m assuming that you are also not familiar with the stance that we actually want the display to stay up, with our sign – There’s plenty of room at the fountain for more than one point of view. We do not want to take your God out of the square, but we do insist on our right to join him there.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why is it that the more of fundie you are, the more you write in ALL CAPS? So odd. Do you really have to yell everything you say?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not sure why even participating in this forum. Drove thru Chambersburg after Thanksgiving and saw the protests & anger. Following came to mind (straight off, I’m biased towards the angry locals but trying to see both sides):
- What’s the real harm to society of a town manger display? Local traditions shouldnt die just for (a) lofty federalist dogma or (b) axe-grinding of apparently slighted humanist group
- Better way to cherish family / friends than shouting on a street corner?
- Jesus is in our hearts, not in a town square. Worse things in life.
- Town should allow athiests their own display; shame on athiests for “will display no matter what” attitude (um, what’s the point if that’s your approach?)
- Local Christians do selves no favors with hateful, bigoted, judgemental remarks. God doesn’t need us to bully others for Him and never did
- Separation of Church / State in best interests of all. Rather have silly extremes like this than Totalitarian misery for future generations (think it can’t happen here? That’s just arrogance)
- Can’t really understand the “100% athiest” mindset – sort of like “hey look, I’m an Athiest! Pay attention to me!” any more than the “dinosaurs are fake” funadmentalists. Get a Hubble calendar at the mall and tell me honestly that a Higher Power creating mankind is really all that difficult.
OK, I’ve wallowed in society. Not sure why, maybe will do some good
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Just a quick comment – We don’t consider it “fair” that Christians have had a display for over 50 years and when we put a request in, that the council decides that we can’t put up our message. We didn’t want them to take the creche down, we wanted to put up our own sign. Since they apparently changed the policy BECAUSE of our request, we feel that our rights have been violated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Brian since you are obviously the watch dog on this website I have a question. When you were a child and your parents said no what did you do? I have a feeling you must have been that child had whined “but why”. I’m not arguing the religious aspect of this debate because that’s like pulling cactus needles out of my arse. But what I will say is we live a system of laws and regulations starting from small townships to boroughs to cities to counties to state etc…. You petitioned and you lost. Deal with it like a law abiding adult. Protesting is nothing more than adults whining because they don’t want to take the time and effort to run for local office and change it from within. Either that or you realize that you wouldn’t get elected because you live in an area heavily populated with Christians. Did you know that in Utah the laws there heavily favor the Mormon religion. Would you like to take a stab as to why? To wrap it up and before you respond by rebutting my every words as rubbish I’m not saying you don’t have a place in Christian society but rather if you chose you live in one respect the local tradition. Or move to Iran and put your sign up during Ramadan and protest Allah.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh and I know the plight of the Mormons and I’m not insinuating that you move to Iran and I’m not saying that you said that the Nativity scene had to be taken down. Just saying…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like all good scholars, we take our lessons from history – When blacks were denied rights, would you have suggested they “Move to another country”? This country was founded on the constitution, and is no way founded on the Christian religion. (See the Treaty of Tripoli if you don’t believe me).
A local board is not the final legal authority in this country, and therefore we wish to pursue OUR rights. I’m sorry if you think we should just be quiet and stay in the back of the bus, but it’s not going to happen.
If you aren’t insinuating the things you say you aren’t insinuating, what are you saying? We aren’t trying to get elected. We aren’t trying to be popular. What we are trying to do is ensure that we get the same rights as anyone else. For any minority, to do that, you have to fight for them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As I suspected you would do you have twisted my words. So I shall twist yours. Are you insinuating that your organization does not respect the local authorities and it’s ability to make a decision? Are you insinuating that it should be the rule that you should challenge the elected authorities on every matter that arises when it doesn’t rule in your favor? I got a speeding ticket a few months back that I don’t agree with. Should I band together with like minded individuals and protest the state police barracks for their practices. After all it was the sole decision of the officer to give me a ticket. He was black and I’m white. Should i insinuate that it was racially motivated.
I don’t think so as I also don’t believe your organization believes that the local authorities are corrupt. What I am saying is that you live in a society that is dominated by Christians. Most elected authorities in my opinion are Christians. So if 20,000 people are Christians with 100 people Atheist and they have to make a decision for the good of the whole. What logical decision do you think they would make? And in turn how could you protest there logical decision. You seem educated enough to know how the system works so your protest seems like I said before “a bunch of adults whining”.
And to be frank I disagree with the decision to take down the Nativity scene. Should I protest that? Your answer to that to uphold your argument is yes I should. But I say that would be a waste of time and effort because I know how the system works and it isn’t going to change anything. Not because I don’t believe in standing up for my rights, but because I go to the ballot box.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Lol and how can you relate the civil rights movement to a Nativity scene in Chambersburg, Pa? C’mon keep it relative.
“I’m sorry if you think we should just be quiet and stay in the back of the bus, but it’s not going to happen”. Really? did I say that? did I insinuate that? Really?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Protesting is nothing more than adults whining because they don’t want to take the time and effort to run for local office and change it from within.”- Papurebred
Actually Papurebred, one of the five basic freedoms guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution is the right for citizens to gather peacefully in protest. What you see as whining, I see as a fundamental right of all American citizens.
Also, as to your remark regarding a child whining by simply asking, “but why”, I never once answered my children with “because I said so”. I always encouraged my children to ask questions in order to broaden their overall knowledge and understanding of situations. If a parent has no good reason for telling their child something, how can this benefit a child’s learning growth? Blindly following statements without challenging their veracity leads to stagnant social growth. Personally, I would not want to visit a doctor who uses leeches for bloodletting simply because he was told it is effective.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Papurebred:
Does it change things if I pointed out that statistically, if there are 20,000 people in Chambersburg, then 2,000 of them are Atheist/Agnostic? If not, it still really doesn’t matter. The majority does not get the right to tramp on the rights of the minority, that’s WHY we have laws. The executive branch is not the final say, spelled out in the constitution, that’s what the courts are for.
We don’t just elect executives and walk away – The court system is designed to offer the people a mechanism for redress of wrongs done to each other, and done by the government to the people.
It’s not the job of elected authorities to “rule” in our favor – They simply execute the law, theoretically – If they do it wrongly or against the law, which in this case they have done, the court system is the way we resolve that in our legal system. That’s civics 101.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Listen fellas I appricate the lecturing. The problem with liberal thinking is the abstract aspect of it. It views things in black and white. It doesn’t reconize and dispises the natural way of things. Liberals believe in the Constitution as a set of laws set in stone. I see it as a living breathing document. A sort of guideline for the future leaders to follow not to a T but as a path.
I made a simple view that I would wager 95% of your neighbors agree with and you disregard it as rubbish and then talk about the civil rights movement, the consitution, protesting, the rights of an individual to appeal. In the process of your lecture you’ve missed the point.
In closing I will be the bigger person and say I do see your point. There should be equal rights for all. There should be no affrimative action, there should be no BET channel without a WET channel, there should be no black history month without a white history month, illigal immigrants get free health care so should I.
Let me know the dates and times of the protests for those issues. I’ll be right beside you. You are spot on for equal rights. Remember you see no gray just black and white. No right or wrong. Equal rights down the middle for all.
Merry Christmas and God Bless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Papurebred: I have no interest in lecturing you. I’m not going to take a superior stance (this time). Instead, I’d like to ask you a few questions.
“[Liberal thinking] views things in black and white. It doesn’t reconize and dispises the natural way of things.” How is this not a nearly perfect way of describing your religion? I’m no constitutionalist (I just don’t have a lot of knowledge about it), but if I’m not incorrect, the courts are designed to interpret the Constitution. I don’t think you’ll find a liberal who views it as static. I think your statements misrepresent liberals.
It’s hard to be “the bigger person” (as if that’s necessary) by proclaiming yourself it.
You feel “there should be equal rights for all”, but it seems that you feel those rights are to be weighted by the percentage of the population who would benefit from those rights. (Referring to your 20,000 to 100 argument.) So…majority wins? Is this correct?
No WET? Maybe not in name…but, FOX News serves the same purpose and celebrates white history month every month.
And as for feeling you should get what everyone else gets, then I guess you would stand up and agree that homosexual people should get the same rights as you? You’re pro-gay marriage? Or, if you can’t bear the thought of that because of some weird fascination with the word “marriage”, you at least feel they should receive the same benefits heterosexuals in government, which is not religious?
I hope you have a merry Christmas.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kindred16 – “You feel “there should be equal rights for all”, but it seems that you feel those rights are to be weighted by the percentage of the population who would benefit from those rights. (Referring to your 20,000 to 100 argument.) So…majority wins? Is this correct?”
You’ve taken my words and twisted them. I said you should not be surprised if the Christian majority community elected leaders favors the majority. Is it equal..no I agree, but we all choose to live where we live. It seems the protesters just want some attention.
I am not Pro-Gay MARRIAGE. I do however believe that you should be able to have a civil union with whoever or whatever you want be it man with man, woman with woman, man with sheep, woman with horse etc.. with full recognized benefits between the union. There should be a clear separation between state and church in this matter. If you pay taxes you should be afforded the same benefits. For what does God have to do with state, federal, medical benefits a man and man? Did Jesus not say give to Caesar what is Caesars? Just don’t call it a marriage. Any dictionary still defines marriage as the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
The difference between the people in this blog and I is I can state that I agree with you on certain topics. That was my meaning of being the “bigger man”. Not once have any of you done that much.
Kindred I think I have answered your questions fully and honestly so I have a question for you. If there is no God and we are indeed a result of evolution through the billions of years how come there is no known homosexual action in animals other than human. I have been a hunter for many years and have never observed a buck sexually attracted to another buck are a doe to a doe, A male bear with a male bear, A Tom (turkey) with a Tom? If we commonly share DNA with all mammals shouldn’t it be safe to say that some of those animals should indeed show signs of homosexuality? I’m not a SME in this area but if you know any cases or if there has been a study in this matter could you post some references here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Papurebred:
You’re kidding right?
There’s actually been several recorded cases of homosexuality in the animal kingdom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals
You can’t seriously expect us to agree with you on topics that it would be unreasonable to agree with – It doesn’t make you the bigger man if you can be rational some of the time, and not others. I’m not saying that we aren’t occasionally irrational, but we’ve been perfectly reasonable so far, and I challenge you to point out a situation where we haven’t.
Now, as far as gay marriage is concerned, I point back to the “separate but equal” position in the civil rights era – It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now. I think that the only reasonable position on marriage that the government can take is either get out of the marriage biz and ONLY produce civil unions for everyone (For tax and inheritance rights), and allow churches to marry whoever they like, or allow any two consenting adult human beings to marry whomever they wish. Any other position I would say is completely irrational and most likely bigoted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Papurebred:
Thank you for your response.
I tried to be careful not to twist your words. That’s why I asked you questions after stating what I thought you were saying. I didn’t want you to think I was being unfair.
I agree that elected officials will most closely hold same the values as the majority of their constituents. This (and a profound misunderstanding of what it means to be an atheist) is what prevents atheists from being elected. And, if a party feels those elected officials have done something illegal, then the courts are there to hear the complaints and resolve the conflicts.
I have to assume you mean the Christians when you refer to “the protesters” since they’re the ones holding protests. I don’t feel they’re just trying to get attention. I’m sure they feel this is their country and everyone else should either play along or go elsewhere. I’ve read as much many times and have seen it on religious TV shows and religious networks like FOX News. Seems to be a fairly prevalent attitude.
I believe many people of all religions and non-religion would agree that the government should take its nose out of inter-personal unions. As Brian indicated, there are certain times when the persons most close to another need to be identified. And, I do mean persons…not animals. It’s very easy for both the religious and non-religious to draw the line between our species and others. I’m not saying you implied otherwise, but in light of your mention of “man with sheep”, the point should be made that homosexuality and beastiality are not the same thing and one does not lead to the other. I wanted to get that out there in case Rick Warren ever visits these comments.
Dictionary definitions change. What “marriage” means now, then or whenever is irrelevant. I don’t care what a union between two people is called as long as the government treats all equally.
That said, I wouldn’t care if there was no such thing even as governmental unions. That should satisfy pro-”opposite marriage” people and others alike. Let the government see everyone as an individual only.
Homosexual acts among many mammal species has been observed. I, too, was unaware of this until recently.
I’m sure we agree on many things. But, not likely many that would come up in this forum.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Kindred I thank you for the last post. It was open minded and objective. It got your point across without the sense of lecturing or being condescending. That’s all I asked for. You seem like a genuinely polite person. Thank you once again.
Not sure how we got off topic of the Nativity scene. But here is my concern. I wish that the decision to petition to put up the Atheist sign was thought through. Because I believe deep down in your soul and mind you knew (I’m not talking about Kindred just in general) that the local officials were never going to go for it. It was just an act to stir the pot. And now the end result is they took down a tradition that is half a century old at the cost of the happiness and warmth it brought to thousands of children. So is the end worth the means? I know that wasn’t the intentions of the petition but it is cause and effect. In the end the only people really affected by it is the children. Thats what troubles me.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Brian I did browse the Wikipedia URL that you provided. Thank you. I does paint a pretty darn good case of homosexuality in the animal kingdom at first glance. However upon further reading it does state that most studies are widely disputed amongst the scientific community and should be not be considered factual. That while it does appear to be acts of homosexuality one can never know the true intentions of such acts. That in most cases it may very well be confused with acts of male to male domination in the struggle for hierarchy within a group.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Papurebred: Please realize that this isn’t the only argument for the “naturalness” of homosexual behavior. Genetics, as well, provides pretty strong evidence that sexual behavior is derived mainly from our genetic heritage. There has been evidence of long-term monogamous homosexual behavior in the animal kingdom as well.
Additionally, we see homosexual behavior also used by primarily heterosexual individuals in humans to show dominance, just like in the animal kingdom. Also, you should read the different detailed explanation of sex amongst differing species – I would argue it’s pretty clear that sex in the animal kingdom has a much larger variety than just “dominance”.
The bottom line is, it IS a civil rights issue. Even if humans were the only creatures to express a variety of sexual tendencies beyond strict heterosexuality, it still DOESN’T follow that it’s not genetic. We do have many genes that differ from the rest of the animal kingdom. The fact that the exact same behavior appears in nature is a strong case, and in the absence of a common language, I would say it’s existence should be enough to convince anyone that it’s anything but “unnatural”. It also doesn’t take anything away from the idea we could be humane to people who have no choice but to feel what they feel for another human being. To deny these people equal (Not equivalent, equal) rights under the law is just as bad as denying those rights based on color, creed, religion, etc…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Papurebred:
I can’t speak for the intentions of PA Non-believers (PAN); I came here due to that emerging controversy and stuck around.
I, too, found it odd that they chose to display a veterans sign. I’d rather have seen a solstice sign that would be in the same vein as the atheist group last year in Washington state. To display a sign that counters the Christian message in December (which any non-Christian sign would do by default) would certainly be fitting since many groups celebrate non-Christian observances in December…long before Dec 25th was chosen for Jesus’ birthday. To provide an explicit counter-message (which is not what PAN chose to do) makes more sense to me. That would not only remind everyone that not only Christians revere December, but would inflame the Christians at the same time and give everyone something to debate. Some Christians have provided responses that thank PAN for causing just that…indicating that what has happened has strengthened them somehow. (Of course, these same people blame PAN for the nativity scene being removed, which is false.)
In my opinion, the consequences of PAN’s actions are far less indicative of the atheists being troublemakers and more revealing of the arrogance of the Christians. Both displays could have shared the same ground just as they did in Washington. I have to wonder how much the Washington controversy guided the Chambersburg council’s actions. After all, the atheist sign was stolen and many threats were made, some against state officials for allowing the atheists to put up their sign in the first place. I’m not sure if I was on the Chambersburg council I would want to deal with the reactions of the Christians, either. And, as they quickly found out, they were damned either way.
That this was a no-win situation for Chambersburg rests on the intolerance of the Christians. It takes someone else like PAN to demostrate this…otherwise no one will notice. (It would be even better if the less-bloodthirsty Christians defended the atheists once in a while. There are plenty of believers like that out there who could.)
As for me being polite and non-condescending: I felt that was how you approached PAN in your comments and responded in kind. If you visit in the future and you see that others have taken a more aggressive stance, you may see me respond to them with my claws fully extended.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
re: why choose a veteran message?
It’s quite simple – To make it easier for everyone involved, we felt we would stay in keeping with the war memorial theme of the monument. This is one of the display guidelines, and we were quite careful to make sure our sign followed the existing guidelines as closely as possible. I recently posted a copy of the official guidelines, everyone is free to peruse them if they like. Since we are celebrating the Solstice, a Veteran themed Solstice message seemed appropriate.
-Brian
Like or Dislike:
0 
0