There’s a Facebook rant and rave group specific to our small Canadian town, and they’re having a lengthy insult laden argument about taxpayer dollars, public property and the nativity scene. I’m not sure, but I think that almost every small town in North America has a similar site. The other places might call theirs something different like rant and rage, but the content is the same no matter where you are.
A format that attracts the least informed and the most opiniated to air their grievances. Sometimes a rebuttal is offered by a person that has a grasp on grammar and reality, but for the most part the forum is a stupidity sty inhabited by the same wallowing denizens.
I was wondering if some pollster or academic had ever considered exploring all of these sites to get a feel for the attitudes of small town North America. I’m thinking this grassroot level audience would be perfect for the Russians and anyone else who feels the need to share or invent a nasty ass rumor, opinion or conspiracy. But, like any research endeavor, there are a couple of variables that need to be considered before you can confidently assert that the data is accurate.
The first would be if you’re really seeing a cross section of attitude, or if it’s just the same assholes posting repetitively. The second consideration is whether influencing the non-posting audience is occurring and in what quantity. I think its conceivable that a thousand small face group forums are as influencing effective as one large forum, as long as the argument and talking points are the same in both.
Which is certainly the case with the Nativity scene, because the talking points for and against plastic goats, cows and infant Immanuel are the same every year no matter where you look. Small forums like our town and large forums like Fox, where the libs are cancelling Christmas bullshit is as traditional as decorated trees.
In case anyone’s wondering about the infant Immanuel. The line is from (Isiah 7;14) where it is spoken that a virgin shall conceive a son and name him Immanuel. It’s kind of weird but a quick search lists over fifty names for Jesus. My personal preferences are Shiloh (Genesis 49:10) and the Alpha and Omega, the first and the last. (revelations (22:13). And of course the mention of Omega is pretty appropriate for revelations. Besides being the last book of the new testament, it’s kind of a narrative of the last of everything. Pretty grim stuff though, and I’m guessing that John the elder wasn’t much fun at a party.
Anyway, the arguments around the Nazarenes nursery don’t change at all from year to year or from place to place. The only variable is who’s going to incite the argument. This year in our town, some lady went on a rant about the squeaky atheists’ causing problems by bitching about the allocation of public space and money to display Christian iconography.
Squeaky atheists.
I’m not sure what she was trying to say, but I suspect she exchanged squeaky atheist for squeaky wheel.
I rarely if ever side with the Christians over anything, and the nativity argument isn’t a disagreement where I’m going to break from my norm and agree with them this time either. They have churches all over this town and the non-taxed property of those churches is the perfect place for them to display their story. But for some reason the Christians feel compelled to impose their beliefs onto the public at large, and believe that it’s their right to do so. They also appear to be fond of bemoaning their victimhood as soon as they’re denied unfettered access to not just public land, but to schools, workplaces and the courts and government.
I’ve actually had to deal with a situation where a complaint in our office about a nativity scene and a portrait of Shiloh in the public space caused the Christians to have a complete fucking meltdown. When informed of the objection they demanded to know the complainants identity, and wanted to know which brown person was responsible.
The person complaining wasn’t brown. They were an employee who had publicly stated a sexual preference at a relatively early age, and as a consequence of that declaration had been treated like absolute shit by the church and its parishioners in a small Eastern Canadian town. In memory of that treatment, the complainant asked that the Shiloh painting and the manger be removed from the public space in the office.
The tree was fine but the Jesus and Mary stuff was not.
I really didn’t have much choice. To be honest I gave zero shits about the manger. But hanging a portrait of Immanuel and the poster stating Put Christ back in Christmas was a little over the top. So I asked nicely and then told them that they were welcome to decorate their offices as they wished, but the relocation of the goats and posters wasn’t optional.
Like I said, they went nuts. I got a lecture about how this country was founded on Christianity and that I was abusing their freedom of religion. They threatened a lawsuit and claimed to have contacted a lawyer. They did file a complaint with H.R. corporate and I got a call from our V.P. and a company lawyer. After a discussion of the events, the lawyer agreed that my response was correct. They were free to decorate their offices to their hearts content, as long as they didn’t break any safety rules like a flaming candelabra on their desk, or a case of sacramental wine under their desk.
The Christians were unhappy. A couple of days after the ruling, one of the fervent decided he was in crusader mode and bravely rehung the Christ back In Christmas posters in the common areas. I was forced to confront him with a choice. Take the fucking posters down or pack your office and go home permanently.
The posters came down, but the Christian soldiers remained unhappy for the duration of their employment, and basically acted like butt hurt children until the project was concluded.
And just like the Nativity scene in our town, the whole argument and subsequent behavior was unnecessary. Squeaky lady and the workplace Christians were not prevented from displaying or practicing their beliefs. They were however prevented from imposing their mythology on everyone else.
Apparently, that’s persecution.
“If a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.”
― Flemming Rose
I just don’t understand the amount of energy that people will expend on unnecessary conflicts. You may practice whatever belief system you like just so long as that practice doesn’t impose discomfort on the rest of the population. This sounds perfectly reasonable to me, but Western civilization has a long history of forcing the religious to behave reasonably.
And it seems that continued vigilance is in order to stop minor impositions from becoming major inquisitions. Because if the history of religion has taught us anything, it’s that religions are very fond of imposing restrictions, and if granted the authority or latitude to impose those restrictions that they will do so with zeal that eventually evolves to fanaticism.
So, the manger in your face might seem like a minor circumstance, but if tolerated then you can rest assured that there will be more demands, and it’s not a good idea to acquiesce to the demands of terrorists or the religious.
Because nothing of long lasting merit will ever come from tolerating their intolerance.