About

Showing posts with label nativity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nativity. Show all posts

Presentation - 11/10/11 'The Luzerne County Holiday Display Incident




I was invited to speak at PA Nonbelievers' 11/10/11 meeting in Lemoyne, PA.

In my presentation, "The Luzerne County Holiday Display Incident," I discussed the church/state battle I was involved with in 2009, the importance of secular activism, my hate mail, and much more.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the 'incident,' I filed a church/state complaint in 2009 regarding a religious holiday display at the Luzerne County, PA courthouse. I quickly became "the third most hated person in Luzerne County" (according to a local DJ), received a tremendous amount of hate mail from the community at large including persons whom I attended college and high school with, and ultimately was successful in upholding church/state separation.

Thanks so much to the receptive audience at to PA Nonbelievers for having me.

Video to come!

11/10/11 - Speaking Appearance

I previously posted that I'll be appearing at a PA Nonbelievers meeting on 11/10/11 and speaking, but I'd like to re-post and provide more information. The presentation I will be giving will be titled "The Luzerne County Christmas Display Incident." I will be talking the 'nativity scene controversy' that I was the center of, the importance of activism, and my response to the public outcry.

Background: In December of 2009, I filed a complaint with the ACLU regarding a religious display on the lawn of the Luzerne County Courthouse. The county recognized that the display was illegal and removed it. A massive campaign of hate waged against me and the ACLU ensued and a largely ignorant base of 'loving Christians' sent me a tremendous amount of hate mail including but not limited to physical threats, after-death threats, calls for my expulsion from college, and general nastiness. More information can be found in my 'Nativity Controversy/Hate Mail' tab.

November 10
6:45 PM

Issac's Deli
1200 W. Market Street
Lemoyne

Hate Mail Proves My Point




My blog and Facebook profile typically have lively positive discussion that is engaging, but I get quite a large deal of hate mail. As always, I welcome discussion, but little discussion is had when people offer personal attacks, wish that someone would shoot me, and tell me to come to a dorm room so "my fat face can get fucked up [for Jesus]." Of course not all theists are like this, but many of these people are indeed your "average Joe moderates." These are "regular, everyday people" who aren't the fundamentalists on TV that so many put all the blame on. These people are representing their religion (they are members of it, of course) with nothing but hate. And what, you ask, provokes such a visceral response? Perhaps you would expect this kind of stuff to be said to corrupt judges, rapists, or child molesters. Perhaps you would expect the most hated people to be the criminals in society. Nope. I'm the third most hated person in Luzerne County because I am publicly open and active about my skepticism and I filed a complaint against an illegal nativity scene that even courthouse officials admitted was wrong.

Recently, I got this nonsense from an anonymous blogger who hasn't read much of anything I have said, but took the time to type this:

Do you have a life or do you just think about this shit all day long?

I think people like you and religious watchdog groups are fucking pathetic. Get a life and concentrate on something important. You are actually infringing on people's First Amendment rights to practice religion by opening your mouth. I don't understand why you focus on this stuff so much. Maybe if you got a real job, you wouldn't have to ask for donations on your blog.

I know that by commenting this I will only fuel your fire of how people hate you. "I'm the most hated person in Wilkes Barre." that was you once quoted in the newspaper after you called the ACLU about the nativity scene. I think you should leave the elderly alone because they love religion and let them have their nativity. I saw a older woman cry outside the courthouse after they took down the nativity.

By expressing that I know this will only fuel your fire, I am no longer going to not say how I feel. You are ridiculous. You will never be famous only infamous and nothing is good about that. Even Michael Moore listens to the other side of the story, you just critcize.

I will end with this. May God Bless You and Keep You.

I followed-up with this simple response:

I really love people like you, previous poster. Instead of offering any argument on any of my 100+ blog posts, you simply send hate and offer personal attacks. Your fallacious assumption that I don't have a life is hilarious because I'm a fourth year college student, have two jobs, am quite involved with many activities and leadership roles.

How, exactly, are I depriving people of the freedom to worship by arguing that their religious ideas are false?

I never said that I was the most hated person I Wilkes-Barre. KRZ DJ Jumpin' Jeff Walker called me the third most hated person in Luzerne County. I wear this as a great badge of honor because it proves my point on so many levels. This demonstrates that religion is divisive as I have argued it is, moderates can be hateful people and part of the problem, people can turn their brains off when religion is involved, people lack critical thinking skills, and religion can do a great deal of harm. The nativity issue was a legal one, not a religious one. The arguments were and still are on my side and the courthouse officials even admitted they were wrong!

What do you mean "Leave the elderly alone?" All I am doing is upholding the law and voicing my opinions in the media, online, etc. I'm not knocking on doors handing out papers to people or anything like that. How can a dissenting opinion that is civil bother people so much if their beliefs are so substantiated, anyway? They should follow the advice in the Bible (1 Peter 3:15) and give arguments for their beliefs. How can a dissenter be such a bother in the face of God, if he exists?

I welcome disagreement on my blog, on my profile, and everywhere. If you don't agree, say so and dictate why. We can have a conversation instead of offering personal attacks, non-sequiters, etc.

It's also silly to suggest that I don't listen to the other side of the story because I listen (and post) debates from "the other side" and go to various religiously-themed events, and discuss these matters with other people frequently.

Thanks for brightening my day and proving my point!

I've previously argued that religion is divisive. Since I've been an atheist, I've lost friends [who really weren't my friends], have been lambasted by family members, and have received the ire of an entire county to become the "third most hated person in Luzerne County." First, as many have suggested, I did not bring this upon myself and it's not my fault. My former friends and family were the ones to break the ties and that is solely on them. Their actions led to the termination of those relationships. If you're going to cease talking to me because of a disagreement about politics and religion, there's a serious problem and something is wrong with the picture. What, besides religion... crime, substance abuse, and similar directly harmful stuff can possibly cause so many ties of friends and family to be severed? It's odd to put religion next to crime and drugs, but it is what it is.

I've previously argued that religion can greatly cloud thinking and impair judgment. It's quite easy to see that when people aren't listening to arguments and just have their ears covered. It's quite easy to see that when people ignore objections and continue to "believe what they want to believe." It's quite easy to see that, no matter what counter-evidence is presented, cognitive dissonance can be regulated to the point of double think and the magic answer of "God is mysterious and we can't fully understand him" when excuses would never be made elsewhere.


While I feel that hate mail is very entertaining, it proves my point. Let's tone down the hate, have an actual discussion, and not see each other as enemies because we disagree (unless, of course, there is more than a disagreement and the person is committing crimes against humanity).

Assorted Nativity Controversy Reflections


I haven't posted in a while and have been quite busy. Expect some content to come soon. Without further ado, I'm handing this in as an essay for my "The English Language" class. Enjoy!


Around this time last year, the floodgates of controversy opened and NEPA displayed itself as a spectacle of unequivocal idiocy, a display of a county-wide temper tantrum, as author Kenny Luck would put it. I didn't really know what I was getting into, but a simple blog post on December 13 and a letter sent to the courthouse from the ACLU would kindle a fire, possess a great deal of my time during finals week, and place a huge red target on my head. Although there were no direct death threats, I did receive after-death threats and threats phrased by masters of the English language that sounded like this: “shut your punk ass mouth, you bitch ass trick! Come down to room 300 and I'll punch your fat face in for Jee-sus!”

What merited all of this craziness, might you ask? In an area in which people “cling to their guns and religion,” as Obama mentioned, simply pointing out that a holiday display at the courthouse was favoring religion over non-religion and highlighting a Christian display that was illuminated by a giant floodlight at night was enough to make me what KRZ radio called “the third most hated person in Luzerne County.”

When I made my initial complaint against the nativity scene, I expected some backlash, but I did not expect Facebook to light up like a Christmas tree with constant notifications and E-mail, my King's E-mail to be flooded with messages, and local news networks going insane. I accepted some interviews and a photo shoot with the Citizens Voice and was quickly catapulted to the spotlight under Greg Skrepenak under the fold in the local newspaper. I wasn't hiding by any means – I took a very public stand for what was right and put my neck on the line. The most hurtful remarks by people charged me with cowardice for what I did. I don't see how cowardice can be a fitting adjective for me when I went public, went on television, welcomed discussion, opened my Facebook profile for others to post, accepted interviews, and consented to place my picture in various newspapers.

When I think about the controversy today, I would have done everything over again in almost the same way, but would have been more prepared to answer media questions and would have went on WILK Newsradio often to defend myself and be interviewed. I only knew about WILK after most of the drama had built up in the center of the volcano and exploded.

What people need to know and understand is that separation of church and state is something that everyone should desire. Former president John F. Kennedy had said that he believed in an absolute separation of church and state. When the government stays out of religion, everyone wins because no one is unfairly excluded and everyone is playing on a level field. If the government favors one religion, those of no religion or other religions are treated unfairly. We also have the issue of which sect to follow, who interprets the rules, and why exactly some groups receive funding and are highlighted while others are excluded.

I don't hate Christmas. I'm not anti-holiday. I'm not out waging the imaginary “War on Christmas” that Bill O' Reilly and his cohorts on FOX News Network have invented. Christmas is a holiday that is largely secular and celebrated for secular reasons. If you took the secular reasons out – meeting family, giving gifts, eating food – you have but a holiday that is like Ash Wednesday if you focus on Jesus...and that's quite lame. The roots of Christmas are largely Pagan and the holiday we have today is the product of various odd traditions that people don't know about such as wassailing, an event in which the poor would demand entry into the homes of rich people, that were changed due to the backlash of the rich. A rich author wrote a poem in which a poor person, instead of demanding entry into a rich home, gave gifts in small stockings. People then encouraged gift giving to children and over time, as Christmas was more and more materialistic, the old tree that was on a table got bigger as the gifts grew bigger and the stockings too, of course, got bigger.

Just like people don't know the history of Christmas, they also don't know their American history and how our nation operates. Amongst the hateful letters sent to me, some in paper, people implored me to leave the country and implied that the people can vote on anything they want and ignore whatever a minority of people said. We call this the tyranny of the majority and this simply doesn't happen in the United States. We can't, for example, vote that criminals should not get a fair trial just like we can't vote that nativities can be displayed in a manner in which they aren't integrated into a larger display of thematic unity. People also told me to “not look if I don't like it,” which is a grave misunderstanding of my stance. Surely this argument wouldn't hold up for streakers on the public square. Would the police take “don't look at me if you don't like it” as a response and simply ignore the streakers? People also stated that this is a “Christian nation” founded by Christians, but they couldn't possibly be more incorrect. The people who wrote our constitution were largely deistic (they believed in a higher power who created the universe but is not active in human affairs) and intentionally left God out of the constitution and the government because they knew that government and religion was a deadly mix.

Some interviews I had were quite favorable and allowed me to get my point across while some reporters seemed to be out for my head and, for some reason, asking officials at King's for my financial aid information! Instead of reporting news, some decided to draw my personal life into the mix and desired to unveil private information even though it had nothing to do with the story. Many people found it appalling that an atheist would attend a Catholic college and make a public stand that I did because they are undoubtedly bound by chains and shackled with the idea that people shouldn't criticize religion (even though this was a legal issues) or stand up as an atheist at a Catholic school. So what if I'm an atheist at a Catholic school? There are many other atheists here, but you just don't hear about them. There are also Wiccans, Muslims, and Jews! King's doesn't require a student to “sit down and shut up” if he/she is not Catholic and does not discriminate on admitting non-Catholic students. I chose King's largely because it was local, generous in the department of financial aid, and because they didn't require SAT scores. After my second year at King's, I ceased to believe in any gods, but I remained because I enjoyed the classes and could not afford to switch schools. Even amongst religious people, people don't choose King's [just because] it is a Catholic College. Many people I ask attend King's because of financial aid and location, just like me.

I made an effort to respond to every piece of criticism or support, but people still didn't understand what the issues were and just wanted to believe that their religion was being attacked for some reason. Great, I'm happy to “attack” it with open criticism and blogging and frequently do, but the nativity issue was a legal one, not a religious one. I certainly can't take away someone's ability to believe in any gods, worship, or put up decorations in their yards and don't want to. Keep the religion out of the government! At the end of the day, people made themselves look really foolish, proved my point that religious belief can lead to disastrous consequences and befuddle people, and I gained support. I also had a very public platform to speak from and was able to make people think, inspire like-minded thinkers, and get people thinking about issues whether they agreed or disagreed. Last Christmas was a good one. I lost many friends over this debacle, but they're welcome to go. If someone is going to cease talking to me and lambast me because of a legal issue in which I was right, I don't want to be friends with them anyway. Good riddance.

Times Leader Interview 11/25/10


A holiday from controversy

Luzerne County’s diverse lawn display apparently satisfies religious and secular people alike.

By Jennifer Learn-Andes jandes@timesleader.com
Luzerne County Reporter

A seasonal display has returned to the Luzerne County Courthouse lawn, with the traditional Nativity mixed in with Santa,
a Menorah and candy canes.
AIMEE DILGER/THE TIMES LEADER
A seasonal display that includes a Nativity has returned to the Luzerne County Courthouse lawn, and King’s College senior Justin Vacula said he’s fine with it.
Vacula was the target of backlash last year when he initiated a complaint about the display that led to its removal.
After legal research, county officials set up a more diverse display that is being repeated this year.
According to a resolution recently adopted by commissioners, the display must now include a menorah, Santa Claus, snowman, snowflake, Christmas tree with a Kwanzaa symbol ornament and a sign that reads, “Luzerne County celebrates its cultural heritage this holiday season.”
Courthouse workers say finishing touches to the display will be made early next week.
Vacula said he has no problem with this arrangement, as opposed to last year’s initial display that isolated and illuminated the Nativity.
“This seems to be the way to go. Now everything is together as a unified display,” said the 22-year-old Exeter native.
His decision to turn to the American Civil Liberties Union and Americans United for Separation of Church and State last year turned him into somewhat of an outcast.
Vacula said he was inundated with hate mail, paper and electronic, and one local radio station described him as the third most hated local person after former county judges Michael Conahan and Mark Ciavarella, who were implicated in the federal corruption probe. People called for him to be expelled from King’s College, he said.
There were also demonstrations outside the courthouse before the Nativity was returned to the courthouse lawn, and a page was set up on the Facebook social networking website to criticize Vacula, he said.
“I received a lot of after-death threats. People said I’d be tormented for eternity, and that they wanted to watch it happen. People said they hoped I’d get shot and hit by a van and die,” Vacula said.
In retrospect, Vacula said people turned it into a religious debate, when he thought of it as a legal one.
“It was a legal issue. Whether you’re a believer or not, I think everyone should be in support of separation of church and state. People didn’t understand that,” Vacula said.
He said he doesn’t regret his stance, though he wishes he had been better prepared for the “hysteria.”
“I thought there would be a backlash, but I didn’t think it was going to be as big as it was,” he said.
Vacula, an atheist who posts his views at greenatheist.blogspot.com, said he accomplished his goal: ensuring that the county complied with the law.
He said many came forward to support him in that goal, though some didn’t openly show it.
“People said I was taking away Christmas. That’s impossible to do. People can put anything they want in their yards. They can meet with their family at Christmas and go to Mass,” he said.
Jennifer Learn-Andes, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7333.

Nativity Illustration


Here's an awesome illustration that I just received drawn by Alena Vauter.

I will be featured in an upcoming book coming out in March of 2001 written by local published author Kenny Luck...and this drawing will be in the book.

Sorry for the recent lack of posts, but I'll be active again once I finish my Senior Seminar Psychology paper!

The Nativity...People Still Don't Get It.



The Times Leader has recently published what might easily be the most ignorant, misinformed, and fallacious letter in the Letters to the Editor section...and somehow an author connected the "Ground Zero Mosque" to my complaint against the nativity scene from last December.

It's quite sad that no matter how much information is out there, people will twist words, be willfully ignorant, and not do any research to understand very clear arguments that have been presented months ago by rational human beings.

Here's some background information for those who aren't aware...
During December of 2009, I filed a complaint about an unconstitutional religious display at the Luzerne County Courthouse - this letter was sent.

The nativity scene and menorah were taken down along with the snowman behind the tree as evidenced in this press release. Because of this, I received a great deal of hate mail, hate, threats, etc from residents of Luzerne County.

If you'd like to read all of the media coverage including newspaper articles, television appearances and stories, and everything else, feel free to browse through my "December 2009" section of my blog.

Jane George of Tunkhannock is way off the mark in this following letter to the editor,


Christian symbols also warrant protection

I have just finished reading a letter defending the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 outrage. One cannot disagree with the writer’s eloquence or reasoning.

But the very same letter could have been written last December about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn or the desecration by the American Civil Liberties Union of a cross in a cemetery in California where men and women who died fighting for this country are buried. Or it could have been about the many other assaults on traditions involving Christianity in this country.

Please, do not insult my intelligence by quoting that outrageous lie about separation of church and state in the Constitution. Only the most ignorant believe that lie anymore.

In fact, the letter correctly quotes the only statements the Constitution makes on the subject of religion.

Would leaving the Nativity scene or the cross on display, even though Congress never met or even discussed voting on the matter, establish Christianity as America’s religion? Then, if the symbols remain, therefore Christianity must be the country’s religion. If you have ever heard of anything more ludicrous than that, I’d like to hear it.

One can only say on the subject of Christian symbols on public lands being illegal, never have so many been deceived by so few. Now that I have laid to rest the myths about the Constitution or other laws, what about the claim about government-owned land. Who pays for government-owned lands? The taxpayers. We own the government land.

In corporations, decisions concerning the property owned by the business are made by the stockholders. So if a majority of taxpayers want a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn or a cross at a cemetery to honor service personnel, they have a legal right to have it there. In what way could any of these situations interfere with someone’s rights?

Lincoln was right when he said, “you cannot deny equality to one without endangering it for all.”"


I will disect all of the arguments and claims in this article in order to have clarity tonight.

I have just finished reading a letter defending the right to build a mosque near the site of the 9/11 outrage. One cannot disagree with the writer’s eloquence or reasoning. But the very same letter could have been written last December about the Nativity scene on the courthouse lawn

The "issue" regarding the "9/11 mosque" did not exist in the legal realm. People, for whatever reasons, did not want the Islamic Community Center, but none of these reasons were legal arguments. In the case of the nativity, the argument was PURELY a legal argument. People can put up a place of worship - this is legal...but the government can not put up religious displays conveying a message of support of religion over non-religion, endorsement of religion, or favoritism of one religion over another. The government -- not the people -- dictated the speech on the courthouse lawn in the case of the nativity. In the case of the "9/11 Mosque," people proposed to have a place of worship in a building that they purchased. These situations aren't even remotely alike.

The desecration by the American Civil Liberties Union of a cross in a cemetery in California where men and women who died fighting for this country are buried
The ACLU did not desecrate a cross, but rather fought to have it legally removed.


the many other assaults on traditions involving Christianity in this country

It's funny how the language used when people are fighting for separation of church and state is so aggressive. What is this "assault?" People are simply filing legal complaints because they believe that the establishment cause of the constitution is being violated...and it's not only Christianity, either. Appealing to traditions is fallacious. The law is much more important than tradition. We had a lot of "traditions" in this country such as women not voting, slavery, racism, lynching, etc. We obviously can't morally justify traditions simply because they are traditions.

Please, do not insult my intelligence by quoting that outrageous lie about separation of church and state in the Constitution. Only the most ignorant believe that lie anymore.

Wow. This irony is juicy and delicious. The separation of church and state is a cornerstone of the United States that the founding fathers were very passionate about. Wikipedia it. This comment is just ignorant. Like every amendment and article mentioned in the constitution, courts have interpreted the constitution to establish legal precedent. Perhaps this reader should purchase a copy of "The United States Constitution what it says, what it means: a hip pocket guide" to have some understanding and turn to page 39 to read, "...the Establishment Clause prevents the government from creating a church, endorsing religion in general, or favoring one set of beliefs over another. ...the Establishment Clause was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and state..."

This website gives another clear explanation, "It did not take long after the passage and ratification of the 1st Amendment for people to start interpreting it to simply mean that that federal government had no business getting mixed into religion. Of course, there is more to it than that, especially when it comes to the individual right part of the amendment. But the notion that the government should not become enmeshed in religion is an important concept, too. There is nothing in the Constitution that specifically says that there is a wall of separation between religion and government. The Wall, however, is a nice shorthand metaphor for non-establishment."

Would leaving the Nativity scene or the cross on display, even though Congress never met or even discussed voting on the matter, establish Christianity as America’s religion?

This is more wordplay with incorrect emphasis on the word "Congress" and a misunderstanding of the word "establish." The establishment clause does not only mean, "We can't be a theocracy," as I mentioned above; it covers much more than that.

Then, if the symbols remain, therefore Christianity must be the country’s religion. If you have ever heard of anything more ludicrous than that, I’d like to hear it.

This wasn't my argument against the religious symbols. This is a very clear strawman of my position and the position of courts' rulings regarding religious symbols. Again, this letter plainly details what the violations are...and this has nothing to do with "Christianity being the county's religion." The establishment clause covers more than just that. If the author is seriously arguing that violations only encompass "what sets up a religion," she'd be disagreeing with hundreds of court rulings on church-state issues and tremendous amounts of legal precedent. She'd also have to concede that it's perfectly okay for the government to erect Islamic crescent moons on government property and force students to pray to Mecca in classrooms because it's not making the nation an Islamic nation. Give me a break.

...what about the claim about government-owned land. Who pays for government-owned lands? The taxpayers. We own the government land. [...]
So if a majority of taxpayers want a Nativity scene on a courthouse lawn or a cross at a cemetery to honor service personnel, they have a legal right to have it there.

This argument is ridiculous. People can't break the law or "do what they want" simply because they pay for the land. If the author wants to seriously forward this argument, she'd have to agree that slavery, rape, incest, and murder are perfectly permissible on land that they pay for. She'd also have to concede that I can break the law in my own home because I own my land. Clearly, this is not the case.

The author is also arguing for a tyranny of the majority, the idea that people can "vote" to do whatever they want simply because everyone agrees with it. Just like above, this simply doesn't work. If 90% of the population decided that slavery is permissible, would slavery suddenly be okay? Obviously not.

We also can't claim legal rights just because a majority wants a legal right. Could we all agree that we ought to have a legal right to punch babies simply because a majority agrees on it? Obviously not.

Laws are in place and they must be followed. We can't suddenly break laws with no punishment and claim legal rights just because a majority of people decide so.

In what way could any of these situations interfere with someone’s rights?

Red herring....this is breaking the law. Rights don't even need to enter the picture. The displays were clearly illegal.


The author of this post clearly "doesn't get it." Perhaps she should attend the Wilkes University discussion this Friday.

The Local Newspaper Archives Have Opened!!!

BILL TARUTIS/FOR THE TIMES LEADER


Something has changed on websites of local newspapers and you can now view the archives of general hate, ignorance, and the media coverage of the nativity challenge from December. For those of you who aren't aware, I challenged the constitutionality of a nativity scene at a local courthouse in December of 2009 and was lambasted by the public in various media sources...although the reporting was pretty decent for the most part.

Go here and here and type "Justin Vacula" or "ACLU Nativity" and you'll be on the internet all night...

I'm going to edit previous posts and repost some of this glorious material.

Hate Mail Montage from December!

During December of 2009, I filed a complaint about an unconstitutional religious display at the Luzerne County Courthouse - this letter was sent.

The nativity scene and menorah were taken down along with the snowman behind the tree as evidenced in this press release. Because of this, I received a great deal of hate mail, hate, threats, etc from residents of Luzerne County.

If you'd like to read all of the media coverage including newspaper articles, television appearances and stories, and everything else, feel free to browse through my "December 2009" section of my blog.

I've been putting off posting all of the hate mail from my King's inbox...I now am finally posting it. This isn't everything negative, but it is a great deal of it. There are still archived comments in articles to post, but I'll get to that later.

After this experience, a person can not tell me that religious moderates are not bad people, religion doesn't cause people to behave poorly, religion is not dangerous, etc.

You can click the images to view them in a full-screen mode.

Enjoy!