Speaker 1: Welcome to another exciting episode of the nonprofits where he
Speaker 1: can smell the holiday season a time of joy, love,
Speaker 1: and apparently controversy. Solid Rock Bible Church and Iowas decided
Speaker 1: to spice up their Nativity scene by adding King Herod,
Speaker 1: the infamous ruler who supposedly ordered the mascre of babies
Speaker 1: in attempt to kill Jesus. For extra player, they've labeled
Speaker 1: him an atheist, because what better way to celebrate the
Speaker 1: season than comparing non believers to a murderous tyrant. It's
Speaker 1: worth noting that the story of Herod's massacre is only
Speaker 1: found in one of the four Gospels and isn't supported
Speaker 1: in historical records, but hey, why let details get in
Speaker 1: the way of a good holiday narrative. What was once
Speaker 1: a simple Nativity scene is now turned into a battleground
Speaker 1: for debates on public displays, religious freedom, and a naturally
Speaker 1: holiday drama. Ah the true spirit of Christmas. This story
Speaker 1: is from kg An by Nick L hajj And on
Speaker 1: November eight, twenty twenty four. I have to admit I
Speaker 1: found this a little interesting, but sendy, how did you
Speaker 1: feel about the portrayal of Herod as the atheist? In
Speaker 1: the church display. Do you think the comparisons of valid
Speaker 1: comparison are Is it a bit of a misrepresentation.
Speaker 2: No, I think it's totally accurate because we keep hearing
Speaker 2: Hitler was an atheist, Stallion was an atheist, and now
Speaker 2: we get Herold was an atheist because he murdered babies.
Speaker 2: He's pureval therefore he is an atheist. That's that's their
Speaker 2: argument in a nutshell. So no, I'm not surprised. It's
Speaker 2: just business as usual from some theists. Although something that
Speaker 2: this OCCCLE reminding me is that atheists regularly score extremely high,
Speaker 2: usually highest or second highest, as the most disliked group
Speaker 2: in the US, with about forty percent of people claiming
Speaker 2: to dislike them. It's like us, so it's not surprising
Speaker 2: to see those kind of associations between generally accepted bad
Speaker 2: people and atheists. It's to me it's interesting because I
Speaker 2: don't see that in Europe. In the US, it seems
Speaker 2: that you're accepted as long as you believe in something,
Speaker 2: even if you believe is different than Christianity, You're more
Speaker 2: accepted than if you don't believe in anything. And I
Speaker 2: think that's at the root cause of this is this
Speaker 2: belief that if you don't believe in a God, then
Speaker 2: you cannot be moral. That's so ingrained into the belief
Speaker 2: of most Christian sets in the US that I'm not
Speaker 2: surprised that this is the outcome.
Speaker 1: I did find it almost humorous how to dimension all
Speaker 1: they played this concept. But AJ, how do you see
Speaker 1: the Church's inclusion of Herod into the Nativity scene anyway?
Speaker 1: Do you find it a bit ironic? I mean, what
Speaker 1: evidence is there for this actual infant massacre in this
Speaker 1: one gospel that talks.
Speaker 3: About Yeah, the irony is unreal. Like a Sindy pointed out,
Speaker 3: you know, the Church chose to include King Herod because he,
Speaker 3: you know, specifically, is portrayed as a baby killer that
Speaker 3: ordered the murder of all infants and there are the
Speaker 3: age of two in Bethlehem in order to hopefully kill Jesus.
Speaker 3: And so they see that as something to be related
Speaker 3: to atheism, to lack of belief. But they seem to
Speaker 3: completely ignore the fact that the very God that they
Speaker 3: worship also order the murder of all babies in Egypt
Speaker 3: in the story in the Bible that they suddenly forget,
Speaker 3: like the entire story of Moses in their own book.
Speaker 3: But mind you, there is absolutely no evidence outside of
Speaker 3: the Bible to say that King Herod ever order the
Speaker 3: killing of all infants. You know, the Bible experts do
Speaker 3: not accept this part of the story because the only
Speaker 3: mention of this is in Matthew's gospel. And while he,
Speaker 3: you know, surely was known for mistweating his citizens or
Speaker 3: having some of them killed, which what king hasn't right,
Speaker 3: but there is no extra biblical evidence that indicates that
Speaker 3: he ever mass murdered infants at any point in his way,
Speaker 3: And there is no historical evidence of this. But you see,
Speaker 3: we are able to corroborate that he existed how he would,
Speaker 3: and he ruled where he ruled, but nothing about killing babies.
Speaker 3: So it's just get another case of because the Bible
Speaker 3: tells me so, and you cannot tell me otherwise.
Speaker 1: Well, you mentioned Matthew because that's where the story comes from. Also,
Speaker 1: Matthew talks about zombies near the end of the book
Speaker 1: because he talks about after Jesus died, you know, the
Speaker 1: grays opening up in Jerusalem. So we know Matthew. Well,
Speaker 1: the author of Matthew was more than a little creative
Speaker 1: and theatrical, so to speak. But speaking of theatrics, Rob,
Speaker 1: what is your view on the theatrics of the Nativity
Speaker 1: scene with King Herod? And you also, I know that
Speaker 1: the Satanic Temple has done statues of bapha Met. What
Speaker 1: do you see going on here? How do you view
Speaker 1: these theatrics in general?
Speaker 4: It's more spectacle, which is great, people love it. It's
Speaker 4: not quite the same when you compare what they've done
Speaker 4: with King Herod and Aphamet, because what they did with
Speaker 4: King Herod is point out another group that they want
Speaker 4: to demonize, whereas the statues of Baphomet is about their own,
Speaker 4: their own organization. So it's not quite the same, but
Speaker 4: it's still they're putting up a thing to incite a
Speaker 4: feeling in people. They know what they're doing. They want
Speaker 4: to make people look at it and go, oh, that's awful,
Speaker 4: Whereas with King Herod it's like, oh, yeah, I can
Speaker 4: identify with them. They're trying to kill baby Jesus and
Speaker 4: that makes me upset. So it's it's really similar. If
Speaker 4: it wasn't like, just like, it's all very gross to
Speaker 4: me because they're trying to demonize an entire group of
Speaker 4: people who have a lack of belief, and the amount
Speaker 4: of people who do not have a religion has been
Speaker 4: increasing in America for I don't know how long. It's
Speaker 4: still not a majority, but it is increasing. Given all
Speaker 4: of that, I think it's funny. I thought that the
Speaker 4: Nativity scene was really fun with the way that they
Speaker 4: have it displayed, especially because King Herod has atheists written
Speaker 4: right across his heads, so we know we know who
Speaker 4: we're talking about, and then they gave him fangs, it was,
Speaker 4: and he's just like he's creeping up on Baby Jesus,
Speaker 4: and I actually thought it was hilarious.
Speaker 1: You know, I think he hit on one really important thing.
Speaker 1: You said demonize several times, and then I think you
Speaker 1: nailed it with the difference between atheists on a completely
Speaker 1: over the top fictional character with fangs demonizing literally compared
Speaker 1: to Bapha met where really what the Satanic Temple's trying
Speaker 1: to do is normalize. So it's almost like they're going
Speaker 1: the opposite sides of the same sensational coin, though, but
Speaker 1: for opposite goals.
Speaker 4: I think it's now, say really quick, I think it's
Speaker 4: funny you say that because in this case they're trying
Speaker 4: to demonizing demonize using King Herod and then they then
Speaker 4: the Church of Satan is putting up a little a
Speaker 4: real demon uh, and it's much less demonic.
Speaker 1: Yes, they're well, you know't understand you got to understand that.
Speaker 1: I think that you really illustrated very well. Rob the
Speaker 1: fact that it's a very two dimensional. It's almost like
Speaker 1: they're making fun of their own story if they stepped
Speaker 1: back for a second, because whatever story. If I'm telling
Speaker 1: you a story in real life and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden I tell you about some creature coming in with fangs,
Speaker 1: I mean, I just think I've lost all credibility on
Speaker 1: the whole story. So they take their most important story
Speaker 1: and they throw a big bad atheist herod with fangs.
Speaker 1: They should have done, you know, eyes and horns and
Speaker 1: maybe even a pitchfork to make sure, because they're not
Speaker 1: exactly subtle. I guess subtlety is not the strong suit.
Speaker 1: But Sindy, do you do you think they are broader
Speaker 1: implications with people doing this? And is this a good
Speaker 1: thing or a bad thing for us? Do you think
Speaker 1: people are gonna look at this and go, wow, this
Speaker 1: is kind of absurd or do you think they're going
Speaker 1: to buy into the stereotype.
Speaker 2: No, I think it's mostly harmless. To be honest, I
Speaker 2: don't think it will have much impact, and I don't
Speaker 2: think it should have a lot of impact because it
Speaker 2: was as opposed to the Nativity scenes that was previously prevented.
Speaker 2: This was on a private field. So I don't see
Speaker 2: how or why we should legislate or say anything about this.
Speaker 2: Even though I believe, personally believe that the First Amendment
Speaker 2: crowd in the US is exaggerated. Like I think our
Speaker 2: rights should be limited, including free speech, I don't think
Speaker 2: in this case it's yeah, okay, it's herod. It has
Speaker 2: things that says atheists, but it's to it, it's it's hominus.
Speaker 3: It's uh.
Speaker 2: I really don't see anything too much wrong, apart from
Speaker 2: the idea that it might trigger or an over response
Speaker 2: and then and over response and and you know, but
Speaker 2: apart from that, I don't think it's it's it's such
Speaker 2: a big deal.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that it's going to feed the stereotype
Speaker 1: to those who already had that deeply ingrain and aren't
Speaker 1: looking for something different. But I do think that the
Speaker 1: best thing they could do is go ahead and throw
Speaker 1: in a couple of Disney characters and Nightmare before Christmas
Speaker 1: and really hype up their Nativity scene like, yeah, there
Speaker 1: we go, because really it's a work of fiction. So
Speaker 1: what let's of Why shouldn't Bugs, Bunny and Herod both
Speaker 1: be in it? But I think that you touch on
Speaker 1: an important point. And also, this is private property and
Speaker 1: if they want to do that, hey, that that that's
Speaker 1: on them. But Aja, what do you think about public
Speaker 1: spaces being used? Because I I know that some of
Speaker 1: this as a reaction to a previous scene being taken
Speaker 1: down because it was on public property. So what do
Speaker 1: you think about the whole public spaces for religious displays,
Speaker 1: with or without Herod?
Speaker 3: I would say that as far as using public spaces
Speaker 3: for religious displays, the short answer is fun. But the
Speaker 3: long answer is that it seems that a lot of
Speaker 3: people were upset that Scott, the person that brought the
Speaker 3: whole issue up, got involved in the removal of the
Speaker 3: firehouse Nativity seen because he didn't live in that town.
Speaker 3: That is why they were upset. So they claim that
Speaker 3: the request from the Freedom from Religion Foundation that he contacted,
Speaker 3: and you know, they put the complaint to the city
Speaker 3: was attempting to take away their heritage. But heritage shouldn't
Speaker 3: be something that is publicly displayed in a place that
Speaker 3: uses taxpayer dollars function right, like in a power station.
Speaker 3: Like I think what they don't realize is that what
Speaker 3: he did is a good thing. He didn't look away
Speaker 3: and say not my town, not my problem. Like do
Speaker 3: I think that there's other things that shouldn't You know
Speaker 3: that we shouldn't stick on us into absolutely, But in
Speaker 3: the case of public spaces, yes, I do think that
Speaker 3: everyone needs to advocate for those that are making bad
Speaker 3: decisions in those spaces and to realize why those decisions
Speaker 3: are not white, or why they're not helpful to all
Speaker 3: of the citizens that are affected by it. So if
Speaker 3: they respected the Constitution and the freedom of religion, they
Speaker 3: wouldn't find themselves in these situations.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe if we could have Hugy, Lewis, and
Speaker 1: Dewey as the three wise men, I might be agreeable
Speaker 1: to a Nativity scene with on public ground. But seriously, Rob,
Speaker 1: do you think this is because well here I am
Speaker 1: talking about how old I am. Do you think a
Speaker 1: Satanic panic version two point zero? Do you think that's
Speaker 1: something that's likely?
Speaker 4: Ultimately? No, I think again, because they are more non
Speaker 4: religious people than has ever been in America is going up.
Speaker 4: The Satanic panic version two point zero Satanic Panic two
Speaker 4: electric Boogaloo is less likely to happen as a widespread thing.
Speaker 4: I do not think it is a coincidence that if
Speaker 4: we think back to like the nineteen fifties, where more
Speaker 4: people were more religious, and then as people became less
Speaker 4: religious generally or they're differently religioned, at the same time,
Speaker 4: the super entrenched Christians, especially with their persecution complex, have
Speaker 4: taken over more and more of the government. Now one
Speaker 4: could say that the government was predominantly Christian before that,
Speaker 4: and I would largely agree obviously, but laws and systems
Speaker 4: have been put in place, you know, like the gerrymannering
Speaker 4: of pick that going. So it's kind of for that reason.
Speaker 4: I don't think a Satanic panic is likely to happen,
Speaker 4: because that requires an outbreak among the mass population, and
Speaker 4: I just don't think that's going to happen because there's
Speaker 4: just fewer Christians, that's it.
Speaker 2: And I think that's.
Speaker 1: Part of why they react the way they do, because
Speaker 1: I think they're realizing that the handwriting on the wall
Speaker 1: is really not in their favor, but sending.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I wanted to complete what Rob was saying by
Speaker 2: saying that I think it's right in the idea that
Speaker 2: there won't be a new set and in panic, especially
Speaker 2: because I think in the next four years we will
Speaker 2: see a lot of encroaching of their religious on the
Speaker 2: Perfect space, and probably in five or six years we
Speaker 2: will see a lot of victimization from the Christian because
Speaker 2: they will stop losing some of the privilege they will
Speaker 2: gain in the next four years. So yes, I think
Speaker 2: there will be four years now where religion is going
Speaker 2: to take over in a lot of places, especially with
Speaker 2: the Supreme Court. You guys have a lot of protections
Speaker 2: against religion encroachment on the perfect sphere and on education,
Speaker 2: on everything like that. I think a lot of this
Speaker 2: is going to disappear and Christians are going to take
Speaker 2: back their privileged position and there will be a backlash
Speaker 2: after in five six years. I think that there are
Speaker 2: elections again in five years.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think what you said earlier though, you made
Speaker 3: a good point that it seems kind of harmless, you know,
Speaker 3: this display, But at the same time, what you just
Speaker 3: pointed out that is the harm right there, like it
Speaker 3: actually is coming into private spaces. The part about it
Speaker 3: being displayed at the fire station that was a public
Speaker 3: space is different from it being displayed at the church.
Speaker 3: At the churches were find it harmless at the fire station,
Speaker 3: I don't, and I think in this specific case, like
Speaker 3: we can absolutely respect the church's right to display whatever
Speaker 3: type of Nativity is seen they wanted to write, even
Speaker 3: if it demonizes eighties, simply because, like I said, it
Speaker 3: is a private space and churches are protected by religious
Speaker 3: freedom laws which allows them to practice the faith, you know,
Speaker 3: without government meddling in their business. So that's fine, Like
Speaker 3: we should respect that that. I'm completely okay with that.
Speaker 3: It's kind of the same way that the Satanic Temple
Speaker 3: is allowed to display, you know, Satan figures and however
Speaker 3: the vision on their properties, even if it drives questions
Speaker 3: insane because of freedom of religion, and it should go
Speaker 3: both ways. So but I think the problem here is
Speaker 3: that the pastor only did this to stick it to
Speaker 3: the eightiest because you know, he's angry that somebody called
Speaker 3: him out on their bold shit when they were putting it,
Speaker 3: you know, all this Christian display at a public space
Speaker 3: in the fire station, and he said that every nativity
Speaker 3: is seen has to have a herald to remind us
Speaker 3: that Christians, you know, that they are still being persecuted
Speaker 3: and that there is an enemy out there whose real
Speaker 3: goal is to kill and destroy Christ. So instead of
Speaker 3: having some accountability and being like, hey, you know, you're right,
Speaker 3: this is a public space, let us fix it, he
Speaker 3: was just like, well, fuck you. You can tell me
Speaker 3: what to do, even if it's you know, and everybody
Speaker 3: else's space. It's like like a kid that's like pointing
Speaker 3: their their fingers at your nose but not touching it,
Speaker 3: Like look what I can do. It's just childish.
Speaker 4: It's see. The trouble trouble here that I have is
Speaker 4: that harm is relative, because I would not say that
Speaker 4: this is harmless, but I would say that the harm
Speaker 4: that this does is potentially so little that I could
Speaker 4: classify it as that. But I could say that for
Speaker 4: the same reason that I would say that if we
Speaker 4: go look at one of the statues of Bapha Met
Speaker 4: that I find that harmless. But that's because of the
Speaker 4: worldview that I have, And they would say that this
Speaker 4: is not harmless, but I look at it. Go you
Speaker 4: are literally teaching your young children to be scared of
Speaker 4: and hate these people, which is which is harmful? Like
Speaker 4: this is a problem. I also just think it's so
Speaker 4: absurd that I then laugh at it despite the harm
Speaker 4: that it can and will do. So on one sense,
Speaker 4: I kind of look at it as like, you're like,
Speaker 4: methinks the lady doth protest too much. We're like, oh,
Speaker 4: you're You're just pointing out the thing that you're scared of.
Speaker 4: You are showing us the problem you have. This is
Speaker 4: really about you, isn't it.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and harm can be cumulative or so, like one
Speaker 2: specific event can be homeless or more or less homeless,
Speaker 2: but then an addition of small events like this can
Speaker 2: lead to an effect. So yeah, I agree with you.
Speaker 1: And I'm good.
Speaker 3: Rob.
Speaker 4: I was gonna say, I really hope that Nativity sees
Speaker 4: now include King Herod. I just think it's really funny.
Speaker 1: I think that it should be a default. I think
Speaker 1: that atheists should start organizing petitions to encourage all Nativity
Speaker 1: scenes to include a Herod with fans with the words
Speaker 1: atheists with red flaming eyes, because I think this is
Speaker 1: a great testament to how well Christians live up to
Speaker 1: their great commission of reaching everybody because let me ask
Speaker 1: you this, how interested would someone who doesn't believe in
Speaker 1: God be to walk into your church? If that's what
Speaker 1: you had standing outside in front of it. This is
Speaker 1: our beloved Jesus. I think it's a great selling point. Plus,
Speaker 1: as they say, all publicity's good publicity, so it's publicity
Speaker 1: for atheists. So I want to see more king herods.
Speaker 1: That's what I want to see in the future.