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