The latest news on the Brookville nativity scene, according to this article , is that the courthouse will not be removing the nativity scene.  Good for them.  The article provides FFRF attorney Rebecca Market’s thoughts:

“The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled a Nativity scene by itself creates a governmental endorsement of Christianity, which violates the Constitution’s prohibition against government establishing a state religion.”

Really?  An endorsement of religion?  I’m not so sure about that.  How about just a respect for the origin of the holiday?  Have any of these atheists thought of it as a history lesson?  Christmas is a federal holiday, after all.  But what is Christmas all about?  What does it mean?  What is the reasoning behind it?  I’m not an atheist, but I think if I were, I would still be fascinated by the history of the holiday.  Another thing I’m confused about is why they would be okay with having Santa Clause on the lawn but not Jesus.  If atheists are correct in their belief that there is no God or that Jesus was not the messiah, then wouldn’t a nativity scene fall into the same category as Santa?  They appreciate the story of Santa as part of our culture, but not the story of Jesus?  Of course, they are saying that the nativity scene would be fine as long as secular decorations were RIGHT NEXT TO IT.  That doesn’t even make sense.  Why not have all the decorations, but let the nativity scene be set apart out of respect for the Christians?  I guess I just don’t understand why atheists want to attack Christians.  What’s next?  Are they going to start attacking children for believing in Santa?