On the other hand, what is the problem with a nativity scene at Christmas?
Nobody had any issues with a nativity scene at Christmas. The legal case is nothing to do with a nativity, it's to do with a secular alternative put up in addition to a nativity scene, and the response to it.
What does it particularly have to do with Christian nationalism?
You mean the bit where a Christian Nationalist in authority elected to personally intervene in a sanctioned display to eject the non-Christian display he didn't personally like, but to retain the Christian display that he did? You need the Christian Nationalism implications of that explaining?
If those who put up the removed cultural display were making a point about religious display in a public place they could have used legal means to do so without parodying a familiar cultural image.
They did use legal means, that's why they won the case. Parody is, get this, entirely legal in the US (and many other places), even when it's religion that's being parodied. It's almost like free speech, or the government not favouring one religious viewpoint over another or something.
It seems to me that parodying someone’s culture is to attack that whole culture while advancing the notion that your own is superior.
Feeling targetted, much. It probably felt to them that having overt support for Christian symbology whilst being deprived their right to celebrate how they choose was an attack on their culture, from someone depicting that theirs ws superior. Putting your display alongside someone else's is claiming equal ground, not suppressing them.
As for the parody element, what's being parodied do you think? Christianity, or the performative weaponisation of it by the US religious right?
Imo It’s not a million miles away from the antitheist painting”Jesus paints his nails”.
Who had 'antitheism' on their Vlad bingo? Come on, someone must be there by now...
In the end though.It seemed passive aggressive and an exercise of the horses laugh fallacy.
So you really didn't understand the point, then. Here's a hint - it's not mocking the Nativity, or the profundity of the season for the devout.
So if you wanted to get the governor. You could have got him without the display.
But they didn't want to 'get the governor'. They wanted to be allowed the same freedoms as anyone else, to live in a country where -as per its foundational document - they are equals. But they suspected they would not be treated as such, and gave the Governor enough rope to hang himself. They didn't get the governor, they got the governor to get himself.
Anything beyond that is mocking parody.
It must be so terrible to be (checks notes) subject to a humorous display. Where's the proper mockery, like being told you're equal but being denied bodily autonomy, or marriage rights, or having your local area gerrymandered to disenfranchise your vote...
Suck it up, buttercup.
O.
