[michealb]

Fighting words would not apply here because it refers to personal attacks. Not an attack on a group especially a broad of group as people that believe in a god.

Also courts haven't really been following this decision in recent years. You really don't want them to either because this could be used to ban the bible which I'm sure you don't want.

[michealb]

What your still not getting is that just because you view something as positive doesn't mean everyone does.

If you want only positive messages, who gets to make the choice of what is positive? You, someone like you? Someone like me? The majority? Our founding fathers knew the freedom was to important to be left to the majority that's why the bill of rights was made. That's why you don't get a choice in the subject.

[speechlesstx]

What your still not getting is that just because you view something as positive doesn't mean everyone does.

If you want only positive messages, who gets to make the choice of what is positive? You, someone like you? Someone like me? The majority? Our founding fathers knew the freedom was to important to be left to the majority that's why the bill of rights was made. That's why you don't get a choice in the subject.

What you're still not getting is having a right to do something doesn't make doing it right. Again, I never said you couldn't say what you want, I have now defended your right to call me a fool or whatever at least three times, but it doesn't make it the right thing to do. I ask again, what is wrong with RESPECT? If you don't want to get along fine, if you don't want to make the world a better place, make your case with a positive message, fine. Go do your own thing and leave us alone... we'll be more than happy to offer the same in return.

[TexasParent]

What your still not getting is that just because you view something as positive doesn't mean everyone does.

If you want only positive messages, who gets to make the choice of what is positive? You, someone like you? Someone like me? The majority? Our founding fathers knew the freedom was to important to be left to the majority that's why the bill of rights was made. That's why you don't get a choice in the subject.

I've already demonstrated that there are limits to free speech and expression; in those areas such as obscenity, hate, libel, fighting words, offensive, etc. the local community/majority opinion is taken into account.

Whether that sign fell into one of those categories legally or not; the point I've been trying to make repeatedly is; it was directly offensive in words towards another group. It wasn't a symbol, it was an opinion; and an attack to boot. Show me where other than your mind that a Nativity scene is a direct assault on your beliefs?

P.S. I do get it; and I defend freedom of speech and expression. The fact that you find that anything and everything no matter how offensive, obscene, hateful to able to be freely expressed is wrong, and the majority of American's will not stand for it, that is democracy. As for choosing nothing at all; that is the greatest threat to freedom of speech or expression there is, and I am surprised at you for even suggesting it considering you paint yourself as such a defender of it.

Like speechlesstx has been saying; some tolerance, respect. Everyone can have a symbol celebrating their beliefs or the time of season, year, etc. provided we don't attack each others beliefs.

When will common sense prevail?

[speechlesstx]

Like speechlesstx has been saying; some tolerance, respect. Everyone can have a symbol celebrating their beliefs or the time of season, year, etc. provided we don't attack each others beliefs.

When will common sense prevail?

Exactly, thank you.

[Synnen]

You DO understand that there IS no symbol for atheism, right?

How could they put a symbol up, if there is none?

Again, I am a member of a religion, and I do not find the sign offensive.

And--considering the lack of outrage nationwide, I'm guessing that MOST people don't have an issue with the sign.

So---it's a MINORITY of people that are offended, then, right?

If it's a minority, then there's no problem--because the majority always wins, right?

[speechlesstx]

Apparently they DO have symbols, perhaps it's time to agree on one instead of their 'symbol' being a explicit verbal attack on everyone else.

[michealb]

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

[speechlesstx]

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

I’m sorry, but that is just so much BS I can’t believe anyone that claims to adhere to a philosophy of ‘reason’ would dare utter such a thing. Seriously, I’ve tried and tried to be reasonable and to compromise but that’s an asinine argument.

It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

Again I’m sorry, but that’s just lazy. It’s been insisted that atheists have no symbol and I’ve proved that wrong. You insists it’s impossible to phrase your message in a positive manner, and I’m about to prove you wrong.

Freedom, morality, and the human dignity of the individual consists precisely in this; that he does good not because he is forced to do so, but because he freely conceives it, wants it, and loves it. -- Mikhail Bakunin

It’s really getting old doing your work for you.

It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

As if that’s an excuse not to start somewhere? Next argument.

[TexasParent]

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

Only in my adulthood do I know the Nativity scene represents the birth of Jesus and beyond that I don't really have a clue what more it means. I am not a Christian per say; but I respect their beliefs and chose not to have a deeper understanding of the Nativity scene. If an Atheist symbol was on the lawn, as a kid I would have the same amount of understanding of it as the Navitity scene, but as an adult I would likely be curious and find out what it means. That's the point, even if the symbol is negative to me I would have to learn that negativity from another source rather than have it shoved down my throat in words that I can understand.

If the Christian's put up a sign "Jesus is Lord" instead of the Nativity scene; I would be against that because it's forcing an opinion into my consciousness without my consent on public property.

[inthebox]

The problem is again, that atheism has no message other than religion is wrong. Religion is wrong is the positive message. Just like the commercials that say don't do drugs are positive message.

It is impossible to spin that message as a positive message to someone who is religious and happy with there religion and they shouldn't have to.

It also pointless to put a symbol up that no one save a few thousand people know what it means.

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists" - G.K Chesterton ;)

No doubt organized religion, being a product of flawed human beings, can be bad and do bad things, but the nativity is not talking of religion, but of God.


Merry Christmas!










g&p

[Synnen]

"If there were no God, there would be no atheists" - G.K Chesterton ;)

No doubt organized religion, being a product of flawed human beings, can be bad and do bad things, but the nativity is not talking of religion, but of God.


Merry Christmas!

g&p

Only if you BELIEVE in God.

Otherwise it's just a picture that some religions put up once a year to remind themselves they're supposed to be good.

If you don't believe in God, then the nativity is nothing but a representation of 2000 years of corrupt religions.

[TexasParent]

If you don't believe in God, then the nativity is nothing but a representation of 2000 years of corrupt religions.

It that so, do you speak for all atheists? How about me, this religious truth doubting person who happens to think that if a religion works for you and helps you make sense of this life; then I applaud you and you're entitiled to believe anything you want. Religious people in general are giving, kind, generous folk; that is not a bad thing. They try to follow a set of rules that by any account on the whole are better for their fellow man.

Now, just exactly what rules do atheists follow? While I know there are many giving, kind, generous atheists; is there a standard of atheistic behavior to which people could aspire or admire?

Once you develop a set of guidelines like the religious people try and follow and that have survived centuries of scrutiny because guidelines speak to mankind and the innate desire to be good towards our fellow man (I don't care if they stole those guideline from elsewhere or the spirit of recipricosity already lives within us, they have been the faithful guardians of those values for centuries).

The point is, you likely speak for a small minority of intolerant atheists; who can't tolerate anyone worshipping any God, and won't be satisfied until all symbols of faith are removed and replaced with your God of nothingness.

It is my opinion that YOU simply don't get the big picture on how to get along with others and your are no different than one of two intolerant religions facing off against one another. Which is a shame really, because if all the worlds religions come into conflict you would think that the atheists might be the neutral broker which could help everyone find some common ground. However, you have consistently represented yourself as anti-religion.

I hate to break it to you but your faith is stronger that there is no God than many Christian's believe there is a God. That's not because your right and their wrong, it's because you are more arrogant, negative and closeminded when it comes to faith.

So I hate to break it to you, the majority of people never even consider anything negative when they see the Nativity scene; while you may be playing devils advocate, I say apply for the position full time; you're perfect for it.

[Synnen]

TexasParent--

First off, I'm not atheist. I believe in a GODDESS and a god, and celebrate the pagan holidays.

I'm not arguing the rights of atheists because I believe in THEIR malarky either. I'm fighting for the rights of atheists because I, too, am in a minority belief system, and get sick of Christians playing the offended card when they don't get their way "because that's the way it's always been" or "because we're the majority!"

So---way to judge me incorrectly, just as you say I'm judging others incorrectly. I've actually stated my pagan faith several times in this thread, too!

Even though I belong to an established religion, and the sign "attacks" religion, I am simply not offended by it, because I understand that the sign really just states the basic tenets most atheists believe.

As far as a set of rules atheists all follow---are you serious? Really?

A set of rules for a belief is what religion IS! Why would a group of people that do not believe in a god have a set of rules that they ALL believe in? I think most atheists I have met go by the rules of "this is your only life, and this is it--so make the most of it, and do your best NOW, because this is all you get"

As far as the nativity respresenting persecution, let's look at it this way: If a neo-Nazi put up a swaztika, would you expect Jews to be offended? After all, this is a group of people that over years tortured and murdered Jews! And oh goodness, that was over 60 years ago now---and the NEW Nazis aren't like the OLD Nazis, and they don't torture or murder people, they just believe that the Aryan nation is the best and promote it. Shouldn't they be allowed to state their beliefs?

But people WOULD find that offensive, and I can't blame them.

It is the SAME THING with Christian religious symbols for those that belong to belief systems that have been persecuted, murdered, and tortured by Christianity, even though it was YEARS ago, and done by people who are different than the CURRENT Christians. Do you honestly think that Witches should just forgive and forget, just because the last witch burning was a couple hundred years ago? Even though a great deal of our faith and religious books and modes of worship were lost when the witch hunts were happening in Europe?

Here's a more subtle one for you: would you consider it discrimination if someone couldn't get a job based on their religion or lack of it? Even if the candidate for the job was chosen by committee? Well... how likely do you think it is that a non-Christian will hold the presidency in this country anytime in the next couple of centuries?

It's a weird thing for me. I'm not anti-Christianity. I've known several really terrific Christians that LIVE what they believe. I've asked each of them what they think about that sign, and each of them has blown it off with "Pfft, god doesn't care about that sign, and if HE can forgive them, so can I", or something to that effect. The sign just simply doesn't bother them.

The only real reason that *I* care is that I see it as an unpopular belief system getting bullied by a popular belief system, and that's WRONG.

Oh, and about that majority of people not seeing anything negative in the nativity scene? That's because the majority of people in this country are Christian! Of COURSE they don't see anything wrong with it. That doesn't mean the majority is RIGHT about this, though, or that the majority of people see anything as WRONG with the sign. It just means that you're holding up as a standard something that the majority believe in anyway. That's like saying that the majority of people saw nothing wrong with the swaztika and the SS in Germany in 1939. What the "majority" believes isn't necessarily what's RIGHT.

Which is why there is separation of church and state in this country, and why we are not a Democracy.

[michealb]

I couldn't have said it better Synnen.

[speechlesstx]

Synnen & michealb, here’s what baffles me and what you don’t seem to get. By framing the atheist message in that manner they are engaging in the same behavior you condemn among Christians. And don’t tell me you can’t frame an atheist message in a positive manner. I proved you could and showed a number of symbols to choose from.

[Synnen]

See... here's the thing.

To THEM--it WAS phrased as a positive message. It was phrased with the idea that "hey! You're being a slave! Let us set you free with these new ideas!" spirit of the thing.

Could it have been done in a different/better way? Sure. But I've seen plenty of Christian messages that could have been done in a different/better way, as well. I mean "Jesus loves you JUST the way you are!" is better than "Jesus is Lord!"---but I never see the first sign, and see the second far too often.

Same with anti-abortion signs. Rather than saying "You're killing a baby with abortion!" they could say "Unexpected pregnancy? Let us Help you! (555) 123-4567"

EVERY message out there can be phrased better, really.

But here's the thing: Would you want to have to make all of your "church's" ONLY be able to post politically correct messages, because they MIGHT offend someone? Or would you be willing to take a small offense to be able to have the right to continue to spread the message of YOUR belief system?

[TexasParent]

To Synnen: Please accept my apology; when I wrote my post I thought I was responding to michealb.

[speechlesstx]

See... here's the thing.

To THEM--it WAS phrased as a positive message. It was phrased with the idea that "hey! You're being a slave! Let us set you free with these new ideas!" spirit of the thing.

Here’s the thing, it doesn’t matter how many times it’s repeated that it is a positive message, IT’S NOT! It is so obviously NOT a positive message to the targeted audience. To me it’s inconceivable that anyone would think that approach is positive, IT’S NOT.

If that is the ‘spirit’ you say is intended, I could get a 4th grader to write it better. In fact, (and I’m not relating you to 4th graders) you ALMOST did it yourself. Rephrase it as a question, “Why be a slave to religion? Let us set you free!” instead of telling us our minds ARE enslaved and our hearts ARE hardened.

Could it have been done in a different/better way? Sure. But I've seen plenty of Christian messages that could have been done in a different/better way, as well. I mean "Jesus loves you JUST the way you are!" is better than "Jesus is Lord!"---but I never see the first sign, and see the second far too often.

But you see neither of them on display at government buildings do you?

Same with anti-abortion signs. Rather than saying "You're killing a baby with abortion!" they could say "Unexpected pregnancy? Let us Help you! (555) 123-4567"

But you see neither of them on display at government buildings do you? Seems every time I make a point you guys swerve away from the subject at hand. We are not discussing signs on churches, roadsides or in protesters hands, we’re discussing displays approved by the government on government property.

But here's the thing: Would you want to have to make all of your "church's" ONLY be able to post politically correct messages, because they MIGHT offend someone? Or would you be willing to take a small offense to be able to have the right to continue to spread the message of YOUR belief system?

And we’re back to rights vs. what’s right, and I’ve said over and over everyone’s free to say what they want…but it doesn’t make it right.

[TexasParent]

See...here's the thing.

To THEM--it WAS phrased as a positive message. It was phrased with the idea that "hey! You're being a slave! Let us set you free with these new ideas!" spirit of the thing.

Could it have been done in a different/better way? Sure. But I've seen plenty of Christian messages that could have been done in a different/better way, as well. I mean "Jesus loves you JUST the way you are!" is better than "Jesus is Lord!"---but I never see the first sign, and see the second far too often.

Same with anti-abortion signs. Rather than saying "You're killing a baby with abortion!" they could say "Unexpected pregnancy? Let us Help you! (555) 123-4567"

EVERY message out there can be phrased better, really.

But here's the thing: Would you want to have to make all of your "church's" ONLY be able to post politically correct messages, because they MIGHT offend someone? Or would you be willing to take a small offense to be able to have the right to continue to spread the message of YOUR belief system?

On public property, yes; I would say that is a reasonable expectation to say or display things that are politically correct if that is the term you want to use for positive. On private property, do what you like.

We seem to be able to distingush what is obscene as a society, why can't we distingush what does not attack another set of beliefs while celebrating our own? Why can't everyone display a symbol of the pride they have in their beliefs without attacking another?

At least speechlesstx and I seem to have some religious/non-religious tolerance; we have no anxiety that someone else's non-attacking symbol of belief will change our belief (and I doubt his and mine are the same) and support others rights equally. Yet for those of you in this thread supporting the atheist side; there seems to be no tolerance at all.