 |
Neither are actually harming anyone, but the sign is the only one that is actively, explicitly, verbally, intentionally insulting others. The sign SEEKS to insult others - a nativity scene does not. The nativity scene depicts hope - the sign expresses intolerance. What is the VALUE in intentionally insulting others?
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm with you on this issue, can we not agree that any group is free to display an approved symbol provided that the symbol and it's underlying, universally or advertised message is positive. Can as human beings of all different religions or lack thereof agree on some fundamentally positive messages (i.e. hope, forgiveness, charity, love, kindness, togetherness) and base our decisions on what can be displayed on that criteria; rather than say no to everything.
Easter Egg hunts, Holiday Trees, Nativity Scenes, Menora's, and if the atheists ever get their marketing together and find a symbol of universal human togetherness, let them display it too. As you've said repeatedly, so long as it doesn't attack another group or belief.
A Swastika does not pass this test as most reasonable people view it as something negative. Can the KKK display something, if they ever stop saying they hate people of color and promote themselves as a white advocacy group; maybe, someday.
The point is, most reasonable people know what is positive and what is negative and I for one would rather that any and all positive messages be welcomed and freely displayed on public grounds where appropriate.
There are several problems with that one is that none of those symbols are positive symbols to atheists. They all represent the hardening of hearts and the enslavement of the mind. The other problem is you want majority rule with no regard for the rights of minority groups. Which is exactly what the court system in this country was setup to prevent.
This is really easy to solve keep your religion/ideas to yourself keep it off public property unless you are willing to allow all groups to make displays. This is about freedom it has to be a two way street. You want to use the public park for your Easter egg hunt fine. Just expect that the park may be used for an atheist rally or maybe even a KKK rally the next week. Freedom comes with a heavy price if your not willing to pay it then your in the wrong country.
You know, the funny thing is that I'm not a religious person. Did I grow up seeing these things and find them pretty, yes. Do I like colored lights during the holiday season, yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
As for not one of those things being positive to atheists, why don't you give us some examples of things that are positive to atheists? As for the park being used for an atheist rally; go for it. KKK rally; no problem. So long a none of them promote hate or intolerance of another group. We already have Gay Pride parades on the public roadways which those groups have to get permits for, and while many don't agree with them; they are FREE to promote themselves in what is essentially a rally, but they don't put down another group.
Society and/or community (the majorities representation through it's elected officials) has always put limits on freedom of expression; can you put pornographic images on a billboard, no. Can you air pornographic movies on prime time network television, no. The majority has always had a say, that is democracy. To elect someone in this country, do they need a unanimous vote, no. If there is one person that doesn't want this person elected does there single vote override the majorities votes for, no.
So there is a balance, and there always has been about preserving freedom of expression and limiting those expressions that are deemed harmful by the majority to the public good.
Have those values changed over different periods of history, of course they have.
Under your scenario, public lands, roads, etc. wouldn't be used for any expression. You had better take down every statue, memorial, and the Santa Claus parade would be toast too.
Instead of applauding our diversity through positive symbols, displays, parades, etc. you want nothing to be displayed because you (if you are an atheist) have no tolerance for any belief and you want the lack of belief to trump all beliefs by eliminating them.
So when little Joey says: "why aren't there Santa Claus parades anymore". Mom says: "Well dear, the people who don't believe in anything, won the expression wars and so there are no public displays like the Santa Claus parade anymore".
Actually, no, this is not how it would be under his scenario. Under his scenario it would be as it is now - either ALL people can display, or NO people can display. Roadside memorials are fine as long as a Hindu, a Jew, a Christian, or a Buddhist can put one up. Santa parades can take place as long as the city who issues the permit will issue it to people who celebrate Kwanzaa too.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
The government is not supposed to endorse a specific religion. Allowing one religion preference or dominance endorses that religion. If a government can't bring themselves to allow a Star of David to be displayed next to a Christmas tree, that government shouldn't be allowing either symbol.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
The Miller Test
The Miller test is the United States Supreme Court's test for determining whether speech or expression can be labeled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and can be prohibited.
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[1] It has three parts:
Whether the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[2] specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. (This is also known as the (S)LAPS test- [Serious] Literary, Artistic, Political, Scientific).
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
The first two prongs of the Miller test are held to the standards of the community, and the last prong is held to a reasonable person standard. The reasonable person standard of the last prong acts as a check on the community standard of the first two prongs, allowing protection for works that in a certain community might be considered obscene but on a national level might have redeeming value.
For legal scholars, several issues are important. One is that the test allows for community standards rather than a national standard. What offends the average person in Jackson, Mississippi, may differ from what offends the average person in New York City. The relevant community, however, is not defined.
Another important issue is that Miller asks for an interpretation of what the "average" person finds offensive, rather than what the more sensitive persons in the community are offended by, as obscenity was defined by the previous test, the Hicklin test, stemming from the English precedent.
In practice, pornography showing genitalia and sexual acts is not de facto obscene according to the Miller test. For instance, in 2000 a jury in Provo, Utah, took only a few minutes to clear Larry Peterman, owner of a Movie Buffs video store, in Utah County, Utah, a region which had often boasted of being one of the most conservative areas in the US. Researchers had shown that guests at the local Marriott Hotel were disproportionately large consumers of pay-per-view pornographic material, obtaining far more material that way than the store was distributing.[3][4]
The point I was trying to make is that there is an example where the communities opinion can trump first amendment rights. If it works for sexually obscene things, why not those deemed offensive by the majority of the local community when it comes to displays?
Where is your tolerance for others and their views? As others have said here to me, a little sign like that shouldn't bother me if my faith is strong. It works both ways, a little display of a man, a woman and a baby shouldn't bother you if you're secure in your beliefs so why go out of your way to slam mine? And if you can't find anything positive to display to celebrate your beliefs then no offense, you need to get a life and find something that does, because if all your beliefs represent is meanness, arrogance and intolerance then there isn't much value in your beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
In my world I'd just be telling you all to get over it and be grateful I am offering "a place at the table" in this because Christmas is the only celebration involved here that's a FEDERAL HOLIDAY.
When you guys get it together and decide on your positive symbols and such, go get yourselves a federal holiday and celebrate all you want, I'll enjoy the day off and leave you alone. Meanwhile, if you want to play this silly game of including everyone no matter the message for MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and energy and enjoy the day off.Quote:
This is really easy to solve keep your religion/ideas to yourself keep it off public property unless you are willing to allow all groups to make displays.
This would be different from now, how? It happens all the time, who is trying to stop it? No one, and these same people you're implying don't want to allow for such would defend your right to do so, I've defended your right to tell me I'm a fool with an enslaved mind, I just asked what's the VALUE in it? You want a display like the Christians? Put up a bust of Bertrand Russell for his birthday, I won't care but I don't know if the folks at Gobbler's Knob would take offense. Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone. If you want respect you need to give respect. It's a really simple concept.Quote:
This is about freedom it has to be a two way street. You want to use the public park for your Easter egg hunt fine. Just expect that the park may be used for an atheist rally or maybe even a KKK rally the next week. Freedom comes with a heavy price if your not willing to pay it then your in the wrong country.
The SOLE reason that Christmas is a federal (and therefore SECULAR) holiday is economic.
If the majority of the country is Christian, and all the Christians take the day off from work, or accuse their bosses of being Scrooge if they CANNOT have the day off, well... of COURSE that's going to make the day a holiday! When 3/4 of the country calls in sick, it becomes an issue for employers that need to stop production lines or close their shops or whatever. Making it a holiday means that people are willing to work that day because of overtime.
So... since that's no longer as big a deal as it was when the holiday was created (partly BECAUSE of diversity, and the number of people willing to work that day because it does NOT mean something to them)---want it so that non-Christians move to have it made a religious and not federal holiday again?
Every example you bring up points out yet again that Christians have privileges, by LAW, that other groups don't have. I find this to be somewhat un-Constitutional, since it comes down to the government supporting one religion over others.
Basically--what it means to me is that yes, that sign SHOULD be accepted, regardless how offended you are by it, because somewhere, someone is offended by your religious symbols. Because, really--the other option is that all CHRISTIAN displays now become JUST as much anathema as any other religion or belief's displays.
What you aren't getting is this: As offensive as you find that sign, there are MANY people that are as offended or MORE offended by the way that Christianity is the unofficial national religion. The Pledge of Allegiance issue shows that, as does the fact that many people want "In God We Trust" off our money. Can you not see the resentment being forced to work around and make accommodation with Christianity and their beliefs and symbols every time you turn around does to non-Christians?
This country has freedom of religion, and the state can not endorse any ONE religion. How would you feel if your child were taught the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "one nation, under Allah" instead of "Under god"? Wouldn't you raise holy hell if your kid was MADE to participate in a religious moment that had NOTHING to do with your religion?
Or let's look at it this way: What if a teacher were to take a moment at the beginning of a class to cleanse the classroom and draw a protective Circle around it, ensuring that evil and malice were kept out of her classroom for the day? Would you not be outraged by the very idea of a teacher forcing her pagan religion on your kids? That's what prayer in school does!
It comes down to the same thing for many people: We're sick of the Christian majority forcing their religion down our throats because there are more of you than there are of us. We're tired of the local government allowing displays on public property that are ONLY Christian based.
The sign has no nudity. It has no defecation. It passes FCC standards. It just says something you don't like. What you're not getting is that the Christian nativity says something that Atheists don't like, something that comes with it's own images of irrationality AS WELL AS the Christian ideas of peace.
If you want more tolerance--well, start with some yourself. I don't know anyone that stood up and said "I hate that nativity scene! Take it down!" until the Christians who stole the sign got downright nasty about things. I don't know anyone that was asking for the Christian display to come down until there were people asking for the Atheist display to come down.
So it offends you. So what? The nativity and the fact that it's on government property offends the atheists. Now BOTH groups are offended. Great! Sounds equal to me!
Let's just shut up about the whole thing and move on--by BOTH sides being tolerant of the other side's display.
Sounds to me like the atheists are willing to ignore the offense of the nativity scene as long as their sign can go up---why can't the Christians move on and do the same? The sign attacks ALL religions--which includes my religion, btw--but here I am still defending its right to be there!
I think I've been more than willing to ignore the sign if it wasn't an intentional, explicit, verbally expressed attack. I asked before, what is the VALUE of the sign? Make it appropriate, make it respectful and I'll shut up. I've been more than willing to compromise, but this is a predominantly Christian nation whether some like it or not.
That's the whole thing!
We shouldn't HAVE to compromise our beliefs (and I say "our' as being a minority religion) just because the majority of people believe something else!
This would never have been even a blip on most peoples' radar had people not acted inappropriately to the sign in the first place!
I don't find the sign offensive. I think that if someone believes that believing my religion makes me a hard-hearted slave, well---their loss. I can just shake my head and move on, leaving them to their beliefs.
That's called "turning the other cheek".
It's called "tolerance of another person's beliefs".
It's "accepting diversity in our country".
I honestly do not find the wording of the sign offensive. I see it as a statement of their beliefs, in a belief system that HAS no symbols to put up.
What this IS going to lead to, though, is a lack of tolerance for ANY religious displays.
Because believe me--if they somehow force them to take that sign down, I will take a leave of absence from work next year to protest--LOUDLY--any other symbols or signs that are on public property that are from ANY belief system.
You get them ALL, offensive or not, or you get NONE.
Period.
"It's called "tolerance of another person's beliefs".
That's exactly what the sign is not, and that's the point. I can shake my head and move on all day, but it does nothing to help us get along better or promote tolerance and diversity to purposefully attack those you expect to be tolerant of you. It makes no sense, Synnen.
It is THEIR BELIEF.
It's EXACTLY the same as you putting up a sign that says "Jesus is Lord! Only those who believe in him will escape eternal hell!"
Hello:
Again, we have digressed... The issue isn't tolerance. It isn't fairness. It isn't about religion. It isn't about NOT being offended. It's not about Christmas.
It's about the state, the public arean, what's displayed there, and the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Nobody has a right to NOT be offended. Free speech and/or the establishment clause says NOTHING about tolerance.
You want tolerance, go to church... Ok, never mind on that one.
excon
Maybe we COULD have but we didn't, and that's my point. What's wrong with a little restraint and again I ask, respect?Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I do get it, ex, but what's wrong with being better than intentionally attacking others?
If you want tolerance, go to college as a conservative and see how that works out.Quote:
You want tolerance, go to church... Ok, never mind on that one.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It'd work out fine at Bob Jones U. I wonder how a lib would fair there?
excon
I should be more specific, attend most any state university as a conservative and check out the tolerance levels.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Wait because I want every one's ideas to be treated equal I'm intolerant. That's a new one on me. I thought tolerance meant that everyone was treated equal. It doesn't mean I have to like you idea it just means that it has to be treated equally in the eyes of the law.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Wait my belief represents meanness and arrogance and intolerance.Quote:
And if you can't find anything positive to display to celebrate your beliefs then no offense, you need to get a life and find something that does, because if all your beliefs represent is meanness, arrogance and intolerance then there isn't much value in your beliefs.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. Deuteronomy 7:16
Your religion has demonised my kind and others for over 2000 years. Yet you call my belief is intolerant. Calling for people to become open to reason and abandon these stone age beliefs and freeing a person mind is the most compassionate thing I can think of doing for a person.
I of course don't expect for you to feel the same way and of course that is your right that I don't want to interfere with. All I want is the same.
Yes you get special privileges and I should be grateful. How wonderful.Quote:
In my world I'd just be telling you all to get over it and be grateful I am offering "a place at the table" in this because Christmas is the only celebration involved here that's a FEDERAL HOLIDAY.
Being against the oppression of religion is our positive message. Just because you don't think it is doesn't matter.Quote:
When you guys get it together and decide on your positive symbols and such, go get yourselves a federal holiday and celebrate all you want, I'll enjoy the day off and leave you alone. Meanwhile, if you want to play this silly game of including everyone no matter the message for MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and energy and enjoy the day off.
Since it's a federal holiday it no longer belongs to Christians. It is an American holiday and as an American I can celebrate my holiday any way I wish.
You don't own the month of December you don't even own the 25th of December and I don't want respect and I don't expect it from your group. I want equality. I want the government to recognize my believe as an equal to yours. That's it. I think in this particular case the government did act correctly. Your free to call foul but I'm also free to tell you why your wrong. That's all I'm doing here.Quote:
This would be different from now, how? It happens all the time, who is trying to stop it? No one, and these same people you're implying don't want to allow for such would defend your right to do so, I've defended your right to tell me I'm a fool with an enslaved mind, I just asked what's the VALUE in it? You want a display like the Christians? Put up a bust of Bertrand Russell for his birthday, I won't care but I don't know if the folks at Gobbler's Knob would take offense. Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone. If you want respect you need to give respect. It's a really simple concept.
It could be argued that the sign amounted to fighting words in the minds of Christian's; fighting words are not protected under First Amendment rights.Quote:
Laws that limit inciting or provocative speech, often called fighting words, or offensive expressions such as PORNOGRAPHY, are subject to STRICT SCRUTINY. It is well established that the government may impose content regulations on certain categories of expression that do not merit First Amendment protection. To illustrate this point, the Court stated in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 62 S. Ct. 766, 86 L. Ed. 1031 (1942),"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise constitutional problems."
If it was another group other than Christian's; they might have been incited to fight over words such as those. The point is, there is a precedent in law to limit First Amendment rights when it comes to offending people; and a Nativity scene has no fighting words, it's a symbol, the Sign on the other hand could be argued did have fighting words.
My response was to this statement:Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
“There are several problems with that one is that none of those symbols are positive symbols to atheists. They all represent the hardening of hearts and the enslavement of the mind.”
Tolerance - a fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own
There is NOTHING fair and objective about the offending passage.
I don't recall the nativity scene quoting any of those passages, so let's try and keep it to what's actually there.Quote:
Wait my belief represents meanness and arrogance and intolerance.
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. Psalm 14:1
You must destroy all the nations the LORD your God hands over to you. Show them no mercy and do not worship their gods. Deuteronomy 7:16
And atheists have demonized us for just as long. You keep swerving away from the facts Michaelb, the only one demonizing anyone in this is the atheist sign. Emphatically telling people their minds are enslaved is NOT a call "for people to become open to reason," it's arrogant and intolerant.Quote:
Your religion has demonised my kind and others for over 2000 years. Yet you call my belief is intolerant. Calling for people to become open to reason and abandon these stone age beliefs and freeing a person mind is the most compassionate thing I can think of doing for a person.
I have offered compromise over and over, if you want to be uncompromising then we have nothing to discuss.Quote:
Yes you get special privileges and I should be grateful. How wonderful.
And just because you think telling people emphatically that their minds are "enslaved" is a "positive message" doesn't' make it true or the right thing to do.Quote:
Being against the oppression of religion is our positive message. Just because you don't think it is doesn't matter.
Of course you can, nobody said you couldn't. In fact I said leave us alone and enjoy it any way you like and we'll do the same.Quote:
Since it's a federal holiday it no longer belongs to Christians. It is an American holiday and as an American I can celebrate my holiday any way I wish.
Ditto, but I seem to be only one here that has offered to compromise. If you don't want to compromise for MY celebration and RESPECT my beliefs than in my first thought is, get over it and find your own thing to celebrate.Quote:
You don't own the month of December you don't even own the 25th of December and I don't want respect and I don't expect it from your group. I want equality. I want the government to recognize my believe as an equal to yours. That's it. I think in this particular case the government did act correctly. Your free to call foul but I'm also free to tell you why your wrong. That's all I'm doing here.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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?
Exactly, thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
http://www.clipartof.com/images/emot...d_clapping.gif
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?
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.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/emptyset.gif http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheistpu.gif
http://www.religioustolerance.org/circatheist.gif http://www.religioustolerance.org/alphaatheist.gif
http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheistsa.jpg http://www.religioustolerance.org/atheistaai.png
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.
As if that’s an excuse not to start somewhere? Next argument.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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.
"If there were no God, there would be no atheists" - G.K Chesterton ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by inthebox
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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.
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.
I couldn't have said it better Synnen.
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.
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?
To Synnen: Please accept my apology; when I wrote my post I thought I was responding to michealb.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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.
But you see neither of them on display at government buildings do you?Quote:
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? 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.Quote:
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"
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
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.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:48 AM. |