Intolerance in any way shape or form is never pretty.
It is an expression of ignorance and that,sadly, crosses all faiths.
|
Intolerance in any way shape or form is never pretty.
It is an expression of ignorance and that,sadly, crosses all faiths.
It's not lack of tolerance.
I don't CARE what people believe, as long as they don't tell ME that I have to believe the same thing. Sadly, it comes off as though I "attack" Christians, because in my personal experience, it's Christians that have the LEAST tolerance of other beliefs, and are the MOST likely to tell you how horrible you are if you don't believe what they do.
I agree that the sign could have been better worded. I also still believe that there would have been NO real debate here if the sign hadn't been stolen, flipped around, and argued about endlessly.
My points have always been to try to make people see that their OWN religious symbols are offensive to others, regardless whether it is a majority or not. A majoriy can't be used to decide this, because then it just becomes religious bullying--because the "majority" in this country are Christians, and it is that group of people that feel the most attacked.
The signs that I've talked about may not have been in government buildings, but they HAVE been on billboards and signs along the highway. Had the atheist sign been posted on a billboard, would you have been less likely to talk about how offensive it was, even though a billboard is technically private property?
Apology accepted, by the way.
And yet, that is in a sense what the atheists are doing here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Actually I don't take it that way... from you. However...Quote:
Sadly, it comes off as though I "attack" Christians,
I don't think that's the 'because.' The reason one would come off as "attacking" Christians is because of what they say, not because of what Christians have said. You choose what you say and how you say it, and that's part of my point - it doesn't matter how others act, we are each responsible for our choices and we don't have to be antagonistic just because someone else was.Quote:
because in my personal experience, it's Christians that have the LEAST tolerance of other beliefs, and are the MOST likely to tell you how horrible you are if you don't believe what they do.
Blame it on O'Reilly, he raised a stink long before the idiot thieves got involved.Quote:
I agree that the sign could have been better worded. I also still believe that there would have been NO real debate here if the sign hadn't been stolen, flipped around, and argued about endlessly.
Honestly, I don't think any of us have doubted that our symbols, our signs, our behavior offend others, but can we not be mature enough to base our objections in this on what IS said and done and not feelings?Quote:
My points have always been to try to make people see that their OWN religious symbols are offensive to others, regardless whether it is a majority or not. A majoriy can't be used to decide this, because then it just becomes religious bullying--because the "majority" in this country are Christians, and it is that group of people that feel the most attacked.
Let's see, how many timers have I, tom, TexasParent and perhaps others said that's a totally different scenario? If the atheists want to rent a billboard in Times Square on New Year's Rockin' Eve and display that very message I may not like it, but that's their business and their money, have at it.Quote:
The signs that I've talked about may not have been in government buildings, but they HAVE been on billboards and signs along the highway. Had the atheist sign been posted on a billboard, would you have been less likely to talk about how offensive it was, even though a billboard is technically private property?
I still don't see how you can call me intolerant. When all I want is the freedom for all groups to display there message equally on government property regardless of the message.
While I may personally feel religion is a bad idea. I would never interfere with anyone's freedom to make bad decisions.
You will always see me arguing for more freedom, regardless of the group involved.
So you would have no problem having pedophiles posting a sign saying: "Children are good for screwing, kidnap and rape one today" ?
My point is since you are for as much freedom as possible, do you have ANY limits on what is said or displayed?
It's not about intolerance, it's about being empathetic. It's about being able to see someone else's point of view. I'm not offended by the nativity. I'm not offended by the sign. I support neither in their message, but support both for their right to be there. Some people, on both sides are offended. I get that. I also get that neither side sees their display as inappropriate or offensive, but that some people do. Just because someone is offended doesn't mean the message or display is "wrong"; all it means is someone is offended by it. Someone is offended by nearly everything. So please tell me, how is that I'm being intolerant?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
Now you're just being obtuse. Please tell me you see the difference between promoting illegal behavior and a sign that someone took personally.Quote:
So you would have no problem having pedophiles posting a sign saying: "Children are good for screwing, kidnap and rape one today" ?
OK, let's change the sign to: "White are people superior, black people are inferior". It's not much different than saying "There is no God, and religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds" as it is pointing out their superior position in their opinion by claiming there is no God and denouncing religion (a group) as being inferior to them as it "hardens hearts and enslaves minds".Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
My point is (and I was directing this to michaelb; but you are welcome to join in) if we take the stand that all signs and opinions are welcome in the name of freedom, is there a limit to that freedom, and do you or michaelb have ANY limits on freedom?
Such a sign, as vile as the message might be, is still legal. The KKK chants things similar to that all the time - they are allowed to exist. I still see a flaw in your sign comparison, as I don't see the atheist's sign as a message of superiority, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it. Are you insinuating your made up sign shouldn't be allowed to be posted?Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
Let me turn your question around on you - what freedoms are you willing to give up? Me? I want all the ones the founders of this country gave me.Quote:
My point is (and I was directing this to michaelb; but you are welcome to join in) if we take the stand that all signs and opinions are welcome in the name of freedom, is there a limit to that freedom, and do you or michaelb have ANY limits on freedom?
But you're ignoring the point of my post - arguing for the atheist's side isn't about intolerance, it's about empathy. Either you have it, or you don't.
First, I don't believe anyone has argued FOR eliminating rights, we've defended their rights all along so that's a non-issue. Secondly, empathy is a poor excuse for tolerating bad behavior. I can have all the empathy in the world for atheists but it doesn't mean I'd love for them to smack me over the head with it. I have empathy for inmates but it doesn't mean I want to set them all free. Empathy is great, but as an excuse to defend an attack on someone else is not very empathetic to the target. But I know, we Christians have demonized atheists so long we deserve it... that seems to be the attitude.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
BS. No one is saying "Christians deserve it"; stop being so dramatic. Ever the victim...Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Who says I'm tolerating the bad behavior? I've repeated time and time again that I don't agree with the sign, but that I support their right to post it, and I'm empathetic to their position. I'm also empathetic to the Christians who are offended by the sign - they have every right to be offended, I understand why they are offended, but they don't have the right to steal and deface property because of their offence.
And about the elimination of rights - you have said they have the right to post a sign, but the sign they posted is unacceptable. To have it your way, only a "nice" sign would be posted. The thing is, "nice" is subjective, and you know it. People look upon the nativity as "not nice" but you support it being there. So yes, you say they have the right to post, you just have to approve of the message they post.
Come on Jillian, I'm not the one playing the drama here and never have. It's not "ever the victim" to mention the "target." Are you saying the sign targeted no one? It wasn't me that spoke of "the nativity respresenting persecution," "special privileges" for Christians, "no regard for the rights of minority groups" or asking the ultimate drama question, "what freedoms are you willing to give up?" So please, spare me the "ever the victim" BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Here we go again, as if we haven't condemned the sign thieves enough. While you and others have been defending their rights (which I have done as well), I've condemned what's wrong on both sides. Stealing the signs was wrong, but so was attacking those who believe in God, and you guys can't bring yourselves to admit that.Quote:
Who says I'm tolerating the bad behavior? I've repeated time and time again that I don't agree with the sign, but that I support their right to post it, and I'm empathetic to their position. I'm also empathetic to the Christians who are offended by the sign - they have every right to be offended, I understand why they are offended, but they don't have the right to steal and deface property because of their offence.
I've been very clear Jillian, only one display expressly, explicitly attacked other people and it was the sign. It's like Potter Stewart said about pornography, I may not be able to define what's acceptable to everyone, but I know an obvious attack when I see one, and that sign was an obvious attack, and that is WRONG.Quote:
And about the elimination of rights - you have said they have the right to post a sign, but the sign they posted is unacceptable. To have it your way, only a "nice" sign would be posted. The thing is, "nice" is subjective, and you know it. People look upon the nativity as "not nice" but you support it being there. So yes, you say they have the right to post, you just have to approve of the message they post.
First off - the question about what freedoms are you willing to give up wasn't directed to you, but was in direct response to texasparent who asked what limitations on freedom I support. The reason I told you to knock off the dramatics is because you said, "we Christians have demonized atheists so long we deserve it...that seems to be the attitude. That's not mentioning the target, that's attempting to gain sympathy by being overly dramatic. I spoke of the nativity representing persecution because I was pointing out the point of view of the atheists who put up the sign, how is that being dramatic? And, I beg your pardon, but you are the one who brought up that Christians are the only ones who have a federal holiday, thus introducing the "special privileges". I stand by my "BS", my call of "drama" and my "ever the victim" statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Did I say you didn't condemn the sign theves? NO. I simply made a statement about it, as I described what actions I understand and which ones I don't. And you've continued to ignore that I haven't endorsed the sign, I haven't defended it, I've only said I understand.Quote:
Here we go again, as if we haven't condemned the sign thieves enough. While you and others have been defending their rights (which I have done as well), I've condemned what's wrong on both sides. Stealing the signs was wrong, but so was attacking those who believe in God, and you guys can't bring yourselves to admit that.
And that goes back to someone making a subjective judgement. The atheists can use the same statement to defend their sign because to them, the nativity is an attack.Quote:
I've been very clear Jillian, only one display expressly, explicitly attacked other people and it was the sign. It's like Potter Stewart said about pornography, I may not be able to define what's acceptable to everyone, but I know an obvious attack when I see one, and that sign was an obvious attack, and that is WRONG.
I'm not saying you can't be offended. I'm not saying you can't view the sign as an attack. I'm saying you aren't seeing the other side; you have no empathy, you have no perspective. But OK, you say the sign is wrong; what do you suppose ought to be done about it?
What about the navitity scene is an attack? Nothing, it's a scene of people standing around a baby with some farm animals thrown in. The sign on the other had is an explicit, worded attack against a belief system which at last count 70% or more of American's believe in, in some shape or form. The navitity scene has no words on it, and I for one other than have learned that it represents the birth of Jesus, don't know much else. Any reasonable person would not attach a negative meaning to the scene. Just like if the atheists wanted to put up a symbol that is recognised as the world holding hands and saying something like; we are in this together. Myself, and I doubt many Christian would have a problem with something to that effect.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
The problem truthfully is the anti-religious bigotry, no one here who is not religious (with the exception of myself) sees anything positive about the nativity scene, they impose their hatred of religion and say the scene represents all the negatives they feel about religion. They try to say that the nativity scene is more than equal to the direct attack on religion that was explicitly worded on atheist sign. That is complete nonsense.
Oh for cryin' out loud... have we been reading the same thread? Let me help you; go back to page 4 and read post #31 and the article in that post. Then, go to page 6 and read post #53. THEN go to page 11, post #107 (which was directed at you). That should be enough to get you started.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
And what, precisley is your point in stating that 70% of Americans are Christian? Because it is likely to offend more people, it shouldn't be allowed? The rights and offence of the majority trump the rights and offence of the minority?
Could the sign have been worded more gently - YES. But the group who put up the sign displayed THEIR message the way THEY see fit, which is their right. It is not up to you or me to tell them it's impolite and shouldn't be allowed. And I beg to differ that an alternate sign would not be faced with similar opposition. Perhaps not by the people on this board, but there is a substantial population of Christians who take offence to anything which is not "pro-Christianity". For example, people who have their cars vandalized because they have a Darwin fish.
I am not anti-religious, and I am not a bigot. I don't see anything negative about the nativity scene - it doesn't bother me in the least. I do not hate religion, I do not think the nativity, or any religious symbol, for that matter representes the negatives I feel about religion. I have not said the nativity is equal to the sign. Please do me a favor and stop passing judgements on people you don't know. While you're at it - come on off that high horse.Quote:
The problem truthfully is the anti-religious bigotry, no one here who is not religious (with the exception of myself) sees anything positive about the nativity scene, they impose their hatred of religion and say the scene represents all the negatives they feel about religion. They try to say that the nativity scene is more than equal to the direct attack on religion that was explicitly worded on atheist sign. That is complete nonsense.
I have said, both groups have a right to put up a display. Both groups see an attack. Both are offended. Neither has the right to not be offended. I have said I am empathetic to both sides. I get it. You, apparently, don't.
Oh for cryin' out loud... maybe you get part of it and I do to with regards to peoples rights; but there is a big difference between the two displays.
Tell me there is no difference between a Navitity scene and a sign like this:
"There is one God. There is one Devil. There are angels, a heaven and hell. There is more than our natural world. Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
You have acknowledged that the sign could have been worded more politely. That's the point.
What is wrong with promoting your point of view by characterizing what is good and attractive about your point of view rather than attacking anothers point of view. The Nativity scene doesn't attack anothers point of view explicitly. If you want to argue that it attacks anothers point of view indirectly by it's meare presence, then we could debate that point, but it's not an explicit attack.
Can't we just agress that everybody should be FREE to express their beliefs in a manner that doesn't directly or explicitly attack anothers? What ever happened to respect, politeness or or tolerance.
There is middle ground here, and I'm trying to find it. Without that middle ground then we suppress freedom by eliminating all expression; if we accept any and all freedom, then we accept hatred being displayed. Which by the way the Supreme Court does limit first Amendment Rights in the case of obscenity, hatred, fighting words, etc. and in part those subjective determinations are determined by the local community.
So community standards have a precendence in limiting the right to free expression. Does the sign overstep the right for those display it, probably not; but it is at the edge of what the community will accept.
Also, in advertising you can go on about your product and how great it is and hope people buy your message and your product. It is very rare that they will attack another product or service that is not fact based or they will get their butt sued for libel or slander. This works pretty well, it keeps things civil.
That's all I'm asking, civility. Self promotion, not attacks.
I wonder if a group of religious people went to court and sued the makers of the sign for libel over the truthfulness of their statement whether they would win.
That's how freedom works in this country right, you have all you want until you lose your case in court.
And that makes it irrelevant how?Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Oh please, don't tell me you can't recognize a little sarcasm either.Quote:
The reason I told you to knock off the dramatics is because you said, "we Christians have demonized atheists so long we deserve it...that seems to be the attitude. That's not mentioning the target, that's attempting to gain sympathy by being overly dramatic.
Do I really have to point out yet again how silly it is for anyone to feel "persecuted" by a manger scene? Offended, OK, but persecuted? Give me a break. Can you really not get that after days of people whining about us wanting to take away rights, non-existent persecution, verses and signs from Christians that don't exist in this display, banning messages on private property and all other manner of nonsense, that my raising the federal holiday issue - in the manner and tone I used - was also to make point about all this whining? Good grief Jillian, there is not one hint of a victim mentality in any of my posts in this thread. I just got fed up with people's drama, telling me I shouldn't be offended and yes, playing the victim.Quote:
I spoke of the nativity representing persecution because I was pointing out the point of view of the atheists who put up the sign, how is that being dramatic? And, I beg your pardon, but you are the one who brought up that Christians are the only ones who have a federal holiday, thus introducing the "special privileges". I stand by my "BS", my call of "drama" and my "ever the victim" statement.
And I'm saying bullsh*t, I do understand the other side, I've acknowledged they can be offended - but I've countered the arguments that there is no positive way to get their beliefs across and they have no symbols, and offered compromises... I'm still waiting for someone to reciprocate. The sign is not subjective, it is an explicit attack on believers, it is not in the spirit of the settlement and the governor was wrong to approve it as submitted. Period. It's about doing what's right, and it would go a long way to everyone getting what they want.Quote:
Did I say you didn't condemn the sign theves? NO. I simply made a statement about it, as I described what actions I understand and which ones I don't. And you've continued to ignore that I haven't endorsed the sign, I haven't defended it, I've only said I understand.
And that goes back to someone making a subjective judgement. The atheists can use the same statement to defend their sign because to them, the nativity is an attack.
I'm not saying you can't be offended. I'm not saying you can't view the sign as an attack. I'm saying you aren't seeing the other side; you have no empathy, you have no perspective. But OK, you say the sign is wrong; what do you suppose ought to be done about it?
You know what scares me the most EXCON is that when you take one persons freedom of expression away you are setting a very dangerous precedence.
Who is next?
I want to know why, when I had a young impressionable son in high school,requiters from every branch of the military were allowed to go there and spend time with these kids(on school*learning*time)ie;taxpayers dollars.Give them gifts,give them a rap.Its wrong!
I am a teacher of the 21st century I understand education needs to change,get with now,I am making changes in the world for the good of earth. I want to come to your school and discuss the future of the world that you will be taking over one day.
You can bet your as:p I can't come to your school.
I like how you challenge us to think and create debate.. Thanks!
A difference which I have acknowledged.Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasParent
You mean the sign the Christians countered with? Yes, there is a difference. A difference I have acknowledged.Quote:
Tell me there is no difference between a Navitity scene and a sign like this:
"There is one God. There is one Devil. There are angels, a heaven and hell. There is more than our natural world. Atheism is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."
The people who put their sign up put up what they think is right. I'm not saying I think it's the right way to do it, but they did, and it's their right to do so. There's nothing wrong with putting up your point of view politley; this group, for whatever reason, decided not to. That is their right. Maybe they think their sign is polite; I don't know. You're dismissing the offence taken by the nativity scene here - it doesn't matter if it's an explicit or implicit attack - it's still seen as an attack.Quote:
You have acknowledged that the sign could have been worded more politely. That's the point.
What is wrong with promoting your point of view by characterizing what is good and attractive about your point of view rather than attacking anothers point of view. The Nativity scene doesn't attack anothers point of view explicitly. If you want to argue that it attacks anothers point of view indirectly by it's meare presence, then we could debate that point, but it's not an explicit attack.
This is where it shows you still don't get it. NO we cannot agree everyone should be free to express their beliefs in a manner that doesn't directly or explicitly attack others because too often, "attack" is percevied and subjective. By the standard you've put fourth, neither display can be there, because the atheist group feels the nativity expressly attacks them.Quote:
Can't we just agress that everybody should be FREE to express their beliefs in a manner that doesn't directly or explicitly attack anothers? What ever happened to respect, politeness or or tolerance.
There is middle ground here, and I'm trying to find it. Without that middle ground then we suppress freedom by eliminating all expression; if we accept any and all freedom, then we accept hatred being displayed. Which by the way the Supreme Court does limit first Amendment Rights in the case of obscenity, hatred, fighting words, etc. and in part those subjective determinations are determined by the local community.
One part of your paragraph is correct - if we accept any and all freedom, we accept hatred being displayed. That's why the KKK can post signs, buy billboard space, etc. The limits are imposed on things that are obscene or incite violence. The atheists could not have, for example, posted a sign that says, "Religion sucks, go bomb a church."
You can ask for it all you want, but it is their right to post what they did.Quote:
So community standards have a precendence in limiting the right to free expression. Does the sign overstep the right for those display it, probably not; but it is at the edge of what the community will accept.
Also, in advertising you can go on about your product and how great it is and hope people buy your message and your product. It is very rare that they will attack another product or service that is not fact based or they will get their butt sued for libel or slander. This works pretty well, it keeps things civil.
That's all I'm asking, civility. Self promotion, not attacks.
You have a very warped view of how freedom in this country works.Quote:
I wonder if a group of religious people went to court and sued the makers of the sign for libel over the truthfulness of their statement whether they would win.
That's how freedom works in this country right, you have all you want until you lose your case in court.
Because it was a counter to a question posed of me, which asked what limitations on freedoms I support. You appear to have taken that I asked that question personally (which must be why you replied that you have defended the rights of everyone). The question wasn't posed to you - it was posed to someone who, in my opinion, has a warped view of how rights should and do work in this country.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You can say their feelings are silly, but it doesn't make them any less real. You might think you have no tone of "victim" in your posts; I disagree. See your post #167, page 17. Some highlights: MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone.. Nope. No whining, no dramatics, no playing the victim there at all.Quote:
Do I really have to point out yet again how silly it is for anyone to feel "persecuted" by a manger scene? Offended, OK, but persecuted? Give me a break. Can you really not get that after days of people whining about us wanting to take away rights, non-existent persecution, verses and signs from Christians that don't exist in this display, banning messages on private property and all other manner of nonsense, that my raising the federal holiday issue - in the manner and tone I used - was also to make point about all this whining? Good grief Jillian, there is not one hint of a victim mentality in any of my posts in this thread. I just got fed up with people's drama, telling me I shouldn't be offended and yes, playing the victim.
And I've acknowledged they could have put their message out there more politley, more inviting. It doesn't matter what they could have done; they didn't, and they don't have to. They did what they wanted to do. The sign is subjective - if it wasn't, everyone would be offended, not just the Christians. The governor was not wrong to approve it - if he had, he would be suppressing the rights of the atheists. The language in that sign, though offensive to you, is still protected. And if he had rejected it, just how does that help in "everyone getting what they want"?Quote:
And I'm saying bullsh*t, I do understand the other side, I've acknowledged they can be offended - but I've countered the arguments that there is no positive way to get their beliefs across and they have no symbols, and offered compromises... I'm still waiting for someone to reciprocate. The sign is not subjective, it is an explicit attack on believers, it is not in the spirit of the settlement and the governor was wrong to approve it as submitted. Period. It's about doing what's right, and it would go a long way to everyone getting what they want.
You didn't answer my question. You say the sign is offensive - what should be done about it?
I think 4 people have now posed that question or used that line of thinking. We have not argued for limiting freedoms, we have offered compromise and asked for common sense, courtesy, civility, decorum, decency, respect. You guys act as if that's a bad thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by jillianleab
Who said they weren't real? Being offended is one thing, feeling persecution is another. There is no persecution in this particular nativity scene, to "feel" otherwise is silly. It's a representation of an event - the birth of a special child - accompanied by a sign explaining what it is in a completely non-threatening way and who sponsored it. Let's base this on reality, not "feelings" from things imagined.Quote:
You can say their feelings are silly, but it doesn't make them any less real.
Really, I shouldn't have to explain the difference between actual drama from people feeling threatened by imaginary persecution and playing hardball in return. The fact is Christmas is a federal and state holiday, not winter solstice. They want a holiday, they need to fight for one (which is what I said), but in the mean time I offered compromise and countered every excuse... and all we get is more excuses.Quote:
You might think you have no tone of "victim" in your posts; I disagree. See your post #167, page 17. Some highlights: MY celebration, leave my federal holiday alone, find something else to occupy your time and Have an Epicurus week, but not at Christmas. Find something to coalesce around and have your own thing, but leave ours alone.. Nope. No whining, no dramatics, no playing the victim there at all.
WRONG, and that's what everyone is missing here. Besides the fact that common sense and decency call for government to ensure that any display on state property does not intentionally and explicitly attack another group of its citizens, there was a lawsuit, there was a settlement, and the settlement agreement called for displays to be "consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities." Are you saying an explicit, expressed attack on another meets that requirement?Quote:
And I've acknowledged they could have put their message out there more politley, more inviting. It doesn't matter what they could have done; they didn't, and they don't have to. They did what they wanted to do.
WRONG again, "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds,” is an emphatic declaration. There is nothing subjective, nothing left to the imagination on what they meant, and who it offends is irrelevant to determining whether it's subjective. Next excuse.Quote:
The sign is subjective - if it wasn't, everyone would be offended, not just the Christians.
WRONG again, see the settlement. And again we're back to "suppressing" rights, more drama. And then back to my point, having rights vs. doing what's right.Quote:
The governor was not wrong to approve it - if he had, he would be suppressing the rights of the atheists. The language in that sign, though offensive to you, is still protected.
If I want something from my wife I don't call her a whore. If I want a raise from my boss I don't call him an idiot. Antagonizing and insulting others is not an effective method of change, it leads to the other party digging their heels in deeper... or have you not noticed that in this thread?Quote:
And if he had rejected it, just how does that help in "everyone getting what they want"?
That was answered many times before you asked the question. I offered compromise and I'm still waiting for the other side to reciprocate. What is wrong with finding "middle ground" as TexasParent put it?Quote:
You didn't answer my question. You say the sign is offensive - what should be done about it?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I'm going to offer my couple penny's again, here.
All of those civility and decency things you mention are wonderful things, Steve... They just have NOTHING to do with the law. The law doesn't say anything about "respectful" and "decent". It DOES say stuff about freedom, though.
Freedom is messy. It ISN'T respectful, and it ISN'T decent. Should it be?? I'll leave that to others to decide. You for example. I trust you to know what's not decent. But, you need to trust me for knowing what's not lawful...
You speak about middle ground, and compromise... But, when you're dealing with your RIGHTS, there IS NO middle ground, and there's NO compromise. If a freedom is "compromised" upon, it's no longer a freedom. Compromise, by it's very nature, limits freedom. Something you say you don't want to do.
You don't even have to be tolerant of other's freedoms either. You can argue as loud as you want to about them... But, don't sound so wounded when your very reasonable "compromise" is rejected...
I don't think you're too thrilled with the "compromises" made with the Second Amendment, are you?? No, you're not. So, leave our First Amendment alone. Uhhh OK, it's YOURS too - so stop stomping on it!
Merry Christmas and Happy Chanukah.
Ex
Ex, I've mentioned the legal aspects that are being ignored before:
"that's what everyone is missing here. Besides the fact that common sense and decency call for government to ensure that any display on state property does not intentionally and explicitly attack another group of its citizens, there was a lawsuit, there was a settlement, and the settlement agreement called for displays to be "consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities."
I've also acknowledged rights and said I would defend them so I don't know why anyone is still arguing that with me. I'm not "wounded" and I'm not "stomping" on anything, but I am arguing the difference between rights and doing what's right and reasonable compromise. I do think that is a relevant avenue of discussion instead of everyone just beating each other over the head to get what they. To quote a relevant scripture whether folks are offended or not, "come, let us reason together."
So... if the atheists had, instead of putting up a sign, picketed the nativity scene, causing it to be a "disruptive" display---that would have been better? I'll keep that in mind next time--if someone is putting something I don't like onto public property, I just need to make sure that MY demonstration causes THEIR display to be "disruptive".Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
As far as "consistant with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government"---are you saying that ANY religious display would be "consistent with the INTENT" of state government? NO religious display should be consistent with the intent of ANY government in this country!
And decorum? Which group acted with the least decorum, in your opinion? Not which DISPLAY was more decorous, but which GROUP had more decorum.
[/quote] I've also acknowledged rights and said I would defend them so I don't know why anyone is still arguing that with me. I'm not "wounded" and I'm not "stomping" on anything, but I am arguing the difference between rights and doing what's right and reasonable compromise. I do think that is a relevant avenue of discussion instead of everyone just beating each other over the head to get what they. To quote a relevant scripture whether folks are offended or not, "come, let us reason together."[/QUOTE]
I've offered a reasonable compromise between rights and doing what's right---the compromise of NO ONE getting to promote their holiday on public property. No crosses on city hall, no menorrahs in the state building, no Santa Claus parades down city streets. No winter solstice celebrations in the park. If you want to display your religion, then do it on PRIVATE property.
Because frankly---you're never going to get a "compromise" on what is "deocorous". Obviously, my ideas of it and yours differ. You say the nativity is just the celebration of a special child. Well, aren't ALL children special? In that case, if someone (say--the neo-Nazis) put up a life-size display of the Adolf Hitler family when he was a toddler, would that be in the spirit of the seaon, and "decorous"? And while Yule is a time of celebrating the new year, and the Birth of the Unconquerable Sun, Samhain is a time of rememberance--so what if at Halloween Pagans displayed a picture of a woman burning at the stake with the quote "We Remember" underneath it?
The whole point of the sign in the first place is that there are a LOT of people offended by religious displays in a government building. Whether you like it or not, that sign has AS MUCH RIGHT to be there as the nativity scene or the menorrah--or any of the other dozens of holiday diplays that I hear are popping up there now.
It was NOT an attack on Christianity, contrary to what so many think. If it was an attack at all, it was attacking ALL religions.
Funny that the Christians are the only ones I've heard about that are offended. I have yet to hear from any of my pagan friends anything but "good! maybe they'll finally stop unofficially supporting Christmas as a national holy day!" The one Jew that I know personally hadn't heard about it at all, and when I pointed her to the articles, she came back with "seriously? that sign ticked off THAT many people? I don't get it!". The Christians I know seem split on the subject, and the two Muslims I know just laughed and said "people can say whatever they want--Allah will know what is in their hearts" (I asked them at the same time, as they are married to each other).
MOST of the people I talked to, though, couldn't figure out what the problem was. Seriously--they didn't understand why there was a problem. Everyone got to put up something about their own belief, right? And anyone that had a belief system could apply and display something about it there? So... what's the issue?
This: People are not civil (or generally even rational) on the following subjects:
1. Religion
2. Politics
3. Abortion law
4. Death penalty
5. the War in Iraq
7. Child abuse
8. How other peoples' kids act in public
9. The welfare system and the people who abuse it
10. Teenagers having sex
I'm sure there are dozens more, but those are the subjects that have been banned from my mother-in-law's table. We are absolutely forbidden to speak on those subjects in her kitchen or dining room. She will hit us with a wooden spoon if we even start migrating there from other topics.
So basically--we're never going to agree on this. I accepted that when I got involved in this discussion. Part of this has been, for me anyway, trying to see FROM the point of view of other people on this. I just can't do it. I try and try, and honestly can not see where you're coming from on this.
speechless -
You still don't get it. I'm done trying to explain it to you.
I'm unsubscribing.
Happy Holidays.
Jillian, how typical, another unyielding person telling me I don't get it and taking the brave way out by unsubscribing.
I've demonstrated to EVERY one of you that I DO get it but am asking WHY we can't go BEYOND all the bullsh*t and work things out. It seems apparent that you are not among those who see the value in reasoning together and compromise, which is EXACTLY what the opening statement of the atheist sign allegedly calls for, REASON. And that's the problem here, you guys aren't interested in getting along or compromising so why don't we all quit pretending this is about fairness, equality, sensitivity and rights and admit it's about people that are pi$$ed off about religion and want to eliminate EVERY hint of it in the public square under the guise of tolerance, fairness, mythical constitutional issues - and fear mongering about freedoms. -Merry Christmas.
Synnen, respect for others and their beliefs is consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of government. There is no respect in that sign, and that lack of respect was the catalyst for protest. When someone pokes me in the eye on purpose they shouldn't be surprised if they get a black eye in return. As I said early on, I didn't make a big deal about it until so many of you told me I shouldn't be offended and well, that offends me.
It also offends me that so many of you think we must enforce a mythical separation of church FROM state, and then rebuff all calls for a compromise that could make everyone happy. If y'all don't want to compromise that way fine, but I will fight to my dying breath for my religious rights and to protect the religious heritage of this country, so bring your boots because it's going to get deep. But just so you know, I will work with you if you want to, but I will not go quietly while history is revised and MY rights are swept away.
For those of you who don't get where this discussion has taken us; it's about civility or lack thereof.
Perhaps a new thread should be started?
This person said better than I could:
Quote:
With differences this deep, we are in for a protracted fight. Fortunately, the First Amendment makes it possible to wage the war with words, giving all sides freedom to make their case openly and robustly without government interference.
Of course, there will be winners and losers — we live in a democracy. But how we debate — not only what we debate — matters.
It isn't mandated by the First Amendment, but treating our opponents with civility and respect might enable us to live with one another when the battle is finally over.
¢¢¢
Charles C. Haynes is senior scholar at the First Amendment Center in Washington, D.C. Contact him at [email protected].
Okay, here's the thing.
YOU see the nativity as a peaceful thing, a message of hope and love. You see it as the birth of a "saviour of mankind".
People who belong to religions (or lack or religion) see it as the beginning of a regime of intolerance, torture, and war to bring people over to the side of Christianity. While Christians have done some really great things in the last 2000 years, I don't see a lot of really great things that Christianity has done.
Do you see the separation of the people from the religion there?
So. You're saying it's a harmless picture that promotes love and peace and tolerance. I see that picture as the birth of a child who grew up to preach a religion that then went on to torture, kill, rape, burn, and cause dissent with people of OTHER faiths for several hundred years.
Can you really NOT see how offensive it is to see that supported by a government building?
The sign is offensive to YOU. The nativity if offensive to those NOT of your faith.
You say it's just a picture, I say it's just a sign.
If a little kid peed on the sign, I'd laugh. If a little kid peed on the nativity, you'd be angry. But it's just a picture, right? With no symbolism behind it whatsoever? Since it's just a picture, what people do to it shouldn't bother you, right?
As far as I know, the atheists have been the most "reasonable" about the entire thing. ALL of their rebuttal has been in words.
The Christians have come back with:
1. Signs of their own, mocking the original sign
2. Stealing the sign
3. Defacing the sign
4. Protests
Guess what? MY religion was attacked too! Shouldn't I be offended too, if the sign was that bad? Shouldn't there be more religious groups out there that are upset, if it's THAT bad?
It seems to me that the only people crying "foul!" are the ones that hate the idea of Christianity not being the Grand Poo-bah in this country! The only people truly upset by the sign are the ones that take their religion FAR too seriously! (I might add here---the only ones REALLY upset by the nativity are the ones who take their own religion or lack thereof too seriously).
I'm at the point of wanting to unsubscribe as well, you know. Regardless how you say you want to resolve this in a "reasonable" manner, your viewpoint makes that somewhat impossible. You want the sign taken down, other people want religion to have no part in a government building. Where can you possibly compromise on that?
And I agree with what others have said. Once you start compromising freedoms, you're taking them away. Either everyone has the right to state their belief (or lack thereof) in a government building, or no one does.
As long as it does not threaten harm to any person or group, what difference does it make to you that someone believes that there is no god, or believes in invisible pink unicorns, or believes in a goddess, or believes in the Flying Speghetti Monster? Where is that hurting YOU?
Sigh…
This is exactly what I meant by my last post to Jillian, some people are pi$$ed off at religion – specifically Christianity – and want it eliminated from the public square, and if one believes the atheist sign I'd say they want it eliminated entirely. “There is NO god,” religion “enslaves minds and hardens hearts” and is therefore evil. There is no room in their world for the millions of believers everywhere who have never tortured, maimed and killed in the name of their God but instead have preached and lived – however imperfectly – a message of love, hope and peace. And proof of the evils of religion is a minority of idiots that stole and defaced the atheist sign. I asked once before, do we have proof that whoever did this was indeed a Christian, or are we convicting them on an assumption?
Meanwhile, these good atheists have been nothing but paragons of virtue. That is of course ignoring the fact that they attacked us to begin with, which as the last few elections have shown is the standard M.O. of the left, attack then feign innocence.
For what seems like the thousandth time, I acknowledge the nativity scene offends some, but it doesn't attack and it doesn't persecute. The sign explicitly attacks, and that is the difference you can't seem to bring yourself to acknowledge. BOTH can be taken as an offense, only one literally attacks, and that's wrong no matter how you slice it.
Why on earth would I get upset if a child innocently peed on the baby Jesus? If he was provoked into doing so it would be a different story, but my anger would be toward the one using a child in such an offensive way. What kind of a person do you really think I am, Synnen?
It's not about Christians thinking Christianty should be “the Grand Poo-bah in this country.” I had enough of that nonsense with all the fear mongering over Bush, abetted by the right-wing evangelical neocons, allegedly establishing his theocracy. But the fact is a majority of Americans still consider themselves Christian, and as far as I know it's always been that way…it didn't happen overnight. And that's the other thing I've been getting at, God was never banned from government in this country, government was banned from establishing a state religion. Displaying a nativity scene, the Ten Commandments, generic “in God we trust” or “under God” is not establishing a state religion. All religions are still free to practice their faith or no faith, and we aren't trying to change that – because our freedom to do so hinges on YOUR freedom to do so.
You find these things offensive and I understand that, but does it hamper your ability to be happy, prosper and practice your faith? The Stones were right, we can't always get what we want, but that doesn't mean we can't find a way to get along and it's certainly no excuse to interpret the constitution to mean something it doesn't, revise history, refuse to acknowledge the religious heritage of this country and just deal with it. Religious symbolism in government has been a part of this country for ages, (and not all of it Christian) so why should that change? I don't think it should, but it should be civil, respectful and in good taste. I don't see how anyone comparing that nativity scene or any of these examples can say the sign fits that description, and that's the point. Put up a sign, but don't tell me it's endangering freedoms to request that it be appropriate.
I don't recall ever hinting that it did and said I would defend your rights, so I find this irrelevant. I just asked for respect.Quote:
what difference does it make to you that someone believes that there is no god, or believes in invisible pink unicorns, or believes in a goddess, or believes in the Flying Speghetti Monster? Where is that hurting YOU?
If people continue to insult theach other over their different opinions, how long will it take for the debate to reduce itself to: "F You", "No, F YOU","F you and yo mama","Nobody talks about my momma; BANG!!!"
Civility and respect allow us to share our opinions, to practice freedom; without it who the hell would listen?
I'm going to take a slightly different approach, one that doesn't attempt to deal with legality.
Speaking as a Christian, maybe the fact that the atheists put their sign right next to the Nativity scene is not such a bad thing after all.
What better than a side by side comparison of the beliefs?
The Nativity scene reminds us of the love of God, expressed in His Son who came for the express purpose to be the final sacrifice for sin, and in the process, give us the teaching and the power to live happy, productive lives on earth and give us entrance to Heaven.
On the other hand, the sign is simply an empty rant against anything of faith; is totally negative; offers no hope in this life or beyond.
Comparison can be a good thing.
Oh stop making sense Gal. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
I don't disagree with that thought, but that's not where it will end if we don't take a stand.
Your words.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Does the Atheist sign hamper YOUR ability to be happy, prosper, and practice your faith?
I agree with you on your take about the atheist sign; I doubt people will be attracted to that message in droves. It may even help your cause. I still don't agree with attacking others beliefs in this instance; but you've made an excellent point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Galveston1
Nope, but is that the only thing you got out of my response? Sure I can be fine with it there, now your turn to answer. Regardless, it doesn't make it any less of an attack, any less wrong, any less inappropriate, any less civil, any more respectful or any more conducive to solving the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
I still haven't seen a solution other than banning ALL beliefs from public property.
Well, I haven't seen a solution that isn't taking away freedoms.
I refuse to compromise on my First Amendment rights. The Patriot Act has already stripped away many "rights" of the individual in this country, and I absolutely refuse to lose more just because a few people were offended by a sign that disagreed with their religion.
So... WHAT compromise? WHAT solution?
MY solution is to ban ALL religious references from government. You don't like that, because currently the government, while not "supporting" your religion, at least favors it.
YOUR solution is to take away first amendment rights. I absolutely and unequivically refuse to go along with that.
So---we're at an impass, because I can't come up with anything else, and neither, it seems, can you.
LOL, have you not read what I've said? Why do you insist that I am for infringing on your rights when I have said unequivocally that I'm not? That's one reason we never get anywhere, at least three people have said I want to take away rights in spite of all evidence to the contrary including flat out saying I would defend your rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
What's funny here is that the crowd (in general) defending this sign is the same crowd that supports political correctness, hate speech laws and has no problem unfairly enforcing diversity policies and restricting the use of student fees for conservative speakers and Republican groups on college campuses. Tolerance, free speech, fairness and civility have their limits when it comes to people like Christians and conservatives.
Like it or not, the courts have long upheld that the government may regulate the time, place, and manner - but not the content - of expression. Even though the sign is not in the spirit of the settlement in my opinion, I'm not even asking in this case for government to regulate anything, I'm asking for the groups to regulate themselves and show respect. I ask again, what's wrong with that?
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
There's nothing wrong with that.
But, if it was just "asking", you wouldn't complain when you didn't get it. Yet, you DO complain.
Plus, as long as you're using the public arena for YOUR message, you should absolutely expect other messages that you vehemently HATE. And, frankly, I think you should keep quite about them too.
Asking someone in THAT context, to be polite and respectful is MISSING the point of their display and/or the First Amendment in the first place. Even though YOUR intent may be warm and cozy, THEIR intent may be to inflame and incite.
THAT message, in the context of a free society, while mean spirited, is GOOD for us.
excon
The RIGHT is good for us, intentionally attacking each other for the hell of it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
We agree. I knew we would.
excon
Actually, no.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
I think political correctness has gone too far, personally. Call a spade a spade, but quit making high schools with the team names "the Injuns" have to change it.
Hate speech laws? I guess I kind of support that. I think that as long as no PHYSICAL harm comes of someone saying something, then people can say whatever the hell they want.
I work in a registar's office. It's my JOB to make sure diversity policies are evenly enforced. As far as student fees go--at the college *I* work at, a student senate was created mostly so that the STUDENTS would have a say in what kind of speakers to have. I also worked at a major state university several years ago, and one of the speakers that school had was Ron Jeremy. I wouldn't exactly call that "conservative"
Tolerance is really, to me, allowing people to be who they are as long as it does not infringe on someone else. I don't care if someone prays over their lunch as long as they do not bully me into praying with them. I don't care if someone feels the need to throw salt over their shoulder when they spill it as long as they don't expect ME to do the same. That is tolerance---allowing someone to have their culture and beliefs without ostracizing them because of those beliefs. But it's ALSO not forcing anyone ELSE to go along with those beliefs.
Free Speech--as long as it's not hurting anyone, say what you like. Don't go yelling "bomb" in an airport or "fire" in a movie theatre, because that COULD hurt people. But don't stop idiots from telling people that they're going to hell if they don't repent because the end of the world is coming, or people ranting on the corner that there are UFOs and the government is lying to us. I believe that the media has an obligation to print the truth to the public, but I also know that the truth is subjective. Since the "child test" has been brought up before--let's go back to when we were 5: "Sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me!" If you don't like what someone has to say, then either argue with them, ignore them, or get your own message out there. Just remember that your message reflects on YOU, not on the people receiving that message.
Fairness and civility are somewhat more subjective. Is it "fair" that "In God We Trust" is on our money when a good portion (not the majority, but still a good portion) of the country doesn't believe in a God? How would you feel if everything started being printed in Spanish, because the "majority" of the country speaks Spanish? Would you find that "fair?
As far as civility goes---there are millions of ways to insult someone while sounding polite. I do it all the time, and people for the most part don't even catch it. The thought that goes around and around in my head is that the worst wars in history have been "civil" wars. We shouldn't HAVE to be nice all the time.
But let's say we DO decide everyone has to be nice. Define "nice". Define "civil". Tell me how a sign that says "Jesus is Lord!" is any MORE civil than "Religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds". Tell me how "Abortion is MURDER! Choose adoption!" is more civil than "Pregnant? Scared? Let us help you!" Tell me how protesting outside of an abortion clinic is MORE civil than volunteering at a pregnancy crisis center?
People choose to be less civil ALL THE TIME when they feel strongly about something and want to make a point.
Would you be "civil" about Planned Parenthood going to a local high school in your area? Or would you raise holy hell about it? If someone wanted to talk about the medical benefits of birth control at a local junior high, do you think that parents would be "civil" about it, or would they raise hell?
It's all pretty subjective, wouldn't you say?
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:11 PM. |