 |
Hello again:
I find it SO interesting that this discussion takes all these twists and turns...
So, whether the state can display such things is now, NOT a matter of what's religious, but, what's offensive - and the offensive stuff ain't allowed.
Uhhhh. What?
excon
A "Holiday Tree" - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions
A Menorah - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions
A nativity Scene - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions
A sign saying there is no God and religion "enslaves minds" - A symbol representing one group's beliefs/opinions
One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I tried to get the color GREEN off the offensive list, but I couldn't even get it out of this forum, never mind subjecting to a larger vote.
Well, if offensive is the criteria then we had better remove all the statues and memorials from public squares, grounds, buildings as I am sure there is someone, somewhere, who is offended by them.
So let it be written that there will be no display of any kind on public funded grounds. This includes statues, plaques, art of any nature, religious symbols, etc. Any landscapping features that resemble anything outside of nature or can be interpreted as symbol will be promptly re-arranged to remove said similarity to such symbol. Trees that grow looking like a symbol will be promptly re-located to a private institution.
Note: Due to a individual request we are currently reviewing whether flower gardens will be allowed on public property because this individual wants to save "pretty" in public places. Anyone who finds flower gardens offensive may contact us in writing, once we recieve the first such letter, flower gardens will not be allowed in public places.
Yeah---the holiday tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
That's the only one that actually combines the traditions of SEVERAL religions into one symbol.
The rest are the beliefs of a specific belief system.
If you find the sign offensive and think it should be removed. What's next?
Should I not be allowed to preach about the ills of religion in a public park?
Should we not be allowed to teach children about the Spanish inquisition because it paints religion in a bad light?
Should stories about priests that molest children be squashed because they paint religion in a bad light?
Should we start separating children of different religions so your children don't learn new ideas?
Should we start rounding up the adults of different religions and put them in some sort of camp?
Oh wait Catholics tried this one already and ended up killing 6 million Jews.
Maybe we should draw the line somewhere before that.
Bottom line is that Christians find lots of stuff offensive and what's great about living in the USA is that they have to put up with it in public places.
If you don't want to put up with it you are more than within your right to go buy lots of private land and only allow the faithful on it.
Be thankful I haven't knocked on your door at 9am on a Saturday to tell you how great it is to shed your stone age believes.
Michaelb, quite the dramatic presentation, but this is about government endorsing an explicit, anti-religious attack on state property. You're free to insult whoever you like, but it isn't the government's place to endorse such an attack and display for it all to see and it violates the settlement that such displays be ""consistent with the intent and decorum of the seat of state government and the appropriate, non-disruptive use of public facilities." Next year I think I'll apply to display a sign saying, "At this season of the winter solstice, atheists can kiss my a$$" and see how that goes over.
You might get it approved if you replace the word "a$$" with a statue type donkey and simply have an arrow pointing to the cute donkey in place of the offending word... ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Something like this?
Put the virgin Mary on the donkey and see what happens with it.
The Mexican edition of Playboy is already trying a similar angle. I like this lady's idea better, try displaying a naked Mohammed with a 12 year old virgin instead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Synnen
Nice :DQuote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Isn't the message the scene with the manger is trying to depict that the state is Christian and if you don't believe your going to be tortured in a pit of fire for all eternity without even death as a release and we Christians feel that punishment is completely justified. Frankly only being told kiss someone's donkey, I personally feel that it would be an improvement over your current message. So I'd rather see your sign than the normal displays.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
If I had to bet money I'd say the Atheist's sign would still be stolen first even if your sign was right next to it.
I also didn't see anything explicit in the sign, anti-religious yes but if your going to allow pro something on public grounds you have to allow anti something or nothing at all.
Also the sign wasn't disruptive it was the Christian who protested that were disruptive. Calling the sign disruptive and saying it can't be there would be like saying Martin Luther King couldn't speak because the protesters were being disrupting. You basically crush free speech with this logic.
This is a very bad slope Christian are walking along. I hope there are enough people of reason to keep you out of the hole your digging.
It also isn't reasonable to justify your own bad actions by someone else's worse reaction. Which is what your doing by constantly bringing up Muslims.
It would be like if I smacked you for being dumb and then said it's okay because if you were dumb in front of this other guy he would have killed you. The world doesn't work that way.
No, and this has been argued to death here already. Only one thing here is an explicit, not to mention verbal, insult and it's the atheist sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
I guess it's just believers that shouldn't be insulted when they're insulted. It's beyond me how anyone reasonable person can think telling people of faith emphatically that their religion "is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" isn't an explicit insult.Quote:
I also didn't see anything explicit in the sign, anti-religious yes but if your going to allow pro something on public grounds you have to allow anti something or nothing at all.
The Christians weren't a part of the display, THEY were exercising the first amendment rights you keep defending, protesting a government endorsed attack. You're missing the boat here michaelb, no one is trying to prevent free speech. In fact I said you're free to insult whoever you like, our government is not free to allow attacks on one particular group.Quote:
Also the sign wasn't disruptive it was the Christian who protested that were disruptive. Calling the sign disruptive and saying it can't be there would be like saying Martin Luther King couldn't speak because the protesters were being disrupting. You basically crush free speech with this logic.
You really should read the rest of the posts, I defended the atheists right to have a display as well, just make it appropriate.Quote:
This is a very bad slope Christian are walking along. I hope there are enough people of reason to keep you out of the hole your digging.
I'm still of the opinion that a non-partial group needs to make the decision as to what's "appropriate".
Personally, I still think that we should get rid of ALL Federal, State, and local public displays of religious ANYTHING.
No signs, no nativities, no angels, no menorrahs, no pentacles (because yeah... THAT has ever happened), no whatever. The ONLY place for a religious symbol on public ground is on a gravestone.
You want to get REALLY picky about this? Technically roads and the area near roads, especially the highway systems, is public property. No more roadside memorials with crosses or Stars of David, or Pentacles or words to the effect of "God has taken my child to Heaven because of a drunk driver!". NOTHING religious. Period.
THAT would be the only fair way to make sure that no one is offended by anyone else's religious display.
First there was nothing explicit about the sign not a single thing on there would be considered explicit by the FCC. So since you feel the atheist sign is insulting it shouldn't be displayed with what I feel is a more offensive display that calls for my torture for eternity. Your right though the atheist sign but it into words while the Christian display only explicitly implies it.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
You can be insulted and you can choose not to read the sign you can choose to avoid the area with the sign. You can choose not allow anyone to display something on state property. You can not though pick what insults you and suppress what you don't like.Quote:
I guess it's just believers that shouldn't be insulted when they're insulted. It's beyond me how anyone reasonable person can think telling people of faith emphatically that their religion "is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" isn't an explicit insult.
Exactly the sign its self isn't disruptive as you claim. It was the protesters that were disruptive. If being allowed to put a display on government property is considered and endorsement than all religions symbols need to leave government property right away because that is a big no no in the USA.Quote:
The Christians weren't a part of the display, THEY were exercising the first amendment rights you keep defending, protesting a government endorsed attack. You're missing the boat here michaelb, no one is trying to prevent free speech. In fact I said you're free to insult whoever you like, our government is not free to allow attacks on one particular group.
How exactly can you can you put an atheist message out there that won't offend fanatical Christians. I maintain you can't. So why try they aren't the target for the message anyway. In fact your playing right into the hands of the sign maker because if you get this upset over a sign your crazy and people on the fence will see that.Quote:
You really should read the rest of the posts, I defended the atheists right to have a display as well, just make it appropriate.
As if I’m really going to do something like that. There’s a point in there if you think about it, and it’s nowhere near your example. Plus, I don’t recall ever “constantly bringing up Muslims.”Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
explicit - 1 a: fully revealed or expressed without vagueness, implication, or ambiguity : leaving no question as to meaning or intentQuote:
Originally Posted by michealb
“Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." That's explicit, and it has nothing to do with the FCC.
Why? Let’s add a display of “explicit” child pornography, can we do that? Let’s put up a sign that says “Jews are pigs,” can we do that?Quote:
You can be insulted and you can choose not to read the sign you can choose to avoid the area with the sign. You can choose not allow anyone to display something on state property. You can not though pick what insults you and suppress what you don't like.
Goodness, what part of explicitly insulting, antagonizing and condemning millions of believers is not disruptive? The protestors responded to the disruption, and rightfully so.Quote:
Exactly the sign its self isn't disruptive as you claim. It was the protesters that were disruptive. If being allowed to put a display on government property is considered and endorsement than all religions symbols need to leave government property right away because that is a big no no in the USA.
First of all, I’m neither “crazy” nor “fanatical.” In fact if you’ll do as I suggested and read the entire thread you’ll see I wasn’t angry about it until so many of you kept insisting I shouldn’t angry. And yes, some people will never be happy with an atheist display, but there are such things as good taste, common sense, appropriateness, civility, respect…the atheist sign meets holds none of those qualities.Quote:
How exactly can you can you put an atheist message out there that won't offend fanatical Christians. I maintain you can't. So why try they aren't the target for the message anyway. In fact your playing right into the hands of the sign maker because if you get this upset over a sign your crazy and people on the fence will see that.
Okay---so let's put up a Swastika.
That's a SYMBOL. It doesn't come out and say anything. It's definitely NOT explicit.
Think people will still be offended? You bet your boots. Does it have the SAME standing to some people as a Nativity? Absolutely.
The sign was NO MORE offensive than the nativity. It's all depending on what side of the fence you're standing on as to whether a pretty scene with an age-old message has AS MUCH weight as the words written on the sign.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:01 PM. |