We were never in disagreement on that, ex, but a little self-regulation can be a good thing. Apparently, many who would support this atheist sign agree. I don't remember anyone coming to such a vigorous defense of Michael Richards, or Isaiah Washington when he lost his job for exercising his free speech rights. Rush Limbaugh certainly caught hell for exercising his free speech rights concerning Donovan McNabb. Who among you rushed to the defense of Lawrence Summers in the wake of the no-confidence vote among Harvard staff over him exercising his free speech rights?

And that's the thing, many of the people who would defend the right of these atheists to display that sign right where it is with no repercussions DO support limits on speech and/or some punishment or penalty for crossing some arbitrary line.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

many of the people who would defend the right of these atheists to display that sign right where it is with no repercussions DO support limits on speech and/or some punishment or penalty for crossing some arbitrary line.

---

Hello again, Steve:

Many Schmany... I'm a free speech purist. Most of your antagonists are too. I try not to lump you in with those right wingers who want the public arena for themselves alone...

The REAL point is that we agree; that if the public arena is going to be used by one group, it may be used by another... We also agree that they should be nice to each other, but it's not legally required.

I think that's pretty good, no?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I think that's pretty good, no?

---

Yep, we agree and that's good. I just maintain that intentionally attacking each other for the hell of it is not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Yep, we agree and that's good. I just maintain that intentionally attacking each other for the hell of it is not good.

---

So attacking women's choices in their reproductive health "for the hell of it" by screaming at them that they are murderers and trying to stop them from getting medical help for their choice at an abortion clinic should be stopped too?

What about protesting Gay Pride parades? Those are people speaking out "for the hell of it" with negative messages against someone else's lifestyle choice and beliefs!

How about people who, "for the hell of it", protest the War in Iraq by having marches with signs that state negative messages about our government and its politicians? Should they be stopped?

So... just because you believe something strongly, you can't say ANYTHING bad about the people who believe differently from you, or it's an "attack" or a "hate message"? Or is promoting your belief when it's just a sign at Christmas somehow different than promoting your belief that life begins at conception and not when a child is viable outside the womb? Is stating that you think people are "bad" for having religion somehow different than stating that they're "bad" for having a sexual relationship with the same gender? Is protesting via a sign in a capitol building somehow different than protesting carrying a sign in a march in Washington, DC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

So attacking women's choices in their reproductive health "for the hell of it" by screaming at them that they are murderers and trying to stop them from getting medical help for their choice at an abortion clinic should be stopped too?

What about protesting Gay Pride parades? Those are people speaking out "for the hell of it" with negative messages against someone else's lifestyle choice and beliefs!

How about people who, "for the hell of it", protest the War in Iraq by having marches with signs that state negative messages about our government and its politicians? Should they be stopped?

So...just because you believe something strongly, you can't say ANYTHING bad about the people who believe differently from you, or it's an "attack" or a "hate message"? Or is promoting your belief when it's just a sign at Christmas somehow different than promoting your belief that life begins at conception and not when a child is viable outside the womb? Is stating that you think people are "bad" for having religion somehow different than stating that they're "bad" for having a sexual relationship with the same gender? Is protesting via a sign in a capitol building somehow different than protesting carrying a sign in a march in Washington, DC?

---

I had something nice about how much we actually agree but this showed up before I got it posted. I guess you still haven't accepted that I support the first amendment in spite of all the times I've come right out and said so, or that I'm not trying to BAN anything. I certainly don't mind calling a politician an idiot when it applies, calling Fred Phelps and his bunch the bigots and fools they are or calling Planned Parenthood a blight on society based on experience and known behavior. I just don't believe intentionally attacking others FOR NO GOOD REASON is a good thing.

THAT is what you're not seeing!

It's NOT for "no good reason".

It's a deliberate statement about how religion has "enslaved minds and hardened hearts"--based on what the society who put up the sign has dealt with---based on experience and known behaviour.

JUST like your "offensive words" about Planned Parenthood. EXACTLY like that. The people who put up the sign weren't just being bullies on the playground and beating up whoever came around first. They were putting up a sign that dealt with their experiences with ALL religion, and with the known behaviour of religious people towards their lack of unbelief and toward society in general--from THEIR point of view.

THAT was the one thing you didn't get through this entire conversation: The sign was not "attacking" religion "for the hell of it".

The sign was a statement of belief about religions in general, based on past experience and known behaviour.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

I had something nice about how much we actually agree but this showed up before I got it posted. I guess you still haven't accepted that I support the first amendment in spite of all the times I've come right out and said so, or that I'm not trying to BAN anything. I certainly don't mind calling a politician an idiot when it applies, calling Fred Phelps and his bunch the bigots and fools they are or calling Planned Parenthood a blight on society based on experience and known behavior. I just don't believe intentionally attacking others FOR NO GOOD REASON is a good thing.

---

I'm done with this thread, while I haven't stated it as well as speechlessTX throughout these posts; I too support First Amendment Rights fully. However, let's just say I am a passionate advocate of civility and while civility will rarely if ever trump rights, I don't think it's too much to ask for people to at least consider it when trying to advance their ideas. Without it we risk a more hateful, rude, and inconsiderate society; and frankly we are already going down that road in many respects and I for one mourn the loss of consideration of others in these more self-absorbed times.

But you ARE trying to take away first amendment rights!

If you HAVE to be civil when you are exercising your freedom of speech, every last one of the examples I gave would be stopped.

There would be no more "Planned Parenthood is a blight!", but rather "Planned Parenthood is just not as good as your family doctor" Oh wait, that wouldn't work either, because that makes it sound like one choice is BETTER than another. How about "Planned Parenthood does not hold the same ideals that I do." Is that bland enough not to be offensive to anyone?

Now substitute the word religion for Planned Parenthood above.

Why is ONE protected by free speech, in your opinion, and the other not? Why can you say "Planned Parenthood is a blight" even though others disagree with you, but NOT say that "religion hardens hearts"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

THAT was the one thing you didn't get through this entire conversation: The sign was not "attacking" religion "for the hell of it".

The sign was a statement of belief about religions in general, based on past experience and known behaviour.

---

OK... I'm back to debate this... lol. The statement is a lie, it's like an old boyfriend putting a sign outside your home on public property and saying "Synnen is a whore".

How can an atheist who doesn't practice religion have past experience with religion; and what is this known behavior? If they did practice religion as it exists TODAY, they could choose to see the millions of people in religions who devote time, money and love to helping others. Whose selfishness mind has been set free by their religion and transformed them into people who's minds and hearts are no longer hardened by the lack of faith and selfishness, but who are now full of purpose and charity.

I am not a Christian and I too had hateful and negative views towards religion many years ago based on my atheist bias. However over time and actually knowing people of many faiths and attending differents services with my friends I learned firsthand what the true nature of religion today is; and also chose to see things in a positive light.

Anyway, if a sign like the one I suggested above was posted near your home; I am sure you would be in court pretty darn quick to have it removed and not so quick to protect your old boyfriends First Amendment Rights.

I think that's what offends Christian's in particular and myself about the sign on the capital is that it is a lie; and there should be a remedy from people posting lies about another group.

Is it too much to ask for others to learn more about others and at the very lest find some tolerance and respect while still advancing their own views.

It is NOT a "lie".

It's an opinion.

There's a HUGE difference.

It's like the statement "Jesus is Lord!" Not offensive, but to me it's a "lie".

You can't PROVE a religion's beliefs. Faith is a big part of any religion--you have FAITH that it is true, you can't PROVE that it is true.

There is no proof either direction.

Your example is something that could be taken as "slander". My ex doesn't have PROOF that I'm a whore, and if he DID, then his sign would stand in a court of law.

I know plenty of people who refuse to tolerate or accept others because of their religion. The people calling women "murderer" outside of an abortion clinic. That's not a "truth", that's an opinion. There is no PROOF as to when life begins, so each side has their own take on it. There is not PROOF that being gay is something that is evil (sorry.. can't accept the Bible as "truth" or "proof" here, because I don't believe the Bible), yet gays are refused basic rights (like that of marriage) because of it. They're called horrid names and for years were discriminated against by "good" religious people. There is no PROOF that Planned Parenthood is a blight, yet I doubt that they're going to sue the pants off SpeechlessTX for saying it.

People are allowed their opinions. I still see several people that seem to be blind to the ideas in their religion (like "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others") until THEY want something out of it.

I know there are a lot of good religious people out there. I also know there are as many bad religious people out there. Think of the atrocities that, even today, are done in the name of religion. Do you honestly think there would be a war between Palestine and Isreal if there were not religious differences? Do you truly think that if all people were religious and followed the "rules" of religion that we'd get along?

I don't think so. I think that too many religions feel the need to "convert" people, or to have people live by THEIR rules.

Stating that "Synnen is a whore" isn't a very good example. It attacks me personally, and is something that can be proven (i.e. he'd have to bring forward witnesses to the effect that I took money or drugs for sex).

Stating "Planned Parenthood is a blight" is a better example---because I can find people on BOTH sides of that issue who would disagree with each other. People with strong opinions both ways---just as with the sign. You can't PROVE to me that all religious people have soft hearts and open minds--I'd disagree with you all the way. Just as you disagree that religion hardens hearts and enslaves minds.

There have been examples BOTH directions on this.

The best thing I can think of to compare this to really is the abortion issue. Some people put up a sign with a really cute baby that says "Where is MY choice?" and other people put up a sign that has a successful young woman that states "You have a choice in your reproductive rights". Which one attacks? Which one is NOT an opinion? Which one is offensive? To whom is it offensive?

Depending on which side of the fence you stand on, EITHER sign could be offensive.

But either way---NEITHER sign is a lie.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Synnen

The sign was a statement of belief about religions in general, based on past experience and known behaviour.

---

LOL…I really am trying to find common ground here, Synnen. I do see that, I've acknowledged that, so let me again be more specific. While I have the right and exercise that right to criticize Planned Parenthood, I don't apply to post it on government property out of spite. I may call Harry Reid an idiot but I'm not going to seek to post a display at the Capital. I detest Fred Phelps and call him what he is, but I'm not going to seek permission to put it on a sign at the Kansas governor's office. I might consider atheists fools, but I would never intentionally attack them as they did us. And – as stated early on in this discussion – either they lied or this was not about “a statement of belief about religions in general, based on past experience and known behaviour.” Their stated reason for the display was they just wanted “a place at the table.” So yeah, the attack was indeed just for the hell of it.

Damn Christians!!

SCIENTISTS have warned that Christmas lights are bad for the planet due to huge electricity waste and urged people to get energy efficient festive bulbs.

CSIRO researchers said householders should know that each bulb turned on in the name of Christmas will increase emissions of greenhouse gases.

Scientists warn Christmas lights harm the planet | The Courier-Mail

I guess it's a good thing I've only put out a small fiber optic tree the last two years then, huh? Just doing my part for the environment (or taking the easy way out).

(I) have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round--apart from the veneration due to its sacred name and origin, if anything belonging to it can be apart from that--as a good time: a kind, forgiving, charitable, pleasant time: the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.
('A Christmas Carol 'Charles D*ckens)... note administration... you got to work on this automatic editing program . I shouldn't have to alter this authors name

Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit, our best wishes for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible, low stress, non-addictive, gender neutral celebration of the winter solstice holiday, practiced within the most enjoyable traditions of the religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your choice, with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and/or traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or secular traditions at all.

In addition, please also accept our best wishes for a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling and medically uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped make this country great (not to imply that this country is necessarily greater than any other country or area of choice), and without regard to the race, creed, color, age, physical ability, religious faith or sexual orientation of the wishers.

This wish is limited to the customary and usual good tidings for a period of one year, or until the issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first. "Holiday" is not intended to, nor shall it be considered, limited to the usual Judeo-Christian celebrations or observances, or to such activities of any organized or ad hoc religious community, group, individual or belief (or lack thereof).

Note: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal, and is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher at any time, for any reason or for no reason at all. This greeting is freely transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. This greeting implies no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for the wisher her/himself or others, or responsibility for the consequences which may arise from the implementation or non- implementation of it.

This greeting is void where prohibited by law.
(HT I'm Gina Smith: Non-offensive Christmas greetings. (from the woz list.))

Well tom, that about covers it. I wish everyone that - and world peace. Topic closed.

P.S. I guess you'd have to use his full name, Charles Richardens.

Hello again, tom:

It's not surprising that you missed the thrust of my post...

You poor, poor Christians... I feel very sorry for you. Somebody is making you write the above bunk... But, it's not ME. It's not your GOVERNMENT. It's not the CONSTITUTION. It's simply YOU, and all your Christian brethren feeling persecuted, and want to play the guilt card...

Now, if that ain't funny...

excon

Ex, I don't know who actually wrote that but it could have been anyone, not necessarily a Christian. I'd put that more in the category of satire than feeling persecuted and wanting to play the guilt card. Sometimes you guys act as if we don't have a sense of humor.

It's the Italian in me.

ITALIAN-AMERICANS STILL FAIR GAME FOR CHEAP LAUGHS - New York Post

Hello again, Steve:

I got it. I understand satire. It only works if there is SOME relationship to the truth.

The TRUTH in the letter is that you poor poor Christians can't put your stuff in the public square WITHOUT problems. I guess you think that you should be able to, because you are the dominant religion.

Because you CAN'T do that, you take the guilt route... The above satire is based upon ALL the things you CAN'T do in the public square... But, you make it sound like you are prevented from doing those things in your private life AWAY from the public square...

Of course, nobody is preventing you from your religion and your celebrations... If you think WE are, (and the satire indicates you DO), then you're not going get any sympathy from me... Cause you're making up the whole thing.

excon

Ex, that was a comment on political correctness, not rights. And there is certainly truth in it.

Let me just add a Happy Merry Christmakwanzafestika to all.

On this Christmas Eve, I would like to wish my fellow posters a Merry Christmas. I hope everyone has a Christmas filled with the love of family and friends and safe passage in your travels.

To the Christian posters in particular, I hope you find joy in the celebration of your Lord and Savior's birth.

Merry Christmas

Right back at you, TexasParent, and thanks for standing tall in this discussion.