Atheist sign displayed in Washington State Capitol, conservatives shit themselves

[Ace Rockola]

http://www.wnct.com/nct/lifestyles/faith_values/article/state_capitol_to_display_tree_manger_atheist_sign/24988/
OLYMPIA, Wash. (AP) - The holiday tree in the Washington state Capitol this year will be joined by a Christian nativity scene and an atheistic billboard.
The Capitol has had a holiday tree for 19 years.
In 2006, it was joined by a menorah sponsored by a Seattle Jewish group for Hanukkah.
That prompted a local man to sue the state to allow the nativity scene depicting Jesus’ birth.
There have been no requests for a menorah display this year.
But a new addition will be a sign sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation celebrating the winter solstice. The foundation says it will declare, in part, “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell,“ and, “Religion is but myth and superstition.“I was listening to the local Portland conservative talk show host today, and he was fired up about this sign today. He called it state sponsored Atheism, but the Freedom from Religion Foundation got all the correct permits, and legally are in no violation of the law.

Basically, I think it's a freedom of speech issue, and thanks to the first amendment, they are allowed to do this. I forget who has this quote in their sig, but freedom of speech protects the speech you hate, not the speech you love. Or something along those lines.

What are your opinions?

[riseabove!]

I'm an atheist, I do not believe in an omniscient being who is in control of every aspect of this universe. I find it ridiculous that the FRF would do this just to stir up shit. I understand about equality and freedom of speech and being a politically correct douche-ass country and all that, but what the fuck.

This is the kinda shit that makes atheists look like dickheads.

[Face]

I'm an apatheist, everyone else should be to

[freegood]

That's some spiteful shit right there. They have real high standards...

[DjAg]

I'm an atheist, I do not believe in an omniscient being who is in control of every aspect of this universe. I find it ridiculous that the FRF would do this just to stir up shit. I understand about equality and freedom of speech and being a politically correct douche-ass country and all that, but what the fuck.

This is the kinda shit that makes atheists look like dickheads.

I agree... Being an agnostic, the only thing I worry about is not giving a shit, but show some respect to those around me. Making a statement is one thing, purposefully throwing shit at the fan is another.

[Billy]

Who the fuck cares? Since when do we censor a group lawfully expressing their religious views just because another religious group is full of whiny cunts?

[Bizz]

Who the fuck cares? Since when do we censor a group lawfully expressing their religious views just because another religious group is full of whiny cunts?

Since always.

[freegood]

Who the fuck cares? Since when do we censor a group lawfully expressing their religious views just because another religious group is full of whiny cunts?

The government isn't censoring Freedom from Religion Foundation. As long as those whiny cunts aren't pressing the government to take it down, they too can say whatever they want.

And what do you mean who the fuck cares? The FRF cares enough. If they weren't butthurt from God and Christians oppressing them, they wouldn't have to pull this stunt.

[DjAg]

Who the fuck cares? Since when do we censor a group lawfully expressing their religious views just because another religious group is full of whiny cunts?

I agree with you far more than you may think, and a few years ago I would be very vocal about that... However, there is such a thing called tact. I agree that it is bullshit to look at this negatively, but when it comes down to it, more vocal Americans will take offense to this situation than not. Go ahead and make a statement, but make sure you stay classy in that statement, rather than being counter-intuitive by making everyone think you're just a bunch of idiot douche-bags trying to stir shit up.

[taters]

I love the hypocrisy of some uber religious people (right and left).

They yell and cry about not having their beliefs respected when they have to take down their commandments or religious idols...er...I mean 'Symbols", then bitch when non christians (athiest, muslims, jews, buddists) are given the same priviledges they claim to want.

I guess they should be the ONLY group to get special (tax free) and publically preferential (and subservient) treatment.

The funny thing is, I guarentee if you gave them what they wanted, they would start fighting each other over whos belief gets specifically acknowledged (Baptist, Methodist, Right wing Episcopal, Mormon, Methodist, or Catholic). Just like the way things used to be.

[Billy]

I agree with you far more than you may think, and a few years ago I would be very vocal about that... However, there is such a thing called tact. I agree that it is bullshit to look at this negatively, but when it comes down to it, more vocal Americans will take offense to this situation than not. Go ahead and make a statement, but make sure you stay classy in that statement, rather than being counter-intuitive by making everyone think you're just a bunch of idiot douche-bags trying to stir shit up.
I'm not saying that I would have done what they did, it did lack tact and doesn't help their case. I'm saying that from an outsider's perspective complaining about the signs seems even more ridiculous and insulting. Censoring/silencing opposing viewpoints is a part of expanding religion though, so I understand why they do it.

[DjAg]

Fair enough.

[White Rhino]

R Governor was interviewed on The Factor with douche bag O'Riley over this. I didn't see the episode did anyone else? And I don't really give a shit about the sign everybody as the right to express their opinion, but I agree with Djag there needs to some degree of tact from the FRF.

Is that better Tim. Thanks.

[mongo]

*our.


dumbass.

[taters]

Im surprised she (Assuming you mean Gregoire) didnt go on Glen Becks show, if its already migrated to fox (I dont pay too much attention to inane television ranters). Beck is from Washington. Western WA at that.

[Archangel]

It's fucking Christmas, you fucking jackasses. This is why people think Americans are idiots: Their ridiculous notion that every voice counts the same.

It bloody well doesn't. You're so worried about offending this bunch of morons or not treating the other group of imbeciles equally that common sense goes right out the window, and political correctness turns into a fascism of the minorities.

How about I leave you alone on the day Lenin had 2,000 priests murdered, or the Day Richard Dawkins first thought he was qualified to write about shit he knows nothing about, or whatever these cunts celebrate, and you leave me the fuck alone when I want to celebrate the birth of my fucking Lord and Saviour, you tactless bastards.

Thank God I live in a country where I can say "have a blessed Christmas" without some whingey ACLU cunts calling me a religious fanatic.
[/rant]

[Archangel]

This is why I fucking laugh when people say that they're atheists because religion is stupid. Only in America.

[Archetype]

Lame. And shut the fuck up tater.

[Archangel]

These people must be huge fun at parties. They're like retarded kids jumping up and down, yelling, "it's my birthday, too!", demanding attention while pissing themselves.

[Archangel]

I love the hypocrisy of some uber religious people (right and left).

Nice, isn't it, being able to pigeonhole everyone as a fanatic.

They yell and cry about not having their beliefs respected when they have to take down their commandments or religious idols...er...I mean 'Symbols", then bitch when non christians (athiest, muslims, jews, buddists) are given the same priviledges they claim to want.

It's bleedin' Christmas, you fucking dolt. China and France have the same veto rights as the US in the UN security council, but I don't see people waving French and Chinese flags on Capitol Hill on Independence Day just to remind people that those countries count, too.

Or, say, a Vietnamese or Iraqi flag, just to remind people that Americans talking about freedom are hypocrites. It takes a certain kind of arsehole to become a professional spoilsport.

I guess they should be the ONLY group to get special (tax free) and publically preferential (and subservient) treatment.


How large a percentage of America's founders were Christian? How many Americans are today? There you have it. It's called human nature.
If there were an atheist holiday, would Christians demand that a crucifix be erected right next to the 20-foot statue of The God Delusion? No. I'd look at my copy of Augustine and laugh at guys who follow the bad writers.

The funny thing is, I guarentee if you gave them what they wanted, they would start fighting each other over whos belief gets specifically acknowledged (Baptist, Methodist, Right wing Episcopal, Mormon, Methodist, or Catholic). Just like the way things used to be.

Yeah, because Christmas trees and nativities are denominational, you dumb fuck.

[taters]

It's fucking Christmas, you fucking jackasses. This is why people think Americans are idiots: Their ridiculous notion that every voice counts the same.

It bloody well doesn't. You're so worried about offending this bunch of morons or not treating the other group of imbeciles equally that common sense goes right out the window.

How about I leave you alone on the day Lenin had 2,000 priests murdered, or the Day Richard Dawkins first thought he was qualified to write about shit he knows nothing about, or whatever these cunts celebrate, and you leave me the fuck alone when I want to celebrate the birth of my fucking Lord and Saviour, you tactless bastards.

Thank God I live in a country where I can say "have a blessed Christmas" without some whingey ACLU cunts calling me a religious fanatic.
[/rant]

Someones angry news was on on their military situation...


Seriously though, you know

1- December 25th (well, its original 13month calender equivalent) is NOT the day christ was born. Not even near it.

2- The holiday traditions celebrated on christmas are actually of the same 'pagan' or heathen religions christians of late attack.

3- The point is, if we give additional creedence to Christmas, youd better be ready to give a day/week/weekend off and adhere to respect of the holidays of all the religions of the country, ramadan, channukah, kwanza, whatever wiccans do, may day, cinco de mayo and whatever else.


By giving special consideration to xmas and not the others, its putting one religion above others. We are, in origin and constitutionally, a secular nation. This isnt germany where you are either Lutheran or Catholic (though parts of the midwest are like that). You cant have the standard of secularism and not adhere to it.

Its all just a power scheme in the first place. Whatever you believe matters only to you in the end. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling a bridge in brooklyn.

added - and YES, if there were an athiest holiday, christians here would yell their heads off either to have it banned or to put a crucifix next to whatever athiest symbol is made public. Im sure its no secret that though this country was founded on the principle freedom of religion and secular government, a big chunk of it (I wont say what wing it tends to be, but you can guess) do not adhere to it.

[Archangel]

Seriously though, you know


Are you fucking lecturing me? Seriously?


1- December 25th (well, its original 13month calender equivalent) is NOT the day christ was born. Not even near it.

2- The holiday traditions celebrated on christmas are actually of the same 'pagan' or heathen religions christians of late attack.


NO! Really? I didn't know that. Wow.

You really want to get into a discussion with me on the sub- and superstrata in mythology and ritual resulting from early Christian expansion, from Paul to the Codex Theodosianus to Otto I?

Who gives a flying fuck when and where and what? Honestly, only in a society which has no sense of history would someone deny the validity of something that has been going on for, oh, 1800 years. So the dates aren't correct. So people used certain symbols to bring over the pagans.

BIG FUCKING DEAL.

It's a symbol, you idiot. It acquires meaning through the fact that people believe in it. And have been doing so for damn near two millennia. Santa Claus is a bloody Coca-Cola mascot. And? American kids love the idea, so let them have him. And how long has he been around, 70 years?

You're the guy who constantly reminds people on Independence Day about how blacks and women weren't treated equally, aren't you.


3- The point is, if we give additional creedence to Christmas, youd better be ready to give a day/week/weekend off and adhere to respect of the holidays of all the religions of the country, ramadan, channukah, kwanza, whatever wiccans do, may day, cinco de mayo and whatever else.

What's it like, living without common sense, and thinking only in political terms? News flash: relativism has been exposed for the idiocy it is quite some time ago.

Last I checked, pretty much everybody in America celebrated the shit out of Christmas. When you find more than a couple of arseholes who celebrate Wicca Day, then we can talk.

By giving special consideration to xmas and not the others, its putting one religion above others. We are, in origin and constitutionally, a secular nation. This isnt germany where you are either Lutheran or Catholic (though parts of the midwest are like that). You cant have the standard of secularism and not adhere to it.

Democracy = the majority rules. Your obsession on secularism is denying the majority of your countrymen to celebrate something they hold very dear. And last I checked, "God" appears rather more often in your nation's founding documents than "jackasses".

I mean, you won, anyway - commercialism and political gayness have turned it into a secular holiday in America long ago, with season's greetings and holiday trees and all that shit. So how about you leave those who celebrate it for what it means to them the fuck alone.

Its all just a power scheme in the first place. Whatever you believe matters only to you in the end. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling a bridge in brooklyn.

I have no idea what that even means, probably because I don't get my philosophies from the back of cereal boxes.

[Billy]

http://www.gifshare.com/uploads/images/20060914/full_size/6795_angry-at-computer.gif
Grrr... incidents that don't affect me that I read about on the internet make me SO angry. [/Archangel] <3

Seriously though, the people are being douchebags and trying to upset people with an opposing viewpoint (and are somehow convinced that conducting themselves in such a ridiculous manner is going to make religious zealots reexamine their faith). That being said, the target group in this case is merely fanning the flames by being so publicly outraged by it because the outrage is seen by the offenders as somehow legitimizing their methods. Where have I seen this exact same behavior.........
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/364109465_7e1c77d28e.jpg?v=0

[Archangel]

So American Christians are just as stupid as American atheists, and for much the same reasons.

Shocker, that.

[Morfin]

1. The atheists here were being jerks and intentionally wanted to anger people. Boorish people do boorish things.

2. In my mind, the issue isn't the atheists' actions or the Christian groups' actions, it is the action of the government. Why is the the government getting involved at all? The government is supposed to be neutral. The government is supposed to be "governing" the people -- laws, taxing, etc., it is not there to celebrate holidays. Or, more specifically, spending tax money celebrating holidays.

The government should have just said no to everyone. If the government feels that they just can't not celebrate Christmas, leave it secular -- tree, lights -- and that's it. If any group wants to put up a nativity scene, menorrah, or whatever, tell them no and let them put them up on private property somewhere.

The government started the problem by allowing groups to put up religious displays and, now that everyone can put up displays, they get all the rabble and the "kids don't play nice together."

[Das Kahlua]

I'll be anxiously waiting for the FRF to start posting signs saying: "Kwanzaa is a made-up holiday."

[vasili denisov]

This action does not persuade since it employs no arguments, or basis for its ideas, so any reason that might serve as an alternative to a faith based belief is absent. It does not instil doubt in a christian, since if a christian can recover their faith after personal tragedy or a genocidal massacre seen on TV, they can handle a sign. It becomes a free speech issue as much as say, a KKK rally or hate speech; which is absurd, since the problem lies not with the reasonable claim of the speech (god does not exist), only the context. A KKK rally, for that matter is held not for the larger community, but for the group itself, for their own sense of community, a sense of community heightened by their opposition to the larger society. Yet since atheism ideally is based on a devotion to reason to the exclusion of anything other than that which is empirical, such an appeal to tribe or larger group is in opposition to this ideal.
I'll be anxiously waiting for the FRF to start posting signs saying: "Kwanzaa is a made-up holiday."
The FRF won't ever be doing so since Kwanzaa is a cultural, rather than religious celebration. They wouldn't counter Kwanzaa's existence any more than they would Columbus Day. For that matter, a believer would willingly concede that a religious holiday is "made up". For example, there was a time before and after Christ's resurrection, and it's after the event that a holiday was conceived to celebrate it.

[Void]

I fully support the FFRF's actions in this situation. If anything, it should remind citizens that their government must remain strictly neutral in matters of religion. Just as the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment would have it.

Why so many folks feel the need to use government property to display religious images, when so many privately-owned locations are available, is beyond me.

[Kerjack]

Different organization but I have to admit I like thier sign.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/LIVING/12/05/atheists.christmas/art.humanist.sign.cnn.jpg

[hatepoppy]

I fully support the FFRF's actions in this situation. If anything, it should remind citizens that their government must remain strictly neutral in matters of religion. Just as the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment would have it.

Why so many folks feel the need to use government property to display religious images, when so many privately-owned locations are available, is beyond me.
im not sure its purposefully in conflict w the first amendment. ppl dont think of it logically. they just know that the nativity scene was there when they were kids. any criticism is an attack on their tradition religion, in the eyes of a nonthinking retard.

its important to note that the majority of the world fits in that category.

not that ive been out of the states, i just cant imagine ppl arent stupid elsewhere.

[Archetype]

i just cant imagine ppl arent stupid elsewhere.
Pun?

[billy1980]

We are becoming a country of children. Because we keep looking for our parents (government) to fix things they shouldnt have their hands in. Government property shouldnt be used for religious or anti religious agendas. It was wrong for them to put up anything more than a tree with lights.

Athiests felt threatened that their government was supporting Jews/Christians more than them, when it was just a decoration. The Jews/Christians ended up feeling threatened from the government supporting putting up an anti religious sign.

The government fucked up by letting anyone put up anything.

When our country started it wanted religious freedom, not religious censorship. There is a difference.

[hatepoppy]

Pun?
not one im aware of.

[redsox39]

Well You know the Christmas holiday tree and lights are symbols of Christmas. So is Santa. I agree they are secular, but the kind of pricks that will put up an atheist sign like that will be able to prove that Santa, Trees, and colorful lights are all supportive of a christian holiday, and therefore should be banned from all government property, blah blah blah.

This is one of those places where people go too far and are just assholes. Common sense should dictate above all things, Period.

Sometimes you wonder if a good King with compassion and common sense is 100 times better than a good democracy. (however a bad King is 100 times worse).

I am not for that at all, but I can see why it was around for so long.

Lunch hangover...

[Archetype]

not one im aware of.
You weren't expressing your mental inability to do some task relating to the widescale existence of stupidity as some sort of comedy joke?

[taters]

Last I checked, pretty much everybody in America celebrated the shit out of Christmas. When you find more than a couple of arseholes who celebrate Wicca Day, then we can talk.

Obviously not everyone celebrates xmas, this article is example. Most americans are NOT practicing christians. Even the ones that identify themselves AS christians.


It's a symbol, you idiot. It acquires meaning through the fact that people believe in it. And have been doing so for damn near two millennia. Santa Claus is a bloody Coca-Cola mascot. And? American kids love the idea, so let them have him. And how long has he been around, 70 years?


Kids dont love the idea, they love getting presents. Parents dont love the idea, they love getting a few days off at work. Hard truth, but truth.

The point of it is, if its all just BS symbolism in the first place, how can it be judged higher than other symbols?

Democracy = the majority rules. Your obsession on secularism is denying the majority of your countrymen to celebrate something they hold very dear. And last I checked, "God" appears rather more often in your nation's founding documents than "jackasses".


We dont live in an actual democracy. We barely live in a pluralistic republican democracy. Majority DOES NOT rule. Larger qualifying registered group rules.


On the founding fathers, you forget (or didnt know) they SPECIFICALLY established the separation of church and state in this country. Who gives a rats ass how many times what word comes up. There are a ton of mis spellings in the document too. Does that mean anything?

[Archetype]

This is one of those places where people go too far and are just assholes. Common sense should dictate above all things, Period.

Cleary, it isn't all that common.

Sometimes you wonder if a good King with compassion and common sense is 100 times better than a good democracy. (however a bad King is 100 times worse).

If such a thing ever existed.

[Void]

Most americans are NOT practicing christians. Even the ones that identify themselves AS christians.Where do you get that statistic?

And how do you define "practicing"? Do they have to go to church every Sunday and never say "fuck"?

[BIG PIZZLE]

I'm an apatheist, everyone else should be to

You worship apatizers? Anyways. This is the problem with america. Everybody has to be a fucking hero, just leave that shit alone. Freedom of speach is not compulsion of speach.

[BIG PIZZLE]

If such a thing ever existed.

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/1/1f/180px-Abdullah_of_Saudi_Arabia.jpg

[hatepoppy]

You weren't expressing your mental inability to do some task relating to the widescale existence of stupidity as some sort of comedy joke?
quit trying to be arch. we've already got an erudite european, we dont need a second-rate imitation.

and besides, do you even know what a pun is? i might be able to see irony in my statement if operating under the assumption that i was, in fact, stupid and declaring my inability to recognize global stupidity. as i am not, and was not, i fail to see even that.

please, enfaggotted one, point out which word or phrase used in the post in question was used as a humorous double entendre.

[Kilgore]

As an atheist and a Washingtonian I have to say that the people that are putting up this billboard are doing so in very poor taste. Regardless of how commercial it has become, Christmas is still a Christian holiday. Shitting just to shit is bullshit.

[Archetype]

Obviously not everyone celebrates xmas, this article is example. Most americans are NOT practicing christians. Even the ones that identify themselves AS christians.


Uh, I don't even know of any atheists who don't celebrate Christmas. It's become far more of a cultural thing than a religious one.
The point of it is, if its all just BS symbolism in the first place, how can it be judged higher than other symbols?

Oh, Jesus fucking Christ.



On the founding fathers, you forget (or didnt know) they SPECIFICALLY established the separation of church and state in this country. Who gives a rats ass how many times what word comes up. There are a ton of mis spellings in the document too. Does that mean anything?

Seems to me, the First Amendment is a, what's the word, oh yeah, amendment.

[Archetype]

quit trying to be arch. we've already got an erudite european, we dont need a second-rate imitation.

and besides, do you even know what a pun is? i might be able to see irony in my statement if operating under the assumption that i was, in fact, stupid and declaring my inability to recognize global stupidity. as i am not, and was not, i fail to see even that.

please, enfaggotted one, point out which word or phrase used in the post in question was used as a humorous double entendre.
Aw, but I was trying to be Steve Martin, :(

[BIG PIZZLE]

I am reminded of that demotivational poster where that fat bitch in an america jacket is yelling at some foreign looking dude. Can anyone find that?

[hatepoppy]

I am reminded of that demotivational poster where that fat bitch in an america jacket is yelling at some foreign looking dude. Can anyone find that?
got somethin to say to me, osama?

[Yelram]

I fully support the FFRF's actions in this situation. If anything, it should remind citizens that their government must remain strictly neutral in matters of religion. Just as the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment would have it.

Why so many folks feel the need to use government property to display religious images, when so many privately-owned locations are available, is beyond me.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So when did we go from the government should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof, to, freedom "from" religion? Neutral? As in Christmas shouldnt be a holiday? Or as in, everyone who isnt a christian should get a special holiday just for them? Or that Christians should be prevented from celebrating the holiday? Neutrality isnt really the issue here. Its funny what qualifies as a religion. Its like its got to be over 1000 years old or it doesnt apply? Is atheism a religion? Is environmentalism a religion? Is the government the new god like Nietzsche said?

[redsox39]

Obviously not everyone celebrates xmas, this article is example. Most americans are NOT practicing christians. Even the ones that identify themselves AS christians.


Another Stat pulled out of mid air by taters!

We can all do it man, here, I'll do it for you!
Did you know? Most white people are Racist Christians who claim to be Christian but don't practice and are Racist while claiming not to be?

[BIG PIZZLE]

Where's my fucking buddhist sign godamnit!@

[hatepoppy]

Where's my fucking buddhist sign godamnit!@
buddhism needs no sign. buddhism is.

[BIG PIZZLE]

got somethin to say to me, osama?

Merry christmas to you and yours.

[hatepoppy]

Merry christmas to you and yours.
and a happy ramalamadindgong to you.

[Void]

[I][B]Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Thanks for quoting that. Those are some of the greatest words ever written in the English language (or any other, for that matter).


So when did we go from the government should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free excercise thereof, to, freedom "from" religion? When a government decides to place symbols of a specific religion on public property *at the exclusion* of symbols of other religions (or non-religious philosophies) it is giving a favorable treatment to that religion. It's not "freedom from religion", in every sense of the phrase, that's at stake here; only the freedom from some religions using the government as a means to promote itself above other competing religions (or lack thereof).

Neutral? As in Christmas shouldnt be a holiday? Actually, I'm not a fan of any public holidays. I'd like to be able to go out for a beer or order a pizza on December 25th like I could on most other days.

But, as has been pointed out in this thread already, Christmas is a secular holiday as well as a religious one, so it's not a big issue with regard to church/state separation.

Or as in, everyone who isnt a christian should get a special holiday just for them?People can make up their own little holidays, but it doesn't mean government should recognize them.

Or that Christians should be prevented from celebrating the holiday?No, just be prevented from using government to assist them in celebrating it and promoting their own particular faith.
Neutrality isnt really the issue here.Yes it is.
Its funny what qualifies as a religion. Its like its got to be over 1000 years old or it doesnt apply?Mormons and $cientologists might disagree.
Is atheism a religion? Only if "bald" is a hair color, or "retired" is a job title. It's a *lack of* religion, or rather a philosophical stance which opposes a specific religious idea: the existence of a god or gods. Some people who identify themselves as atheists might be very fervent and "evangelical" in their beliefs or lack of beliefs, mirroring the acts more often seen among the followers of certain faiths. But this does not mean that atheism is a religion, in and of itself.
Is environmentalism a religion?When it's based on faith and not scientifically sound evidence, there might be some parrallels. But only when you define your terms broadly.
Is the government the new god like Nietzsche said?I hope not.

[taters]

edited - Thank goodness, I was still disagreeing with Yelram.


Where do you get that statistic?

And how do you define "practicing"? Do they have to go to church every Sunday and never say "fuck"?

Another Stat pulled out of mid air by taters!

We can all do it man, here, I'll do it for you!
Did you know? Most white people are Racist Christians who claim to be Christian but don't practice and are Racist while claiming not to be?

My fault. In all fairness I should have given the stat before making the claim. Should of known my claim would be called out, as they usually are, and I would have to give citations, as I always do:

A USA Today/Gallup Poll in 2002-JAN showed that almost half of American adults appear to be alienated from organized religion. If current trends continue, most adults will not call themselves religious within a few years. Results include:

About 50% consider themselves religious (down from 54% in 1999-DEC)
About 33% consider themselves "spiritual but not religious" (up from 30%)
About 10% regard themselves as neither spiritual or religious. http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_prac2.htm



http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm
http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/images/ex_3.gif

More than half (54%) of the adult population in America reside in a household where either they themselves or someone else belongs to a church, or temple, synagogue or mosque or some other type of place of worship. To be sure, the significance of membership (its importance, its criteria, and even its definition) varies greatly from one denomination or faith to another. This study is not in position to evaluate the meaning or importance of religious institutional membership for particular groups.

Now, add in the percentage of christians by the two major factions, Roman Catholic and various protestant-

Protestant = 52%
Catholic = 25%

source = http://pewforum.org/publications/reports/poll2002.pdf

As for specific evidence on practicing, its sketchy. Even this evidence is sketchy, and different surveys come to similar but different results.

The evidence Ive seen regarding catholics (the second largest Christian denomination according to most surveys) is only about 1/3 are practicing. So drop the number of catholics in the above stat by 34%.

The Marist College poll found that 65 percent of American Catholics are “practicing,” defined as attending Mass at least once or twice a month, while the 35 percent who don’t attend that often were defined as “non-practicing.” http://ncrcafe.org/node/2194

I imagine, from looking at data on overall Christianity in America, the percentage of non practicing protestants is even higher. But even with that not accounted for, the result is the same.


SO YES, most American Christians are non practicing, therefore most American are not practicing Christians.

Want to debate my other points concerning 12/25 not being the date of Jesus's birth, or that its not the religious context that most Americans enjoy and support, its the commercialization, free time, and free gifts they covet? Or shall I were all in agreement on that.

[redsox39]

SO YES, most American Christians are non practicing, therefore most American are not practicing Christians.

.


So NO Fucking Christmas tree for you!

[Void]

As for specific evidence on practicing, its sketchy. Even this evidence is sketchy, and different surveys come to similar but different results.So sketchy, apparently, that your own information conflicts with itself.

The evidence Ive seen regarding catholics (the second largest Christian denomination according to most surveys) is only about 1/3 are practicing. So drop the number of catholics in the above stat by 34%.

The Marist College poll found that 65 percent of American Catholics are “practicing,” defined as attending Mass at least once or twice a month, while the 35 percent who don’t attend that often were defined as “non-practicing.”

So, which is it? Are 1/3 (33.3%) of US Catholics "practicing", or 65% of them? Unless that source material you quoted is fairly old, we're looking at a pretty big difference here. Either way, seems strange that you would include it, since it undermines your argument.


I imagine, from looking at data on overall Christianity in America, the percentage of non practicing protestants is even higher. But even with that not accounted for, the result is the same.Again, higher than what? Higher than 66.6% non-practicing Protestants, or higher than 35% non-practicing Protestants?


SO YES, most American Christians are non practicing, therefore most American are not practicing Christians.You haven't convinced me yet.

Nice pie chart, though.

[Alcestis]

www.msnbc.msn.com (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28072481/)

OLYMPIA, Wash. - A controversial atheist sign that was placed in the state Capitol near a Nativity scene vanished Friday morning, but then turned up at a Seattle radio station a few hours later.

A receptionist at the radio station KMPS said a man dropped off the sign around 10 a.m. and asked her to give it to show host Ichabod Caine. The man did not say how he came by it before he left, she added.

The state patrol is treating the disappearance as a theft investigation.

[taters]

So sketchy, apparently, that your own information conflicts with itself.

I warned of that. Dont blame me for t here not being too many consistent statistics on the matter. WHile they differ, they all agree that around 75% of the nation considers itself christian, and about half of them are not actively practicing (attending, adhering).





So, which is it? Are 1/3 (33.3%) of US Catholics "practicing", or 65% of them? Unless that source material you quoted is fairly old, we're looking at a pretty big difference here. Either way, seems strange that you would include it, since it undermines your argument.

Click the link. 35% are not practicing.


Again, higher than what? Higher than 66.6% non-practicing Protestants, or higher than 35% non-practicing Protestants?

I never gave the numbers of catholics, I specifically stated there are no studies I could see or have even heard of. I assumed a higher ratio than catholics, but did account that even if they all were practicing (which is certainly not the case), it still does not add up to a majority of americans.

Follow my math.(all approximations) 75% of the nation is christian, 50% of those are none practicing. 1/2 of 75% is roughly 37.5%. Thats not a majority of americans.



This subject, like religion, is all up to your own personal beliefs. Take it or leave it. Whats not is the double standard of why practicing Christians in our secular based nation feel they should be the only religious group whos holidays, beliefs, religious laws and morals, and beliefs should be recognized by the government.

[Archetype]

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u50/jjmckool/funny-graphs-lost-kate-poll.jpg

[Void]

I warned of that. Dont blame me for t here not being too many consistent statistics on the matter. WHile they differ, they all agree that around 75% of the nation considers itself christian, and about half of them are not actively practicing (attending, adhering).Okay...

Click the link. 35% are not practicing.I did. And it still conflicts with what you posted above that selcted quote, that "only about 1/3 are practicing". The latter figure would seem to strengthen your case, so why disregard it now?




I never gave the numbers of catholics, I specifically stated there are no studies I could see or have even heard of. I assumed a higher ratio than catholics, but did account that even if they all were practicing (which is certainly not the case), it still does not add up to a majority of americans.

Follow my math.(all approximations) 75% of the nation is christian, 50% of those are none practicing. 1/2 of 75% is roughly 37.5%. Thats not a majority of americans.That math works out, but I'm not sure if it reflects reality. If the number of non-practicing US Christians is actually close to 1/3 (similar to the number of non-practicing Catholics you give above), then it would mean that close to 50% of Americans are practicing Christians. Perhaps even a majority of the populace. It would depend on how much difference in the percentage for Protestants would be, as well as other Christian categories not included among the "big two" (Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Orthodox, etc.)

This subject, like religion, is all up to your own personal beliefs. Take it or leave it. Whats not is the double standard of why practicing Christians in our secular based nation feel they should be the only religious group whos holidays, beliefs, religious laws and morals, and beliefs should be recognized by the government.Agreed, wholeheartedly.

[Das Kahlua]

This subject, like religion, is all up to your own personal beliefs. Take it or leave it. Whats not is the double standard of why practicing Christians in our secular based nation feel they should be the only religious group whos holidays, beliefs, religious laws and morals, and beliefs should be recognized by the government.

Have you heard or seen large numbers of Christians who are pushing for all Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion's holidays excluded from being recognized by the government, that I have missed, or are you just talking out of your ass again?

[Void]

Have you heard or seen large numbers of Christians who are pushing for all Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion's holidays excluded from being recognized by the government, that I have missed, or are you just talking out of your ass again?If what you mean by "recognized by the government" includes using government property and resources (as in, paid for in taxpayer dollars) to help celebrate those religions' holidays, then yes, they're out there.

Some are those who insist that the US is a "Christian nation", not merely a Christian-majority nation, and that the government should be used to promote that faith alone. They're the so-called Theocrats, and they remain quite influential politically, particularly within the Republican Party. One of their common arguments is that the Establishment Clause refers only to denominations within Christianity (Roman Catholics, Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, etc.), not Christianity itself, in order to get around church-state separation.

But there are plenty of other American Christians who don't want the government helping to celebrate any religious holidays, including their own. They recognize the fact that secular government does not necessitate hostility towards religion, only neutrality.

[Whiffleball]

It's fucking Christmas, you fucking jackasses. This is why people think Americans are idiots: Their ridiculous notion that every voice counts the same.

It bloody well doesn't. You're so worried about offending this bunch of morons or not treating the other group of imbeciles equally that common sense goes right out the window, and political correctness turns into a fascism of the minorities.

While I don't dispute that the majority of Americans are Christians, we also have an obligation to uphold 1) the rights of the minority and 2) separation of church and state.

Our values state that every voice does count the same. Every man (and woman) is created equal. Everyone is entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We have the separation of church and state precisely to prevent the sectarian violence of the Old World -- Catholic France persecuting the Huguenots, anti-Catholic hysteria in Puritan and Restoration England, etc. -- all of which springs from the foolish notion that a government can control the mind or the soul.

So while some voices may be louder than others, everyone has a right to speak. We are a society constructed on tolerance. A Christian may not like that his Jewish neighbor doesn't go to church and a Muslim may dislike that his secular humanist neighbor allows his wife to go around uncovered. But as long as the only laws being broken are religious ones, we Americans are supposed to simply accept it.

Which is why I find all this outrage over an atheist sign so hypocritical. If religious groups of every faith can put out their signs and symbols, no matter how much this may offend peoples of other faiths or those fanatical atheists, why can't a pagan/atheist group express their own spiritual views? To me this is different than some intolerant atheist campaigning to get his neighbor's Christmas tree taken down. Even if the motivation was to intentionally offend Christians, if it's permissible to set up Christian or Jewish symbols, I see no reason to not put up the display in question.

Religion is afforded far more respect than it deserves. Just as I have no problem with newspapers publishing cartoons of Mohammed if that is what they choose to do, I don't think Christianity should be protected in some sort of sacred bubble.

As Douglas Adams said, in a quote often used by Dawkins:

"Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy. What it means is, here is an idea or emotion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe... No, that's holy. So we're used to not challenging religious ideas.... Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it. Because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other. Except that we've agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."

So, really, in America, it's perfectly fine to put up an Obama sign next to a McCain sign you see along the side of the road. It's okay for a pro-life person to wave a picture of a dead fetus and for a pro-choice person to wave a coat hanger, no matter how much in bad taste you might think it to be. And if you put up a Christian, Jewish or Muslim icon, there really is no reason you can't have a pagan sign or even one that espouses no religion at all.

Don't get me wrong. I am not one of those fanactical atheists who thinks that every overtly religious statue needs to be removed, that the Pledge of Allegiance drastically needs to be amended, that our money is terrible because it has "In God We Trust" on it. I don't really care if there is a god or not, but seeing these symbols and statements no more forces upon me a spirituality than if the United States adopted Christianity as the state reliigion with the president as Supreme Pontifex. No matter what another person says or does, no one is going to change my mind or my heart other than me.

It is just too bad that many religious people are not so secure in their beliefs. Instead of simply shrugging it off when stuff like this happpens, they get into an uproar. Sometimes I think they would even enjoy living back in Roman times, so they could zealously line up to be martyred in the lion pit.

[taters]

Have you heard or seen large numbers of Christians who are pushing for all Jewish, Muslim, or any other religion's holidays excluded from being recognized by the government, that I have missed, or are you just talking out of your ass again?


No, though there OBVIOUSLY ARE (half the point of this article). Did you think about that statement before you made it or are you just arguing with me out of your ass for no other reason than to debate with tater? (now youve got me referring to myself in third person. Happy?)

Regardless of whether or not people push for it, WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANITY GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN A NATION OF MULTIPLE RELIGIONS which was founded secularly? The founders of which, took GREAT steps and consideration to PURPOSELY prevent religious preference.

Im not arguing against Christmas, or christians. I celebrate it myself (though not the religious based version of it, the giving to family and giving thanks version). Im saying there is no reason a Holiday from one belief should get preference in our nation. If you are going to publically endorse one, YOU HAVE TO ENDORSE ANY OTHERS WHICH WANT IT in the name of fairness/secularism.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

I'm a Christian and as far as I'm concerned they can do whatever they want. I'm not offended in any way. All I can say is they better hope they are right cause if they are not it's gonna suck for them.

[Void]

I'm not offended in any way. All I can say is they better hope they are right cause if they are not it's gonna suck for them.Pascal's Wager; easily refuted.

[Archetype]

It is just too bad that many religious people are not so secure in their beliefs. Instead of simply shrugging it off when stuff like this happpens, they get into an uproar. Sometimes I think they would even enjoy living back in Roman times, so they could zealously line up to be martyred in the lion pit.It's not because they aren't secure. It's because they're retards.

[White Rhino]

If anyone is offended by a poster or sign they are very shallow minded. Grow up and understand that all people think differently and each of you has the right to express your opinion.

[The Batman]

I can't wait for the day for someone to do something that someone isn't outraged or offended about. But I imagine that day will come when humanity is at its end.

[Das Kahlua]

No, though there OBVIOUSLY ARE (half the point of this article). Did you think about that statement before you made it or are you just arguing with me out of your ass for no other reason than to debate with tater? (now youve got me referring to myself in third person. Happy?)

Regardless of whether or not people push for it, WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANITY GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN A NATION OF MULTIPLE RELIGIONS which was founded secularly? The founders of which, took GREAT steps and consideration to PURPOSELY prevent religious preference.

Im not arguing against Christmas, or christians. I celebrate it myself (though not the religious based version of it, the giving to family and giving thanks version). Im saying there is no reason a Holiday from one belief should get preference in our nation. If you are going to publically endorse one, YOU HAVE TO ENDORSE ANY OTHERS WHICH WANT IT in the name of fairness/secularism.

The sign in question is not the depiction of a religion, it is a criticism of religion--there is a major difference.

This is not a story about Christians protesting the inclusion of a menorah, something which was included in 2006, presumably without incident, or else it probably would have been mentioned in this story, it is about religious holiday displays having a sign critical of those religions included.

Whether or not these Christians who are critical of the FRF's actions are intolerant of other religions, or want preferential treatment for people of their faith, we have no way to know. All we can know is that they, understandably, want to celebrate their faith without having public displays of protest thrown in their face while they do it.

When did we reach the point where the only way one group can celebrate their beliefs is in tearing down the beliefs of others?

[taters]

The sign in question is not the depiction of a religion, it is a criticism of religion--there is a major difference.

Yes, but atheism itself is a criticism of all religion. Its still a belief. Atheism exists because of deep rooted criticisms to organized religion, western Christianity specifically (at least here in America). And when you think about it, mainstream american christian religion (baptist, methodist, catholicism, mormonism) have committed or endorsed extremely horrible shit worthy of criticism in history.

Let me ask you this. If the city of (this is just picking hypothetically) Sandpoint Idaho decided they wanted to put up a black sun symbol with cross next to it to symbolize some of the locals (or former locals) pagan occult deity adhered to (historically inaccurately) by modern nordic supremacist movements around the world, and someone wanted to put up a sign next to it criticising that religion and its recent history (as a former and resurgent nazi cult) and advocating christianity, would you complain?

Would that be wrong, to offer a counter perspective to something that many people do not agree with? Further, what would you say the solution should be?

"Majority rules"? Well what if the majority in the town or state or nation adhere to that belief?



Ill grant you, this sign is a bit far, the rational solution would be to just take everything down, or ask a bunch of different groups in the community for examples to be displayed equally.

[Nosebuckle]

Why can't atheists at least try to find common ground or intellectually egage those whom they disagree with? Or at least challenge the Christian message. Christmas has lost almost all of its real significance to commercialism, so I just don't take any real offense to government allowing space for a display of a celebration of the birth of someone who is revered by billions of people worldwide. Some profress He is their savior, others revere Him for His message of peace and love for everyone.

[Das Kahlua]

Yes, but atheism itself is a criticism of all religion. Its still a belief. Atheism exists because of deep rooted criticisms to organized religion, western Christianity specifically (at least here in America). And when you think about it, mainstream american christian religion (baptist, methodist, catholicism, mormonism) have committed or endorsed extremely horrible shit worthy of criticism in history.

Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That is not the same thing as it being intrinsically a criticism against all established religions. That might seem like a distinction without a difference, but it's the best I can do.

Let me ask you this. If the city of (this is just picking hypothetically) Sandpoint Idaho decided they wanted to put up a black sun symbol with cross next to it to symbolize some of the locals (or former locals) pagan occult deity adhered to (historically inaccurately) by modern nordic supremacist movements around the world, and someone wanted to put up a sign next to it criticising that religion and its recent history (as a former and resurgent nazi cult) and advocating christianity, would you complain?

Ok, I have an example that might explain my perspective given this. Let's say the modern day conservative movement, not the Republican Party, per se, but conservatism as a concept. It has its own beliefs and standards that it follows, and a rationale for why it's the 'right' political belief. Let's say that it followed the lead of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and launched an 'anti-Obama' campaign...not a pro-conservative candidate campaign, where it would cite its ideals and try to sell that to the American people, but one only engaged in tearing down the opposition. Would that campaign be on the same level as a legitimate Presidential candidate? I would argue not.

(I don't know, maybe that example only makes sense in my mind, sorry if it doesn't to anyone else.)

Would that be wrong, to offer a counter perspective to something that many people do not agree with? Further, what would you say the solution should be?

"Majority rules"? Well what if the majority in the town or state or nation adhere to that belief?


Ill grant you, this sign is a bit far, the rational solution would be to just take everything down, or ask a bunch of different groups in the community for examples to be displayed equally.

That's the problem with this particular sign, it didn't offer a counter perspective, it only trashed the established religions as being false, all the while doing nothing to further the beliefs of the group that actually sponsored the ad.

[freegood]

As Douglas Adams said, in a quote often used by Dawkins:

"Religion ... has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call sacred or holy. What it means is, here is an idea or emotion that you are not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not. Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics versus that, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe began, about who created the universe... No, that's holy. So we're used to not challenging religious ideas.... Everybody gets absolutely frantic about it. Because you're not allowed to say these things. Yet when you look at it rationally, there is no reason why those ideas shouldn't be as open to debate as any other. Except that we've agreed somehow between us that they shouldn't be."


If you're not one of those "atheist extremists", then you could agree that that sign isn't the best way to open true debate or dialogue. It'd be like a Christian wanting a sign that claims heathens are going to burn in hell and then gloating about free speech guaranteed by a Constitution he's never read.

People really love choosing sides and jumping head first into a situation.

I can't wait for the day for someone to do something that someone isn't outraged or offended about. But I imagine that day will come when humanity is at its end.

How about printing up 4 trillion dollars of money out of nowhere, trading it to banks for bad mortgage back securities and toxic credit default swaps, then letting the banks trade the paper money back for interest bearing treasury notes?

Wait, no one gives a fuck, and the world is going to end.

[vasili denisov]

Sometimes you wonder if a good King with compassion and common sense is 100 times better than a good democracy. (however a bad King is 100 times worse).
Any king, good or ill, may well face crises beyond his powers to solve, disease or resource shortages, which will cause his subjects to find him wanting. Since opposition, from your premise, would not be allowed, dissent would be invested either in a practical opposition (overthrow or protest of the king) or an ideal state in opposition to the current rule (a religious belief). Arguably, the very desire you state (for an ideal king to sort this out), is a manifestation of the second; that earthly rulers fail me, that I cannot someone the will or reason to construct a solution, yet somehow there must be a median, though this median may not be of this earthly existence.

So, religious belief itself would come into opposition with tyrant's rule as it has in so many autocracies (Cold War Poland or Mubarak's Egypt). Then the ruler would face two possibilities, either banning the religion or co-opting it, in either case, we have far greater state involvement in religion than we would in the small skirmishes that take place in the US.

I am not for that at all, but I can see why it was around for so long.

This implies that it was around due to its own validity; that a form of rule may exist because its form itself is self-perpetuating: force entirely concentrated with one ruler, the very form of rule discouraging any opportunities which might give rise to an educated commercial class which would challenge the judgement of a single, unelected ruler.

[taters]

Why can't atheists at least try to find common ground or intellectually egage those whom they disagree with?

LOL...seriously, your asking why can athiest try to find common ground with CHRISTIANS? You do realize how...reverse ironic that sounds? That ANYONE should try non-affrontive confrontation with the group in this country that leads all counts of affrontive confrontation? Orly?

Atheism is a belief that there is no god. That is not the same thing as it being intrinsically a criticism against all established religions. That might seem like a distinction without a difference, but it's the best I can do.


Believing there is no god is a direct conflict with, and is mutually exclusive to any god-based religion.

Ok, I have an example that might explain my perspective given this. Let's say the modern day conservative movement, not the Republican Party, per se, but conservatism as a concept. It has its own beliefs and standards that it follows, and a rationale for why it's the 'right' political belief. Let's say that it followed the lead of Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity and launched an 'anti-Obama' campaign...not a pro-conservative candidate campaign, where it would cite its ideals and try to sell that to the American people, but one only engaged in tearing down the opposition. Would that campaign be on the same level as a legitimate Presidential candidate? I would argue not.

Is it logical to not answer my question at all before giving me a counter hypothetical?

Well, Ill pay you the courtesy of answering your question, though you obviously dodged and refused me that same courtesy. Your right, its not.


BUT that has NOTHING to do with the current topic. Its not even an example using the same subjects (religion, political majority, and religious conflict).

That's the problem with this particular sign, it didn't offer a counter perspective, it only trashed the established religions as being false, all the while doing nothing to further the beliefs of the group that actually sponsored the ad.

Does it need to?

Also, it seems those angry about this are crying up a storm while conveniently forgetting separation of church and state, but also forgetting their formerly oh-so-previous freedom of speech/expression.

[TheImpossibleMan]

On the one hand, it's fuckmothering Christmas. Please stop stirring shit up. That sign isn't about engaging people in intellectual discourse, it's about giving the finger to Christians just because you can. On the other, the state shouldn't be celebrating Christmas in the first place; acknowledging that a huge percentage of Americans (myself included) take part in the Christmas activities is one thing, but a nativity scene is a straight-up celebration of Christmas, something that 'The State' should not be doing. If a nativity scene is okay then pretty much anything is okay, this fucking retarded sign included.

I especially hate how stupid and confrontational this sign is. That said, it is going to be absurdly amusing to see certain people take a dump in their pants over this sign.

http://i33.tinypic.com/xnsy39.jpg
Me, exactly one week from now

[Das Kahlua]

Believing there is no god is a direct conflict with, and is mutually exclusive to any god-based religion.

Is it logical to not answer my question at all before giving me a counter hypothetical?

I was attempting to answer your question by changing the topic while keeping the same vein of thought. I'm not arguing that a belief in atheism is the belief in no god(s); however, I will not, nor will most sane people, equate a pine tree covered in lights with a sign attacking people's faith--they are not even close to being on the same level, and thus should be viewed that way.

Well, Ill pay you the courtesy of answering your question, though you obviously dodged and refused me that same courtesy. Your right, its not.


BUT that has NOTHING to do with the current topic. Its not even an example using the same subjects (religion, political majority, and religious conflict).

Why do the topics of religion and politics need to be forced apart so drastically? Just because the government allows some religious representation/discourse into the public sphere, does it need to allow all discourse on that same topic? There are already limits on anything bordering on 'hate speech,' hell I think it's become possible to sue if one even mentions Scientology while smiling, so why should Christianity still be the brunt of attacks? Because it's a majority religion and not a minority one?

Also, it seems those angry about this are crying up a storm while conveniently forgetting separation of church and state, but also forgetting their formerly oh-so-previous freedom of speech/expression.

This is at least the second time you have mentioned the 'separation of church and state,' a phrase that is mentioned in the Constitution exactly zero times. And before you can bring Thomas Jefferson into this, yes he used that phrase, but he used it in a letter to the Bishops of the Southern Baptist faith, ensuring them that the government would not intrude into their faith, not that religion would be banned everyone else but the inside of a church.

Furthermore, you also brought up the 'freedom of speech/expression,' which has some very clear exceptions, including inciting riots.

Words have consequences, some good and some bad. The fact is that you think it's ok for atheists to post signs criticizing religion, and not ok for a handful of Christians to complain about them.

And who exactly has their priorities mixed up.

[Archangel]

God, you're a nation of whingey fucking children.


As the guy said, there's a difference between freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Because some dozen bitter, insecure, whingey bitches who jerk off to pictures of Dawkins want to spoil the fun for everybody, millions have to be offended? Fuck you. In a relativist society, Barney the dinosaur counts the same as Plato. If you want to live in such a place, cool. I thank the Lord that I bloody well don't.

And Tater is so cliché, it's really quite funny when you think about it.

[Claydon]

God, you're a nation of whingey fucking children.


As the guy said, there's a difference between freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Because some dozen bitter, insecure, whingey bitches who jerk off to pictures of Dawkins want to spoil the fun for everybody, millions have to be offended? Fuck you. In a relativist society, Barney the dinosaur counts the same as Plato. If you want to live in such a place, cool. I thank the Lord that I bloody well don't.

And Tater is so cliché, it's really quite funny when you think about it.


So being an atheist makes one insecure?

[hatepoppy]

So being an atheist makes one insecure?
ive always thought that an atheist is insecure to begin with - they define themselves by being different from something else. by putting up signs that say 'there is no god', theyre attacking other religions evein if theyre just proclaiming their beliefs.

[Claydon]

ive always thought that an atheist is insecure to begin with - they define themselves by being different from something else. by putting up signs that say 'there is no god', theyre attacking other religions evein if theyre just proclaiming their beliefs.

I am an atheist, I am not out holding up signs saying there is no god. Either you agree with me that there is no 'god' or you do not. As an American I believe in the freedom for one to choose with regards to this issue. Now I am not one who wants the "In God we Trust" removed from our money, or the removal of god in the pledge of allegiance. I do not care about Christmas trees at city hall or the courts, and or minoras. Now, drop a 4 ton granite block with the10 commandments etched on it in the court house, then I have a problem. Teaching creationism in the cheap disguise of intelligent design at public schools (if they truly want to teach alternative concepts of the begining of life then why don't want to teach the japanese, or chinese, or Mayan concepts) then I have a real problem. The vast majority of athesits do not consider themselves 'different' or 'special', we just do not want religion shoved down our fucking throats.

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Pascal's Wager; easily refuted.


Only if you agree with Dawkins that the Godless live a more fullfilling like.

I tend to agree with Pascal that I'd rather follow a few rules and not fry in hell, in case the God I worship IS who I thought he was. If not oh well.

So really your "refuteing" is just agreeing with Dawkins more. Gee I got pwnt.

[Claydon]

Only if you agree with Dawkins that the Godless live a more fullfilling like.

I tend to agree with Pascal that I'd rather follow a few rules and not fry in hell, in case the God I worship IS who I thought he was. If not oh well.

So really your "refuteing" is just agreeing with Dawkins more. Gee I got pwnt.

rules? like treating your body like a temple ie no intoxication?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

rules? like treating your body like a temple ie no intoxication?


No, not boning my neighbors wife or stealing his flat screen. Last time I checked the temple thing was wrote by Paul and not all that importnant.

[Claydon]

No, not boning my neighbors wife or stealing his flat screen. Last time I checked the temple thing was wrote by Paul and not all that importnant.


paul not important?!

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Well, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything not wrote in red or by Moses and David. But that's just me.

[Claydon]

Well, I don't pay a whole lot of attention to anything not wrote in red or by Moses and David. But that's just me.

hahahaha, god, the red text for jesus I forgot about that. King James or new American standard?

in my private school days we could ONLY use King James.....ugh!

[Claydon]

No, not boning my neighbors wife .

what if his wife was wii?

[Angry Ass Messican Dude]

Then I'd have to ask for forgiveness.

[Claydon]

Then I'd have to ask for forgiveness.

naturally

[Bill Paxton]

God, you're a nation of whingey fucking children.


As the guy said, there's a difference between freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Because some dozen bitter, insecure, whingey bitches who jerk off to pictures of Dawkins want to spoil the fun for everybody, millions have to be offended? Fuck you. In a relativist society, Barney the dinosaur counts the same as Plato. If you want to live in such a place, cool. I thank the Lord that I bloody well don't.

And Tater is so cliché, it's really quite funny when you think about it.You're a smart guy Arch, but you have to realize the hypocrisy of your argument.

First off, if your "fun" is spoiled by someone presenting an opposing view point then that is your own problem. I don't understand why christians would even care. If your faith is strong enough you should just be able to ignore it and enjoy your baby jesus statue.

Every year non-christians are subject to the the commercial orgy that is Christmas. I don't think it hurts for the other side to throw a little of an opposing view point out there. If people want to blow this out of proportion and get all up in arms about a poster then they are really just helping the argument of non-christians that don't want to see a nativity scene on public property. I mean if you can't handle what the other side has to say, then why should they have to put up with your beliefs every year?

[lusonico]

You're a smart guy Arch, but you have to realize the hypocrisy of your argument.

First off, if your "fun" is spoiled by someone presenting an opposing view point then that is your own problem. I don't understand why christians would even care. If your faith is strong enough you should just be able to ignore it and enjoy your baby jesus statue.

You don't understand? I don't understand why you don't understand the underlying hate about placing a board saying "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" next to christians on the date they celebrate their belief in God.

Maybe if side by side of the american flags displayed next to the elected american presidents taking oath someone should express freedom of speech placing a sign saying "The United States of America were the only country in history to blow two cities full of civilians with nuclear bombs, when they migth just achieved the same intended result bombing outside urban populated areas" you would understand what freedom means. It means not getting persecuted. They could place the same sign anywhere, anytime, they choose THAT time and that place, and that gives it more meaning than just what the sign says.

Every year non-christians are subject to the the commercial orgy that is Christmas.

Not true christians fault the commercial orgy. Not saying in the bible christians have to do it.

I don't think it hurts for the other side to throw a little of an opposing view point out there.
yeah, those christians minding their own business are really asking for it.

If people want to blow this out of proportion and get all up in arms about a poster then they are really just helping the argument of non-christians that don't want to see a nativity scene on public property.
America was started by christians, your bill of rights is product of christians, you're values are culturally more of a cristian than you care to admit. Respecting adquired rights of christians in a christian nation is only ethic. This is becoming insane, next you're gonna say there is nothing wrong placing a board with insulting text next to the grave of someone you don't like because it's on public property.

I mean if you can't handle what the other side has to say, then why should they have to put up with your beliefs every year?
Adquired rights? christians were celebrating christmas way before fucking militant atheists showed up, they were here when atheists appeared and atheists evolved trough the years surrounded by christians, so right now they decided they were fed up. I tought atheists were indiferent and rational only caring with what IN PRACTICAL TERMS interferes with their lives. Turns out they are over sensitive and take offense even to familiar symbols but expect others not to be offended by direct, explicit attacks on their specific timed and placed celebration.

[Bill Paxton]

You don't understand? I don't understand why you don't understand the underlying hate about placing a board saying "GOD DOES NOT EXIST" next to christians on the date they celebrate their belief in God. When christians choose to display something as personal as faith on government property they should expect this. Its not like they stood outside of a church on christmas eve with this sign. It was their way of making a point about separation of church and state.


Maybe if side by side of the american flags displayed next to the elected american presidents taking oath someone should express freedom of speech placing a sign saying "The United States of America were the only country in history to blow two cities full of civilians with nuclear bombs, when they migth just achieved the same intended result bombing outside urban populated areas" you would understand what freedom means. It means not getting persecuted. They could place the same sign anywhere, anytime, they choose THAT time and that place, and that gives it more meaning than just what the sign says. You're comparing apples and oranges. Again, this isn't like someone going into a privately owned church and holding up a sign that says "god does not exist". There are people that do protest the US government and they have every right to.



Not true christians fault the commercial orgy. Not saying in the bible christians have to do it.I never said it was true christians fault that there is a commercial orgy at christmas time. All im saying is that non-christians might get tired of it after a while, and at the very least don't want to have to see a manger scene outside of a courthouse/public library/ whatever.


yeah, those christians minding their own business are really asking for it.
How are christians campaigning to have a nativity scene outside of a government building minding their own business? If they were minding their own business they would be content to have a nativity scene on their front lawn, or outside of their church.


America was started by christians, your bill of rights is product of christians, you're values are culturally more of a cristian than you care to admit. Respecting adquired rights of christians in a christian nation is only ethic. This is becoming insane, next you're gonna say there is nothing wrong placing a board with insulting text next to the grave of someone you don't like because it's on public property.This is such a strawman argument. First off, our bill of rights is also the product of racists who didn't believe women should have the same rights as men. They had a lot of good ideas and did a lot of good things, but that doesn't mean we need to emmulate and maintain everything about who they were. Yes, it can be argued that we have derived a lot of good things from christianity, but that doesn't make every aspect of the religion valid. Maybe the reason I don't steal or murder evolved from christianity or other religions, but that doesn't mean I have to actually believe in God, or that jesus was god, or that anything else in the bible is anything more than a good story. People should be able to enjoy christmas and their faith all they want, but theres just no reason that something as personal as religion needs to be displayed on government property. If its going to be displayed on government property, then expect people to protest that.



Adquired rights? christians were celebrating christmas way before fucking militant atheists showed up, they were here when atheists appeared and atheists evolved trough the years surrounded by christians, so right now they decided they were fed up. I tought atheists were indiferent and rational only caring with what IN PRACTICAL TERMS interferes with their lives. Turns out they are over sensitive and take offense even to familiar symbols but expect others not to be offended by direct, explicit attacks on their specific timed and placed celebration.You're talking about atheism as if its a consolidated group. A lot of atheists don't give a fuck, but some do, and thats their right. But somehow they are whiney assholes just because they try to make a point about separation of church and state?

[Void]

Only if you agree with Dawkins that the Godless live a more fullfilling like.

I tend to agree with Pascal that I'd rather follow a few rules and not fry in hell, in case the God I worship IS who I thought he was. If not oh well.

So really your "refuteing" is just agreeing with Dawkins more. Gee I got pwnt.The refutation comes, in part, from the fact that those "few rules" you mention might not be the "correct" ones. There are a lot to choose from, and in many cases they are mutually exclusive. Pick the wrong one (or, more to the point, get stuck with parents who believe in the wrong religion or get born in the wrong place in the world), and you're just as doomed as the ones who say that none of them are correct. Hope you recognize the problem, here.

[Whiffleball]

If you're not one of those "atheist extremists", then you could agree that that sign isn't the best way to open true debate or dialogue. It'd be like a Christian wanting a sign that claims heathens are going to burn in hell and then gloating about free speech guaranteed by a Constitution he's never read.

People really love choosing sides and jumping head first into a situation

What is wrong with a Christian espousing what Christians are supposed to believe? As far as I know, they already do that. And there's nothing wrong with it. If anything, we're supposed to keep mum on your criticism of that particular belief because of the respect religion is afforded.

I just think that if religious groups can espouse their beliefs, celebrate their faith and generally publicly display their religion, why can't atheists question all of it? Why is it perfectly fine to put a menorah besides a Christmas scene even though Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is the messiah but it's terribly bad taste for an atheist to put up a sign that says, "I believe in one less god than you all do"?

The menorah is acceptable because it's a given that religions conflict, but when someone representing no religion at all steps forward, he or she isn't wrapped in the unassailable blanket of faith.

As the guy said, there's a difference between freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Because some dozen bitter, insecure, whingey bitches who jerk off to pictures of Dawkins want to spoil the fun for everybody, millions have to be offended? Fuck you. In a relativist society, Barney the dinosaur counts the same as Plato. If you want to live in such a place, cool. I thank the Lord that I bloody well don't.

Why shouldn't freedom of religion include those who choose not to have any religion at all? Why should the religious crowd be protected from offense? Millions may be offended by those who espouse racist beliefs or fascist ideologies, but thankfully, here in the United States, just because your feelings are hurt or because your faith is attacked, you can't throw a tantrum and get your way. (Or at least you're not supposed to be.)

To me, the bitter, insecure and whiny bitches are the ones who fall apart just because someone put ups a sign that "Religion is a myth". Jesus Christ was told every other fucking day that he wasn't the son of God and he didn't cry about it. Millions of martyrs have gone to their deaths being told they were wrong and they didn't turn into pussies. If a sign questioning your faith really bothers you, you need to grow up.

I'm sorry, but if you want to live in a society where some things are held more sacred than others, fine. I happen to believe that what is sacred and what isn't should be decided by the individual, and while a majority might follow Plato rather than Barney, I respect the right of those to adhere to the teachings of the purple dinosaur if they so choose. (Hey, sharing is caring.)

On the one hand, it's fuckmothering Christmas. Please stop stirring shit up. That sign isn't about engaging people in intellectual discourse, it's about giving the finger to Christians just because you can.

Even if it is just "stirring shit up", who cares? If Christian adults and Jewish adults can accept having their religious icons next to each other, why can't they tolerant some atheist group putting up a sign that says "Religion is myth"? You don't see Christians grabbing Jews and beating them up or Jews stealing baby Jesus from the manger. So why can the fundies get their panties in a wad and steal the atheist sign?

[Void]

God, you're a nation of whingey fucking children.


As the guy said, there's a difference between freedom of religion, and freedom from religion. Because some dozen bitter, insecure, whingey bitches who jerk off to pictures of Dawkins want to spoil the fun for everybody, millions have to be offended? Fuck you. In a relativist society, Barney the dinosaur counts the same as Plato. If you want to live in such a place, cool. I thank the Lord that I bloody well don't.

And Tater is so cliché, it's really quite funny when you think about it.What's with this obsession with Dawkins? He's just one of many atheists and other critics of religion who've written books on the subject. While I rather enjoyed The God Delusion, I recognize that it's not the most rigorously argued attack against religion out there. But you could expect this since the author is a an evolutionary biologist, not an expert in philosophy or theology.

If you're looking for meatier stuff, try Michael Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification.

[Claydon]

im thinking a richard dawkins av just might fit the ticket!

[taters]

Arch - You call it clique, I call it 'consistent'. In the other thread I was called 'disollusioned', I call it 'pessimistically realist'.

Going all the way back (before this board) to the the beginning of the war, and the election of bush, Ive been right for the most part.

I was attempting to answer your question by changing the topic while keeping the same vein of thought. I'm not arguing that a belief in atheism is the belief in no god(s); however, I will not, nor will most sane people, equate a pine tree covered in lights with a sign attacking people's faith--they are not even close to being on the same level, and thus should be viewed that way.


Does 'not sane' = 'aware of the known history of'?


Why do the topics of religion and politics need to be forced apart so drastically? Just because the government allows some religious representation/discourse into the public sphere, does it need to allow all discourse on that same topic? There are already limits on anything bordering on 'hate speech,' hell I think it's become possible to sue if one even mentions Scientology while smiling, so why should Christianity still be the brunt of attacks? Because it's a majority religion and not a minority one?


Because when a nation endorses or enforces a religion, it leads to repression. Call me a history buff, but I think the overwhelming majority of history we have on record shows this.

Various paganisms, shamanism, zoroastorianism, manicheanism, zurvanic zoroastrianism, buddism, hinduism, western christianity, eastern christianity, protestantism, mormonism, islam, shiite islam, judaism etc etc

All have history of being various state religions that, until toppled (another reason to stay secular) repressed other beliefs. Usually violently.

This is at least the second time you have mentioned the 'separation of church and state,' a phrase that is mentioned in the Constitution exactly zero times. And before you can bring Thomas Jefferson into this, yes he used that phrase, but he used it in a letter to the Bishops of the Southern Baptist faith, ensuring them that the government would not intrude into their faith, not that religion would be banned everyone else but the inside of a church.

Who cares how he used it, the concept was central to his, and other founding fathers, ideals. Granted, that really does not matter too much now. What does is the fact that secularism has been a mainstay of our nation throughout our existence. We are a nation secular by defacto. Where does the fact that we are a secular nation stem from?

The first Amendment of the bill of rights. Its already been quoted in this thread, so I wont repost.

Furthermore, you also brought up the 'freedom of speech/expression,' which has some very clear exceptions, including inciting riots.

You are totally right, but there is no precedence on restriction of religious critique OR religious adherence (which does not interfere with other laws, as in Smith v Or).


Words have consequences, some good and some bad. The fact is that you think it's ok for atheists to post signs criticizing religion, and not ok for a handful of Christians to complain about them.

Yes. I think its perfectly ok and acceptable. WHY? Because its a counter balance to Christian abortionists who are allowed to post outside abortion clinics with signs of dead babies, or christian zealosts to protest soldier funerals, or christian gideons to give out bibles at my old community college or specifically, because we all have the right to criticize any institution we wish and not suffer harrassement.


Why should Christians be the only ones allowed to criticize other religions/institutions, and remain immune from the same treatment?

[Archetype]

What is wrong with a Christian espousing what Christians are supposed to believe?

Supposed to believe? Hell does that mean?

As far as I know, they already do that. And there's nothing wrong with it. If anything, we're supposed to keep mum on your criticism of that particular belief because of the respect religion is afforded.

I just think that if religious groups can espouse their beliefs, celebrate their faith and generally publicly display their religion, why can't atheists question all of it? Why is it perfectly fine to put a menorah besides a Christmas scene even though Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is the messiah but it's terribly bad taste for an atheist to put up a sign that says, "I believe in one less god than you all do"?

The menorah is acceptable because it's a given that religions conflict, but when someone representing no religion at all steps forward, he or she isn't wrapped in the unassailable blanket of faith.

Way to just avoid what freegood said. “There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell,“ and “Religion is but myth and superstition“ aren't the same as "I believe in one less god than you all do." It's not a proclamation, it's an attack, and it's designed as such.

Even if it is just "stirring shit up", who cares?

Apathy is the death of dialogue.

Arch - You call it clique, I call it 'consistent'. In the other thread I was called 'disollusioned', I call it 'pessimistically realist'.

Yeah, cuz of all the people on this forum, taters is the one who's the realist.

because we all have the right to criticize any institution we wish and not suffer harrassement.

What? No you don't. That's an impossible right. You don't even have the right to criticize any institution and not suffer government reprisals. Welcome to the real world.

[taters]

Yeah, cuz of all the people on this forum, taters is the one who's the realist.


By quoting me, and replying to that quote with a 3rd person reference to me, did you just refer to me in the fourth person?

What? No you don't. That's an impossible right. You don't even have the right to criticize any institution and not suffer government reprisals. Welcome to the real world.

Um, yes you do. (in a political sense) Just because a right isnt respected doesnt mean its not there.

By adhering to the 'real world' standard, the instant any right is ignored, the people should accept it and pretend we never had it. If that was totally the case, no one would even bother of thinking about the constitution. Granted, there are those who trample it, but there are also a counter in those who stand up for it and confront those who trample it. There are plenty of fascist in this country, and they have gained much in the last 8 years, but they arent in complete control of the nation. Not for lack of trying though.

I may be a pessimist, but Im damn sure not an apathist.

[freegood]

What is wrong with a Christian espousing what Christians are supposed to believe? As far as I know, they already do that.

I guess your rhetorical question is asking what is wrong with a Christian claiming heathens will go to hell. I'm sure there's a healthy number who believe that, but their duty isn't to condemn people, but rather to spread the Gospel.

As far as you know, you don't know what Christians are supposed ta do.


And there's nothing wrong with it. If anything, we're supposed to keep mum on your criticism of that particular belief because of the respect religion is afforded.


If someone tells you that your heathen ass will smell like bacon in hell, tell them it's a very un-Christian like thing to say and turn their religion back on them.

You're debating on broad generalities to the point where the examples sound like a child who can't reason spoiled grapes and the hand he's been dealt.


I just think that if religious groups can espouse their beliefs, celebrate their faith and generally publicly display their religion, why can't atheists question all of it?

Freedom from Religion isn't looking to question. The statement they put out isn't a question.

Questioning is great. That's not the point. If you can't admit poor taste by Freedom from Religion to write what the wrote on a holiday celebrating Jesus's birth, then you're beyond debating.


Why is it perfectly fine to put a menorah besides a Christmas scene even though Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is the messiah but it's terribly bad taste for an atheist to put up a sign that says, "I believe in one less god than you all do"?

The menorah is acceptable because it's a given that religions conflict, but when someone representing no religion at all steps forward, he or she isn't wrapped in the unassailable blanket of faith.


Do you know what Hanukkah is or when it's celebrated?

Jews didn't pull the dreydel out of their ass in winter time because they felt insecure that Christians were hogging all the fun.

You're telling me about whiny insecure bitches? You really want to go there? Follow your own advice and tolerate a holiday that's been practiced well before our nation's founding but it happens to be celebrated on a principle that you don't believe in.


Why shouldn't freedom of religion include those who choose not to have any religion at all? Why should the religious crowd be protected from offense?

Protected from what? You have some vague accusations. What has the government done to protect the religious crowd from FFR?


Millions may be offended by those who espouse racist beliefs or fascist ideologies, but thankfully, here in the United States, just because your feelings are hurt or because your faith is attacked, you can't throw a tantrum and get your way. (Or at least you're not supposed to be.)

FFR threw a successful tantrum through protesting with the state government.. Other groups, Christians and Jews included, have thrown their own. Political activism works in a democracy. I don't always agree with it, but here in the United States, it's allowed, even defended as a right.


To me, the bitter, insecure and whiny bitches are the ones who fall apart just because someone put ups a sign that "Religion is a myth". Jesus Christ was told every other fucking day that he wasn't the son of God and he didn't cry about it. Millions of martyrs have gone to their deaths being told they were wrong and they didn't turn into pussies. If a sign questioning your faith really bothers you, you need to grow up.


You or FFR are pretty fucking deluded to think a sign like that will make Christians question their faith.

You're missing the point of why the sign is offensive.

Try again.


Even if it is just "stirring shit up", who cares? If Christian adults and Jewish adults can accept having their religious icons next to each other, why can't they tolerant some atheist group putting up a sign that says "Religion is myth"? You don't see Christians grabbing Jews and beating them up or Jews stealing baby Jesus from the manger. So why can the fundies get their panties in a wad and steal the atheist sign?

You're jumping from points A to B to Q.

In your mind, you have some bug to pick against religion, whether it's these vague privileges you think they have, or how their followers act. You read some Dawkins, who nailed the points down in your head, but the farther away you are from his book, the harder it is to articulate into a coherent argument.

Here's a starter: Read up on the Constitution and the Federalist papers that described what the framers had in mind to know what is protected, and where it's protected.

[vasili denisov]

I just think that if religious groups can espouse their beliefs, celebrate their faith and generally publicly display their religion, why can't atheists question all of it? Why is it perfectly fine to put a menorah besides a Christmas scene even though Jews don't believe Jesus Christ is the messiah but it's terribly bad taste for an atheist to put up a sign that says, "I believe in one less god than you all do"?

The menorah is acceptable because it's a given that religions conflict, but when someone representing no religion at all steps forward, he or she isn't wrapped in the unassailable blanket of faith.
I think there's a distinction between the various displays which incites offense, and not just the atheistic sentiment. The nativity scene and the menorah are entirely visual, so there's the possibility of aesthetic purpose alongside religious advocacy, as well as the possibility of a broader interpretation to include a more general endorsement of fraternity. Rodin's Pieta carries this greater aesthetic purpose; it also derives its power from the non-religious aspect of a mother grieving for her son. "A Charlie Brown Christmas" though explicit in its christianity, carries a broader theme of fraternity and anti-materialism.

The atheists' sign has no such possibilities. I think it can be conceded that a nativity scene is less provocative than a sign with the statement "Christ is your saviour." No doubt the nativity scene carries such an implication; yet as a visual display it carries the possibility of having substance beyond its religious purpose, for non-believers as well. The atheists' declaration carries no such possibilities.

An alternative would be if atheists were to conceive of a group of symbols that could be presented at such displays which would embody an ideal of fraternity absent any binding religion or god. However, this would go against the temperament of most atheists, a temperament which may have led them to atheism; a suspicion of a blind bowing down to any symbols "representing" something. That there are tangible materials, and theories about such materials which can be tested for their validity, and anything else should not be believed or followed as if they had this grounding.

[freegood]

An alternative would be if atheists were to conceive of a group of symbols that could be presented at such displays which would embody an ideal of fraternity absent any binding religion or god. However, this would go against the temperament of most atheists, a temperament which may have led them to atheism; a suspicion of a blind bowing down to any symbols "representing" something. That there are tangible materials, and theories about such materials which can be tested for their validity, and anything else should not be believed or followed as if they had this grounding.

How about a backward ass version of kwanza for atheists...Azznawk?

[Archangel]

Things like this thread and the underlying topic should go a long way towards knocking the notion of American atheism's ostensible "intellectual superiority" into a cocked hat, if nothing else.

[taters]

Things like this thread and the underlying topic should go a long way towards knocking the notion of American atheism's ostensible "intellectual superiority" into a cocked hat, if nothing else.

That coming from a guy from the land that brought us Neitzsche AND Marx.

[Le Goat]

That coming from a guy from the land that brought us Neitzsche AND Marx.


THAT coming from a group of people that hasn't contributed to the world. ever.

http://jj.am/gallery/d/56022-1/Rome_Africa_now.jpg

[Das Kahlua]

Yes. I think its perfectly ok and acceptable. WHY? Because its a counter balance to Christian abortionists who are allowed to post outside abortion clinics with signs of dead babies, or christian zealosts to protest soldier funerals, or christian gideons to give out bibles at my old community college or specifically, because we all have the right to criticize any institution we wish and not suffer harrassement.

You need to make up your mind. True freedom of speech is allowing even the speech that we most disagree with, that is the only way we can know that we'll be free to say whatever we wish. You sit here on one hand and advocate the right for people to express themselves and their beliefs in anyway they choose (in this case atheists posting potentially inflammatory signs), yet you then want those same people to be protected from any reprocussions.

Yes, FRF has the right to criticize Christianity, or any form of religion they choose, but followers of those faiths have the right to respond in anyway they choose--that is the double edged freedom of speech. You need to stop talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Why should Christians be the only ones allowed to criticize other religions/institutions, and remain immune from the same treatment?

What the fuck are you talking about? This whole situation came about because Christains WERE being criticized, so how can you honestly claim that they are immune from anything? In this day and age, where it's become politically incorrect to say anything negative about Islam or Scientology or whatever else some wack-job asshole is preaching, Christianity, as a majority religion, is one of the few religious organizations that is still open to constant critque. Where have you been for the last few years with all the criticisms that have come out of the various Catholic priest scandals? Did they enjoy any immunity there?

If atheists or whomever wants to open the door by making public attacks at organized religion, whatever the denomination, they can't then bitch and moan when they themselves are criticized as a result--it's a two way street.

[redsox39]

I heard the Sign was stolen, then given to a local radio station.

[Yelram]

Freedom of speech is a tricky thing. If we have the freedom to espouse a view, do we always have the right to claim the opposite? If someone has a position, thats covered, but is the right to oppose all religion supported under the same clause that guarantees a universal freedom of religion? If Islam says Christianity must be wiped off the face of the earth, do we tolerate that, but not the counterpoint from the christians? Where do we decide when religious tolerance turns into the enabling of hatred. And where do we decide when religious intolerance becomes protected under the 1st amendment that forbids it? This is religious intolerance being disguised as, and stealing the rights of, religious tolerance. If atheism has no belief other than the lack of belief in something, is it truly protected? Do we have the right to start an "anti-religion" for every religion? Can I make it my point in life to follow around the mormons chanting go back to Utah? Even if it does their church, and the people following their religion, undue physical harm? Isnt that the same as the religious persecution our forefathers fled? Just under a different veil.

[taters]

THAT coming from a group of people that hasn't contributed to the world. ever.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/Ancient_Egypt-Antico_Egitto-Giza_Sfinge-bis-e-DSC00621.JPG/429px-Ancient_Egypt-Antico_Egitto-Giza_Sfinge-bis-e-DSC00621.JPG
Created by Africans 3-4000 years ago. Stands perfectly symmetrical to this day.


http://afxafx.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/pisa.jpg

Created by europeans -1000 years ago. Re-done multiple times after just to keep it from falling.

To bring it to a more recent, domestic comparison-

African American Renaissance, contributions to the world (pre-obama)
http://www.phila.k12.pa.us/schools/harding/Images/harlem3.jpg
Results = Jazz, Blues, Rock n Roll, Rockabilly, Disco, Funk, R&B, Rap, cheap drugs, stylized clothing, Dave Chappelle


White American Renaissance contributions to the world
http://whitewatch.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/rednecks.jpg
Country music, bluegrass, square dancing, emo, war on islam (terror), war on communism, war on drugs, racial discrimination, ripped denim pants, Larry the Cable guy etc


Gee, you guys have contributed so much to the world.

[taters]

You need to make up your mind. True freedom of speech is allowing even the speech that we most disagree with, that is the only way we can know that we'll be free to say whatever we wish.

I really want to know what legal code you are citing your info by, because its not in any code Ive seen. Fredom of speech is limited, as Whiffle mentioned earlier. You need to keep up with the debate.

You sit here on one hand and advocate the right for people to express themselves and their beliefs in anyway they choose (in this case atheists posting potentially inflammatory signs), yet you then want those same people to be protected from any reprocussions.

I take it back, youre reading myposts and repeating them back to me. Specifically when I previously said to you this

Regardless of whether or not people push for it, WHY SHOULD CHRISTIANITY GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IN A NATION OF MULTIPLE RELIGIONS which was founded secularly? The founders of which, took GREAT steps and consideration to PURPOSELY prevent religious preference.

Youre caught. Either you didnt read the post, or youre simply repeating arguments I made. You first were making the claim that athiests dont have the right to free speech, then you say they do but only if they dont step on christian toes, now your saying that the athiest, in posting a sign after the christian symbols were placed already constitutes some kind of 'reverse prevention of freedom of speech' by the atheist towards the Christians.


Do you keep up with your own arguments, because that doesnt make sense at all.

Yes, FRF has the right to criticize Christianity, or any form of religion they choose, but followers of those faiths have the right to respond in anyway they choose--that is the double edged freedom of speech. Who says they shouldnt? My point was if christians can (as they have, and are doing so even now) attack other religions in direct comparative representation, the other beliefs should have the right to do so to Christianity, as they are in this case.

You cant ask for immunity for Christianity critiques on one hand while supporting or ignoring christian critiques on other religions in the other. Well, you can (and as with the religio-cons) but its extremely hypocritical.

[Bill Paxton]

Can I make it my point in life to follow around the mormons chanting go back to Utah? Even if it does their church, and the people following their religion, undue physical harm? Isnt that the same as the religious persecution our forefathers fled? Just under a different veil.

If Mormons were coming up to you and saying "Read the teachings of Joseph Smith" and your response was "There is no God" and that went back and forth a bit, I don't see anything wrong with that.

This isn't Atheists hunting down christians in their homes and churchs and shouting "there is no god" and cramming signs on their front lawns. This is one sign, as a counterpoint to another display.

If someone petitioned to have an upside-down cross and a display of Lucifer sitting on a thrown of fire displayed on the public common or in front of a government building, christians would be up in arms about that too. Is it ok to display baby jesus and not satan?

Why can't christians be happy to put up nativity scenes on their own property? We're not talking about something as ambiguous as a chrismas tree or christmas lights here.

[Archangel]

Um, tater, I don't know whether you're aware of this, but this whole Eric B & Rakim thing about African Americans extolling the greatness of Egypt as a sign of African superiority is some ignorant shit.

Egyptians would fucking riot at the very thought of being considered black. They used Nubians as slaves, for fuck's sake. And for all their greatness, they got fucking pwnt by Rome. Seriously, comparing the Leaning Tower (which has a sorry lot - nobody recognises its aesthetical beauty, how it integrates into the sublime architecture of Piazza dei Miracoli) to Giza? Are you retarded? Because all of our cathedrals, castles, monasteries, amphitheatres, palaces and temples are shoddily built (and I mean both European and East Asian here)?

You honestly make me understand the white supremacists.

[Billy]

Remarkably flawed logic, unintentional use of information out of context that doesn't support your argument, and an overly combative attitude that you feel somehow masks your lack of deeper understanding of subject matter. Yawn. Taters you need a new shtick already, it's getting old.

[taters]

Egyptians would fucking riot at the very thought of being considered black. They used Nubians as slaves, for fuck's sake. And for all their greatness, they got fucking pwnt by Rome. Seriously, comparing the Leaning Tower (which has a sorry lot - nobody recognises its aesthetical beauty, how it integrates into the sublime architecture of Piazza dei Miracoli) to Giza? Are you retarded? Because all of our cathedrals, castles, monasteries, amphitheatres, palaces and temples are shoddily built (and I mean both European and East Asian here)?

You honestly make me understand the white supremacists.

Coming from a german, that doesnt mean much. Genocide is one of the things germans are known most for, at least in pop culture. The fact that you step in to counter my claim of black world contribution, but (as with many others here) you remain coincidentally silent during Goats racialist claims of black inferiority really negates any attempt at relaying your 'unbiased' judgment on the matter in the first place.

But seriously,

1- I never claimed they were 'black', only african (which they are).


2- (and I am sure you were aware of this historical fact) Egyptians look arab because they were over run by arabs in the 4-6th centuries. Hence why they speak arabic, and the last remnants of actual egyptian speakers (copts) are relegated to a minority.

Before that, they looked white because they were over run by the greeks from the time after alexander. Before that they looked black because they were over run by the Kushites (nubians). The 'slaves' conquered and enslaved egypt multiple times over a thousand year period. All this was being done when with written language, mathematics, agriculture, and construction all when the germanic and celtic peoples of northern europe where still in neolithic unorganized tribes herding sheep and cutting each others heads off for fire-pit ornaments (look it up).

Granted, Im not saying the kushiites built the great pyramids (they didnt, but they did build their own in far upper egypt, and current day sudan), but it is known, or at least highly suspected that they (black people) were already integrated into egyptian society.

Before that, who knows how they looked. Probably a blend of yemeni and proto-libyan. Cro-magdon. Whatever. The point is, there is black in there, despite whatever they claim. Its from a while back, but its there.

Dude, youre a german. If I went back far enough, youre (well, the dominant presiding ethnicity of your nation, not yours per-se) german people were not where they are, they would have been farther north and celtic people living where you are. Before that, proto-basque-etruscian people, before that proto-saami's and before that someone else.

Just because they dont look like it now, or say they arent now doesnt mean they never where.

Remarkably flawed logic, unintentional use of information out of context that doesn't support your argument, and an overly combative attitude that you feel somehow masks your lack of deeper understanding of subject matter. Yawn. Taters you need a new shtick already, it's getting old.

You used a lot of big words and an entire paragraph to simply say 'I dont get it'. Next time get to the point. Also, you may want to try offering a refute rather than just a 'I think your logic is flawed' claim. It makes your claim look trite and baseless...like a shot more than a thought out counter.

added - Also, writing out 'yawn' does not help validate your claim. Why even post if your tired of your own response?

[TheImpossibleMan]

Holy Jesus, could tater be any more stereotypically retarded? "Genocide is one of the things germans are known most for"? Did you seriously just utter that phrase?

[freegood]

He's trying to be a poor man's Jackie Chiles.

It can be funny.

[Billy]

He also cited 'Dave Chapelle' as one of the major black contributions to society

[taters]

Holy Jesus, could tater be any more stereotypically retarded? "Genocide is one of the things germans are known most for"? Did you seriously just utter that phrase?

Yes. How many historical movies, video games, and books (mainstream ones, as I said 'pop culture') do you see reference to nazi germany?

Now, how many do you see (mainstream ones) with reference to ANYTHING else german? Food, culture, politics....not so many.

Hone in on that first sentence Crash, and conveniently miss the next sentence (as well as all after)

The fact that you step in to counter my claim of black world contribution, but (as with many others here) you remain coincidentally silent during Goats racialist claims of black inferiority really negates any attempt at relaying your 'unbiased' judgment on the matter in the first place.

Im sure it will go invisible to many-an-eye to a few of you.

Freegood = WhoTF is jackie chiles?

billy - Beats the comparison (Youll have to go back and read who he was compared to...Im not going to hold our hand and repost this time)

[Le Goat]

Coming from a german, that doesnt mean much. Genocide is one of the things germans are known most for, at least in pop culture. The fact that you step in to counter my claim of black world contribution, but (as with many others here) you remain coincidentally silent during Goats racialist claims of black inferiority really negates any attempt at relaying your 'unbiased' judgment on the matter in the first place.

But seriously,

1- I never claimed they were 'black', only african (which they are).


2- (and I am sure you were aware of this historical fact) Egyptians look arab because they were over run by arabs in the 4-6th centuries. Hence why they speak arabic, and the last remnants of actual egyptian speakers (copts) are relegated to a minority.

Before that, they looked white because they were over run by the greeks from the time after alexander. Before that they looked black because they were over run by the Kushites (nubians). The 'slaves' conquered and enslaved egypt multiple times over a thousand year period. All this was being done when with written language, mathematics, agriculture, and construction all when the germanic and celtic peoples of northern europe where still in neolithic unorganized tribes herding sheep and cutting each others heads off for fire-pit ornaments (look it up).

Granted, Im not saying the kushiites built the great pyramids (they didnt, but they did build their own in far upper egypt, and current day sudan), but it is known, or at least highly suspected that they (black people) were already integrated into egyptian society.

Before that, who knows how they looked. Probably a blend of yemeni and proto-libyan. Cro-magdon. Whatever. The point is, there is black in there, despite whatever they claim. Its from a while back, but its there.

Dude, youre a german. If I went back far enough, youre (well, the dominant presiding ethnicity of your nation, not yours per-se) german people were not where they are, they would have been farther north and celtic people living where you are. Before that, proto-basque-etruscian people, before that proto-saami's and before that someone else.

Just because they dont look like it now, or say they arent now doesnt mean they never where.



You used a lot of big words and an entire paragraph to simply say 'I dont get it'. Next time get to the point. Also, you may want to try offering a refute rather than just a 'I think your logic is flawed' claim. It makes your claim look trite and baseless...like a shot more than a thought out counter.

added - Also, writing out 'yawn' does not help validate your claim. Why even post if your tired of your own response?

I love it when you let your hair down and crack jokes. Shit's hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iiiiiiilarious

[Insomniac]

North Africans are about as African as Europeans are Asian.

[mongo]

taters be from deep in the congo!

[Le Goat]

North Africans are about as African as Europeans are Asian.

I equate it to calling Indian's Asian. Yes they are but I prefer to call them ugly

[taters]

North Africans are about as African as Europeans are Asian.

If theyre on the continent of Africa, and theyre from that continent, doesnt that make them 'african', literally? I think what you mean is 'north african peoples are not ethnically related to southern/central/western africans as europeans are not related to asians'.

Both are incorrect in a number of instances. As in the slavic people, the ural finnic peoples, the pre-indo european peoples etc.

[Le Goat]

If theyre on the continent of Africa, and theyre from that continent, doesnt that make them 'african', literally? I think what you mean is 'north african peoples are not ethnically related to southern/central/western africans as europeans are not related to asians'.

Both are incorrect in a number of instances. As in the slavic people, the ural finnic peoples, the pre-indo european peoples etc.

bahahahaahahahahah you fucking fail

[Whiffleball]

I guess your rhetorical question is asking what is wrong with a Christian claiming heathens will go to hell. I'm sure there's a healthy number who believe that, but their duty isn't to condemn people, but rather to spread the Gospel.

As far as you know, you don't know what Christians are supposed ta do.

I was raised an active Christian and, other than the time I spent in the Middle East and China, I have lived in communities where the majority is not only Christian but often extreme evangelical fundamentalists. In addition to that, I have studied theology. Your conclusion that I don't know what Christians really believe is baseless.

As for a "healthy number" believing that non-Christians go to Hell, how about the entire Catholic Church? The Catechism teaches about the necessity of faith in Jesus and that is the Church that safeguards and communicates the faith. Moreover, the Bible itself says "whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." (John 3:18) And "Jesus answered: 'No one comes to the Father except through me'" (John 14:6) and "And it shall be, that every soul that shall not hearken to that prophet, shall be utterly destroyed from among the people" (Acts 3:23)

Your statement about what the "duty" of every Christian should do differs from group to group and even person to person. Some Christians, mostly the more relaxed ones, believe in spreading the faith to those who are receptive to it and leaving others to do their own thing. The more zealous will shove Christianity in your face until you nibble because they see it as terrible that anyone who could potentially be "saved" isn't.

You may not be actively wagging your finger at me on the street for not being a Christian but it's pretty clear that being a Christian requires you to accept that non-Christians are at the very least not going to Heaven and at most going to Hell.

If someone tells you that your heathen ass will smell like bacon in hell, tell them it's a very un-Christian like thing to say and turn their religion back on them.

It isn't all that un-Christian-like, however. It's not very nice and rather rude but that's precisely what the Gospels themselves state. It's a fact, according to the Bible. Yes, you are supposed to "love thy neighbor" and not "cast the first stone" but, for all the peace and love being preached in the way of behavior, Christian dogma is not exactly open-minded. And neither are most religions.

Freedom from Religion isn't looking to question. The statement they put out isn't a question.

Questioning is great. That's not the point. If you can't admit poor taste by Freedom from Religion to write what the wrote on a holiday celebrating Jesus's birth, then you're beyond debating.

Is a nativity scene a question? Is a menorah a question? Is there anything polite or subtle about those symbols and what they represent? Again, why do non-religious groups have to put up a sign that says, "Pardon me, I was wondering if we could sit down to a spot of tea and discuss in calm and reasoned tones about the validity of your assertion that there is a supreme being, which no matter what, is a belief I respect." Religious groups certainly don't walk on eggshells over the possibility of offending other religious groups or the non-religious.

Nor should they. Like I said, a non-religious person like me can tolerate everything the God squad does in public because it doesn't harm me or force me to change my religious views. Unfortunately, some religious people cannot muster the same tolerance when a non-religious group puts up a sign that asserts a non-religious view.

Do you know what Hanukkah is or when it's celebrated?

Yes.

Jews didn't pull the dreydel out of their ass in winter time because they felt insecure that Christians were hogging all the fun.

I didn't say they did. I was pointing out that the Christmas scene and the Jewish menorah were side-by-side, co-existing beautifully, despite Christians and Jews having conflicting beliefs. But when a sign advocating a non-religious view is put up, suddenly co-existence is impossible. Why is a sign that represents atheism offensive to Christians but not a menorah that represents a faith that says Jesus Christ was not the messiah? It's okay for faiths to conflict because it's faith and we're supposed to respect every aspect of it, whereas atheism doesn't derive from faith but the rejection of it.

You're telling me about whiny insecure bitches? You really want to go there? Follow your own advice and tolerate a holiday that's been practiced well before our nation's founding but it happens to be celebrated on a principle that you don't believe in.

If you had actually read my original post, you would know that I do tolerate such things. What I cannot understand is why these whiny, insecure bitches getting all up in arms cannot tolerate atheism and a public display of atheism, as if this sign is going to jolt Christians to deny Jesus' divinity, go home and burn their Bibles. So what's the problem? You don't agree with what it says? You think it's in bad taste? Atheists and agnostics disagree with lots of things advocated in religious texts and find obnoxious signs that declare "THIS IS GOD COUNTRY" in bad taste, but hey, we tolerate it. But for whatever reason religious groups can't muster the tolerance displays of our point of view.

Protected from what? You have some vague accusations. What has the government done to protect the religious crowd from FFR?

Nothing, but those who are complaining about the atheist sign seem to be arguing that the government was wrong to allow the sign to be put up because it's offensive to them. I personally lean with those who are saying that no display relating to religion should have been put up by the government, but if you're going to permit up religious symbols and signs, let it go both ways.

FFR threw a successful tantrum through protesting with the state government.. Other groups, Christians and Jews included, have thrown their own. Political activism works in a democracy. I don't always agree with it, but here in the United States, it's allowed, even defended as a right.

There's a difference between throwing a tantrum because you're offended and lobbying for equal treatment by the authorities. Civil rights was fought for equal treatment under the law and was not just based on some people being offended by the disrespectful treatment shown to blacks.

If there had been no religious displays at all, it would have been a different story. But once Christianity and Judaism were given the green light, I don't think there would be any sound reason to reject displays advocating different points of view.

You or FFR are pretty fucking deluded to think a sign like that will make Christians question their faith.

You're missing the point of why the sign is offensive.

Try again.

I don't know how you leapt from what I wrote to me hoping that Christians question their faith. If you had really read what I had written, you would know that I saw it a sign of immaturity to be bothered by a sign that questions your beliefs. To me, to have what you believe in brought down like a house of cards at the first sign of protest is a sign of insecurity.

"Religion is myth" is merely a statement, not all that different from "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior" or "There is no god but God and Mohammed is his prophet". Words themselves have no power other than we are willing to afford them. Just as I, as a mature adult, don't break down to pieces when I see a nativity scene, I would think that mature adults who are religious would not get offended at a scene that takes a dump on religion in general. Unfortunately, that assumption is clearly wrong.

You're jumping from points A to B to Q.

Actually, if you read everything that I had written, those questions are all part of one point, which is: If Christians and Jews can agree to disagree and not get up in arms when their conflicting views are expressed in public, why can't religious groups agree to disagree with non-religious groups and not get in arms when non-religious views are in expressed in public?

In your mind, you have some bug to pick against religion, whether it's these vague privileges you think they have, or how their followers act. You read some Dawkins, who nailed the points down in your head, but the farther away you are from his book, the harder it is to articulate into a coherent argument.

You don't know me, but if you had read the posts in my thread, you would know that I have no bone to pick with religion. I just think that if society is expected to tolerate religions, there should be a reasonable degree of tolerance for atheism and agnosticism as well.

I should also point out that I have never actually read Dawkins, although I did see him speak live at a college event three years ago. I have also read some of his stuff online as well as other Web sites promoting secular humanism.

This whole "Dawkins" thing was started by Archangel as a way of lumping all those defending the sign together as part of some "fanatical atheist agenda". Dawkins himself does not get into people's faces about religion, but due to his popularity with atheists, he's become synonymous with the extremists who seem to devote every opportunity to picking fights with theists.

It would be akin to me lumping you and Arch with some extreme religious groups, like those assholes who protest soldiers' funerals in the Midwest or the guy who writes those Chick tracks. However, I know you guys well enough to know such a guilt-by-association appeal would be inaccurate. I would much rather argue the points you raise than trying to attack you or your "agenda".

Here's a starter: Read up on the Constitution and the Federalist papers that described what the framers had in mind to know what is protected, and where it's protected.

I don't have a doctorate in constitutional law but I know enough to know that the atheist sign is protected under the first amendment. I also know there's nothing in the Constitution that safeguards Christianity or any other religion from being questioned; just that they may be practiced.

I think there's a distinction between the various displays which incites offense, and not just the atheistic sentiment. The nativity scene and the menorah are entirely visual, so there's the possibility of aesthetic purpose alongside religious advocacy, as well as the possibility of a broader interpretation to include a more general endorsement of fraternity. Rodin's Pieta carries this greater aesthetic purpose; it also derives its power from the non-religious aspect of a mother grieving for her son. "A Charlie Brown Christmas" though explicit in its christianity, carries a broader theme of fraternity and anti-materialism.

The atheists' sign has no such possibilities. I think it can be conceded that a nativity scene is less provocative than a sign with the statement "Christ is your saviour." No doubt the nativity scene carries such an implication; yet as a visual display it carries the possibility of having substance beyond its religious purpose, for non-believers as well. The atheists' declaration carries no such possibilities.

An alternative would be if atheists were to conceive of a group of symbols that could be presented at such displays which would embody an ideal of fraternity absent any binding religion or god. However, this would go against the temperament of most atheists, a temperament which may have led them to atheism; a suspicion of a blind bowing down to any symbols "representing" something. That there are tangible materials, and theories about such materials which can be tested for their validity, and anything else should not be believed or followed as if they had this grounding.

I really don't see much credence in the argument that a nativity scene or a menorah has value beyond what their represent vis-a-vis their respective religions. Obviously, Christianity and all religions help create valuable qualities such as fraternity, contributing positively to one's community, etc. Religions do a lot of good.

However, I would argue that atheism and secular humanism argue for much of the same things. Without religion, there is one less division among people, which facilitates fraternity; there is the drive to make this world better rather than preparing for the next; etc.

I would say the argument is more that a nativity scene or a menorah is not in-your-face whereas the atheist sign is precisely that. But are symbols themselves not just words condensed into a simple image? Imagine if the nativity scene was a sign with scripture detailing the birth of Christ. Imagine if the menorah was a sign telling the story of the Maccabees and the Jewish revolt and the miracle of the oil burning for eight days. Would these statements about Jesus' divinity or the Jews being the Chosen People of God be any less or more "in your face" than the statement that religion is myth?

What the fuck are you talking about? This whole situation came about because Christains WERE being criticized, so how can you honestly claim that they are immune from anything? In this day and age, where it's become politically incorrect to say anything negative about Islam or Scientology or whatever else some wack-job asshole is preaching, Christianity, as a majority religion, is one of the few religious organizations that is still open to constant critque. Where have you been for the last few years with all the criticisms that have come out of the various Catholic priest scandals? Did they enjoy any immunity there?

I agree; there should be no immunity, which is the way it has been. What I was asking was why should this be changed, which is what those who think there is a "war on Christmas" seem to be advocating. They seem to be saying, as Arch did, that some things are simply too sacred to be challenged and if we put everything on more or less the same level, we cheapen that which is sacred. I just happen to think that the freedom to challenge the sacred and to argue another view, no matter how seemingly wrong or unpopular it may be, is something we should be grateful for.

[Archangel]

I get a kick out of some dude who can barely read and write trying to lecture me on my own country. tater's retard minstrel show.

Oh, and while we're playing the genocide card, do the words "Darfur", "Uganda", "Rwanda", "Biafra", or "Eritrea" mean anything to you? Last I checked, your tribal cousins' main amusement was slaughtering everyone from the other tribe with machetes.

*cue tater blaming it all on the "white man" in 10... 9...*

And among people of a certain status, Germany is also known for, oh, Albertus Magnus, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Goethe, Schiller, Hölderlin, Kleist, Wittgenstein, Schlegel, Beethoven, Bach, Händel, Bloch, Mann, Kafka, Bernhard...

You're honestly saying that Chuck Berry and Lil Wayne are bigger contributions to culture, aren't you?

[Whiffleball]

And among people of a certain status, Germany is also known for, oh, Albertus Magnus, Leibniz, Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Goethe, Schiller, Hölderlin, Kleist, Wittgenstein, Schlegel, Beethoven, Bach, Händel, Bloch, Mann, Kafka, Bernhard...

Um, you forgot Germany's two greatest contributions to modern culture, dude...

jQYQTFudrqc

ij4h0S7nNHg

http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/picture.php?albumid=65&pictureid=277

[Archangel]

Are you really trying to tell me about what I can post on here?

[Archangel]

Also:

However, I would argue that atheism and secular humanism argue for much of the same things. Without religion, there is one less division among people, which facilitates fraternity; there is the drive to make this world better rather than preparing for the next; etc

Yeah, Stalin was a uniter, not a divider.

[Whiffleball]

Also:

Yeah, Stalin was a uniter, not a divider.

Stalin is about as representative of all atheists/secular humanists as the folks behind the Inquisition and the Crusades are representative of all Christians.

You should lighten up, broseph!

[Archangel]

He was one of those running atheism as a state-run institution, and one of the biggest case studies at that. Last I checked, very few of those states were bastions of peace and liberty. Religion, in this case, is nothing but a strawman used by people with not a lot of imagination to blame for the world's ills. When religion is gone, all shall be as brothers.

That's what they said about monarchy, social classes, the Jews... Any ideological vacuum will instantly filled by another. To believe that the removal of one ideology will not spawn another that is just as divisive, if not more so, is, well, idealistic and short-sighted.

You could eliminate all racial, religious, tribal, national and social divisions between people, and they would come up with any number of other reasons to slaughter each other. To believe anything else can only be explained as being blinded by agenda.



And what the fuck is "secular humanism"? Humanism is my main field of study, and last I checked, Dante and Boccaccio were rather religious folk.

[Whiffleball]

He was one of those running atheism as a state-run institution, and one of the biggest case studies at that. Last I checked, very few of those states were bastions of peace and liberty. Religion, in this case, is nothing but a strawman used by people with not a lot of imagination to blame for the world's ills. When religion is gone, all shall be as brothers.

That's what they said about monarchy, social classes, the Jews... Any ideological vacuum will instantly filled by another. To believe that the removal of one ideology will not spawn another that is just as divisive, if not more so, is, well, idealistic and short-sighted.

You could eliminate all racial, religious, tribal, national and social divisions between people, and they would come up with any number of other reasons to slaughter each other. To believe anything else can only be explained as being blinded by agenda.

Agreed, but how is this here or there? I think we can all agree that is bad news when the state tries to impose any particular kind of thought control, whether it be one particular religion or, in this case, no religion at all, especially to the point where all adherents to the "undesirable" point of view are forcibly excluded.

Just as I rail against the imposition of any religion as sacred and thus unassailable, I would rail just as hard against the imposition of atheism upon society. I don't think anyone is arguing that religion should be outlawed.

And what the fuck is "secular humanism"? Humanism is my main field of study, and last I checked, Dante and Boccaccio were rather religious folk.I'm surprised you've never heard of it as it is a fairly common term. It's basically humanism that rejects the spiritual and the supernatural as a source of morality. It's different from the Christian humanism you refer to, which marries individual freedom with the Christian doctrine.

[Archangel]

The founding work of humanism ends on an allegoretic reconciliation of Abraham, Job and Paul, so to me, the notion of humanism without Christianity is a bit like the idea of communism which rejects Marx or Mao. I mean, "infomercial" is a pretty common term, as well, it still doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

Marsilio Ficino or Giovanni Pico della Mirandola would bristle at the very notion.

Oh, and:

Agreed, but how is this here or there?

Ahem.

Without religion, there is one less division among people, which facilitates fraternity

So this would be a purely theoretical notion, then?

[Whiffleball]

The founding work of humanism ends on an allegoretic reconciliation of Abraham, Job and Paul, so to me, the notion of humanism without Christianity is a bit like the idea of communism which rejects Marx or Mao. I mean, "infomercial" is a pretty common term, as well, it still doesn't mean that it makes any sense.

Marsilio Ficino or Giovanni Pico della Mirandola would bristle at the very notion.

Humanism to me is merely a philosophy that argues that truth and morality comes from human beings themselves, via introspective questioning and conclusions, made through rational thought. Actually, with its emphasis on purely human tools like rationality and its basis on individual free will, I find it rather hard to see it compatible with something as irrational as faith, although I guess if one accepts that God has given us free will to do what is right with our lives, humanism is the path by which we create and follow a "good" life.

I still maintain and ardently believe that a human being, even without religion, can still choose to pursue a strong moral code, altogether not too different from the tenets of religions like Christianity.

But I also maintain that, as with religion, it must be the choice of the individual to choose to be ethical rather than to have the state or any other authority impose that upon him/her.

[Archangel]

So you're operating from a wrong definition of the term. People would like Christianity to be about bearded men in the sky, as well, but that don't make it so. And I cannot even begin to comprehend the idiocy of calling rationality quintessentially, even "purely" human.

[Whiffleball]

So this would be a purely theoretical notion, then?

No, because religions are by nature divisive. Would the elimination of religion alone make us all brothers? No, but that does not change the fact that religions does indeed lump us into "believers" and "non-believers", which facilities the very hostility you acknowledge that exists between us. There would still be division in society, but without religion, there would be one less. Does that mean I endorse the forceful elimination of religion, to the point where the problem is recreated through the division of "proper atheists" and "deplorable theists"? No.

[Whiffleball]

So you're operating from a wrong definition of the term. People would like Christianity to be about bearded men in the sky, as well, but that don't make it so. And I cannot even begin to comprehend the idiocy of calling rationality quintessentially, even "purely" human.

Despite your reputation as the resident "erudite European", I do not think anything that you said is correct. Every philosophy book I have read and every philosophy class I have taken have established that as the correct albeit simple definition of humanism. I can only assume that your definition comes from some more narrow definition/interpretation that you have devised.

I would also take issue over rationality, which I think is indeed a quintessential human quality and a foundation behind our entire capability for philosophy and knowledge.

In closing, due to this thread only being further derailed by this debate and it being 4 a.m. here, I am going to have to bid adieu.

[Archangel]

Yeah, that whole idea of Humanism being born in 14th century Italy and developing into the Renaissance is MY invention. Do your philosophy books come with crayons?

It's hardly Petrarch's fault that after him, everybody with 2 cents on ontology abused the term.

[Archetype]

I really don't see much credence in the argument that a nativity scene or a menorah has value beyond what their represent vis-a-vis their respective religions.

Shallow much?

I would say the argument is more that a nativity scene or a menorah is not in-your-face whereas the atheist sign is precisely that. But are symbols themselves not just words condensed into a simple image?

No, they aren't.

[The GWD]

Olympia to erect a Festivus pole (http://www.komonews.com/news/local/35616504.html)

OLYMPIA, Wash. - State officials, besieged by requests for more seasonal displays at the state Capitol, have approved several more - including a "Festivus" display honoring a faux holiday popularized by TV comedian Jerry Seinfeld.

Let's stop bickering for two minutes and acknowledge this awesomeness. I want in on the feats of strength segment.

[Archetype]

Faux holiday?

[Bill Paxton]

Maybe im painting in broad strokes here, but I looked up the definition of Humanism since I am no philosophy major...

1.any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.2.devotion to or study of the humanities.3.(sometimes initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) the studies, principles, or culture of the humanists.4.Philosophy. a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.

[Archangel]

Definition added by post-Enlightenment jackasses to give their shallow ideas some weight.
At some point, every ontological discussion on man was defined as "humanism", even Schlegel (who would have vociferously rejected that term). Hell, even Marx called his inhuman, criminal, atrocious ideas "humanistic". Unfortunately, it appears to have gained some acceptance in certain circles, especially in America. Where I come from, Humanism has a clear cut definition, not some wishy washy shit that people like tater subscribe to.
Just because it's called the Harlem "Renaissance", it doesn't mean that every numbers runner was Leonardo da Vinci.

[Archetype]

Marx's ideas were inhuman and atrocious? I mean, I know communism in action was bad, but I think he meant well.

[Archangel]

Well, sure.

If you wilfully neglect the very existence of two or three essential aspects of human existence (greed, competition, envy etc), it would work fabulously.

It's like saying that, say, an economic plan is well meaning but slightly flawed because it doesn't take into account that people have to eat. If you're convinced that people can get over that traditional bourgeois flaw, it might look brilliant on paper, but in the end, you still end up with a lot of dead people.

[vasili denisov]

I really don't see much credence in the argument that a nativity scene or a menorah has value beyond what their represent vis-a-vis their respective religions. Obviously, Christianity and all religions help create valuable qualities such as fraternity, contributing positively to one's community, etc. Religions do a lot of good.

However, I would argue that atheism and secular humanism argue for much of the same things. Without religion, there is one less division among people, which facilitates fraternity; there is the drive to make this world better rather than preparing for the next; etc.
I think this a separate debate from the difference between use of symbols and simple declarations. Both religious people and atheists have done many great works; the point I'm making here is that certain visual representations and narratives have the possibility of a broader, non-religious substance that a declaration, whether theistic or atheistic, does not. A declaration only has substance for those who believe it, and the belief cannot stem from the declaration itself, while Rodin's Pieta can be a powerful image even if you think the story of Jesus is bunk.

I mentioned Rodin's Pieta and "A Charlie Brown Christmas"; the closest equivalent would be maybe Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia" or Ignazio Silone's "Bread and Wine".

I would say the argument is more that a nativity scene or a menorah is not in-your-face whereas the atheist sign is precisely that. But are symbols themselves not just words condensed into a simple image? Imagine if the nativity scene was a sign with scripture detailing the birth of Christ. Imagine if the menorah was a sign telling the story of the Maccabees and the Jewish revolt and the miracle of the oil burning for eight days. Would these statements about Jesus' divinity or the Jews being the Chosen People of God be any less or more "in your face" than the statement that religion is myth?

I think there are certainly religious images that are more violent or provocative than others. Yet I don't think anyone would concede that the substance of a painting can be distilled solely in its "message" or the event it is trying to represent. In the aesthetic qualities it has broader non-religious substance, and in its expression of human feeling its has similar qualities transcendent of any faith. A bumper sticker that says "Abraham was willing to sacrifice his son for God. What are you willing to do?" is of no importance to any but a committed believer; a depiction of Abraham's sacrifice by, say, William Faulker would be of interest to many non-christians, as does Caravaggio's "Sacrifice of Isaac".

[Archangel]

There is also a qualitative difference between affirmation and negation. If I wear a cross pendant, or place a crucifix/nativity/whatever in a certain place, it doesn't say anything about you. I'm not saying that you are wrong for not believing, believing differently, or believing something else, I'm just stating that I believe something.

The problem with this sign is that it doesn't affirm anyone's belief in the existence of no god, but by absolutely negating it, attacks the beliefs of those who do. Stating as a fact that god is a fairy-tale and religion is rubbish is - the rather jarring arrogance aside - tantamount to telling people that they're WRONG. And people might take umbrage at that. It is, in a word, rude.

A nativity scene doesn't tell anyone what to do. It's a symbol of a certain faith, and represents something to the people who adhere to it. There is no force behind it, unless you want there to be. If you don't believe, it's fucking puppets and toy animals in a bloody barn. A sign negating faith itself is basically telling the people who want to enjoy something that they are stupid for doing so. It can be nothing else.
"I think I saw something" leaves you with an option; "no you didn't" does not.
Again, not exactly the height of civility.

Imagine if at a sports event, there would be a trophies for the best track teams, for the best football teams, for the best basketball teams etc, and alongside those, a sign saying "all sports are for dumb jocks". It is an opinion that many people have, and you can certainly find arguments to defend that opinion if you look hard enough - like, say, that jocks have "oppressed" intellectuals in high schools for decades - but is that the right time and place? Can't you just let these people have their fun without your gay little petty need to spoil it getting the better of you? People like this don't care about messages, only agendas. They celebrate pissing others off. Bravo, I say.


The inherent systemic problem of atheism is that it's an ideology based on the absence of something, which very rarely works. Nietzsche was mentioned here: and tater being an idiot, he called ol' Fritz an atheist. Wrong, he was anti-Christian, offering instead himself as a reborn Dionysos as an alternative. Ecce Homo, indeed. He bloody signed off his last book as "Der Gekreuzigte", for fuck's sake.
But we had a thread on that already, and bis repetita non semper placent, as they say.

[Bill Paxton]

There is also a qualitative difference between affirmation and negation. If I wear a cross pendant, or place a crucifix/nativity/whatever in a certain place, it doesn't say anything about you. I'm not saying that you are wrong for not believing, believing differently, or believing something else, I'm just stating that I believe something.

The problem with this sign is that it doesn't affirm anyone's belief in the existence of no god, but by absolutely negating it, attacks the beliefs of those who do. Stating as a fact that god is a fairy-tale and religion is rubbish is - the rather jarring arrogance aside - tantamount to telling people that they're WRONG. And people might take umbrage at that. It is, in a word, rude.

A nativity scene doesn't tell anyone what to do. It's a symbol of a certain faith, and represents something to the people who adhere to it. There is no force behind it, unless you want there to be. If you don't believe, it's fucking puppets and toy animals in a bloody barn. A sign negating faith itself is basically telling the people who want to enjoy something that they are stupid for doing so. It can be nothing else.
"I think I saw something" leaves you with an option; "no you didn't" does not.
Again, not exactly the height of civility.

So if instead of a a nativity scene, a bunch of scientologists put up a big "scientology day" display with pictures of thetans and spaceships, and a group of atheists put up a sign that said "there is no Xenu, no intergalactic 747s, and no thetans" would you be trying to make the same argument against them? I am not asking this to be argumentative I am really curious. Same for something like Satanism or Wicca. Would those of you bashing the Atheists make the same argument in that case?



Imagine if at a sports event, there would be a trophies for the best track teams, for the best football teams, for the best basketball teams etc, and alongside those, a sign saying "all sports are for dumb jocks". It is an opinion that many people have, and you can certainly find arguments to defend that opinion if you look hard enough - like, say, that jocks have "oppressed" intellectuals in high schools for decades - but is that the right time and place? Can't you just let these people have their fun without your gay little petty need to spoil it getting the better of you? People like this don't care about messages, only agendas. They celebrate pissing others off. Bravo, I say.
This is a pretty weak analogy. This isn't someone showing up at a sports event and bashing sports. This is someone showing up at the capitol and seeing a big display of michael jordan or wayne gretzky and deciding they want to put up a sign damning sports altogether because they don't believe in the "greatness" of said sport, or even thinks that Sport is bad for society.

[madddawggg]

Christians and atheists and of other religion or lack there of need to realize that if you demand people respect your views on religion, you need to respect others. As a Christian I have no problem with atheists putting up signs or frosty the snowman like they did last year, as long as it doesn't disrespect Christianity or any other religion.

[Archetype]

So if instead of a a nativity scene, a bunch of scientologists put up a big "scientology day" display with pictures of thetans and spaceships, and a group of atheists put up a sign that said "there is no Xenu, no intergalactic 747s, and no thetans" would you be trying to make the same argument against them? I am not asking this to be argumentative I am really curious. Same for something like Satanism or Wicca. Would those of you bashing the Atheists make the same argument in that case?

What's the point of Scientology? No, really, I still haven't heard what it's supposed to be about. Other than Tom Cruise fucking you with his ethics.

[Archetype]

Christians and atheists and of other religion or lack there of need to realize that if you demand people respect your views on religion, you need to respect others.

Do they? Why?

[Billy]

Are you faggots still at this?

[Whiffleball]

Yeah, that whole idea of Humanism being born in 14th century Italy and developing into the Renaissance is MY invention. Do your philosophy books come with crayons?

It's hardly Petrarch's fault that after him, everybody with 2 cents on ontology abused the term.

Oh, spare me the whole "haughty intellectual" act. That may intimidate some of the garden variety types who just come here for fake gambling and tits, but I'm not impressed.

You may well have your own interpretation of what strictly falls within your narrow definition of humanism, but if I have to choose between over half a decade of personal experience and research versus the opinion of an Internet stranger who didn't even know what secular humanism is, you'll pardon me if I go with the former. Especially when you're arguments have scraped the bottom, comparing my ideas with those of Stalin's tyranny and lumping all non-religious people in with fanatical, intolerant atheists!

Shallow much?

Uh... Why? The nativity scene is an explicit recreation of Jesus' birth. Isn't it painfully obvious that it's supposed to represent Jesus coming amongst humanity to save us from sin? Oh, it's nice if some people also conjure up ideals that are not specifically religious, but it's obvious that the clear cut purpose of these religious depictions is to speak to the faith it represents. Nothing is more overtly Christian than a nativity scene, because at least with a cross there is potential for more interpretation!

No, they aren't.

That's, like, your opinion, man, as The Dude said. But all symbols represent something else by association and I think most people would agree what a nativity scene or a menorah represents... and it's not just a bunch of noble abstractions that have been hoisted upon faith in general.

I think this a separate debate from the difference between use of symbols and simple declarations. Both religious people and atheists have done many great works; the point I'm making here is that certain visual representations and narratives have the possibility of a broader, non-religious substance that a declaration, whether theistic or atheistic, does not. A declaration only has substance for those who believe it, and the belief cannot stem from the declaration itself, while Rodin's Pieta can be a powerful image even if you think the story of Jesus is bunk.

I am really skeptical that if there was an established symbol that all religions are myth it would be more well-received than a sign that says just that. Again, I reject that there is any broad, non-religious substance behind religious icons other than what some people might infer (and even they would not agree).

I think there are certainly religious images that are more violent or provocative than others. Yet I don't think anyone would concede that the substance of a painting can be distilled solely in its "message" or the event it is trying to represent.

A nativity scene is not a painting. It is not erected just to look nice or to let people search for their own interpretation. It is there to recreate the scene of Jesus' birth, that incredible miracle by which a virgin became pregnant and bore a son. It's message of "Jesus is our Lord and Savior" is just as clear as "Religion is a myth".

The problem with this sign is that it doesn't affirm anyone's belief in the existence of no god, but by absolutely negating it, attacks the beliefs of those who do. Stating as a fact that god is a fairy-tale and religion is rubbish is - the rather jarring arrogance aside - tantamount to telling people that they're WRONG. And people might take umbrage at that. It is, in a word, rude.

The sign does in fact affirm a lack of belief in any religion, which is perfectly fine and respectable. To see it as nothing but an attack on religion is incredibly small-minded and overly sensitive. You may as well complain that the Jewish menorah was offensive because Jews deny the divinity of Jesus Christ, so to have a menorah beside a nativity scene is an attack upon the Christian faith. Yet somehow Christians are able to accept that Jews believe differently than they do; but they cannot accept that there are people who don't give any credence to religion at all.

I also find it highly amusing that you of all people is bemoaning someone being rude, considering that in all your arguments, you spare no time resorting to name-calling and insults and dismissing the other side of idiocy. Even though I never once called for the persecution of the religious, you did not hesitate to label me a supporter of Stalinism.

A nativity scene doesn't tell anyone what to do. It's a symbol of a certain faith, and represents something to the people who adhere to it. There is no force behind it, unless you want there to be. If you don't believe, it's fucking puppets and toy animals in a bloody barn. A sign negating faith itself is basically telling the people who want to enjoy something that they are stupid for doing so. It can be nothing else.

You are incredibly wrong. Indeed, the nativity scene and what it represents is in itself harmless. But the sign is just as harmless. Christianity judges me to be wrong, to be a heathen, so if I were insecure, to see a symbol of Christianity would send me to pieces. It does not. I do not feel persecuted, even though in other age I would have been burned at the sake for denying Jesus' divinity. Yet when a sign declares that religion is a myth, these insecure religious types act as though the nails are being driven into their hands.

[madddawggg]

Do they? Why?
Well, if you just go around disrespecting everyone else's views no one will take you seriously. Going around saying everybody with a different view is stupid and talking shit about them doesn't make your view any more right. It just makes you look like an asshole.

[Nosebuckle]

Even though I never once called for the persecution of the religious, you did not hesitate to label me a supporter of Stalinism.

Haha, who claimed you were a supporter of Stalinism? If you say Arch did, you might be a retard.

Has is ever occurred to you that Jesus in many ways transcends his normal association with Christians? That non-Christians the world over revere Jesus for reasons other than the tradition representations of Him?

[Archetype]

Uh... Why? The nativity scene is an explicit recreation of Jesus' birth. Isn't it painfully obvious that it's supposed to represent Jesus coming amongst humanity to save us from sin? You just answered yourself.

Oh, it's nice if some people also conjure up ideals that are not specifically religious, but it's obvious that the clear cut purpose of these religious depictions is to speak to the faith it represents. Nothing is more overtly Christian than a nativity scene, because at least with a cross there is potential for more interpretation!

Kill me. Kill me now.

That's, like, your opinion, man, as The Dude said.

Words became words because of their common use and structure within a culture. It's probably fair to say that at one point, letters/words were symbols. Hieroglyphs and whatnot. So, symbols also have associated meanings, says the dictionary, but they also have the advantage of being images. Meaning they can mean just about anything, as long as someone perceives it. You're inability to see beyond what a symbol normally represents, especially one like the Nativity scene (actually not a symbol, btw, but a complex structure of evolving mythological symbols), it doesn't show your cold, hard realism. It shows you're an idiot and an irresponsible consumer.

I am really skeptical that if there was an established symbol that all religions are myth it would be more well-received than a sign that says just that. Again, I reject that there is any broad, non-religious substance behind religious icons other than what some people might infer (and even they would not agree).

I'm probably going to shoot heroin into my eyeball because of you. Yeah, Jesus? Fuck him, he wasn't a pacifistic idealist. Buddha?

A nativity scene is not a painting.It is not erected just to look nice or to let people search for their own interpretation.

Fuck that, I'm gonna stab you in the eye with a heroin needle. Let me get this straight: You don't know what a symbol is. You don't know what myth means. And, to top it off, you think that something hasn't been put up in a modern art gallery, it's not allowed to be called a painting, or interpreted.

Christianity judges me to be wrong, to be a heathen,
Christianity doesn't judge shit. I, however, now hate you. Congrats, that's not easy to do.

[taters]

I love how the point of this thread went from "atheist criticize christianity with conflicting sign' to evil atheist try to hamper good christian free speech with their criticisms and should be silenced at all costs during christian holiday seasons".

How can christians expect free speech in their criticisms of atheists (and muslims, jews, agnostics, etc) when they refuse to accept other beliefs the same courtesy?

Is crazy black guy the only person who sees this is a massive hypocritical double standard?!

[Whiffleball]

Haha, who claimed you were a supporter of Stalinism? If you say Arch did, you might be a retard.

I stated that religion was divisive and if we were without it, there would be one less thing dividing us in society. Archangel took that and said, "Stalin was a uniter, not a divider" and the terrible things he did to impose state atheism upon the USSR. Not once did I or anyone else say that religion should be forcibly outlawed, that there should be a division between "proper atheists" and "deplorable theists". He jumped to the conclusion that that what I was talking about, just like the conclusion that all non-religious folks are fanatical God-haters who suck Dawkins' cock with abandon.

Has is ever occurred to you that Jesus in many ways transcends his normal association with Christians? That non-Christians the world over revere Jesus for reasons other than the tradition representations of Him?

That's all well and good and if some people really infer non-religious ideals from Jesus Christ, great. But I would hazard the vast majority of people associate Jesus Christ first and foremost with the tenets of Christianity. They go together like a horse and carriage, like Mohammed with Islam and Buddha and Buddhism. You can take Jesus apart from Christianity, I suppose, but to casually dismiss the connection between the two is a bit farfetched.

You just answered yourself.

I was answering you and your claim that me connecting the nativity scene as a blatant representation of one of the chief tenets of the Christian doctrine was "shallow". It's not shallow; it's stating the obvious. Again, if you can infer additional stuff from the nativity scene and Christianity in general, that's all well and good, but I reject dismissing the blatant, obvious connection as some middling detail.

Words became words because of their common use and structure within a culture. It's probably fair to say that at one point, letters/words were symbols. Hieroglyphs and whatnot. So, symbols also have associated meanings, says the dictionary, but they also have the advantage of being images. Meaning they can mean just about anything, as long as someone perceives it.

Just because you see a clown's face in a cloud doesn't make it not a cloud. There is nothing up for interpretation in a nativity scene. It is a very literal and obvious reenactment of Jesus Christ's divine birth. Again, if you want to see more there, bully to you, but I really don't understand how someone can say, "This speaks to the nobility of mankind, etc." but not what it very clearly is, which is that of a religious icon.

I'm probably going to shoot heroin into my eyeball because of you. Yeah, Jesus? Fuck him, he wasn't a pacifistic idealist. Buddha?

I'm sorry, but I don't see a connection between "I don't see how it can be denied that there is a direct relationship between religious icons and the religions they represent" with "Fuck Jesus because he wasn't a pacifistic idealist". What are you responding to here?

Let me get this straight: You don't know what a symbol is. You don't know what myth means. And, to top it off, you think that something hasn't been put up in a modern art gallery, it's not allowed to be called a painting, or interpreted.

Look, I just don't agree that you can take a blatantly obvious depiction of something like Christ's birth or someone like Christ himself and totally ignore the religious connection. It's not like a painting created purely for aesthetic purpose to please the eye or to stir up emotion or thought in the viewer. It may very well be pleasing to look at and may indeed stir up non-religious-specific emotions within you, but the connection between a Christian symbol and Christianity is plain as day.

If you really think something like a nativity scene is just an innocent, secular thing with no religious-specific connotations to it, I don't know what else to say, really.

[Archangel]

I stated that religion was divisive and if we were without it, there would be one less thing dividing us in society. Archangel took that and said, "Stalin was a uniter, not a divider" and the terrible things he did to impose state atheism upon the USSR. Not once did I or anyone else say that religion should be forcibly outlawed, that there should be a division between "proper atheists" and "deplorable theists". He jumped to the conclusion that that what I was talking about, just like the conclusion that all non-religious folks are fanatical God-haters who suck Dawkins' cock with abandon.

No, I think that the people responsible for this are, though.

And all I did was take your theoretical example of a society without religion - and your statement that it would ipso facto be better in certain ways - and use a practical example where a faithless society was tried. It's utterly legitimate as an argument; just because it puts paid to your notion of atheism's superiority, you don't get to dismiss it. If I were to extol the theoretical virtues of theocracy (which I won't), and you were to tell me that in the real world, Iran is a shithole, I would have to accept that. So do you.

And by the way, I was very much aware of what "secular humanism" is. If I say "who the fuck is this John Lucas guy to think that he can play in the NBA?" it does not mean that I don't know that he plays basketball.

[Archangel]

So if instead of a a nativity scene, a bunch of scientologists put up a big "scientology day" display with pictures of thetans and spaceships, and a group of atheists put up a sign that said "there is no Xenu, no intergalactic 747s, and no thetans" would you be trying to make the same argument against them? I am not asking this to be argumentative I am really curious. Same for something like Satanism or Wicca. Would those of you bashing the Atheists make the same argument in that case?

Relativism is the dumbest ideological abomination that mankind has ever had.

If a kindergarten teacher bashes the freaking Teletubbies, that's one thing. If the same guy talks shit about Aristotelian syllogisms or Thomanian scholasticism, that's something else. This ridiculous American notion of equality of ideas bears rather strange fruit, doesn't it. When the Wiccans and the scientologists bring forth the most important metaphysical works of an entire millennium, then we can talk.

Put simply, to criticise something, you should know as much about it as you would have to know in order to teach it. You don't get to call Obama a communist without having read Das Kapital, and you don't get to call Islam retarded without having read Ibn Rushd. But the notion of knowing what the fuck you're talking about appears to be largely extinct in American public debate.

So I can call scientology retarded because I have read some bad sci-fi comics in my lifetime: People who have no idea who Augustine, Bernard and Kierkegaard are should shut the fuck up about Christianity. It really is that simple. And yes, by the same token, it implies that if you haven't read at the very least the Bible, you have no business calling yourself a Christian. How the fuck are you gonna follow something you know nothing about? That's even worse than criticising something you don't know.

This is a pretty weak analogy. This isn't someone showing up at a sports event and bashing sports. This is someone showing up at the capitol and seeing a big display of michael jordan or wayne gretzky and deciding they want to put up a sign damning sports altogether because they don't believe in the "greatness" of said sport, or even thinks that Sport is bad for society.

It's fucking Christmas. You can hate football all you fucking want, but the Super Bowl might be the wrong time to make your disdain known publicly.

I love how the point of this thread went from "atheist criticize christianity with conflicting sign' to evil atheist try to hamper good christian free speech with their criticisms and should be silenced at all costs during christian holiday seasons".

How can christians expect free speech in their criticisms of atheists (and muslims, jews, agnostics, etc) when they refuse to accept other beliefs the same courtesy?

Is crazy black guy the only person who sees this is a massive hypocritical double standard?!

Yeah, because all Jews, Muslims and atheists are the pinnacle of fucking tolerance. Go and try celebrating Hanukah or Kwanzaa in Iran or China, jackass.

Seriously, shut the fuck up.

[Yelram]

Its hysterical that people like whiffle seem to see Christianity as a divisive religion. "Love one another", "Dont judge, lest ye be judged", "Turn the other cheek". Oh wow, what divisive concepts.

[vasili denisov]

A nativity scene is not a painting. It is not erected just to look nice or to let people search for their own interpretation. It is there to recreate the scene of Jesus' birth, that incredible miracle by which a virgin became pregnant and bore a son. It's message of "Jesus is our Lord and Savior" is just as clear as "Religion is a myth".

I don't think I ever made the statement that a religious painting, say of Christ on the cross or a pieta could necessarily be interpreted as anything but what they are, depictions of sacred christian moments. Some such works do have qualities that are valued for no reason having to do with their religious aspects. For instance, it's possible to see the brilliance in some religious renaissance painting just by looking at the depiction of folds of cloth.

That a nativity scene is not erected with a primary purpose that is aesthetic suggests that religious paintings studied now were commissioned for such a purpose, when, like the nativity scene, they were funded for the first (and sometimes, only) purpose of consecration. There was a need for a good, competent artist, and sometimes they got a genius. I'm not arguing that most, or any nativity scene found in the US is the work of a genius. I'm arguing that there's the possibility of great aesthetic quality that is not there in a declarative statement.

I am really skeptical that if there was an established symbol that all religions are myth it would be more well-received than a sign that says just that.

I'd say a depiction of a symbol that all religions are myth, or a fraternity outside of any religion, could have aesthetic qualities which a declaration does not. One work which advocates such a fraternity, and is very well received, would be Beethoven's Ninth.

[Archangel]

Yeah, but if you look at the full lyrics to Ode to Joy (one of Schiller's lesser poems, truth be told), it's hard to describe it as advocating anything outside of religion...

Freude trinken alle Wesen
An den Brüsten der Natur;
Alle Guten, alle Bösen
Folgen ihrer Rosenspur.
Küße gab sie uns und Reben,
Einen Freund, geprüft im Tod;
Wollust ward dem Wurm gegeben,
Und der Cherub steht vor Gott.

Froh, wie seine Sonnen fliegen
Durch des Himmels prächt'gen Plan,
Laufet, Brüder, eure Bahn,
Freudig, wie ein Held zum Siegen.

Seid umschlungen, Millionen!
Diesen Kuß der ganzen Welt!
Brüder, über'm Sternenzelt
Muß ein lieber Vater wohnen.
Ihr stürzt nieder, Millionen?
Ahnest du den Schöpfer, Welt?
Such' ihn über'm Sternenzelt!
Über Sternen muß er wohnen.

translation:

Joy all creatures drink
At the breasts of nature;
All good, all bad
Follow her trail of roses.
Kisses she gave us, and wine,
A friend, proven in death;
Pleasure was to the worm given,
And the cherub stands before God.

Glad, as His suns fly
Through the Heaven's glorious design,
Run, brothers, your race,
Joyful, as a hero to victory.

Be embraced, millions!
This kiss for the whole world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
Must a loving Father dwell.
Do you bow down, millions?
Do you sense the Creator, world?
Seek Him beyond the starry canopy!
Beyond the stars must He dwell.

[lusonico]

When christians choose to display something as personal as faith on government property they should expect this. Its not like they stood outside of a church on christmas eve with this sign. It was their way of making a point about separation of church and state.

This is the problem with anti-religious people, if i decide to serve food to the poor on the PUBLIC street because my personal faith commands me to, then anti-religious will most probably forget the action and judge the motive, they'll say i'm evangelizing hungry people on public grounds! It will be the next step for anti-religious people, for now anti-religious will just ignore the fact these christian symbols in this period invoke peace, family and good will among men, and go right to attack the motives. Goodwill, peace, fraternity, all in the name of God? NO FUCKING WAY YOU MOTHERFUCKING CHRISTIAAAAANS!!!
Militant atheists/anti-religious are one of the most irracional kind of people i ever seen. Christianity is a moral code they (at least western post-religious citizens) share allot more than don't, and yet, christianity it's untolerable.



You're comparing apples and oranges. Again, this isn't like someone going into a privately owned church and holding up a sign that says "god does not exist".

Of course not, it's like Christians swarming every atheist/anti-religious demonstration chasing militant atheists in public grounds. I mean you know that there are allot more christians than atheists right? And atheist make allot more fuss? If Christianity and atheism were just equivalent points of view, atheists would get choked every time they would try to gather, by a even larger christian mob with alllot more boards claiming "God exists!". Atheists are actually comparing christian indignation to what they do! It's just insane.

There are people that do protest the US government and they have every right to.

But they don't do it , or are allowed to do it, when patriot or government events are taking place! IN PUBLIC GROUNDS! How about every single reactionary anti-american american to start showing up in mobs at presidential oaths or parades in the 4 of July with cards saying "America is a mistake" or "This is not our land" or whatever! I mean God is just a relative and personal notion not to be displayed in public, but the notion of a nation is not? We are talking a major psicotic path, man! Positive reiforcement of an "abstract" notion of country is just as vulnerable as the one of God. If you open that door and take the path of TOTAL relativization, we're fucked. Americans, europeans, japanese, whatever.

I never said it was true christians fault that there is a commercial orgy at christmas time. All im saying is that non-christians might get tired of it after a while, and at the very least don't want to have to see a manger scene outside of a courthouse/public library/ whatever.

Once a year chistmas tires people? Well our grandparents generation was not as susceptible, but now people are hypersensible to every fucking possible shit they can "think" of. And out the window with good old grandpa/grandma good and common sense.
Heres the next step, how about we erradicate families made of a mom and a dad, or couples made of a woman and a man out of public grounds? Yeah man, christmas is just a couple week season in the year, but heterossexuality is everywhere every time!!! There are people tired of this you know? Ah shit, i can ear it on my mind, self righteous folks saying "every sexual lifestyle is each persons choice (being all equal), not something to be displayed in public grounds, so out with hetero sex of TV, no kissing in the streets, no daddy/mommy family comercials or ELSE!". I mean, the God of a majority christian nation is offensive, nation itself is personal and offensive, then why the fuck not sexual tendency? Yep, it's the victory of cultural marxism, the end of Western Civilization, snif.


This is such a strawman argument. First off, our bill of rights is also the product of racists who didn't believe women should have the same rights as men.
True, but that gives me an idea, how about eliminating all races and genders out of the media? You know, with CGI we can turn every presenter, cartoon, actor, etc, racially and gender neutral. Why the fuck would some race be more proeminent in the media? Because it exists in a majority in the country? No fucking way.

They had a lot of good ideas and did a lot of good things, but that doesn't mean we need to emmulate and maintain everything about who they were. Yes, it can be argued that we have derived a lot of good things from christianity, but that doesn't make every aspect of the religion valid.

I never said it did, i din't... But tolerating christians nativity does not make you a supporter of the religion, you know? I mentioned christian contribution to western civilization and it's secular governments ethics to show there's justice in tolerance of a public christmas, there is, man.


Maybe the reason I don't steal or murder evolved from christianity or other religions, but that doesn't mean I have to actually believe in God, or that jesus was god, or that anything else in the bible is anything more than a good story.

True, It does not. Hey i'm agnostic! Call me a cultural christian.:cool:

People should be able to enjoy christmas and their faith all they want, but theres just no reason that something as personal as religion needs to be displayed on government property. If its going to be displayed on government property, then expect people to protest that.

They CAN protest, it's their right, but rights are not the same as justice. They are not making justice, and not even being just to themselves. It could be said there is no non-opressive law that can be made to deal with this kind of thing. But i agree with the notion that a nation has it's own primary identity, the one it has to be upheld above all others without excluding anyone, but absolutely not allowing it to be dethroned by relativizations. Otherwise, America is gone, and the rest of the Western world as well. I'm serious, all i see is a counter-culture taking over, i counter-culture seizing the youth and making it disconnect from respect from elders (even their parents) their patriotism is out the window. I mean the basic structures of society are just crumbling and the social state will mask the problem and hold the damm until things explode all over like its already starting in Greece, France, etc...


You're talking about atheism as if its a consolidated group. A lot of atheists don't give a fuck, but some do, and thats their right. But somehow they are whiney assholes just because they try to make a point about separation of church and state?

It's an elusive point, since America's government is secular, and i don't see how christmas celebrations will change that...

Oh, and remember, these anti-religious crowd are never, EVER, just anti-religious.

[Limp]

I'm not reading all that.

[Pax Britannia]

I wonder if they'll put up a similar sign outside a Mosque during Ramadan.

I doubt it.

[Morfin]

I wonder if they'll put up a similar sign outside a Mosque during Ramadan.

I doubt it.

Apples and oranges. A mosque is private property, this was public property.

Lusonico: In your long post you either failed to grasp or ignored the distinction. This isn't about having to remove all "race" or "gender," it is about a display on public property.

This is what I posted at the beginning of this thread and I believe it is the fundamental issue: Why is the city even opening this can of worms:

1. The atheists here were being jerks and intentionally wanted to anger people. Boorish people do boorish things.

2. In my mind, the issue isn't the atheists' actions or the Christian groups' actions, it is the action of the government. Why is the the government getting involved at all? The government is supposed to be neutral. The government is supposed to be "governing" the people -- laws, taxing, etc., it is not there to celebrate holidays. Or, more specifically, spending tax money celebrating holidays.

The government should have just said no to everyone. If the government feels that they just can't not celebrate Christmas, leave it secular -- tree, lights -- and that's it. If any group wants to put up a nativity scene, menorrah, or whatever, tell them no and let them put them up on private property somewhere.

The government started the problem by allowing groups to put up religious displays and, now that everyone can put up displays, they get all the rabble and the "kids don't play nice together."



Finally, you really are a noob, madddawggg. However, as the saying goes: Out of the mouths of babes...:

Well, if you just go around disrespecting everyone else's views no one will take you seriously. Going around saying everybody with a different view is stupid and talking shit about them doesn't make your view any more right. It just makes you look like an asshole.

Welcome to the land of assholes.

[redsox39]

Is crazy black guy the only person who sees this is a massive hypocritical double standard?!

In all fairness, if anyone knows "massive hypocritical double standards", it has to be taters

[freegood]

I'm not reading all that.

You're lucky I haven't invented mind rape yet.

[Yelram]

Apples and oranges. A mosque is private property, this was public property.



Well the thing about that is that the bill of rights guarantees people the right to celebrate religious holidays. That being guaranteed should force INCLUSIVENESS. As in if the "militant secular humanists" (thats what i'm referring to atheists as nowadays), want Santa Claus, or fucking Frosty the snowman to make Christmas more focused on good will amongst men, and less on the birth of christ, thats fine, just dont go undermining others religions during their holidays. If something is already a national holiday, and it already has symbols associated with it, what makes putting a nativity scene an endorsement of religion? It being a national holiday should seem like much more of an endorsement. Holidays are holidays, and people celebrate them differently. If something is already a holiday, then how can things associated with it be offensive? I thought the idea was tolerance. This is nothing but intolerance, being included BECAUSE of tolerance. The one thing that is not tolerable is intolerance. Everything else should be covered by the first amendment. Therefore a sign saying "god doesnt exist" is not a profession of faith, but a profession of intolerance of others beliefs. Much like if instead of a nativity scene, the christians put up a sign that says "Its christmas, unbelievers burn in hell", it would be intolerance. So until the atheists come up with a reason to celebrate a holiday, they are nothing but intolerant assholes fucking up everyone elses fun. You'd think atheists would start proving that you dont need religion to have morality, instead of proving the exact opposite, that those without religion lack the tactfulness to make a tasteful holiday presentation without belittling someone elses belief. And dont even get me started on Jehovah witnesses. They would be just as much against a nativity scene as the atheists but for other reasons.

[Morfin]

You are correct about the fact that a religious holiday was made into a federal holiday.

You are correct that people have the right to celebrate how they want.

Where I depart from your line of thinking is that governments should be involved at all. Christmas (and the Christians will tell you in frustration) has become more of a secular holiday.

I disagree that an atheist's sign saying "God doesn't exist" is intolerance -- it is disagreement. Boorish behavior, like the atheists' actions in this case, or a Christian sign about non-believers are going to burn in hell, is allowed by the First Amendment and the right to free speech.

I am more bothered by the government allowing religious displays on public ground than I am about whether one side's display is offensive to another.

[redsox39]

Yelram...good post.

If something is already a national holiday, and it already has symbols associated with it, what makes putting a nativity scene an endorsement of religion? It being a national holiday should seem like much more of an endorsement. Holidays are holidays, and people celebrate them differently. If something is already a holiday, then how can things associated with it be offensive?

[Archangel]

So if 75% of the people working in that public building are Christians, and they would like to have something reminding them of their favourite holiday in their place of work, they are not allowed to because of the remaining 25%, there are a handful of arseholes who can take pleasure only from disrupting and annoying others?

Seriously, your laws don't make much sense to me. Not every opinion deserves an ear, every time, in every place. It's common fucking sense.

[Claydon]

Jesus fucking tap dancing christ.

one, I want to bitch slap this atheist for making the rest of atheists look like douchbags, and 2nd, who gives a fuck if there is a baby jesus scene, or a jew symbol for the holidays at a city hall. this is no worse than fuck wad christians walking around with signs that say "God hates fags"

[Morfin]

So if 75% of the people working in that public building are Christians, and they would like to have something reminding them of their favourite holiday in their place of work, they are not allowed to because of the remaining 25%, there are a handful of arseholes who can take pleasure only from disrupting and annoying others?

Seriously, your laws don't make much sense to me. Not every opinion deserves an ear, every time, in every place. It's common fucking sense.

When I use the term "public," I am referring to "government" buildings, not places open to the public. My fault, I should have written "publicly-owned" buildings.

Edit: And I was not referring to workers having little elf dolls on their computer monitors -- I was referring to displays in common areas of a religious nature.

[redsox39]

So if 75% of the people working in that public building are Christians, and they would like to have something reminding them of their favourite holiday in their place of work, they are not allowed to because of the remaining 25%, there are a handful of arseholes who can take pleasure only from disrupting and annoying others?

Seriously, your laws don't make much sense to me. Not every opinion deserves an ear, every time, in every place. It's common fucking sense.

I'd say "tell that to the Muslims", but they are becoming more than a 25% minority over there in lots of places. (If I am to believe the news)

[Claydon]

I'd say "tell that to the Muslims", but they are becoming more than a 25% minority over there in lots of places. (If I am to believe the news)

in europe yes, and in europe they had their balls cut off during WW2, so when the muslims bring their horseshit in and what sharia law the european governments wimper, then cry and say "yes, you can have your religious courts...just dont hurt us"...then they bend over and offer them some KY.


Here, the FBI infiltrates their mosques.

[Yelram]

You are correct about the fact that a religious holiday was made into a federal holiday.

You are correct that people have the right to celebrate how they want.

Where I depart from your line of thinking is that governments should be involved at all. Christmas (and the Christians will tell you in frustration) has become more of a secular holiday.

I disagree that an atheist's sign saying "God doesn't exist" is intolerance -- it is disagreement. Boorish behavior, like the atheists' actions in this case, or a Christian sign about non-believers are going to burn in hell, is allowed by the First Amendment and the right to free speech.

I am more bothered by the government allowing religious displays on public ground than I am about whether one side's display is offensive to another.

A nativity scene does not display the set of beliefs that a christian follows, it merely depicts the events from the only historical record we have of his birth. If the holiday is in honor of Jesus, than its personal, not religious. If we had a Ghandi day, or if on MLK day they did a mock up of Selma, it would not be a religious statement. But since the followers of christ created a church based on his philosophy, the man cannot be admired without some sort of breech of separation of church and state? Should we change the way we count years? On New Years are they going to put up a sign that says "Its not 2009, god doesnt exist"? The government should make no law preventing the practicing of religion. Saying "No religious statements on public ground" is the exact opposite of the stated intent.. Again, it should be inclusiveness. If you want a menorah, great, done. If on Ramadan you want some sort of Islamic display, do it. Its public land, if some of the public is Islamic, than why not? Because it might offend everyone else? Fuck that, that is a slippery slope to the banning of religion from public life. Its the same philosophy that is placed in schools, and forces children to be entirely ignorant of other religions. You cant include religion, because it might offend someone. When in reality, the offense is the LACK OF INCLUSION, not the other way around. There is no right to "muzzle" speech and expression you dont agree with. It doesnt matter what you base it on. Be it philosophy, or religion, or science. The first amendment is quite clear.

[vasili denisov]

If something is already a national holiday, and it already has symbols associated with it, what makes putting a nativity scene an endorsement of religion?
Christmas is celebrated by many cultures, including non-christian ones. Our modern christmas contains many elements of such pagan celebrations, and arguably those elements are the most prominent, such as holly and mistletoe. Christmas has these multiple aspects of a christian and pagan holiday, while other christian holidays, such as Easter, do not. A nativity scene is a specific emphasis on the christian aspect; that's no problem if it's on privately owned ground, it leads to the fiasco mentioned in the story if it's done on public space.

[redsox39]

Christmas is celebrated by many cultures, including non-christian ones. Our modern christmas contains many elements of such pagan celebrations, and arguably those elements are the most prominent, such as holly and mistletoe. Christmas has these multiple aspects of a christian and pagan holiday, while other christian holidays, such as Easter, do not. A nativity scene is a specific emphasis on the christian aspect; that's no problem if it's on privately owned ground, it leads to the fiasco mentioned in the story if it's done on public space.

When was the year this was decided? The year that Nativity scenes became so offensive, that we had to fight against them, least they bring joy to too many people?

Seriously? I want to know how this hurts anyone! The bottom line is common sense has to kick in eventually. The Crazy Radical Hippies in the 70's didn't seem to give a shit, so why should the dumpy yuppies of today all of a sudden care?

"I see HAPPY People ENJOYING a holiday...ON PUBLIC PROPERTY!! I feel the need to WRITE A LETTER!!"

I mean really, when it comes down to it, you can "church" it up (see what I did there?) any way you want to, use legal terms and documents that were written before your mom lost her virginity, but in the end, it comes down to intolerant people being assholes.

[Morfin]

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement:

A nativity scene does not display the set of beliefs that a christian follows, it merely depicts the events from the only historical record we have of his birth.

[redsox39]

And why the disagreement? Because Christians feel it means something to them, it offends you?

Because that is all it is, once again. A portrayal of the only historical account we have.

[Archangel]

So if I fuck up the traditional meaning of Christmas, and make it about selling toys, it's cool for everybody, but the second I remind people of what it's traditionally about, I'm a religious fanatic and need to be censured?

That's not religious freedom, that's fascism of the vocal minorities.

[Morfin]

When was the year this was decided? The year that Nativity scenes became so offensive, that we had to fight against them, least they bring joy to too many people?

Seriously? I want to know how this hurts anyone!

It "hurts" people in the same respect that the schools teach the kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it.

Yes, to you and many others (including myself), the "injury" is too trivial to be called trivial, but to some it matters. And, looking at the letter of the Constitution, their interpretation is correct. All the rest of the argument, including your own, is whether this is going to lead to the proverbial slippery slope.

I could care less about schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. As to displays on government property, I don't think the governments should be involved at all -- both because it opens a can of worms and because it costs money in terms of lost productivity fighting and administering the displays. Atheist or not, I don't want my tax money (including lost gov't employee time) wasted on this stupid issue year-in-and-year-out.

[Yelram]

Christmas is celebrated by many cultures, including non-christian ones. Our modern christmas contains many elements of such pagan celebrations, and arguably those elements are the most prominent, such as holly and mistletoe. Christmas has these multiple aspects of a christian and pagan holiday, while other christian holidays, such as Easter, do not. A nativity scene is a specific emphasis on the christian aspect; that's no problem if it's on privately owned ground, it leads to the fiasco mentioned in the story if it's done on public space.

I'll give you a chance to revise that erroneous statement. Christmas may be celebrated differently, but I doubt theres anyone that claims it is not based upon the life of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe the claims about his life or not, that is not the issue. Its a holiday, ordained to recognize the contribution of Jesus to history. Not to celebrate the Christian religion. Just the ethics that are associated with the Judeo-Christian belief system are the basis of our laws. We have fucking columbus day for Christ's sake (no pun intended). Columbus believed himself to be the continuation of Christs namesake, so I guess we cant revere that man.

[Morfin]

So if I fuck up the traditional meaning of Christmas, and make it about selling toys, it's cool for everybody, but the second I remind people of what it's traditionally about, I'm a religious fanatic and need to be censured?

That's not religious freedom, that's fascism of the vocal minorities.

No, it isn't Arch. No private person or governmental body can tell you, a private citizen, what you can or can't say about Christmas. Nor can the government tell any privately-owned business what it can or can't say. That is a totally different issue than the one we have here, which is the use of government-owned space for religious displays.

[redsox39]

I say we should ban the Lower case "t". In a lot of fonts, in looks like a cross. Which is the Symbol of Christ dying for Christian sins. It probably brings them comfort, typing words like "tattle" and "teeth" and "tantamount", and it just pisses me off!

[Archangel]

Easter has at least as many pagan associations as Christmas has.


Oh well, the good part about being a Christian is that Vivaldi's Christmas music is rather better than this non-denominational elevator shit you get at American shopping malls.

[Claydon]

Easter has at least as many pagan associations as Christmas has.


Oh well, the good part about being a Christian is that Vivaldi's Christmas music is rather better than this non-denominational elevator shit you get at American shopping malls.

you are an expert on american malls?

i was just in one last night and "o holy night" was playing.

[Gary_Busey]

I really don't get all the fuss. Why can't they both be up there?

[Yelram]

It "hurts" people in the same respect that the schools teach the kids to recite the Pledge of Allegiance with the words "under God" in it.

Yes, to you and many others (including myself), the "injury" is too trivial to be called trivial, but to some it matters. And, looking at the letter of the Constitution, their interpretation is correct. All the rest of the argument, including your own, is whether this is going to lead to the proverbial slippery slope.

I could care less about schools and the Pledge of Allegiance. As to displays on government property, I don't think the governments should be involved at all -- both because it opens a can of worms and because it costs money in terms of lost productivity fighting and administering the displays. Atheist or not, I don't want my tax money (including lost gov't employee time) wasted on this stupid issue year-in-and-year-out.

Good argument against free speech there "we dont want to offend people"... WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THEY PUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT THERE!!! You think its to protect speech that noone is offended by? Its specifically to protect speech that people may take offense to. The concept of God is not entirely religious. It is an extremely vague concept that can be bent to be anything you want. God could be the earth, or the solar system. Noone says the concept of a higher being is immediately tied to one religion or the other. The importance of the statement is that THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GIVE US RIGHTS. Something HIGHER than the government does. What, where, when, why and who are totally up to the individual. Even the atheist has to admit that the earth contains all human beings, and all governments, and is in one way or another "above" humanity.

[Limp]

you are an expert on american malls?

i was just in one last night and "o holy night" was playing.
Arch is the expert on everything in America that sucks. He is the founder of www.ListOfSuckyAmericanThings.com (www.rickrolling.com).

[Archangel]

No, it isn't Arch. No private person or governmental body can tell you, a private citizen, what you can or can't say about Christmas. Nor can the government tell any privately-owned business what it can or can't say. That is a totally different issue than the one we have here, which is the use of government-owned space for religious displays.

I am not debating with you on what the laws of your country that govern these things say.

I'm saying that the way they are being implemented smells of the difference between law and common fucking sense. Stop thinking like a lawyer for a second: I don't give a shit that it's legal for people to do this crap. I'm sure they have the right to.

But that doesn't mean they should. any more than those "God had your son killed in Iraq because America tolerates fags" people should be allowed to do their shit. When did common sense and decency go out of American debate? If you are going to treat every opinion equally, and hold every opinion, as idiotic as it may be, as sacred just because it is an opinion, you're gonna end up with this shit.

[redsox39]

Christmas is celebrated by many cultures, including non-christian ones. Our modern christmas contains many elements of such pagan celebrations, and arguably those elements are the most prominent, such as holly and mistletoe. Christmas has these multiple aspects of a christian and pagan holiday, while other christian holidays, such as Easter, do not. A nativity scene is a specific emphasis on the christian aspect; that's no problem if it's on privately owned ground, it leads to the fiasco mentioned in the story if it's done on public space.

Yeah, I remember in Sunday school where we talked about the Giant Mutant bunny who brought Jesus Candy in Pastel color eggs that the bunny laid the night before.

[Yelram]

When did common sense and decency go out of American debate? When we started looking to Europe to model our laws.

[Claydon]

we should talk about those neo nazis that were prostesting in germany

[Archangel]

you are an expert on american malls?

i was just in one last night and "o holy night" was playing.

After spending four or five Christmases in America, I'm still not allowed to have an opinion? All I said is that I prefer Vivaldi's Gloria or Bach's Weihnachtsoratorium to Jingle Bells, Let it Snow and that stuff.

[Archangel]

When we started looking to Europe to model our laws.
Bullshit, this would not have been possible here. Germany has no freedom of speech, remember? Just a freedom of opinion. This is an example of your insistence on freedom, equality and relativism as absolute goods run amok. It has got nothing to do with us.

Thank God for our ability to call idiots idiots. Really, your comments make no sense. I thought those laws were made explicitly to be different from ours.

[Claydon]

Bullshit, this would not have been possible here. Germany has no freedom of speech, remember? Just a freedom of opinion. This is an example of your insistence on freedom, equality and relativism as absolute goods run amok. It has got nothing to do with us.

Thank God for our ability to call idiots idiots.

nice to see that the 18th century minds played such a role in the development of european society.

[Archangel]

At least then, the dumb people knew to shut the fuck up.

[Claydon]

At least then, the dumb people knew to shut the fuck up.

They did? Like Rousseau?

[Archangel]

They did? Like Rousseau?

Switzerland doesn't count.


Ever.

[Gary_Busey]

I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion.

[vasili denisov]

I'll give you a chance to revise that erroneous statement. Christmas may be celebrated differently, but I doubt theres anyone that claims it is not based upon the life of Jesus Christ. Whether you believe the claims about his life or not, that is not the issue.
I see your chance to revise the erroneous statement and pass it up. I'm not arguing the legitimacy of celebrating the birth of christ. I am saying that christmas, as it is in the US and Europe, is a cross-cultural holiday, which gives it a basis for celebrating as a national holiday, not simply a religious holiday.

Notice all that holly and mistletoe in any christmas celebration? You think holly and mistletoe grows in the Mideast desert? They're elements of old pagan festivals integrated into the christmas holiday.

[Limp]

I think this whole thing is blown out of proportion.
In America?! No.... can't be.

[Gary_Busey]

In America?! No.... can't be.
I was referring mostly to this forum.

[Morfin]

Good argument against free speech there "we dont want to offend people"... WHY THE FUCK DO YOU THINK THEY PUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT THERE!!! You think its to protect speech that noone is offended by? Its specifically to protect speech that people may take offense to.

No, it is to protect us from the government infringing our speech -- offensive or not. I made no comments about "protecting speech that no one is offended by." The sole issue in the incident giving rise to this thread is about a government allowing religious displays in a governmental space and, whether once it allowed one religious group to put up a display, whether it should limit another one that one group deemed offensive.

As to Arch's comment about trying to not think like a lawyer, I do that and I expressed that in my previous post when I said that I don't give a rat's ass about whether kids say "under God" in school when they recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Nor do I really care about our money saying "In God We Trust." (I would rather it not be on there, but I'm not going to expend any energy to get it removed.)

Personally, taking off my lawyer's hat, I think this whole incident is ridiculous, and I've stated that repeatedly: Boorish people do boorish things. The Atheists were jerks for putting up an intentionally-provactive sign and the Christians were jerks for getting so bent out of shape about it (I will digress and potentially cause a shitstorm by saying that some Christians, namely Catholics, who picket outside of abortion clinics act just as boorishly with their demonstrations that harass the girls going into the clinics. So, it is not just atheists who can act obnoxiously.)

[Archangel]

I see your chance to revise the erroneous statement and pass it up. I'm not arguing the legitimacy of celebrating the birth of christ. I am saying that christmas, as it is in the US and Europe, is a cross-cultural holiday, which gives it a basis for celebrating as a national holiday, not simply a religious holiday.


I'm disagreeing here, since Ascension, Good Friday and Pentecost (Sun & Mon) are national holidays in Germany, while Assumption, Epiphany, Corpus Christi, All Saints' Day and Reformation Day are regional holidays, varying from state to state, meaning that yes, you get the day off. Find me the non-religious meanings of those, please.

In pretty much all of Europe, Christian religious holiday and national holiday are damn near synonyms.

[Archangel]

Hell, in Spain, the national holidays list looks like the LA maid phone book, Asunción, Concepción, Anunciación...

[taters]

Yeah, because all Jews, Muslims and atheists are the pinnacle of fucking tolerance. Go and try celebrating Hanukah or Kwanzaa in Iran or China, jackass.

Seriously, shut the fuck up.



Well, because many of those religions are intolerant, that makes it OK for christianity to be. GREAT STANDARD. Eye for an Eye. VERY christian...wait a minute, no its not.


Seriously, youre a fucking german. You dont know wtf youre talking about. This is AMERICAN SECULARIST SOCIETY, not germany, not what you would like things to be like in America, its what things are....or at least what the law is on paper.

2 Cases you need to read up about. 1 is one I TOTALLY disagree with, and was judged in a super-pro conservative manner (you would support it), yet if applied to this case it would support the rights of the athiest. The other sets the truth about the limits of freedom of expression that you and a few others are touting as a christian trump over athiesm.

RA v Saint Paul

Smith v Oregon

[Archangel]

Well, because many of those religions are intolerant, that makes it OK for christianity to be. GREAT STANDARD. Eye for an Eye. VERY christian...wait a minute, no its not.
Actually, it is. "Turn the other cheek" is the exact same thing as "eye for an eye", only seen anagogically. Yes, that is a word. Dante calls the process "contropasso".

Seriously, youre a fucking german. You dont know wtf youre talking about. Do you? Ever? Oh, the irony.
This is AMERICAN SECULARIST SOCIETY, not germany, not what you would like things to be like in America, its what things are....or at least what the law is on paper.
Has anyone ever told you that you sound like Yelram when you're mad? Quaint.

[vasili denisov]

I'm disagreeing here, since Ascension, Good Friday and Pentecost (Sun & Mon) are national holidays in Germany, while Assumption, Epiphany, Corpus Christi, All Saints' Day and Reformation Day are regional holidays, varying from state to state, meaning that yes, you get the day off. Find me the non-religious meanings of those, please.

I'm speaking solely in terms of the US, in response to Yelram's question, "Why can't there be greater religious freedom since we already recognize a christian holiday as a national holiday?", so I emphasized other aspects of the holiday. Some of the hair-splitting over religion may seem agonising, but I think the approach used was the best possible in the context of starting a country which will be expecting a population of many faiths.

[redsox39]

Well, because many of those religions are intolerant, that makes it OK for christianity to be. GREAT STANDARD. Eye for an Eye. VERY christian...wait a minute, no its not.


Seriously, youre a fucking german. You dont know wtf youre talking about. This is AMERICAN SECULARIST SOCIETY, not germany, not what you would like things to be like in America, its what things are....or at least what the law is on paper.

2 Cases you need to read up about. 1 is one I TOTALLY disagree with, and was judged in a super-pro conservative manner (you would support it), yet if applied to this case it would support the rights of the athiest. The other sets the truth about the limits of freedom of expression that you and a few others are touting as a christian trump over athiesm.

RA v Saint Paul

Smith v Oregon


You forget. you see, since tater's is black, every year he is told by those intolerant christians to QUIT CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS NEGRO!!!
Let's be honest, that never happened.

But I bet "I" wouldn't be welcome to celebrate Ramadan or Kawanza.

[Archangel]

Also, tater, if you're gonna defend atheism, PLEASE start by spelling it right. It comes from "Θεός (theós)", so it simply cannot have the i before the e. It's not a question of orthography, but of ignorance.

[Morfin]

I'm the athiest of all the atheists.

[Aegis]

Jesus Christ

[Yelram]

Bullshit, this would not have been possible here. Germany has no freedom of speech, remember? Just a freedom of opinion. This is an example of your insistence on freedom, equality and relativism as absolute goods run amok. It has got nothing to do with us.

Thank God for our ability to call idiots idiots. Really, your comments make no sense. I thought those laws were made explicitly to be different from ours.

The laws are obviously uniquely American, its the interpretation that leans more and more towards European philosophy. Let me explain to you how, and why. The European model focus's on restricting speech it finds offensive, whereas the TRUE US model protects speech up to the point of actual harm being done to a person or the threat of harm. As we start becoming more and more secular as a country, religious speech becomes "offensive" speech, and by allowing religion to be seen as an offense, it opens the doors to those who are very openly AGAINST religion, to start breaking down a couple centuries of established tradition under the guise of being "offended". The true American model would tell the offended they have no right to be offended, or to muzzle the offensive speech. The European model would seek to make concessions to the offended, in this case the inclusion of a tactless sign, placed not under the protection of freedom of speech, but under the pressure of the "offended", a group which our constitution doesnt cater to, but the European model certainly does.

[Archangel]

I mean, how seriously would you take a Christian who talked about "Jayzus" all the damned time?


Wait, belay that, you almost made her vice president.

[taters]

Actually, it is. "Turn the other cheek" is the exact same thing as "eye for an eye", only seen anagogically. Yes, that is a word. Dante calls the process "contropasso".

IF that were true, it would explain much of christian ethics and history for the past 2k years.

Has anyone ever told you that you sound like Yelram when you're mad? Quaint.


Yes. You. In like 3 other threads. Unlike Yel, it really doesnt phase me to be compared to someone. And Im not mad. Im questionative of your ability to understand the obvious.

You forget. you see, since tater's is black, every year he is told by those intolerant christians to QUIT CELEBRATING CHRISTMAS NEGRO!!!
Let's be honest, that never happened.

But I bet "I" wouldn't be welcome to celebrate Ramadan or Kawanza.

Again, you brought up race. It has nothing to do with this thread, nor did I mention or even allude to it. I see the joke youre trying to make, but you have to realize it breaks down the claim that Im the one who always brings up race.


That being said you guys need to check those cases. Especially RA. Both are seen and ruled from conservative viewpoints. Both outline the limits and allowances, even when vulgar, of free expression in religion.

Personally I think the ruling in RA was wrong (and since race has already been brought it, Ill just say I think it has more to do with Scalia and Reinquists prejudices for nonwhites than anything), but its the case and is, for the most part, precedence.

Also, tater, if you're gonna defend atheism, PLEASE start by spelling it right. It comes from "theós", so it simply cannot have the i before the e. It's not a question of orthography, but of ignorance.


What are you, new here? Youre going to haggle me on spelling? Get in line, the tellers out to lunch.

[Archangel]

The laws are obviously uniquely American, its the interpretation that leans more and more towards European philosophy. Let me explain to you how, and why. The European model focus's on restricting speech it finds offensive, whereas the TRUE US model protects speech up to the point of actual harm being done to a person or the threat of harm. As we start becoming more and more secular as a country, religious speech becomes "offensive" speech, and by allowing religion to be seen as an offense, it opens the doors to those who are very openly AGAINST religion, to start breaking down a couple centuries of established tradition under the guise of being "offended". The true American model would tell the offended they have no right to be offended, or to muzzle the offensive speech. The European model would seek to make concessions to the offended, in this case the inclusion of a tactless sign, placed not under the protection of freedom of speech, but under the pressure of the "offended", a group which our constitution doesnt cater to, but the European model certainly does.
As I said, this doesn't make sense, because this gayness couldn't have happened here. It's not our fault that the Frankfurt School couldn't get a foothold here, and thus emigrated all and one to the US, where it caught on.

Political correctness is YOUR invention, not ours.

[taters]

Political correctness is YOUR invention, not ours.


Oh? Are communist speech and parties and fascist speech and parties in Germany legal? Because Ive heard they have been 'PC banned'.

[redsox39]

That being said you guys need to check those cases. Especially RA. Both are seen and ruled from conservative viewpoints. Both outline the limits and allowances, even when vulgar, of free expression in religion.

Personally I think the ruling in RA was wrong (and since race has already been brought it, Ill just say I think it has more to do with Scalia and Reinquists prejudices for nonwhites than anything), but its the case and is, for the most part, precedence.



What are you, new here? Youre going to haggle me on spelling? Get in line, the tellers out to lunch.


that's the point. Lawfully, it is hard to argue from my side. But you have to admit, the whole point of this is just to make people upset, when the other side is trying to bring joy to a holiday.

That makes one group an asshole and one not so much.

[freegood]

I'm the athiest of all the atheists.

You're the Atheist Pope?

[Morfin]

My atheosity is supreme.

[Claydon]

south park did a great episode about atheists.

[redsox39]

you have a link?

[Yelram]

As I said, this doesn't make sense, because this gayness couldn't have happened here. It's not our fault that the Frankfurt School couldn't get a foothold here, and thus emigrated all and one to the US, where it caught on.

Political correctness is YOUR invention, not ours.

I'm pretty sure all political correctness, and the fondness for finding religion offensive originates from German minds. Be it Marx, or Nietzsche. Half your country was run by people who not only believed this concept culturally, like PC is, but economically, and philosophically. It was started in Germany (like you said, the Frankfurt school), and exported worldwide. And obviously found a home within the spoiled minds of the "me" generation. And now its metastasizing during the "I want it NOW" generation.

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v18/v18n4p36_Nordbruck.html

Theres a few examples of things in Germany, its just a matter of time for you guys.

[Morfin]

south park did a great episode about atheists.

Really? Haven't seen it. If it supports 'em, I'm sure it was great -- those guys are geniuses. If it criticized 'em, it must've sucked -- those guys are idiots.

[vasili denisov]

The laws are obviously uniquely American, its the interpretation that leans more and more towards European philosophy. Let me explain to you how, and why. The European model focus's on restricting speech it finds offensive, whereas the TRUE US model protects speech up to the point of actual harm being done to a person or the threat of harm.
Regulation of religious speech in the US has nothing to do with regulation of offensive speech; it has to do with the government promoting religion, any religion. Find me a single case where anyone argued against display of christian symbols in a public (owned by civic, state, or federal government) area on the grounds that the symbols were offensive speech. You can't blame Germany for everything.

[Phil Theehor]

This doesn't seem like that complex an issue to me.

If you are using government land, then you really should give access to either everybody or nobody. So, the atheists are within their rights in demanding equal access to a public forum.

And although it might be one of the douchiest things you'll see this year, it’s okay. A beautiful symbol will be tainted this year by a sniveling group of contrarians with nothing better to do. But Christmas, the joyous holiday, will still march on.

And the beautiful symbol that is the nativity scene will be enjoyed in other towns across the U.S. (and probably in this town again in a year or two). And once these petulant bags of shit realize that they aren't getting a rise out us anymore, they'll go on and find something else to bitch about.

Frankly, I can't see the anti-Christmas-celebration tradition carrying on with the same steam as the holiday tradition. One celebrates much of what is good about mankind, the other: a group of malcontents braying so that their tantrum is heard.

I pity the contrarians here (not because they are atheists, mind you, I know many who are both fine and happy people). Rather, I pity them because their lives are so devoid of purpose that they choose to expend their energy not to pursue their own happiness, but rather to try to deny other people their own.

And ultimately, justice is served. Christmas will still be enjoyed, and these people will be stuck living with themselves.

[Yelram]

Regulation of religious speech in the US has nothing to do with regulation of offensive speech; it has to do with the government promoting religion, any religion. Find me a single case where anyone argued against display of christian symbols in a public (owned by civic, state, or federal government) area on the grounds that the symbols were offensive speech. You can't blame Germany for everything.

Whether the argument was based in calling it what it is, or using the "establishment clause" to pussyfoot around it, its people being offended that are trying to legally muzzle religious speech in public. The government could easily establish a church, technically it already has, and as long as its not one that already exists, it would be fine. But if you use an already established religion, and religious symbols, to celebrate a state sanctioned holiday, you are somehow establishing a religion? If the country embraced secular humanism, isnt that the same as establishing a religion? "No because it has secular in the name". So what if I want to call a branch of Christianity "secular christianity", like we follow Jesus' teachings, but the whole divinity bullshit we throw out the window (Technically Arianism). Would that be supported? Where do we draw the line at whats a religion and whats not? The government collects my taxes and redistributes them to needy people. That used to be the job of the church. The government preaches about how people should live "morally", or "ethically" by enforcing restrictions of CO2 production. Or by taxing things they dont want us to buy (Cigarettes, alcohol). If the Christian lobby had pushed for the taxing of cigarettes and alcohol based on religious doctrine, this would go against separation of church and state. But since the secular humanists are the ones proposing the taxes to alter behavior, based upon THEIR concepts of what is HEALTHY and what ISNT(Read MORALITY), its OK. The freedom of religion guaranteed in the constitution, and the prevention of a state established religion, are both in the bill of rights to PROTECT RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION. So the government cant create a religion to SILENCE OTHER RELIGIONS. Not so that on christmas, A NATIONAL HOLIDAY, we cant put symbols of Christmas on public land.

[Archetype]

And why the disagreement? Because Christians feel it means something to them, it offends you?

Because that is all it is, once again. A portrayal of the only historical account we have.
It's hardly a historical account.

No, it isn't Arch. No private person or governmental body can tell you, a private citizen, what you can or can't say about Christmas.

Maybe on paper.

we should talk about those neo nazis that were prostesting in germany
Who's point would that support?

I was referring mostly to this forum.
Life is in the details, man.

1 is one I TOTALLY disagree with, and was judged in a super-pro conservative manner (you would support it),
I lol'd.

Actually, it is. "Turn the other cheek" is the exact same thing as "eye for an eye", only seen anagogically. Yes, that is a word. Dante calls the process "contropasso".
Even if it's just a reinterpretation, isn't that kind of a ridiculously important reinterpretation?

Oh? Are communist speech and parties and fascist speech and parties in Germany legal? Because Ive heard they have been 'PC banned'.
Somebody's gonna have to explain how that's relative, to me.

This doesn't seem like that complex an issue to me.

If you are using government land, then you really should give access to either everybody or nobody. So, the atheists are within their rights in demanding equal access to a public forum.

Life is in the details, man.

[vasili denisov]

Whether the argument was based in calling it what it is, or using the "establishment clause" to pussyfoot around it, its people being offended that are trying to legally muzzle religious speech in public.

It's not a case of muzzling religious speech; it's a case of the government not advocating a religion or any sect of that religion. A cross can be built in a private park, in full view of the public, and it doesn't matter who passing by is offended by it, because the same clause of the constitution allows for the free exercise of religion. It simply cannot be built in a place which involves government funds, because that constitutes advocacy. If there's any historical context for that, it's the european religious wars, where states backed certain faiths.

So what if I want to call a branch of Christianity "secular christianity", like we follow Jesus' teachings, but the whole divinity bullshit we throw out the window (Technically Arianism). Would that be supported? Where do we draw the line at whats a religion and whats not?
I think this is a peculiar example, since it was the conflict over Arianism and the roman state taking sides in the dispute which accelerated the fall of the empire. I'm not quite sure if you're implying that Arianism is the idea that Jesus is not divine, because that's not the case at all, it's that he's of not the same divinity as god.

The government preaches about how people should live "morally", or "ethically" by enforcing restrictions of CO2 production. Or by taxing things they dont want us to buy (Cigarettes, alcohol). If the Christian lobby had pushed for the taxing of cigarettes and alcohol based on religious doctrine, this would go against separation of church and state. But since the secular humanists are the ones proposing the taxes to alter behavior, based upon THEIR concepts of what is HEALTHY and what ISNT(Read MORALITY), its OK.
Sin taxes have been around since near the birth of the republic, long before secular humanists supposedly held influence over the government, with whiskey taxes causing the Whiskey rebellion. Incidentally, the secular humanist Thomas Jefferson was against the imposition of such taxes. The primary intent of such taxes is to raise revenue, not shape human behaviour. That governments also run lotteries to raise revenue should corroborate this.

[Pax Britannia]

As I said, this doesn't make sense, because this gayness couldn't have happened here. It's not our fault that the Frankfurt School couldn't get a foothold here, and thus emigrated all and one to the US, where it caught on.

Political correctness is YOUR invention, not ours.

What I find funny is that the same left wing that hates America in Europe also copy's allot of it's ideals from American Liberals. Even if they dont make sense in a European context.

[redsox39]

It's hardly a historical account.


Then you find a different one. It is the only one we have on that event. in 3 different gospels, all pretty similar.

[Morfin]

Then you find a different one. It is the only one we have on that event. in 3 different gospels, all pretty similar.

This is a whole 'nother debate. The point is that Jesus is most likely an actual historical figure -- a person just like you. My readings several years ago brought to my attention that there was some footnote-type reference in a Roman document that a person named Jesus (or whatever the old translation was, Arch) preaching in the area.

However, while the Gospels are three different writings, they were written decades after the fact. And, none of the authors were present at the birth. And, I believe even the Christians concede that the actual birthdate was not December 25th, and that date was likely chosen due to its proximity of the Pagan celebration of the winter solstice.

So, my point, without creating another digression, is that the Gospels are hardly "historical" concerning the birth. Yes, again, without getting into a long argument, assuming that they were written by the Matthew, Mark, and the boys, there is some historical value to the extent they witnessed anything about which they have written. However, the debate rages as to how much historical significance.

[Yelram]

It's not a case of muzzling religious speech; it's a case of the government not advocating a religion or any sect of that religion. A cross can be built in a private park, in full view of the public, and it doesn't matter who passing by is offended by it, because the same clause of the constitution allows for the free exercise of religion. It simply cannot be built in a place which involves government funds, because that constitutes advocacy. If there's any historical context for that, it's the european religious wars, where states backed certain faiths.
If you believe the founders intended the first amendment to prevent the expression of faith on public ground, you are indeed fucking wrong. This has been the result of recent INTERPRETATION. The constitution does not, in any way, infer some sort of "separation" between the religions held by the populace, and the government. It certainly restricts the government from establishing a religion, or PREVENTING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF. Does it say "You may prevent religious expression on public lands"? NO, not even close. The fear of a government created church was not government advocacy of religion, it was the RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON FREEDOM OF RELIGION, that would be inevitable. Ones that we are seeing now. Secular humanism is forcing religion, and the expression of religious ideals purely to the private sector, while publicizing things like homosexuality, and government reliance.


I think this is a peculiar example, since it was the conflict over Arianism and the roman state taking sides in the dispute which accelerated the fall of the empire. I'm not quite sure if you're implying that Arianism is the idea that Jesus is not divine, because that's not the case at all, it's that he's of not the same divinity as god. Arianism says "Jesus the human being was not divine". It may say that Jesus' soul is divine, or something of that nature, but it certainly emphasizes the NON-DIVINITY of the human being Jesus


Sin taxes have been around since near the birth of the republic, long before secular humanists supposedly held influence over the government, with whiskey taxes causing the Whiskey rebellion. Incidentally, the secular humanist Thomas Jefferson was against the imposition of such taxes. The primary intent of such taxes is to raise revenue, not shape human behaviour. That governments also run lotteries to raise revenue should corroborate this.
First of all, the taxes are to alter behavior, raising revenue is a fringe benefit, but it certainly is to alter behavior, otherwise they would tax everything more, not specific items. Lotteries dont prove anything close to what you are inferring, I would assume such a thing is obvious. And lastly Thomas Jefferson was not a secular humanist in the current interpretation of the term. If he had seen such an act of religious intolerance as this one, he certainly would be on the side of RELIGIOUS FREEDOM. Do you understand what that means? That he would side oon the side of the person expressing their faith, not on the side of the person who is offended by their faith. Jefferson lived in a time where if he said things like "Jesus never claimed divinity", he would be everything but lynched for it. He would never expect such intolerance as this to be protected under the same sentence that seeks to prevent it.

Here is a better overview of Jeffersons religion, the following of the TEACHINGS OF CHRIST, he may have interpreted them far differently than the orthodoxy, but that doesnt change anything.

"That regardless of
Jefferson was never a member of the Unitarian denomination nor was he ever active in a Unitarian congregation. However, he did once write that he would have liked to be a member of a Unitarian church, but he was not because there were no Unitarian churches in Virginia. It is not unreasonable to identify Jefferson as a Unitarian (with the caveat that, technically speaking, he was not actually one). However, it is a mistake to extrapolate from Jefferson's stated admiration for Unitarianism the notion that he was somehow "un-Christian" or "non-Christian." It is true that contemporary Unitarian-Universalists now classify their denomination as a distinct religion not confined as a subset of Christianity (although a large proportion of individual Unitarian-Universalists do indeed identify themselves as Christians). However, in Jefferson's day, Unitarianism was considerably different from its present form, and there was no concept that it was a non-Christian religion. Unitarianism in Jefferson's time was regarded as one liberal Protestant denomination among many other Protestant denominations extant in America. Virtually nobody thought of Jefferson as a non-Christian (or even non-Protestant) president."

[Morfin]

If you believe the founders intended the first amendment to prevent the expression of faith on public ground, you are indeed fucking wrong. This has been the result of recent INTERPRETATION. The constitution does not, in any way, infer some sort of "separation" between the religions held by the populace, and the government. It certainly restricts the government from establishing a religion, or PREVENTING THE FREE EXCERCISE THEREOF. Does it say "You may prevent religious expression on public lands"? NO, not even close. The fear of a government created church was not government advocacy of religion, it was the RESTRICTIONS PLACED UPON FREEDOM OF RELIGION, that would be inevitable. Ones that we are seeing now. Secular humanism is forcing religion, and the expression of religious ideals purely to the private sector, while publicizing things like homosexuality, and government reliance.


You are just plain wrong on this issue, trying to denegrate the establishment argument by saying that it is a "recent interpretation." You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe I'll have the energy to debate this at another time, but I am bored with arguing about it in the context of this incident.

[Yelram]

You are just plain wrong on this issue, trying to denegrate the establishment argument by saying that it is a "recent interpretation." You couldn't be more wrong. Maybe I'll have the energy to debate this at another time, but I am bored with arguing about it in the context of this incident.

Please show me the first case of public lands being prevented from having religious symbolism on holidays. The constitution is very obvious about this. Any interpretation that seeks to restrict freedom of religious expression based upon the establishment cause is a sham.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

"The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, or religion over non-religion. Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the federal government. Subsequently, under the incorporation doctrine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29), certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) began to interpret the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses in such a manner as to restrict the promotion of religion by state governments. For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Board_of_Education_of_Kiryas_Joel_Village_School_D istrict_v._Grumet), 512 U.S. 687 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=CASE&court=US&vol=512&page=687) (1994), Justice David Souter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter), writing for the majority, concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion".

What kind of lawyer are you? You dont even know basic precedents. I bet you do mainly divorces right? Even with that, having a nativity scene does not "promote" religion anymore than having Christmas lights up promotes Santa Claus.

Oh, and here is the dissenting opinion for 512 U.S 687

"[A]ll its residents also wear unusual dress, have unusual civic customs, and have not much to do with people who are culturally different from them ... On what basis does Justice Souter conclude that it is the theological distinctiveness rather than the cultural distinctiveness that was the basis for New York State's decision? The normal assumption would be that it was the latter, since it was not theology but dress, language, and cultural alienation that posed the educational problem for the children." (Scalia by the way in 1994)

[Morfin]

You're like the person whose read a comic book of War and Peace and thinks he knows the whole book. Someone who watches Law and Order and thinks he can be a criminal lawyer. I try to stay away from the personal attacks, but in this case, I won't: You're an idiot.

(And, I've never handled a divorce -- corporate clients and insurance companies pay me to defend them. They have their pick of all sorts of lawyers and they want me to defend them. I guess I have them conned, huh?)

[Mustard]

Diet coke time?

[Morfin]

No, I think I've had too many. I gotta go pee.

[Mustard]

Yeah, that'll happen.

[Yelram]

You're like the person whose read a comic book of War and Peace and thinks he knows the whole book. Someone who watches Law and Order and thinks he can be a criminal lawyer. I try to stay away from the personal attacks, but in this case, I won't: You're an idiot.

(And, I've never handled a divorce -- corporate clients and insurance companies pay me to defend them. They have their pick of all sorts of lawyers and they want me to defend them. I guess I have them conned, huh?)

Well you've got the "dont address the question" part of lawyering down pat. People who think they know everything about a certain subject are often offended when people ask questions of them they cant answer. If you didnt know the current interpretation of the establishment clause didnt start until 1994, then shame on you. Its your fucking job, if you asked me how many CFM of air is required for each ton of heating/cooling capacity, and I didnt know, i'd expect to be called a bad HVAC tech. So either answer the question, or shut up. You are starting to take on a Tateresque quality of not concerning yourself with the questions at hand, and relying on your ego, and "experience" to float you by. (Experience = Successive failures marketed as success)

[TheImpossibleMan]

Diet coke tastes better than regular coke. I said it. Though Barq's>>>>>your soul.

[Mustard]

Diet coke tastes better than regular coke. I said it. Though Barq's>>>>>your soul.
The same could be said for Diet Dr. Pepper.

Also, Dad's root beet > Barq's

[redsox39]

This is a whole 'nother debate. The point is that Jesus is most likely an actual historical figure -- a person just like you. My readings several years ago brought to my attention that there was some footnote-type reference in a Roman document that a person named Jesus (or whatever the old translation was, Arch) preaching in the area.

However, while the Gospels are three different writings, they were written decades after the fact. And, none of the authors were present at the birth. And, I believe even the Christians concede that the actual birthdate was not December 25th, and that date was likely chosen due to its proximity of the Pagan celebration of the winter solstice.

So, my point, without creating another digression, is that the Gospels are hardly "historical" concerning the birth. Yes, again, without getting into a long argument, assuming that they were written by the Matthew, Mark, and the boys, there is some historical value to the extent they witnessed anything about which they have written. However, the debate rages as to how much historical significance.

what does the date have to do with it? The bible isn't putting up the date!

Besides the fact that most book that are written about historical people are written by people LOOONG after the facts have come and gone...

It is the same crappy argument you made about the 10 commandments.
"The 10 commandments are not a historical document, because they involve religon.

Yet there can be Ancient Egyptian writings about Ra and those are fine.

[Archetype]

Historical usually means some kind of verification, and there's too much allegory and mythological tie-ins for the nativity to be anything other than "made-up."