FFRF atheists attack small town over iconic image

[Tekania]

They asked the mayor to change the seal, established their legal basis for this, and the mayor agreed to change it. That's bullying?

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

Okay, so if the city is striped for cash and they decide to run over my house with a front-end-loader, and I threaten to sue... I'm bullying them?

[Norstal]

They asked the mayor to change the seal, established their legal basis for this, and the mayor agreed to change it. That's bullying?

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

YGO's OP?

[Shofercia]

Cultural Jew = someone who follows Jewish traditions

<--- please explain

Well Jews have traditions, like a family gathering around Yom Kippur, which is similar to the American tradition of family gathering around Thanksgiving. That's tradition, and that's not necessarily religious. (I think it's Yom Kippur, but don't quote me on that, Wami prolly knows this better.)

[Norstal]

I'm a resident and an atheist and what I posted is a paraphrased conversation between a few of us over coffee that day.

edit: I also want to add that, for us, it's not about the cross. It's about an organization coming in and threatening to sue our city (which is not in a financial position to fight back, as FFRF well knows) and that outside organization changing what we had agreed upon months and months ago. Basically, we feel violated. Bear in mind, being such a small town, activists pretty much know each other, so what I'm voicing here is the predominant thought.

Dominant that may be, but if even one person complains to the FFRF, they have grounds in doing that. Unless you go for a witch-hunt for this one person or something.

[Inky Noodles]

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

Okay, so if the city is striped for cash and they decide to drop an Oscar class submarine on my house, and I threaten to sue... I'm bullying them?

Fixed it for ya.

[Shofercia]

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

YGO's OP?

Sorry, my bad. I mixed it up with a YGO thread. Yes, I was wrong, I admit it. Can we move on now?

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

Okay, so if the city is striped for cash and they decide to run over my house with a front-end-loader, and I threaten to sue... I'm bullying them?

No, because you're defending your house, as a result of the city's aggression. However, the seal isn't aggressive. Demolishing houses with people inside, or houses where people live - that's aggressive.

[Leepaidamba]

I interpret it more as mentioning that (s)he's culturally Jewish and theologically agnostic atheist, thus clarifying that his/her non-agreement with the FFRF does not arise from any religious prejudice against them.

How is culturally Jewish different from religious Jewish? If such a thing is possible, it would still be irrelevant.

The same way culturally Christian is different from religiously Christian. You're Jewish only insofar as you were raised in the tradition.

And there is no such thing as a meat-eating vegetarian, a fat skinny kid

Absolutely true.

, and an agnostic atheist. Come on, people.

Not there but here is. Also, care to explain what the contradiction is?

[Swith Witherward]

Didn't they tell him that they'd sue the city, which they knew was cash stripped, unless he changed the seal? Or is YGO's OP making up facts, instead of just spinning them? Cause threatening to sue a cash stripped city - that's bullying.

Okay, so if the city is striped for cash and they decide to run over my house with a front-end-loader, and I threaten to sue... I'm bullying them?

Running over your house would put the city out about $140k-300k, depending on where in the city you live outside of the downtown area. If you live downtown, the city will have to pay out an average of $5k-80k. Our city is dicking it that bad. edit: the city's insurance might cover the entire cost, also.

The difference is FFRF drags suits out. The money used could run into the millions. Had we that much reserve money, we could declare eminent domain on some of the abandoned houses and afford to tear them down. We are trying to rebuild after losing most of our steel mill production due to Mittal (google him) and the only other big employers in town are a Walmart distribution center and the university.

[Shofercia]

an agnostic atheist. Come on, people.

Not there but here is. Also, care to explain what the contradiction is?

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

[Shofercia]

Okay, so if the city is striped for cash and they decide to run over my house with a front-end-loader, and I threaten to sue... I'm bullying them?

Running over your house would put the city out about $140k-300k, depending on where in the city you live outside of the downtown area. If you live downtown, the city will have to pay out an average of $5k-80k. Our city is dicking it that bad.

The difference is FFRF drags suits out. The money used could run into the millions. Had we that much reserve money, we could declare eminent domain on some of the abandoned houses and afford to tear them down. We are trying to rebuild after losing most of our steel mill production due to Mittal (google him) and the only other big employers in town are a Walmart distribution center and the university.

And you're not even allowed to advertise the university on your Seal, thanks to the FFRF.

[Swith Witherward]

Running over your house would put the city out about $140k-300k, depending on where in the city you live outside of the downtown area. If you live downtown, the city will have to pay out an average of $5k-80k. Our city is dicking it that bad.

The difference is FFRF drags suits out. The money used could run into the millions. Had we that much reserve money, we could declare eminent domain on some of the abandoned houses and afford to tear them down. We are trying to rebuild after losing most of our steel mill production due to Mittal (google him) and the only other big employers in town are a Walmart distribution center and the university.

And you're not even allowed to advertise the university on your Seal, thanks to the FFRF.

Exactly. Walmart declined and it isn't a landmark - the center isn't in Steubenville. The university chapel is a landmark grouped with other secular landmarks (the bridge, the two big buildings we have downtown).

[Tekania]

Okay, so if the city is striped for cash and they decide to run over my house with a front-end-loader, and I threaten to sue... I'm bullying them?

No, because you're defending your house, as a result of the city's aggression. However, the seal isn't aggressive. Demolishing houses with people inside, or houses where people live - that's aggressive.

The seal is n government property, and the government in question is tasked with representing the person in this case, as such suing is perfectly legitimate for him to seak legal recourse to address his concerns where he feels the city is not operating in his interests. That's what we have court for. It's hardly "bullying".

[Leepaidamba]

Not there but here is. Also, care to explain what the contradiction is?

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

Agnostic can also be used as an adjective and with a meaning completely independent of such issues as the existence of God (or more appropriately gods).
Also, atheist can mean quite a variety of things depending on who uses it.

[Norstal]

Not there but here is. Also, care to explain what the contradiction is?

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

So an agnostic atheist is impossible. Got it. Just as there's no such thing as a Russian-American, a liberal-conservative, Buddhism-shintoism, etc.

We must all praise the god of False Dichotomy.

[Not Safe For Work]

Not there but here is. Also, care to explain what the contradiction is?

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

Both your definitions are wrong.

[Shofercia]

No, because you're defending your house, as a result of the city's aggression. However, the seal isn't aggressive. Demolishing houses with people inside, or houses where people live - that's aggressive.

The seal is n government property, and the government in question is tasked with representing the person in this case, as such suing is perfectly legitimate for him to seak legal recourse to address his concerns where he feels the city is not operating in his interests. That's what we have court for. It's hardly "bullying".

Yeah, but the Seal is not there to promote religion. It's there to commemorate the city's only major landmark, that's also an employer. Religion isn't the primary purpose. Sure, they can sue as a group, America's a litigious society. But, why pick out this specific city, that they knew was cash stripped?

[Swith Witherward]

As an example...


This is almost all of our downtown area. Most of it consists of old homes and not a lot of commercial buildings.



And we're trying to revitalize what's left of us... Steubenville Revitalization Group

[Ifreann]

Any word on this? I tried Googling them again, all I got was this thread(and a 414 error for a too long url). I'm beginning to suspect the OP made them up.

---

They asked the mayor to change the seal, established their legal basis for this, and the mayor agreed to change it. That's bullying?

---

The implications of this post are...baffling.

I'm a resident and an atheist and what I posted is a paraphrased conversation between a few of us over coffee that day.

Ah, anecdotes.

edit: I also want to add that, for us, it's not about the cross. It's about an organization coming in and threatening to sue our city (which is not in a financial position to fight back, as FFRF well knows) and that outside organization changing what we had agreed upon months and months ago. Basically, we feel violated. Bear in mind, being such a small town, activists pretty much know each other, so what I'm voicing here is the predominant thought.

You should have decided on something that didn't violate the Constitution, then.

[Shofercia]

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

So an agnostic atheist is impossible. Got it. Just as there's no such thing as a Russian-American, a liberal-conservative, Buddhism-shintoism, etc.

I must admit Norstal, you excel at poor comparisons. A Theist, an Agnostic and an Atheist all talk about the same: God. On the other hand, one can be a liberal in terms of economic policy, and a conservative in terms of domestic policy, as those do not necessarily contradict each other. For example you can be a Christian, who supports Universal Healthcare. On the other hand, you cannot both, believe that you don't know whether God exists, or not, and believe that God doesn't exist. You can't believe two opposite things at the same time. You can't believe that you don't know what B is not, and believe that you know exactly what B is not.

Similarly, you can be born in Russia, and live in America, thus becoming a Russian-American. You can even be born and grow up in America, and play for the Russian women's basketball team, and be a Russian-American, like Becky Hammon, as dual citizenship is allowed. I don't know enough about Buddhism and Shintoism, so I won't comment on that.

[Intangelon]

I think some atheists tend to get so touchy about these things because they're over-defensive due to subconsciously worrying that they're wrong.

(I'm a Muslim and I'm not offended by it despite the preference it shows to Christianity.)

Spend a year in Steubenville practicing Islam openly. Then come back and tell us how that went.

[Shofercia]

Still waiting for someone to clarify this:

Also, can a militant atheist clarify if a plus sign is ok to be used on the Seal of a school espousing mathematics education? Cause hey, a plus sign looks exactly like a cross!

[Intangelon]

I'm not taking a side in this. I just want to point out that the "In God We Trust" motto is something that was added during a period of heightened fear (Eisenhower's presidency). It's there, in my opinion, unconstitutionally and without basis.

And most of the "Yanks" he's asking to look at it today weren't offered a choice on the matter.

It's a bullshit strawman bit o' nonsense.

[Intangelon]

I'm not taking a side in this. I just want to point out that the "In God We Trust" motto is something that was added during a period of heightened fear (Eisenhower's presidency). It's there, in my opinion, unconstitutionally and without basis.

The pledge of allegiance was changed earlier, wasn't it? 1880s or so?

1954.

Francis Bellamy (1855 - 1931), a Baptist minister, wrote the original Pledge in August 1892. He was a Christian Socialist. In his Pledge, he is expressing the ideas of his first cousin, Edward Bellamy, author of the American socialist utopian novels, Looking Backward (1888) and Equality (1897).

Francis Bellamy in his sermons and lectures and Edward Bellamy in his novels and articles described in detail how the middle class could create a planned economy with political, social and economic equality for all. The government would run a peace time economy similar to our present military industrial complex.

The Pledge was published in the September 8th issue of The Youth's Companion, the leading family magazine and the Reader's Digest of its day. Its owner and editor, Daniel Ford, had hired Francis in 1891 as his assistant when Francis was pressured into leaving his baptist church in Boston because of his socialist sermons. As a member of his congregation, Ford had enjoyed Francis's sermons. Ford later founded the liberal and often controversial Ford Hall Forum, located in downtown Boston.

In 1892 Francis Bellamy was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association. As its chairman, he prepared the program for the public schools' quadricentennial celebration for Columbus Day in 1892. He structured this public school program around a flag raising ceremony and a flag salute - his 'Pledge of Allegiance.'

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

Dr. Mortimer Adler, American philosopher and last living founder of the Great Books program at Saint John's College, has analyzed these ideas in his book, The Six Great Ideas. He argues that the three great ideas of the American political tradition are 'equality, liberty and justice for all.' 'Justice' mediates between the often conflicting goals of 'liberty' and 'equality.'

In 1923 and 1924 the National Flag Conference, under the 'leadership of the American Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution, changed the Pledge's words, 'my Flag,' to 'the Flag of the United States of America.' Bellamy disliked this change, but his protest was ignored.

In 1954, Congress after a campaign by the Knights of Columbus, added the words, 'under God,' to the Pledge. The Pledge was now both a patriotic oath and a public prayer.

Bellamy's granddaughter said he also would have resented this second change. He had been pressured into leaving his church in 1891 because of his socialist sermons. In his retirement in Florida, he stopped attending church because he disliked the racial bigotry he found there.

What follows is Bellamy's own account of some of the thoughts that went through his mind in August, 1892, as he picked the words of his Pledge:

It began as an intensive communing with salient points of our national history, from the Declaration of Independence onwards; with the makings of the Constitution...with the meaning of the Civil War; with the aspiration of the people...

The true reason for allegiance to the Flag is the 'republic for which it stands.' ...And what does that vast thing, the Republic mean? It is the concise political word for the Nation - the One Nation which the Civil War was fought to prove. To make that One Nation idea clear, we must specify that it is indivisible, as Webster and Lincoln used to repeat in their great speeches. And its future?

Just here arose the temptation of the historic slogan of the French Revolution which meant so much to Jefferson and his friends, 'Liberty, equality, fraternity.' No, that would be too fanciful, too many thousands of years off in realization. But we as a nation do stand square on the doctrine of liberty and justice for all...

If the Pledge's historical pattern repeats, its words will be modified during this decade. Below are two possible changes.

Some prolife advocates recite the following slightly revised Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn.'

A few liberals recite a slightly revised version of Bellamy's original Pledge: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with equality, liberty and justice for all.'

Bibliography:

Baer, John. The Pledge of Allegiance, A Revised History and Analysis, 2007, Annapolis, Md. Free State Press, Inc., 2007. Available on Amazon.com.
Miller, Margarette S. Twenty-Three Words, Portsmouth, Va. Printcraft Press, 1976.

[Intangelon]

Not there but here is. Also, care to explain what the contradiction is?

Agnostic - doesn't know whether God exists or not, and isn't afraid to say it, and doesn't realy dwell on the concept. An agnostic doesn't believe that there is a God, nor that there isn't.
Atheist - believes that no God exists, and can, on occasion, act like a Fundie.

Nice try, but "fundamentalist" is an adjective that can apply to any asshole, regardless of denomination or lack thereof. Many atheists do not, ever, act like Fundies.

[Intangelon]

Still waiting for someone to clarify this:

Also, can a militant atheist clarify if a plus sign is ok to be used on the Seal of a school espousing mathematics education? Cause hey, a plus sign looks exactly like a cross!

Keep waiting.

It clarifies itself by being deliberately obtuse.