FFRF atheists attack small town over iconic image

[Dyakovo]

Of course not! But if you're going to touch on a sensitive issue, it's best to discuss it when tempers aren't already flaring.

By which token, the town shouldn't have been trying to endorse this religious-image-laden icon, now.

Right?

Silly NSFW... It's okay if religious people do it.

[Not Safe For Work]

It's pretty heavily unbalanced in terms of composition. Aesthetically not nearly as appealing.

Haha, I'm not exactly planning on sending it in for consideration

I don't mind the original image. I'm an Atheist that doesn't mind the religious symbol. But I think that the argument they made is fair and reasonable - and I've certainly had my mind changed by some of the opinions in this thread.

From my point of view, the original image isn't that bad. It's aesthetically a little clumsy, but okay. So that was what I commented on in your image.

[Shofercia]

Of course not! But if you're going to touch on a sensitive issue, it's best to discuss it when tempers aren't already flaring.

By which token, the town shouldn't have been trying to endorse this religious-image-laden icon, now.

Right?

They weren't endorsing it when tempers were flaring. It was on their Seal for quite a while. They didn't even see this as a major issue, until they were threatened with a lawsuit over it. Being cash stripped, they yielded.

[Not Safe For Work]

By which token, the town shouldn't have been trying to endorse this religious-image-laden icon, now.

Right?

Silly NSFW... It's okay if religious people do it.

*hangs head in shame*

[Not Safe For Work]

By which token, the town shouldn't have been trying to endorse this religious-image-laden icon, now.

Right?

They weren't endorsing it when tempers were flaring. It was on their Seal for quite a while. They didn't even see this as a major issue, until they were threatened with a lawsuit over it. Being cash stripped, they yielded.

Then there's no issue. In an election year or otherwise.

[Copenhagen Metropolis]

Hmm, what about this?
(Image)

That actually would be fine, since it does not include any religious symbols.

I was planning on adding the star and crescent symbol - but then my free Photoshop trial died out

Unfortunately.... cause my point was that a lot of Christians would probably have been protesting to that. Figured I'd just post it anyway though.

[Shofercia]

Well if I'm here commenting, doesn't that mean that I can comment on it?

No it doesn't. You don't know the definitions. End of.

I think you need to look up the words "won't" and "can't" - cause they're slightly different the last time I checked.

Still, you commented on something you don't know about.

Wait, so you just confused the definition of "won't" and "can't" and are now commenting on me commenting about confusing definition. Pot, meet kettle on aisle 23.

[Shofercia]

They weren't endorsing it when tempers were flaring. It was on their Seal for quite a while. They didn't even see this as a major issue, until they were threatened with a lawsuit over it. Being cash stripped, they yielded.

Then there's no issue. In an election year or otherwise.

My mistake for requiring a bit of common courtesy and foresight from militant atheists.

What happens in an election year? Every political issue that's inflammatory, such as this one, will be used by one of the two major campaigns. This could result in the town being split up, and unnecessary drama for the poor folk already living there. It could also cost Obama votes. How do you guys fail to see this?

[Norstal]

No it doesn't. You don't know the definitions. End of.


Still, you commented on something you don't know about.

Wait, so you just confused the definition of "won't" and "can't" and are now commenting on me commenting about confusing definition. Pot, meet kettle on aisle 23.

Fine, I'll admit that I'm wrong on that one.

But from now on I'm going to take Bluth's definition of Christianity since you won't recognize Agnostic-atheism whenever you're around. Deal? Sounds like a good deal to me.

[Not Safe For Work]

Then there's no issue. In an election year or otherwise.

My mistake for requiring a bit of common courtesy from militant atheists.

There's nothing 'militant' about saying the Constitution doesn't allow things the Constitution doesn't allow.

People like you... changed my mind on this thread. Worth considering.

[Dyakovo]

Haha, I'm not exactly planning on sending it in for consideration

I don't mind the original image. I'm an Atheist that doesn't mind the religious symbol. But I think that the argument they made is fair and reasonable - and I've certainly had my mind changed by some of the opinions in this thread.

From my point of view, the original image isn't that bad. It's aesthetically a little clumsy, but okay. So that was what I commented on in your image.

My problem with it is that it is unconstitutional for crosses and religious symbols to appear on municipal seals and logos. If it wasn't unconstitutional I wouldn't care.

[Shofercia]

Wait, so you just confused the definition of "won't" and "can't" and are now commenting on me commenting about confusing definition. Pot, meet kettle on aisle 23.

Fine, I'll admit that I'm wrong on that one.

But from now on I'm going to take Bluth's definition of Christianity since you won't recognize Agnostic-atheism whenever you're around. Deal? Sounds like a good deal to me.

TBQH, I like Bluth's definition of Objectivism

What's Bluth's definition of Christianity?

[Dyakovo]

"This kind of bullshit"?
Since when has ensuring that the constitution is enforced been bullshit?

The Constitution was wrong before. Granted, the clearest example comes from 1805, when Constitution allowed slavery, but hey, today we'd both say that it was bullshit. And if this amounts to enforcing the Constitution, perhaps it's time for an Amendment. (And no, I'm not comparing slavery to this. You asked me for an example, so I cited one, just to prove that one exists.)

So your argument is that the First Amendment needs to be rescinded?

[Norstal]

I don't mind the original image. I'm an Atheist that doesn't mind the religious symbol. But I think that the argument they made is fair and reasonable - and I've certainly had my mind changed by some of the opinions in this thread.

From my point of view, the original image isn't that bad. It's aesthetically a little clumsy, but okay. So that was what I commented on in your image.

My problem with it is that it is unconstitutional for crosses and religious symbols to appear on municipal seals and logos. If it wasn't unconstitutional I wouldn't care.

You should really go into Tekania's town and sue them. It's called Virginia Beach.

So, the question is, why haven't they changed their seal yet?

[Shofercia]

My mistake for requiring a bit of common courtesy from militant atheists.

There's nothing 'militant' about saying the Constitution doesn't allow things the Constitution doesn't allow.

People like you... changed my mind on this thread. Worth considering.

Well then I guess I'm just not safe for work

[Azakhia]

They should also sue over the religious names of towns.

Los Angeles, Spanish for the angels.
Santa Monica, Spanish of Ste Monica
Santa Fe, Ste Fe
San Diego, St Diego
San Francisco, St Francisco
San Bernadino, St Bernadino
In other words, the state of California will have to rename a lot of their cities, like the state capital of Sacramento, which is Spanish for Blessed Sacrament.

Texas will have to rename Corpus Christi, Latin for body of Christ. Same with their capital city of San Antonio, St Antonio.

The State of Louisiana can no longer name their political subdivisions "Parishes". That sounds like a religious group. They should all be named "Counties", like the rest of the country.

Any town that has the "Chapel" on its name, like Chapel Hill, NC USA.

Any town or area that has the name "New Hope", which is from New Hope Chapel from many years ago.

Any government installation or facility that has any type of religious carvings, such as the US Supreme Court Bldg, and destroy all facilities used as places of worship in military installations.

Any government agency that has a religious leader/figure on its payroll, such as the Congressional Chapalin, and all the chaplains in the military services.

Redo the oath of office for all elected officials, you know, the part that goes "so help me God"

Redo the oath during court proceedings

Sue to redo our national currency, since all of it has "God" on them.

And with that, I will now turn the sarcasmotron off.

[Revolutopia]

Fine, I'll admit that I'm wrong on that one.

But from now on I'm going to take Bluth's definition of Christianity since you won't recognize Agnostic-atheism whenever you're around. Deal? Sounds like a good deal to me.

TBQH, I like Bluth's definition of Objectivism

What's Bluth's definition of Christianity?

An atheistic sect that admires Jesus, but hates Paul IIRC.

[Norstal]

Fine, I'll admit that I'm wrong on that one.

But from now on I'm going to take Bluth's definition of Christianity since you won't recognize Agnostic-atheism whenever you're around. Deal? Sounds like a good deal to me.

TBQH, I like Bluth's definition of Objectivism

What's Bluth's definition of Christianity?

That it's atheistic and not Paulinist. This cross for example, on the city seal, would not violate the Constitution for the wrong reasons.

[Dyakovo]

By which token, the town shouldn't have been trying to endorse this religious-image-laden icon, now.

Right?

They weren't endorsing it when tempers were flaring. It was on their Seal for quite a while.¹ They didn't even see this as a major issue², until they were threatened with a lawsuit over it.³ Being cash stripped, they yielded.

1: Wrong.
2: Which really is part of the problem... They didn't see any problem with breaking the law.
3: Show me where in FFRF's letter to the Steubenville city council they threatened a law suit.

[Tekania]

I'm not saying that they can't bring a lawsuit under the current law. Certainly they can. I'm saying that it amounts to bullying if they threaten to. You are certainly allowed to be a bully using money under US law, when engaging in politics, cause hey - that happens every election year, where the Democrats and Republicans use their media cohorts to demonize third parties, in tactics that would be known as bullying on the playground. And hey, they're allowed to. Remember how much Dems bitched about Nader running in Florida, and about how all those third party/Green Party votes were wasted? And the amount of criticism the Greens faced from the Dems as a result?

Still not bullying..... as it costs the city nothing, relatively speaking, to answer a suit brought by someone else. Unless they lose, in which case they may be required by the court to cover the fees of the one who brought the suit. In which case it's hardly bullying to hold someone to account who was wrong.

[Dyakovo]

That actually would be fine, since it does not include any religious symbols.

I was planning on adding the star and crescent symbol - but then my free Photoshop trial died out

Unfortunately.... cause my point was that a lot of Christians would probably have been protesting to that. Figured I'd just post it anyway though.

With the star and crescent it would have been an issue.

[Bleckonia]

Even as an atheist, for once I actually disagree with the FFRF. I don't believe that it is favoring a religion over another, I believe that it is just depicting a landmark that happens to incorporate a cross.

[Dyakovo]

My problem with it is that it is unconstitutional for crosses and religious symbols to appear on municipal seals and logos. If it wasn't unconstitutional I wouldn't care.

You should really go into Tekania's town and sue them. It's called Virginia Beach.

So, the question is, why haven't they changed their seal yet?

Probably because no one with standing has challenged it. I don't live in Virginia Beach and thus have no standing to challenge it. Tek does have standing, but does not take issue with it.

[Shofercia]

The Constitution was wrong before. Granted, the clearest example comes from 1805, when Constitution allowed slavery, but hey, today we'd both say that it was bullshit. And if this amounts to enforcing the Constitution, perhaps it's time for an Amendment. (And no, I'm not comparing slavery to this. You asked me for an example, so I cited one, just to prove that one exists.)

So your argument is that the First Amendment needs to be rescinded?

No, my argument is that objects of significant, beneficial, cultural value and American Heritage should be excluded from the First Amendment.

My whole issue with this case is that the Chapel Cross is there to show "hey, we're significant cause we have this excellent university!" not "hey, only Christians are allowed here!" If it was just the latter, sure, remove it. But it's the former.

I mean how far do you want to take this? An excerpt from the Virginia Declaration of Rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_D ... ights#Text

XVI That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

So a Judge who place the Virginia Declaration of Rights in his Courtroom, under the title: "Virginian Historical Heritage" must remove it, because of part 16?

The Chapel Cross on the Seal is there to, primarily, advertise the only money-making landmark of the city. It's not there to say "no one besides Christians allowed!"

[Dyakovo]

Even as an atheist, for once I actually disagree with the FFRF. I don't believe that it is favoring a religion over another, I believe that it is just depicting a landmark that happens to incorporate a cross.

FFRF is not wrong, since it is unconstitutional for crosses and religious symbols to appear on municipal seals and logos.