FFRF atheists attack small town over iconic image

[Dyakovo]

So your argument is that the First Amendment needs to be rescinded?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

It is unconstitutional for crosses and religious symbols to appear on municipal seals and logos

[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.

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

Really? I didn't know that.

Then in that case, they're not wrong, but I don't necessarily think that this logo is an endorsement of religion.

[Leepaidamba]

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.

Just Christ, no Jesus actually. I can't remember whether he has specified what he means by Christ, but that aside.

[Dyakovo]

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

Really? I didn't know that.

Then in that case, they're not wrong, but I don't necessarily think that this logo is an endorsement of religion.

Since it* has a cross on it, it gives the appearance of endorsing christianity over any other religious choice, which is something that government agencies are not allowed to do.

*It meaning the city seal that was challenged and subsequently changed.

---

Not really related to the topic directly but I have to chuckle about the OP's description of the City of Steubenville as a "small town"...

[Shofercia]

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.

I disagree. If it's being used to commemorate the city's only profit-making landmark, it should be allowed. You realize that the university is religious, and yet, you'd allow them to commemorate the university as long as it doesn't feature the Cross. What's the difference? In both cases you're commemorating a religious, money making landmark.

Also, looks like they're not going down without a fight:

http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/cr ... ist-group/

Gaylor was glad the city originally backed down, and her organization’s website claimed it as an “FFRF victory” on July 25. But on July 29, Gaylor said she fears a fight from the Becket Fund, the Liberty Counsel, the American Center for Law and Justice or other organizations that defend religious liberty.

“These organizations are buttinskis,” Gaylor said. “They are outside groups that interject themselves into these controversies. If they want to fight us, I’m sure we can find a plaintiff.”

Ahh, so Gaylor's group, which has yet to find a plaintiff, isn't interjecting themselves into the controversy at all. But others are. Hmm. Hypocrisy much?

Gaylor went on to clarify his moronic viewpoints: "How could anyone who is not Christian feel welcome in a town that has a cross on its logo?" Gaylor, I'm a Christian. I've been to Kazan's Muslim Square. I felt welcome there, despite Muslim Art on government buildings. You need a reality check. Hopefully you'll get one.

[Dyakovo]

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

I disagree.

I'll care if you ever become a federal court judge.

[Shofercia]

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



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!"

It is unconstitutional for crosses and religious symbols to appear on municipal seals and logos

And rigid legal application has always worked wonders!

[Shofercia]

I disagree.

I'll care if you ever become a federal court judge.

So if you don't care, why bother responding?

[The Lone Alliance]

It all depends on motivation behind the imagery. If it was simply to showcase something that is big in their town, which it seems to be, then it it not an endorsement of a single religion and is thus not violating the first admendment.

If it was however an intent to promote religion then of course it should be removed, I think it should be taken up in court.

[Shofercia]

It all depends on motivation behind the imagery. If it was simply to showcase something that is big in their town, which it seems to be, then it it not an endorsement of a single religion and is thus not violating the first admendment.

If it was however an intent to promote religion then of course it should be removed, I think it should be taken up in court.

Exactly the point that I was trying to make

[Atalem]

Oh for the love of-

Stuff like this is why I get cross-eyed looks when I tell people I'm an atheist.

[Wu Wei Shan]

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.

Are you kidding me? You are just making this up as you go along. Perhaps you should look up the term "mutually exclusive" and see how it applies to some things and not others. Being an atheist is mutually exclusive of every other theological viewpoint. BY DEFINITION.

Way too many people on this thread arguing from emotion rather than wikipedia. But hey, it's summer and it's a atheist-bashing thread!

[Dyakovo]

It is unconstitutional for crosses and religious symbols to appear on municipal seals and logos

And rigid legal application has always worked wonders!

None of your examples have anything to do with municipal/county/state seals or logos.

[Dyakovo]

I'll care if you ever become a federal court judge.

So if you don't care, why bother responding?

So that I can continue to point out the fact that your opinion disagrees with reality.

[Not Safe For Work]

It all depends on motivation behind the imagery. If it was simply to showcase something that is big in their town, which it seems to be, then it it not an endorsement of a single religion and is thus not violating the first admendment.

If it was however an intent to promote religion then of course it should be removed, I think it should be taken up in court.

And how do you prove motivation?

All that happens in your scenario is that EVERYONE always claims that their particular use of religious imagery is not intended to promote religion.

[Dyakovo]

It all depends on motivation behind the imagery. If it was simply to showcase something that is big in their town, which it seems to be, then it it not an endorsement of a single religion and is thus not violating the first admendment.

If it was however an intent to promote religion then of course it should be removed, I think it should be taken up in court.

It has been ruled that religious symbols in municipal seals are illegal regardless of the motivation for placing them there.

[Dyakovo]

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.

Are you kidding me? You are just making this up as you go along. Perhaps you should look up the term "mutually exclusive" and see how it applies to some things and not others. Being an atheist is mutually exclusive of every other theological viewpoint. BY DEFINITION.

Way too many people on this thread arguing from emotion rather than wikipedia. But hey, it's summer and it's a atheist-bashing thread!

Yes, actually he is... He was mocking Shofercia.

[Sociobiology]

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.

Are you kidding me? You are just making this up as you go along. Perhaps you should look up the term "mutually exclusive" and see how it applies to some things and not others. Being an atheist is mutually exclusive of every other theological viewpoint. BY DEFINITION.

Way too many people on this thread arguing from emotion rather than wikipedia. But hey, it's summer and it's a atheist-bashing thread!

or all agnostics are by definition atheists since they lack belief in a deity.

I am a 6.8 on the dawkin's scale by the way.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

From what I've picked up from time spent as the token sympathetic theist on atheist sites:

Strong Atheist: Actively disbelieves in God, or firmly believes that God does not exist.

Agnostic Atheist, or "Weak" Atheist: Does not know whether or not God exists, but tends to not believe in God's existence absent proof.

Pure Agnostic: Does not know whether or not God exists, and possibly believes that no proof one way or the other is conceivable.

Agnostic Theist: Does not believe that the existence of God can be definitively proven, but tends to believe either due to personal experience (such as myself), out of a desire for comfort, or due to fallacies such as Pascal's Wager.

Strong Theist: Absolutely believes in God.

[The House of Petain]

Agnostics/atheists are offended because it shows preference to one religion over all others.

How is this not obvious?

Isn't it possible that it is just showing the town, part of which is known for having a university that happens to be religious?

I mean when I think of Notre Dame, Indiana, I'm, uh, thinking of the University of Notre Dame.

[Simon Cowell of the RR]

If it is because they have a chapel, I say it is fine.

But being from Ohio, and knowing Steubenville, this is probably the City Council trying to insinuate that the town is Christian, which is certainly not Constitutional.

[Leepaidamba]

Are you kidding me? You are just making this up as you go along. Perhaps you should look up the term "mutually exclusive" and see how it applies to some things and not others. Being an atheist is mutually exclusive of every other theological viewpoint. BY DEFINITION.

Way too many people on this thread arguing from emotion rather than wikipedia. But hey, it's summer and it's a atheist-bashing thread!

What makes you think that atheism and agnosticism are 'package deal' theological views instead of dishes on a large menu, some as main course, others as dessert? You

[Wu Wei Shan]

Are you kidding me? You are just making this up as you go along. Perhaps you should look up the term "mutually exclusive" and see how it applies to some things and not others. Being an atheist is mutually exclusive of every other theological viewpoint. BY DEFINITION.

Way too many people on this thread arguing from emotion rather than wikipedia. But hey, it's summer and it's a atheist-bashing thread!

What makes you think that atheism and agnosticism are 'package deal' theological views instead of dishes on a large menu, some as main course, others as dessert? You

Because coining confusing terms like "agnostic atheist" using the former as an adjective an in a different sense as it is used as a noun, only serves to muddle an issue crying out for clarification. I see is has a short wikipedia page, but I and at least one other are more used to the terms weak and strong atheism, or perhaps hard and soft. I was gobsmacked to see that such monster existed, but I see now that it was originally advanced by:
Robert Flint (1838 – 1910) was a Scottish theologian and philosopher, who wrote also on sociology.

He was born near Dumfries and educated, at the University of Glasgow. After a few years of pastoral service, first in Aberdeen and then at Kilconquhar, Fife, he was appointed professor of moral philosophy and political economy at St. Andrews in 1864.

From 1876 to 1903 he was professor of divinity at the University of Edinburgh.

[Norstal]

What makes you think that atheism and agnosticism are 'package deal' theological views instead of dishes on a large menu, some as main course, others as dessert? You

Because coining confusing terms like "agnostic atheist" using the former as an adjective an in a different sense as it is used as a noun, only serves to muddle an issue crying out for clarification. I see is has a short wikipedia page, but I and at least one other are more used to the terms weak and strong atheism, or perhaps hard and soft. I was gobsmacked to see that such monster existed, but I see now that it was originally advanced by:
Robert Flint (1838 – 1910) was a Scottish theologian and philosopher, who wrote also on sociology.

He was born near Dumfries and educated, at the University of Glasgow. After a few years of pastoral service, first in Aberdeen and then at Kilconquhar, Fife, he was appointed professor of moral philosophy and political economy at St. Andrews in 1864.

From 1876 to 1903 he was professor of divinity at the University of Edinburgh.

So what university did you came from to make such a statement? The University of Threadjack and Passive-Aggressiveness?

[The Realm of God]

Meh.

City puts banned symbol in seal, City is asked to remove the seal by a pressure group.

I'll care when they start to get Soviet style, which won't happen.