"Christian" war on non-theists holiday celebrants

[NERVUN]

I would have preferred the slightly less confrontational British sign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

But of course, Christians protested against THAT as well.

Threatening people with hellfire because they don't agree with you is perfectly fine, but even acknowledging that atheists exist and that they have a right to their lack of religion is "militant." Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.

The logic train was very quickly derailed here.

How about this then ? A comment from Hanne Stinson of the British Humanist Association on their buscampaign with the above slogan:

"Our ads were positive and peaceful. They didn’t say, for example, that religious people were ‘fools’, unlike one of the response ads being run, which says that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.""

Christians are free to insult nonchristians it seems - yet some still whine if they get that back.

You mean quoting Psalm 14:1?

Oh dear, who knew that quoting someone else could be taken as insulting.

[The Alma Mater]

I would have preferred the slightly less confrontational British sign:

"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

But of course, Christians protested against THAT as well.

Threatening people with hellfire because they don't agree with you is perfectly fine, but even acknowledging that atheists exist and that they have a right to their lack of religion is "militant." Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.

The logic train was very quickly derailed here.

How about this then ? A comment from Hanne Stinson of the British Humanist Association on their buscampaign with the above slogan:

"Our ads were positive and peaceful. They didn’t say, for example, that religious people were ‘fools’, unlike one of the response ads being run, which says that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.""

Christians are free to insult nonchristians it seems - yet some still whine if they get that back.

You mean quoting Psalm 14:1?

Oh dear, who knew that quoting someone else could be taken as insulting.

I see. So deliberately insulting people is perfectly fine if you are *quoting* ?
Nice.

[Drachmar]

It seems as if it is now my turn to agree again (Shouldn't this be a debate forum? Must be the spirit of Christmas). Still, I've got a question:
Is the state supporting religions if t gives every religious group (or non-religious for that matter) which asks for it a piece of public space to put up their displays? Illinois seems to be relatively tolerant in that issue, because they also seem to have a display for a joke religion (at least how I understand it, as I never heard "Festivus" before). Of course in this case the question would be if the nativity scene was put up by the state or by a Christian organisation.

I'm OK with it legally if the state OKs all options. But When a potetial state actor doesn't,the we have problems.

This^

Any singular state official cannot usurp due process.

However I will add this...

I find it awfully interesting that the FFRF decided to erect a sign with a clear intent to inflame Christians. We have one here in the Madison Capitol Rotunda, and one is erected in Olympia, Washington. The back of the sign they erected says:

The World's Need

So many gods, so many creeds
So many paths that wind and wind
When just the art of being kind,
is all this sad world needs.

Ellen Wheeler Wilcox

Keep State and Church Separate!

It's a much more benign and respectful statement on secularism as a whole (although I would argue that the 1st Amendment advocates a non-state supported pluralism).

Seriously, Annie Gaylord (co-founder of the Freedom From Religion Foundation)...devout atheist with a $5.5 million expense account. While I do understand and agree with a lot of the issues and cases they bring to court, I think Annie possesses a soft voice that is a radical advocate of atheism. She can get away with erecting signs in the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda, because her foundation is based in Madison. I think, overall, we just put up with her up here in Cheeseland.

I personally think she's cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs.

[NERVUN]

How about this then ? A comment from Hanne Stinson of the British Humanist Association on their buscampaign with the above slogan:

"Our ads were positive and peaceful. They didn’t say, for example, that religious people were ‘fools’, unlike one of the response ads being run, which says that "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.""

Christians are free to insult nonchristians it seems - yet some still whine if they get that back.

You mean quoting Psalm 14:1?

Oh dear, who knew that quoting someone else could be taken as insulting.

I see. So deliberately insulting people is perfectly fine if you are *quoting* ?
Nice.

That's actually really funny, given that you quoted the British signs.

That's the thing about quotes, they are not what YOU said, but what someone ELSE said.

[New Azura]

The world would be a great place if there was a little bit more caring and peace and not so much damn whining.

[Drachmar]

Oops...wrong button...

[The Alma Mater]

[That's actually really funny, given that you quoted the British signs.

Yes. And I agree with the message, and when using it accept responsibility for it as if it were my own.

That's the thing about quotes, they are not what YOU said, but what someone ELSE said.

And yet, if I were to hold a sign saying:

"All niggers are subhuman filth"
-- plantation owner Sam

Walking around with it and shouting it ove and over again, I might just be arrested for hatespeech. Even though they are not my words originally.

WHY you quote something and HOW you use the quote matters. Christians are allowed to use their quotes for the purpose of ridiculing, insulting or even threatening others. If other groups do so, they are condemned.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Let's see here, ""There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."" and a Nativity scene, vs. Threatening people with hellfire because they don't agree with you is perfectly fine, but even acknowledging that atheists exist and that they have a right to their lack of religion is "militant." Yeah, that's not a double standard at all.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things is not quite the same...

I was introducing new material from outside this specific case. I didn't realize that "too many facts" is a fallacy.

[Dreumia]

To put it short and sweet, both are wrong.

The man is wrong for infringing upon the Foundation's rights, and the government is wrong for allowing signs (any signs) to be hanged upon the building. (Note: The 'Christmas' Tree isn't really a symbol of Christianity, in my honest opinion.)

Now, the Foundation was wrong for hanging a sign up that was attacking Christianity. However, they have the right to do that, as it is an expression of their rights to religion and expression.

Now, since they were both wrong, calling either right would be ignorant and obviously biased.

If it matters to anyone, I am a Christian, albeit a non-practicing Christian. I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State. I also believe that many Christians need to grow a pair, as other religions have been oppressed by Christianity, and the Christian feel threatened by rights given to people... wow...

[New Azura]

To put it short and sweet, both are wrong.

The man is wrong for infringing upon the Foundation's rights, and the government is wrong for allowing signs (any signs) to be hanged upon the building. (Note: The 'Christmas' Tree isn't really a symbol of Christianity, in my honest opinion.)

Now, the Foundation was wrong for hanging a sign up that was attacking Christianity. However, they have the right to do that, as it won't likely convert any.

Now, since they were both wrong, calling either right would be ignorant and obviously biased.

If it matters to anyone, I am a Christian, albeit a non-practicing Christian. I firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State. I also believe that many Christians need to grow a pair, as other religions have been oppressed by Christianity, and the Christian feel threatened by rights given to people... wow...

[Dreumia]

[That's actually really funny, given that you quoted the British signs.

Yes. And I agree with the message, and when using it accept responsibility for it as if it were my own.

That's the thing about quotes, they are not what YOU said, but what someone ELSE said.

And yet, if I were to hold a sign saying:

"All niggers are subhuman filth"
-- plantation owner Sam

Walking around with it and shouting it ove and over again, I might just be arrested for hatespeech. Even though they are not my words originally.

WHY you quote something and HOW you use the quote matters. Christians are allowed to use their quotes for the purpose of ridiculing, insulting or even threatening others. If other groups do so, they are condemned.

I have to agree with you. Quoting doesn't change a thing. I believe that as long as what one is doing does not infringe upon the rights of another, screw it, let them do it.

[Namabia]

U.S.=Freedom of Religion=Its ok=atheists get all worked up too=we all equal on this on some level.

[Dyakovo]

My logic in defeating him applies to you as well. The Nativity merely expresses a positive belief, but does not call out any non-Christians, as the athiest sign did. You may try again as well, of course.

The nativity scene expresses a belief in Christianity. By having the scene there, the government is supporting a display of Christian mythology on their property while having no opposing symbols other than the sign put up by the atheist group. Perhaps I need to pull out a few quotes from one of the founding fathers to convince you that Church and State are meant to be separated, and that the State isn't supposed to support any religion (Or lack thereof)?

Mythology?!

Yes, mythology. It either didnt happen or is blown WAY out of porportion. Next?

Actually it qualifies as mythology whether it really happened or not.

[Dreumia]

My logic in defeating him applies to you as well. The Nativity merely expresses a positive belief, but does not call out any non-Christians, as the athiest sign did. You may try again as well, of course.

The nativity scene expresses a belief in Christianity. By having the scene there, the government is supporting a display of Christian mythology on their property while having no opposing symbols other than the sign put up by the atheist group. Perhaps I need to pull out a few quotes from one of the founding fathers to convince you that Church and State are meant to be separated, and that the State isn't supposed to support any religion (Or lack thereof)?

Mythology?!

Yes, mythology. It either didnt happen or is blown WAY out of porportion. Next?

Actually it qualifies as mythology whether it really happened or not.

The only reason Christianity is not commonly referred to as a 'mythology' is because the Christian followers do not wish to 'demean' their 'almighty' religion by referring to it as a 'heathen' religion.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I don't know whether trying to remove a sign is an act of war. Anyway, religious conflict globally has already been tense enough in my opinion.

[Dyakovo]

I'm not sure if this is sarcasm or not, so I will address it seriously. Merely because athiest "aren't" religious does not mean that they don't have religious beliefs, or that they don't have religious expression

Wait. If I'm an atheist, which is to say, I reject the idea of one, or several deities, or related entities (Spirit of the Earth or whatever, I dunno)...

How can I have religious believes? I reject the very concept!

If you are an explicit atheist (i.e. an atheist who actively rejects the concept of there being a god or gods) you do have a religious belief, albeit a negative one.

[Dreumia]

U.S.=Freedom of Religion=Its ok=atheists get all worked up too=we all equal on this on some level.

Yes, and no, as my post earlier states, both are wrong, however, since the creation of the United States, the government has knocked the rights slowly out of non-Christians hands. However, recently, non-Christians have gained a greater foothold, as religious freedoms have increased. Because of this, Christians feel 'threatened', as their oppression is being loosened as they lose power. What they don't understand is that all can live side-by-side, as long as we are mindful of each other's preferences.

[Dyakovo]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

Actually, yes, it is the same thing.

[Dyakovo]

My logic in defeating him applies to you as well. The Nativity merely expresses a positive belief, but does not call out any non-Christians, as the athiest sign did. You may try again as well, of course.

The nativity scene expresses a belief in Christianity. By having the scene there, the government is supporting a display of Christian mythology on their property while having no opposing symbols other than the sign put up by the atheist group. Perhaps I need to pull out a few quotes from one of the founding fathers to convince you that Church and State are meant to be separated, and that the State isn't supposed to support any religion (Or lack thereof)?

Mythology?!

Yes, mythology. It either didnt happen or is blown WAY out of porportion. Next?

Actually it qualifies as mythology whether it really happened or not.

The only reason Christianity is not commonly referred to as a 'mythology' is because the Christian followers do not wish to 'demean' their 'almighty' religion by referring to it as equating it to a 'heathen' religion.

Fixed for accuracy

[Dreumia]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

Actually, yes, it is the same thing.

No, Dyakovo, they are not the same thing at all. Well, that depends, by 'wrecking the nativity scene' does it mean destroying the scene itself, or criticizing it. The first is completely different. The second would have to be similar, but not the same, as the nativity scene does not actually define the entire religion, only a part of it.

[Dreumia]

My logic in defeating him applies to you as well. The Nativity merely expresses a positive belief, but does not call out any non-Christians, as the athiest sign did. You may try again as well, of course.

The nativity scene expresses a belief in Christianity. By having the scene there, the government is supporting a display of Christian mythology on their property while having no opposing symbols other than the sign put up by the atheist group. Perhaps I need to pull out a few quotes from one of the founding fathers to convince you that Church and State are meant to be separated, and that the State isn't supposed to support any religion (Or lack thereof)?

Mythology?!

Yes, mythology. It either didnt happen or is blown WAY out of porportion. Next?

Actually it qualifies as mythology whether it really happened or not.

The only reason Christianity is not commonly referred to as a 'mythology' is because the Christian followers do not wish to 'demean' their 'almighty' religion by referring to it as equating it to a 'heathen' religion.

Fixed for accuracy

AH! Screw you! (Many thanks, didn't catch my own error).

[New Kereptica]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

Actually, yes, it is the same thing.

No, Dyakovo, they are not the same thing at all. Well, that depends, by 'wrecking the nativity scene' does it mean destroying the scene itself, or criticizing it. The first is completely different. The second would have to be similar, but not the same, as the nativity scene does not actually define the entire religion, only a part of it.

In terms of the damage done, they are different. In terms of the meaning of the gesture, they are entirely similar.

[Lerro]

I love how it is Christmas day, and instead of love or joy, the one thing you people can think of is how one Christian somewhere did something you didn't like. Where's all the concern for the wishes of the founding fathers when it comes to gun control?

[Ayzmo]

I don't see a single difference between desecrating a nativity scene and turning the sign around.

Both are incredibly disrespectful of another viewpoint.

[Dreumia]

I must say, I agree with that guy who turned the sign around. Though it may not have been the best thing to do (OK, who really CARES if he turned a SIGN around!), putting that next to a Christmas tree and Nativity scene is terrible.

Disclaimer: These are my views and I stand by them 100%

Would you care if he had been an atheist and wrecked the nativity scene?

Yes. Not the same thing, btw.

Actually, yes, it is the same thing.

No, Dyakovo, they are not the same thing at all. Well, that depends, by 'wrecking the nativity scene' does it mean destroying the scene itself, or criticizing it. The first is completely different. The second would have to be similar, but not the same, as the nativity scene does not actually define the entire religion, only a part of it.

In terms of the damage done, they are different. In terms of the meaning of the gesture, they are entirely similar.

The gesture is the same, but the damage done is different... on two largely different scales... (Meant to say that, apparently different...)