For Atheists rights, or done out of spite?

[Charles Kozierok]

What is it I'm "wrong" about, Rob?

My point in raising that was not to discuss the specific interpretation of that comment. It was to point out that Jesus was someone who preached taking things in stride, even to the point of not responding in kind to violence -- yet many of his followers can't even deal with something as simple as someone else putting up a bench without whining about it.

The bench doesn't say anything more about those who erected it than your griping about the bench says about you.

 

[Retro Rob]

What is it I'm "wrong" about, Rob?

My point in raising that was not to discuss the specific interpretation of that comment. It was to point out that Jesus was someone who preached taking things in stride, even to the point of not responding in kind to violence -- yet many of his followers can't even deal with something as simple as someone else putting up a bench without whining about it.

The bench doesn't say anything more about those who erected it than your griping about the bench says about you.

Oh I gotcha.

I was objecting to how the word "pacifist" is generally used, but Webster defined as not taking up arms for religious reasons... just to paraphrase. In normal usage, it used to denigrate someone and paint them as soft for not willing to even defend themselves or others.

My bad.

To hit on your other point, I did say "its about time" that Atheist start voicing themselves in this manner. The point of the thread was to identify whether or not they were exercising this right, I guess, or were they going tit for tat.

You seemed to immediately get defensive about it so I knew what to expect from you. As much as you disparage religion and its people around here, you really have no room to call anyone out for "whining".

 

[Retro Rob]

I agree that there are boundaries - not legal ones mind you - having to do with taste and civility, and that is is possible to cross those boundaries. I just don't see this bench as one of them. There is no mention of "idiots" on this bench.

No, the bench isn't one of them

No, I already explained that. They wanted it removed because they thought it could be understood as the government implicitly endorsing religion. I happen to agree with them on that, BTW. I think it's consistent with past precedent but apparently whatever court ruled on it did not agree.

I agree with jackalas's opinion of it and I really never thought about it deeply like that.

I think there's a statue of Moses and the 10, IIRC, at the Supreme Court. I think it's silly to say they're endorsing any religion of any sort.

The use of counter-speech was then Plan B, the idea being to not only present a counter-argument, but to show the viewing public that the state wasn't endorsing religion by allowing the religious bench because they also allowed the atheist bench. Without the first bench, there was no need for the second. The reason atheists will usually not do this without the religious message being there first is precisely because atheists usually do not proselytize (note my use of the word "usually" as in describing the most typical behavior).

As noted above, I think they're wrong -- they aren't endorsing a religion when I really thought about it. I think allowing the bench shows impartiality and equality.

If they thought a religion was being endorsed, it'd be hard-pressed to see them allowing a counter bench knowing some sort of conflict would probably arise.

The difference is they simply do not believe in something which many others happen to believe in. There is a fundamental difference between belief and non-belief. They are not equal and opposite counter-parts. Atheism is only an "ism" with a word to describe it because theism is such a common position. Can you imagine creating the word aflyingspaghettimonsterism to describe people who do not believe in the FSM, or a.....ism to describe anything and everything people do not believe in? Atheism somehow gets elevated to the status of a counter-part to religious belief only because theism is so common and the issue is controversial. But really, it isn't any different than not believing in anything else. I'm sure there are all kinds of things you don't believe in either, and you probably don't give it much thought or define yourself according to these non-beliefs. Non-beliefs are...nothing, literally nothing at all. There usually isn't even a word to describe non-belief in a particular thing.

I don't know why its like that. I would agree that since theism is so common and you can't counter something that no one believes in (like the FSM). The things I don't believe in are things people don't believe in, so I don't need a counter label, for lack of a better term.

But I will say that Atheism is much more than a non-belief for the simple fact that they DO in some cases, organize and speak. Wealthy Atheists fund these organizations too! In this respect, it becomes a movement especially when you see Atheists organizations like FFR, NAA (National Atheist Alliance) etc. These may be counter-movements, but they're still movements, in my opinion. I don't mind being adjusted in this view.

I don't believe in Ghosts, however, I don't need an organization to promote that non-belief because it's nothing. I simply don't believe.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I think there's a statue of Moses and the 10, IIRC, at the Supreme Court. I think it's silly to say they're endorsing any religion of any sort.

There is indeed a depiction of Moses with the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court. He's carved alongside Hammurabi, and Confucious, and Augustus, and Solomon, and dozens of other historical examples of the formation of laws and justice. It's easy to accept that the display of the Ten Commandments at the Supreme Court is done as part of a larger study of history from a secular standpoint since it doesn't single out the Judeo-Christian religions; it's inclusive of many different religious creeds. But whenever you hear about a group trying to get the Ten Commandments erected in a government building, you never once hear about them trying to do it alongside depictions from a variety of other religions and cultures. It's just "The Ten Commandments needs to be reflected as the founding basis for our laws!" And that's a ridiculous and completely non-secular argument. If a group commissioned a statue honoring the dedication to justice across history, I'd have no problem with them including the Ten Commandments, even on a government building, because it does have a role in history. But singling it out is tantamount to endorsing a single religion, and that's not the role government is meant to fulfill in this country.

 

[Pulsar]

That the commandants are not on display for religious reasons, but historical ones. As has been my argument all along.

I understand your viewpoint, but I must disagree.

For instance, in Arlington you'll find white crosses for the fallen soldiers. The cross in that context in Western culture no longer has a significant religious meaning.

In my opinion the 10 commandments are very much a religious icon.

For the most part the courts have agreed with that standpoint. There have been isolated cases where they found otherwise but that had a lot to do with when the monument was erected and why it was erected.

A modern day religious organization placing the 10 commandments at a courthouse would have a very hard time being taken seriously if they attempted to argue that it wasn't for religious purposes.

 

[SMOGZINN]

As noted above, I think they're wrong -- they aren't endorsing a religion when I really thought about it. I think allowing the bench shows impartiality and equality.

If they thought a religion was being endorsed, it'd be hard-pressed to see them allowing a counter bench knowing some sort of conflict would probably arise.

It does not matter if they were actually endorsing a religion or not, it is the fact that it gives an extremely strong impression that they are endorsing a singular religion. That impression, whether true or not, causes harm. The bench is intended to water down that impression and make it look less like the court is favouring christians in it's courtrooms. I personally, as an atheist, would be happy of other religions got in the game and put their own monuments up, not just in that one location, but anywhere a Christian icon leaves the views the impression that Christianity is given special treatment by our government.

 

[randomrogue]

Yay we're back to arguments about semantics. Seriously learn how to debate.

Violence being met by a non-violent response.

 

[Retro Rob]

It does not matter if they were actually endorsing a religion or not, it is the fact that it gives an extremely strong impression that they are endorsing a singular religion. That impression, whether true or not, causes harm. The bench is intended to water down that impression and make it look less like the court is favouring christians in it's courtrooms. I personally, as an atheist, would be happy of other religions got in the game and put their own monuments up, not just in that one location, but anywhere a Christian icon leaves the views the impression that Christianity is given special treatment by our government.

Right, but what I guess I am saying is that if other religions tried to raise something (and were denied, for instance) then I would say they're endorsing a specific religion. If they have yet to try, then try and see if they are endorsing Christianity.

Don't go accusing or making false assumptions if you've never attempted yourself. If you tried and were denied, I'd wholly agree with you.

Same goes with secularists. If I am accusing the State in favoring a specific religion or cause, then the next question that should be asked is: "have you all even tried to put something up?" In this case, they were granted a bench.

This should speak volumes in this specific case, and stop the conspiracy theorists.

 

[Pulsar]

This should speak volumes in this specific case, and stop the conspiracy theorists.

I guess the vast majority of US courts are in on the conspiracy too, because aside from isolated cases they have repeatedly ruled that religious symbols don't belong in places like this. When did we start talking about conspiracies, by the way?

 

[SMOGZINN]

This should speak volumes in this specific case, and stop the conspiracy theorists.

This is not a conspiracy. The US government does favor Christianity. Not as a conspiracy but simply because so many of the members of the government, on all levels, are Christian. Many Christians can not separate themselves from their religion, and so make decisions based on the assumptions their religion makes. I'm a US federal employee and I see it all the time.

 

[fskimospy]

I think there's a statue of Moses and the 10, IIRC, at the Supreme Court. I think it's silly to say they're endorsing any religion of any sort.

FYI there is no statue of Moses at the Supreme Court. There is however an engraving on the back of the building that has Moses as part of a larger engraving that also includes Confucius and Solon, as a testament to great lawgivers from multiple civilizations. There is no endorsement of a specific religion there, which is why it is allowed to stand.

 

[Pulsar]

Don't go accusing or making false assumptions if you've never attempted yourself. If you tried and were denied, I'd wholly agree with you.

Huh? Where did he do this?

 

[Retro Rob]

Huh? Where did he do this?

I wasn't saying he did it, but I was being general.

 

[Onceler]

spite