For Atheists rights, or done out of spite?

[JohnOfSheffield]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Im1K2MTp94

And she's one hot theologian so it's worth it.

 

[woolfe9998]

You basically repeated what I said. Of course Atheists believe in things and are moral, good citizens. That being said, this doesn't paint them in a favorable light, IMO.

I don't agree with things they say, but I do support their right to say it...as I have no right to NOT be offended.



Actually, they'd get along fine if we learn that OVERLY criticizing the belief or non-belief in God doesn't solve a freaking thing -- it just emboldens more of it from both sides... and sad to say, both act like petulant children when it comes to belief v non-belief... always trying to one-up the other side.

Ah, but many religions, including Christianity, proselytize. If you were someone who did not believe, would you find it necessary to always remain silent so as to be civil, while people proselytize views you consider false and unsupported by evidence, or worse, actually having a negative impact on humanity?

I guess there is a fine line between criticizing something out of spite and criticizing because you feel it is the right thing to do. Suffice it to say that whenever there is a view expressed publicly, you can expect a publicly expressed counter-view, unless there happens to be universal agreement.

The context of this particular bench is that the atheist group believed it was unconstitutional as a violation of the establishment clause to allow it outside the courthouse. Failing that challenge, they exercised their legal right to engage in counter-speech. I don't think it was "spite" because I doubt the intent was to piss people off but rather to provide contrary information and opinion. I think it is them exercising their right to counter-speech in order to provide the public with balance. Not very different than any other situation where party A expresses belief in X, and party B expresses as counter-view as Y. Their ideal was that neither group gets a monument on public property. Failing that, they provided a reasonable counter. You can speculate about "spite" being a motive but for me that is the beginning and end of the matter.

It isn't only the specific counter-argument that is relevant here. There is also the fact that this group believes the bench violates the Establishment Clause because its placement outside the courthouse implies that the state endorses the religious message. So if you put up an atheist bench, it tends to dispel that impression, to where people will view the state as a passive allower of any message, while otherwise they might see the state as implicitly endorsing the religious message. It's a remedy they seek because the court wouldn't give them the desired remedy. And it's quite a rational remedy, meaning there is no particular reason to ascribe "spite" as the reason.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Ah, but many religions, including Christianity, proselytize. If you were someone who did not believe, would you find it necessary to always remain silent so as to be civil, while people proselytize views you consider false and unsupported by evidence, or worse, actually having a negative impact on humanity?

I guess there is a fine line between criticizing something out of spite and criticizing because you feel it is the right thing to do. Suffice it to say that whenever there is a view expressed publicly, you can expect a publicly expressed counter-view, unless there happens to be universal agreement.

The context of this particular bench is that the atheist group believed it was unconstitutional as a violation of the establishment clause to allow it outside the courthouse. Failing that challenge, they exercised their legal right to engage in counter-speech. I don't think it was "spite" because I doubt the intent was to piss people off but rather to provide contrary information and opinion. I think it is them exercising their right to counter-speech in order to provide the public with balance. Not very different than any other situation where party A expresses belief in X, and party B expresses as counter-view as Y. Their ideal was that neither group gets a monument on public property. Failing that, they provided a reasonable counter. You can speculate about "spite" being a motive but for me that is the beginning and end of the matter.

It isn't only the specific counter-argument that is relevant here. There is also the fact that this group believes the bench violates the Establishment Clause because its placement outside the courthouse implies that the state endorses the religious message. So if you put up an atheist bench, it tends to dispel that impression, to where people will view the state as a passive allower of any message, while otherwise they might see the state as implicitly endorsing the religious message. It's a remedy they seek because the court wouldn't give them the desired remedy. And it's quite a rational remedy, meaning there is no particular reason to ascribe "spite" as the reason.

You never expressed your personal disgust over this entire situation... you should if for no other reason that to let it be known that it disgusts you.

 

[Retro Rob]

Ah, but many religions, including Christianity, proselytize. If you were someone who did not believe, would you find it necessary to always remain silent so as to be civil, while people proselytize views you consider false and unsupported by evidence, or worse, actually having a negative impact on humanity?

I guess there is a fine line between criticizing something out of spite and criticizing because you feel it is the right thing to do. Suffice it to say that whenever there is a view expressed publicly, you can expect a publicly expressed counter-view, unless there happens to be universal agreement.

Ah, note I said OVERLY criticizing -- I didn't say they shouldn't criticize at all.

For instance, I think non-believers can indeed publicly criticize the God, or the lack thereof, that I personally believe in. Being overly critical is trying to belittle the people that hold said belief. I don't care how illogical a person's belief is, if you want to really help them see the unreasonableness of their belief, give them reasons to drop said beliefs and if they don't want to, leave them alone. They have a choice.

Atheists always complain about wanting to be left alone. Why not do the same?

If people turn a blind-eye to "evidence", so be it. Calling them idiots or what have you isn't helping your cause -- it just makes non-believers look like supremacists.

The context of this particular bench is that the atheist group believed it was unconstitutional as a violation of the establishment clause to allow it outside the courthouse. Failing that challenge, they exercised their legal right to engage in counter-speech. I don't think it was "spite" because I doubt the intent was to piss people off but rather to provide contrary information and opinion. I think it is them exercising their right to counter-speech in order to provide the public with balance. Not very different than any other situation where party A expresses belief in X, and party B expresses as counter-view as Y. Their ideal was that neither group gets a monument on public property. Failing that, they provided a reasonable counter. You can speculate about "spite" being a motive but for me that is the beginning and end of the matter.

I think the point was that they were initially trying to get it removed -- if it was all about counter-points, this would have happened a long time ago.

I've not known atheists to raise monuments to anything. My opinion is that they see believers are spreading their message much more far and wide using this avenue, and they don't want to be left not saying anything publicly.

Frankly, atheists aren't much different than believers. They have things to say, and they feel the need to say something. Well, its about time. They have the right.

It isn't only the specific counter-argument that is relevant here. There is also the fact that this group believes the bench violates the Establishment Clause because its placement outside the courthouse implies that the state endorses the religious message. So if you put up an atheist bench, it tends to dispel that impression, to where people will view the state as a passive allower of any message, while otherwise they might see the state as implicitly endorsing the religious message. It's a remedy they seek because the court wouldn't give them the desired remedy. And it's quite a rational remedy, meaning there is no particular reason to ascribe "spite" as the reason.

So since they have the bench, they can admit they were wrong about the courthouse endorsing a religion. I guess we'll be waiting forever for this admission.

 

[woolfe9998]

Ah, note I said OVERLY criticizing -- I didn't say they shouldn't criticize at all.

For instance, I think non-believers can indeed publicly criticize the God, or the lack thereof, that I personally believe in. Being overly critical is trying to belittle the people that hold said belief. I don't care how illogical a person's belief is, if you want to really help them see the unreasonableness of their belief, give them reasons to drop said beliefs and if they don't want to, leave them alone. They have a choice.

Atheists always complain about wanting to be left alone. Why not do the same?

If people turn a blind-eye to "evidence", so be it. Calling them idiots or what have you isn't helping your cause -- it just makes non-believers look like supremacists.

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.

I think the point was that they were initially trying to get it removed -- if it was all about counter-points, this would have happened a long time ago.

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.

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).

I've not known atheists to raise monuments to anything. My opinion is that they see believers are spreading their message much more far and wide using this avenue, and they don't want to be left not saying anything publicly.

I think they don't want to be left with nothing particularly in context of something religious on public property, for reasons I've previously stated.

Frankly, atheists aren't much different than believers. They have things to say, and they feel the need to say something. Well, its about time. They have the right.

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.

So since they have the bench, they can admit they were wrong about the courthouse endorsing a religion. I guess we'll be waiting forever for this admission.

I certainly hope they don't admit it, because I think they were right. A courthouse is the last place to put up the 10 Commandments. It's a statement of religious law in front of an institution charged with adjudicating secular law. It's confusing to the individual as to whether the state is permitting it because it endorses the message.

- wolf

 

[bradly1101]

Jesus might not have existed either.

I wondered about immaculate conception and all the miracles. It doesn't seem logical.

Both the Bible and Star Wars have characters of this sort, and both are morality plays.

Maybe this type of story requires characters like that; more than human and someone to look up to who guides morality (until you turn to the dark side)

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Four pages in, and I still see nothing here but complaining that Christians aren't allowed to have exclusive use of public property for what they basically admit is proselytizing.

It's amazing to me that a religion allegedly founded by a man who advised his adherents to "turn the other cheek" even in the event of violence, is now so filled with people who whine about even the slightest perceived offense.

 

[zsdersw]

The Community Men's Fellowship, the group that erected the Ten Commandments display, made a Facebook post in March that thanked those who supported the monument and stated, "God worked this out," the newspaper reported.

"We want you all to remember that this issue was won on the basis of this being a free speech issue, so don't be alarmed when the American Atheists want to erect their own sign or monument. It's their right. As for us, we will continue to honor the Lord and that's what matters," the post read.

Quite true. Its a shame the people who say there's a "war on Christmas" don't acknowledge that everyone has a right to say whatever greeting they want (or no greeting at all, if they so choose).

 

[Retro Rob]

Four pages in, and I still see nothing here but complaining that Christians aren't allowed to have exclusive use of public property for what they basically admit is proselytizing.

It's amazing to me that a religion allegedly founded by a man who advised his adherents to "turn the other cheek" even in the event of violence, is now so filled with people who whine about even the slightest perceived offense.

I would really like to know what you mean by turning the other cheek, actually.

I think you may be confusing it pacifism.

 

[sandorski]

I would really like to know what you mean by turning the other cheek, actually.

I think you may be confusing it pacifism.

If it isn't, it's pretty damn close to it.

 

[Jaskalas]

Four pages in, and I still see nothing here but complaining that Christians aren't allowed to have exclusive use of public property for what they basically admit is proselytizing.

It's amazing to me that a religion allegedly founded by a man who advised his adherents to "turn the other cheek" even in the event of violence, is now so filled with people who whine about even the slightest perceived offense.

Do we know if courthouses dating back to the 1700s had the 10 commandants on display?

I presume you'd appreciate the significance if they did. Helps establish the historical precedent if the connection was there from the beginning.

 

[Pulsar]

Do we know if courthouses dating back to the 1700s had the 10 commandants on display?

I presume you'd appreciate the significance if they did. Helps establish the historical precedent if the connection was there from the beginning.

Historical precedent has no significance when it comes to whether something is legal or not. I can cite any number of things that we used to do that we don't now. Likewise, this type of issue didn't get the amount of exposure it does now.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that religious displays in places like schools or on public property are generally not appropriate to the separation of church and state that is laid out in law.

In this case, had it been appealed enough, there is no doubt it would have been ruled illegal.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I would really like to know what you mean by turning the other cheek, actually.

I think you may be confusing it pacifism.

You're going to ask me to quote your own scripture to you? How odd.

If you don't think that phrase is advocating pacifism, you are the one confused.

Just to be clear, I don't lay awake at night worrying about things like religious PDAs near courtrooms. I just see this thread as yet another example of Christians taking issue with the mere notion that others might be allowed to do what they feel entitled to do.

 

[randomrogue]

Do we know if courthouses dating back to the 1700s had the 10 commandants on display?

I presume you'd appreciate the significance if they did. Helps establish the historical precedent if the connection was there from the beginning.

I'm a bit interested in hearing your reasoning for this. What would historical precedent actually grant you?

People in the 18th century didn't bathe and those that did bathe were fully clothed. Imagine the smell of people around you with no dedodrant and your Uncle Quaker celebrating his 75th year without bathing. You of course shit in a can, that you left sitting under your bed bug infested bed, and your whole home smelled like human waste so maybe the body odor wasn't so bad.

 

[woolfe9998]

Historical precedent has no significance when it comes to whether something is legal or not. I can cite any number of things that we used to do that we don't now. Likewise, this type of issue didn't get the amount of exposure it does now.

Courts have repeatedly ruled that religious displays in places like schools or on public property are generally not appropriate to the separation of church and state that is laid out in law.

In this case, had it been appealed enough, there is no doubt it would have been ruled illegal.

Actually, well I agree, but the courts have held that when a religious message has historical precedent, and through repetition it has become ritual which has lost its specific religious meaning but is viewed a patriotic reverence to history, then it may be allowed. "In God We Trust" on our coins and the "Pledge of Allegiance" in classrooms have both been held Constitutional for that reason. I do not agree, but Jaskalas is making an argument not dissimilar to several prior court rulings.

See Aronow v. United States and Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdew.

 

[Retro Rob]

You're going to ask me to quote your own scripture to you? How odd.

If you don't think that phrase is advocating pacifism, you are the one confused.

Just to be clear, I don't lay awake at night worrying about things like religious PDAs near courtrooms. I just see this thread as yet another example of Christians taking issue with the mere notion that others might be allowed to do what they feel entitled to do.

Did I ask you for a scripture?

I just asked what you meant by it -- that's all, Charles.

If its pacifism, then its pacifism. If I'm confused, then so be it. I'm not going to debate you about it.

But thanks!

So Christians are the ones "taking issue" when atheists are complaining to the point of raising one of their own?

How ironic. Obviously, your ilk are the ones losing so much sleep that they HAD to counter. Lol

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm a bit interested in hearing your reasoning for this. What would historical precedent actually grant you?

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

 

[randomrogue]

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

My apologies. I didn't go up to read your other posts again so I missed the connection. I thought you were coming at it from another point of view.

 

[sandorski]

Did I ask you for a scripture?

I just asked what you meant by it -- that's all, Charles.

If its pacifism, then its pacifism. If I'm confused, then so be it. I'm not going to debate you about it.

But thanks!

So Christians are the ones "taking issue" when atheists are complaining to the point of raising one of their own?

How ironic. Obviously, your ilk are the ones losing so much sleep that they HAD to counter. Lol

Dude, you're the one who started this thread.

 

[Retro Rob]

Dude, you're the one who started this thread.

Yeah, he said "Christian(S)", though.

If it were just me that he was referring to, I'd hear ya!

 

[colonelciller]

Do we know if courthouses dating back to the 1700s had the 10 commandants on display?

I presume you'd appreciate the significance if they did. Helps establish the historical precedent if the connection was there from the beginning.

BRILLIANT LOGIC!!! Great meaningless point!

Do you know that farmers dating back to the 1700s and before had slaves whom they owned?

I presume you appreciate the significance of that fact. Helps establish the historical precedent for a renewal of slavery since the connection has been there from the beginning.

/end sarcastic deconstruction of ridiculous rebuttal

 

[colonelciller]

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

based on historical grounds, the ten commandments should enshrined in a giant statue of a white man holding the commandments in his left hand while whipping several prostrate slave men, women and children...
since the statue is supposedly about historical relevance rather than religion as you state.

next you'll be telling us that the use of the confederate flag as a state flag is done not out of racism but out of historical prescedent.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Archeologists (consensus), historians (consensus) and many Jewish and Christian theologians. Most of these are not atheists either, they simply deal with evidence based science and have to follow the evidence regardless of what their religious texts says.

Basically, there exists no records of his existance outside of the Bible and since the stories about Jews being slaves in Egypt are known to be false that is not a reliable source.

Same people agree that king David didn't exist either.

Re: Moses

It's worth noting that the Torah was redacted to its modern form at the end of the 6th Century BCE. The consensus among historians seems to be that the story of Exodus was a metaphor for the just-ended Babylonian Captivity. It provides a reference for the promised salvation that will come with obedience to God (and the corresponding fate for those who do not obey). In the Tanakh, the Babylonian captivity is then written as a repeat of what happened in Exodus.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

Did I ask you for a scripture?

I just asked what you meant by it -- that's all, Charles.

If its pacifism, then its pacifism. If I'm confused, then so be it. I'm not going to debate you about it.

But thanks!

So Christians are the ones "taking issue" when atheists are complaining to the point of raising one of their own?

How ironic. Obviously, your ilk are the ones losing so much sleep that they HAD to counter. Lol

Why are you even here, Rob? I'm serious. This is supposed to be a place for debate and discussion -- not for starting threads and then not responding to arguments, or making snarky comments in response to obvious points. It was entirely clear what I meant by "turning the other cheek", and everyone here knows it. If you're here just to denigrate atheists and have no interest in reasonable dialog, I'd suggest going back to P&N. There are plenty of non-thinkers in there who will be thrilled to validate your opinions.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why are you even here, Rob? I'm serious. This is supposed to be a place for debate and discussion -- not for starting threads and then not responding to arguments, or making snarky comments in response to obvious points. It was entirely clear what I meant by "turning the other cheek", and everyone here knows it. If you're here just to denigrate atheists and have no interest in reasonable dialog, I'd suggest going back to P&N. There are plenty of non-thinkers in there who will be thrilled to validate your opinions.

No, it wasn't clear what you meant by "turning the other cheek". In fact, many interpretations agree it means "not taking vengeance", but I wasn't in the mood to argue about it.

Not taking vengeance is far from pacifism -- in fact, it's pretty darn admirable if someone avoids conflict. Based on how the Bible describes Jesus, this definition fits best into what he meant. Throwing the money changers out of God's temple, for instance, isn't pacifists behavior. But he told his followers not go reviling in return.

This is clear, and since you don't like to be told you're wrong, I figure I'd just leave it alone.