Can atheists take it too far?
Offline I've been reading a couple of articles of litigations initiated by atheists and it seems to me that some atheists may be taking it a little too far. For instance, I read of this atheist group trying to get some roadside crosses removed even though they were meant as a memorial for firemen that died there. As far as I know they were all Christians.
Do you think that stuff like that might be going a bit too far and may, in fact, damage the public's view of atheists?
Offline I view the road side crosses in the same light as most (theistic) funeral orations... an extended infomercial for God Inc. (tm)... with little if any real concern for the deceased.
But that's just me.
LC >;-}>
Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacrements of canibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.
Offline That's a religious symbol on public property. Pretty much a no-brainer, IMO. If they want a memorial there, let them have one, but let it also be secular. The death of a few people, although tragic as it may have been, does not allow the law to be broken.
"Free your mind and your ass will follow."
Offline Except freedom and speech and freedom of expression swing both ways, Brian. I shake my head of the atheists here:
The Christians are very clearly just mourning the dead.Whether you or I think it's irrational to do so, they still have every right to do it. If it were atheists erecting a secular altar for memorial, would you or Ellen still have anything to say about it? If not, then it's not really about public use of the land so much as pushing an agenda, is it?
When they allow others to do the same at the same scale. If they don't want others doing it, then they should refrain from doing it themselves.
They cannot have it both ways, they cant gang tag government property, then turn around and claim "establishment clause" when others do the same.
So in that case, I'd say that the argument should be against their complaints about other people's memorials.
Rather than attack their memorials, simply use these examples as why it is hypocracy for them to attack others.
I'm definately with Kev on this one.
Offline Personally I don't care if they put up crosses if it is only used to self identify. Like in Arlington National Cemetary there are headstones that are crosses, star of Davids, etc, that simply denote the faith of the deceased.
Also I believe that a recent legal victory was achieved for a Wiccan military organization who won the right to have their religious symbol used on their memorials in the event of their deaths.
But anyway, these firemen were honorable men who willingly sacrificed themselves to help others. I would gladly overlook religious symbolism in order to show of my respect for their courage.
"But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them, bring them here and kill them in front of me." Jesus, (Luke 19:27)
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8uln_drowning-pool-tear-away_music
Offline It is private citizens showing part of their religious beliefs, which is protected by the constitution, they are not asking others to convert nor is the government asking anyone to follow such said religious belief, they cannot stop muslims, jews, atheists or anyone else from putting up a roadside memorial (although I personally do not agree with them and find them no matter which religious view or lack of, to be tasteless and waste of time), I have seen even wiccan memorials on the roadside. Now since it is on public land and the government does allowing people to this, as it is not a permanent marker, and the government is not endorsing this, it's not like it says on the cross, endorsed by the republican party or the president. But they have to allow any belief that wishes to do this to do this, and it doesn't stop from anyone else from taking it down once everyone leaves. (although if it does become permanent, someone better be buying up that little piece of land). Like it has been stated before, freedom of religion/belief, freedom of speech and freedom of expression is allowed both ways, you may want secular, but freedom of religion and the freedom to express such said expression is allowed as well by private citizens.
Offline What is stopping these Memorials that look like a Christian Cross from being 24 foot high? or even 48 foot high.
12 foot high is 4 foot higher than my ceiling!
To me it does seem to be one of these attempts to promote Christianity through the backdoor. Simply because everybody and I mean everybody looks at such a Cross and knows that it represents the Christian Cross. The designers of the memorial would have been fully aware of this fact.
They could have easily chosen another shape for the memorial.
: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.
: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.
Online Displaying the ancient device of torture bothers me, and is not a "saving loving" jester, but that is the xain way of , well , you know .....
Geezz, all those poor tortured people .... Being reminded of our stupidity is how I most always view the cross, so that is a benefit, to remember our past errors.
Using crosses for target practice is an idea that appeals to me ....&nbs
Everyone can get a bit carried away, atheist or thiest. I try to keep it in check, it could be easy to say something like, 'relgion should be illegal' but I don't actually want that.Sometimes we just have had to much of it I guess and do stuff. I'd still say we're more tolerant of theists than they are of us.
Could it get much worse?I agree though, I hate to do anything that reflects badly on atheism
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Life is good, and people who believe in afterlife fail to understand this.- Mindcore
As long as the crosses don't have sayings, advertisements for Christianity, I have no problem with people putting crosses on roads where loved ones died. But...if you put a big sign on the cross that said something like, "repent to Jesus and you will be saved" then that would be using the public square to preach to me. There is a fine line between rememberance, and backdoor proselytizing. I can't think of any crosses on roads I have seen that said anything other than innocuous sayings like, "rest in peace, we will never forget you, you remain in our hearts" which is respectful and I would say you would have to be fairly heartless to want removed.
I would like to see the proof you speak of, because I seriously doubt that having a cross was the only reason for asking for their removal.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
Here's the article from Faux News.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311956,00.html
Well they are some pretty damn big crosses,and it's silly to say they're secualar symbols. Still though, there are worse things christians could do and this does make atheists look heartless and bad.
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Life is good, and people who believe in afterlife fail to understand this.- Mindcore
I was actually with Ellen Johnson just hours after she recorded a segment with Glenn Beck on the above issue. We watched it together, and I thought she was great a Glenn Beck was as obnoxious as usual. The crosses were put on public property and I thought Ellen and American Atheists were in the right for getting behind the project.
To answer the question though, yes atheists can take it too far. The line I use as a determination if it's too far or not, is the law. If it violates the law, it's too far. We must utilize our free speech rights if we expect to make progress, and the major atheist orgs must continue to fight battles in courts as well. While these battles aren't necessarily going to win over Christians in public opinion polls, that shouldn't be our concern. Our concern should be to fight for whats right at all times, even if it devastates the delicate sensibilities of people with imaginary friends who live in a magical fantasy world in which they and their religious leaders can do no wrong. It's our job to teach them what's wrong and why.
"I basically subscribed after I checked out that thread that Sapient posted on expenses and the like. Groceries are one of the most important items, so I'm hoping I'm helping there and I'm hoping I help Sapient break even. If I can help stop him from dipping into the retirement fund, I'll be happy." - The Sarge
I am unsure as to whether there is a law against this act or that they are saying that the act is just a violation of the establishment clause.
"They know very well that the cross is a Christian symbol," said Dave Silverman, spokesman for the group. "They are breaking the law by putting up memorials for fallen heroes."
After seeing the crosses, their huge size, and their placement next to American Flags(which implies a connection to state and church) this seems to be a case in which a deliberate act was made to have an advertisement for Christianity through the benign honoring of a public servant's death, and elevate its place in communal standing. I thought it was like a family or something making a like a two foot cross on the ground, but this is not the case. To say that the cross is a secular symbol is ludicrous, thats like saying crescents are just cool symbols, or the swastika isn't recognizing anti-semitism, its an old symbol for good luck. The meanings of these symbols are very well known and established, and the fact that they claim them to be secular is a lie, that they are either fully aware of, or deluded beyond reasonable distinction of the terms secular and religious.
I think if you could put a swastika right next to the memorial cross, that was just as big, that said, "Don't Drink and Drive" that would be cool. I really wonder if the "secular symbol" idea holds water then.
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Yoda
I think this is taking things a little too far myself, but I can at least appreciate the gesture. Is this taking things too far? I guess we would all have to define what that would actually mean. I don't see any legitimate purpose for posting the monuments on public roads, but I don't see any harm in doing so either. The posting of crosses on a road does not infringe on the 1st amendment near as I can tell.
Yes, I think things like this can be a black eye in the face of atheism. Hopefully, this stunt won't make us such a hated minority. Oh wait, too late, guess we've all ready made that list.
"Always seek out the truth, but avoid at all costs those that claim to have found it" ANONYMOUS
That's the thing, I don't see what we gain from this and I think we're losing a lot more with stunts like these.
Quite honestly, I think something that might help us get closer to a secular government might be the aid of other religions instead of atheists being on the news every other day suing someone. How can other religions help us? Well, if more Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, or, better yet, Muslims joined the cause by testing the laws by asking for inclusion in prayers, festivities, monuments, etc, I think more would realize that most people in the US don't really want freedom of religion but freedom of Christianity from other religions.
Too far? How quickly do you think Christians would bitch if an atheist died and put an atheist memorial beside the road?
I am not against memorials, I am against religious favoritism where public property can be used by one for religious purposes but exclude others from doing the same.
I think it is better for all to have their personal specific memorials on private property (NOT OUT OF VIEW). Church lawns are private property but next to public roads. Priavate buildings and businesses are next to public roads.
BUT, if you think Christians would put up with an atheist roadside memorial(on public property)you are dead wrong, AND THEY WOULD BE RIGHT! My only problem is that they wont apply the same logic to themselves.
SO NO, atheists are not going too far because if they attempted the same thing, Christians would bitch a fit.
Public memorials should be neutral anything else should be done by the individual on their own time with their own resources, and that cuts both ways.
Contact all the 08 Presidental candidates and remind them of their Constitutional duty to uphold "no religious test" www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/8955
I loved the sly way that the article suggested that no public space was violated, since taxpayer money wasn't involved, even though the memorials were put up in a public space.
Ultimately, I have to side with Sapient: the law is the law. If it's okay for some people to break the law and not others, then what's the point of the law? And why wouldn't they do what every other memorial does, and make a wall or plaque or something?
The precendent has to be fought, otherwise it's okay for a private firm to put up whatever they want simply because they invested money in it and didn't bother taxpayers. That's a ridiculous argument.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Or even better,if satanists put up some inverted crosses.I wonder where christians freedom of religon would be then.
While I agree that they are breaking the law,I still think this will do more damage than it's worth. You can't win all the battles and the war.
But really,who think the atheists have a chance of getting the judge to rule on their side anyway?
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Life is good, and people who believe in afterlife fail to understand this.- Mindcore
If it's the law, and the judge is good, he'll have to side with the law. If the law needs to be changed, then let people complain to politicians. It'll definitely make for bad blood, but then it's up to people to lobby for a change of law, not get upset at a judge for enforcing it.
Will: no gyration without funkstification.
Then why is god still on the money and in the pledge.Surely that's been petioned against and is against the law?
Psalm 14:1 "the fool hath said in his heart there is a God"-From a 1763 misprinted edition of the bible
Life is good, and people who believe in afterlife fail to understand this.- Mindcore
"In God We Trust" remains on money because the Supreme Court decided that it was a phrase that had been robbed of religious meaning through usage, and had become a notion of the American people. In short, they wimped out. They should have just stuck with "E PULIBURUS UNUM", even incorrectly written as it is.
"Under God" remains in the pledge because the resolution making it part of the pledge hasn't been overturned. I don't know if it's been challenged unsuccessfully or not challenged at all.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
"Under God" remains in the pledge because the court threw it out on a technicality. They said that Newdow did not have enough custody of his daughter to make it legal for him to file the case. "under God" has not been ruled on. It can still be brought up again by another parent.
WHAT the Christian right won't tell you is 2 of the 3 9th District court Judges who originally sided with Newdow WERE REPUBLICAN APOINTED CHRISTIANS!
Contact all the 08 Presidental candidates and remind them of their Constitutional duty to uphold "no religious test" www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/8955
Except freedom and speech and freedom of expression swing both ways, Brian. I shake my head of the atheists here:
The Christians are very clearly just mourning the dead.
Whether you or I think it's irrational to do so, they still have every right to do it. If it were atheists erecting a secular altar for memorial, would you or Ellen still have anything to say about it? If not, then it's not really about public use of the land so much as pushing an agenda, is it?
CAUTION:
This human being has more accumulated hours playing GI Joes in the bathtub than he has sleeping, owns more polyhedral dice than he does articles of clothing and has invested more money into his personal computer than most people do on their cars.
Communicate at your own risk.
When they allow others to do the same at the same scale. If they don't want others doing it, then they should refrain from doing it themselves.
They cannot have it both ways, they cant gang tag government property, then turn around and claim "establishment clause" when others do the same.
NOW, please tell me how anyone's free speech is violated when they have their own resources?
It would be just as stupid to claim that because the flag doesn't have a cross on it it violates the free speech of Christians.
Please tell me where I said they cant have a religious memorial? I said they can't use public money or public property to erect a religious memorial. If they want a public memorial, it has to be neutral.
Would you want Muslims posting Koran quotes on highway medians? I am quite sure Christians wouldn't. But the Christians would have absolutely no case against a privately owned billboard next to a public highway on private property.
Do not conflate "neutral government" as meaning out of view. "Private" when it comes to government DOES NOT MEAN OUT OF VIEW, it merely means non-governmental.
If those same Christians wanted to pay to have a religious memorial printed in a PRIVATE newspaper, they could. If they wanted to erect a religious memorial on private property IN FULL VIEW of a public road, THEY CAN.
What no one can do is monopolize public property and then tell others they cant do the same. BUT THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT CHRISTIANS DO.
My point is, and has always been, if they don't want others doing it, then they should refrain from doing it themselves.
Contact all the 08 Presidental candidates and remind them of their Constitutional duty to uphold "no religious test" www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/news_activism/8955
Being faux news I don't trust them as an information source for what is actually going on there. I do have questions though - are all these people who the memorials are put up for christian? Are there non-christians of any persuasion who worked in similar roles or died in similar circumstances? If so, do they or do they not have a similar memorial? Has the council been asked what they would do if a non-christian of any persuasion who worked in similar roles died in similar circumstances?
If they would put up a similar memorial for that persons religious beliefs, I have no problem with it. If it's only (and I want to emphasise the word ONLY) a case that it's only been christians so far, I don't have a problem with it. Barring these two circumstances, I do have problems with it and am in support of the action being taken against it.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Except, of course, this isn't the circumstance. The circumstance is much closer to you stating that they can't have crosses anywhere you don't want them to.
Please show where 'public money' was used to create said memorial. It's a fucking crappy homemade wooden cross and a conventional American flag. What would you prefer they mark a few deceased Christian public servants with?
No. But you're twisting the issue.
Would I mind if Muslim public servants who died were marked with a simple Islamic symbol? Not at all.
So the families, in your opinion, should have to purchase the tract of land the deceased were killed on before they can mark it with a memorial?
But it's NOT what is being done here. It's a Christian family marking some dead Christians with a Christian symbol, as part of MOURNING the DECEASED. It has nothing to do with promoting Christianity.
I would argue that the litigation against the families has a lot more to do with pushing an agenda than the damn memorial.
CAUTION:
This human being has more accumulated hours playing GI Joes in the bathtub than he has sleeping, owns more polyhedral dice than he does articles of clothing and has invested more money into his personal computer than most people do on their cars.
Communicate at your own risk.