Can atheists take it too far?

sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Can atheists take it too far?

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?


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Everyone can get a bit

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.

 

 

sandwiches wrote:

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?

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

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
As long as the crosses don't

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


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Here's the article from Faux

Here's the article from Faux News.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311956,00.html


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Well they are some pretty

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

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Posts: 7580
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:I've been

sandwiches wrote:

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?

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. 

 

Please donate to one of these highly rated charities to help impede the GOP attack on America 2017-2019.

Support our activism efforts by making your Amazon purchases via this link.


HeyZeusCreaseToe
Superfan
HeyZeusCreaseToe's picture
Posts: 675
Joined: 2008-02-27
User is offlineOffline
I am unsure as to whether

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


Cali_Athiest2
Cali_Athiest2's picture
Posts: 440
Joined: 2008-02-07
User is offlineOffline
I think this is taking

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


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
Cali_Athiest2 wrote:I think

Cali_Athiest2 wrote:

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.

 

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.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
sandwiches wrote:I've been

sandwiches wrote:

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?

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.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:SO NO,

Brian37 wrote:

SO NO, atheists are not going too far because if they attempted the same thing, Christians would bitch a fit.

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.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:BUT, if you

Brian37 wrote:

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.

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

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:But really,who

Loc wrote:

But really,who think the atheists have a chance of getting the judge to rule on their side anyway?

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.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Loc
Superfan
Loc's picture
Posts: 1130
Joined: 2007-11-06
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:If it's

HisWillness wrote:

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.

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

dudeofthemoment wrote:
This is getting redudnant. My patience with the unteachable[atheists] is limited.

Argument from Sadism: Theist presents argument in a wall of text with no punctuation and wrong spelling. Atheist cannot read and is forced to concede.


shikko
Posts: 448
Joined: 2007-05-23
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:HisWillness

Loc wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

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.

Then why is god still on the money and in the pledge.Surely that's been petioned against and is against the law?

"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.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
shikko wrote:Loc

shikko wrote:

Loc wrote:

HisWillness wrote:

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.

Then why is god still on the money and in the pledge.Surely that's been petioned against and is against the law?

"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.

"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!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Sapient wrote:sandwiches

Sapient wrote:

sandwiches wrote:

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?

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. 

 

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?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15752
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Sapient

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Sapient wrote:

sandwiches wrote:

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?

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. 

 

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?

Quote:
they still have every right to do 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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


thingy
SuperfanGold Member
thingy's picture
Posts: 1022
Joined: 2007-02-07
User is offlineOffline
Being faux news I don't

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.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Kevin R Brown

Brian37 wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Sapient wrote:

sandwiches wrote:

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?

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. 

 

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?

 

Quote:
they still have every right to do 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.

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.

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.

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
Would you want Muslims posting Koran quotes on highway medians?

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.

Quote:
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.

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?

Quote:
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.

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 535
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
POV

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 sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Proper Gander
Proper Gander's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
That's a religious symbol on

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.

"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Except

Kevin R Brown wrote:
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?

 

Brian37 wrote:
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.
 

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Personally I don't care if

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.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Actually

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.


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
What is stopping these

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.

 


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Displaying the ancient

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 ....  and my atheist Jesus would really like that ! ....             


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:I view

Louis_Cypher wrote:

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 >;-}>

 

I think that's a stretch, Louis (without knowing the family in question). Everyone goes through a grieving process when a loved one dies, and everyone needs to mourn. Christian families choose to do so through the bizarre and ill-advised channel of their faith - but it's still to fill a void filled by the loss.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Proper Gander wrote:That's a

Proper Gander wrote:

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.

That's a slippery slope.

If we say, "That's a religious symbol on pulblic property!" and cry foul, what's to keep lobbyist groups from using the precedent against other symbols?

"That's a religious symbol on your t-shirt, and you're on public property!"

"That's a political symbol on your hat, and you're on public property!"

"That's an anti-war symbol on your picket sign, and you're on public property!"

 

So when and how do we shut the door after we've opened it?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
UltraMonk wrote:What is

UltraMonk wrote:

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.

 

Practical limitations?

What size is appropriate, then, if it's the height that's bothersome?

 

What bothers me here is the vague lines thata are being scribbled. Are we going to start regulating the size and shapes of anything that someone might display in public now, because it might be promoting a hidden agenda of some sinister alignment?

This is little better than when Christian fanatics freaked-out over D&D years and years ago, or skateboarding ('Yes, 'Natas' is 'Satan' spelled backward. It is also a common enough name - the male form of Natashia - where the skateboards are manufactured' should ring a bell, for those around for that one) or rock music.

'Banning' and litigation over expression sucks.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I must erect lots of 

I must erect lots of  "giving the finger signs", it's my religion! ... I will put them on the public hiways, BIG ONES , all over the place, fuck you !     Tax free too .....   


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Loc wrote:Then why is god

Loc wrote:

Then why is god still on the money and in the pledge.Surely that's been petioned against and is against the law?

Because it takes time to change things. That ridiculousness got sneaked in during the 50s. Undoing it will probably take a while.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
 Guys, if they were set up

 Guys, if they were set up on private property, nobody would have a problem. They make it clear that private funds were used, but it's on public property.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:What

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What size is appropriate, then, if it's the height that's bothersome?

 

I don't know about the US, but here in Western Australia they usually use a cross approximately 1 foot high placed on the side of the road to indicate that someone died there. Everybody knows what they mean because of the size (and the pretty flowers sometimes placed around them). If we suddenly saw a 12 foot high cross on public property it wouldn't be equated with someone's death but as an advertisement for Christianity, simply because it is vastly different in size from the standard representation.

A big 12 foot high chunk of rock with one side smoothed with writing on it with a 1-2 foot high cross on it would mostly indicate to people that it is a memorial in honour of someones death, because that is what we expect to see.

Religion has learned that the only way they can keep their numbers up and also to take control of our society is to do things that are deliberately designed to seem pure and innocent, but are actually designed to influence us to their way. On the flipside because atheists are protesting over what most people deem as pure and innocent, atheists look like the bad guys, so they've made one more step forward to gain control.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What bothers me here is the vague lines thata are being scribbled. Are we going to start regulating the size and shapes of anything that someone might display in public now, because it might be promoting a hidden agenda of some sinister alignment?

 

As I pointed out, they would be fully aware that these crosses would not be seen as memorials but as promotion of christianity. It is the same trick that has been employed with the creationism morphing into intelligent design, but they got caught out on that one. This however they can't be caught out on unless one of them admits that it was actually the intent to primarily promote christiianity in a public space. So we will never ever truly know.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

This is little better than when Christian fanatics freaked-out over D&D years and years ago, or skateboarding ('Yes, 'Natas' is 'Satan' spelled backward. It is also a common enough name - the male form of Natashia - where the skateboards are manufactured' should ring a bell, for those around for that one) or rock music.

 

Christian Rock Music is an excellent example, their primary intent is to get the message of Jesus and Christianity across to the masses and make it palatable. It was just another vehicle they decided to exploit after they learned that rock music wasn't going to go away and the majority of people were upset over it being labelled as devil's music.

 

The only way Christianity can succeed is by changing with the times and manipulating our society so that you see and hear it everywhere, and they will employ any means necessary within the law of doing as such.

 

If they want to worship fine, if they want to display religious symbols within their own private property fine, if they want to believe the earth is 6000 years old then that is just fine with me, but don't manipulate public property and public insititutions for their own selfish and greedy ends.

 

I have a line, and they shalt not pass!

 

Regards,

UltraMonk

 

 

 

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
UltraMonk wrote:Kevin R

UltraMonk wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What size is appropriate, then, if it's the height that's bothersome?

 

I don't know about the US, but here in Western Australia they usually use a cross approximately 1 foot high placed on the side of the road to indicate that someone died there. Everybody knows what they mean because of the size (and the pretty flowers sometimes placed around them). If we suddenly saw a 12 foot high cross on public property it wouldn't be equated with someone's death but as an advertisement for Christianity, simply because it is vastly different in size from the standard representation.

A big 12 foot high chunk of rock with one side smoothed with writing on it with a 1-2 foot high cross on it would mostly indicate to people that it is a memorial in honour of someones death, because that is what we expect to see.

Religion has learned that the only way they can keep their numbers up and also to take control of our society is to do things that are deliberately designed to seem pure and innocent, but are actually designed to influence us to their way. On the flipside because atheists are protesting over what most people deem as pure and innocent, atheists look like the bad guys, so they've made one more step forward to gain control.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

What bothers me here is the vague lines thata are being scribbled. Are we going to start regulating the size and shapes of anything that someone might display in public now, because it might be promoting a hidden agenda of some sinister alignment?

 

As I pointed out, they would be fully aware that these crosses would not be seen as memorials but as promotion of christianity. It is the same trick that has been employed with the creationism morphing into intelligent design, but they got caught out on that one. This however they can't be caught out on unless one of them admits that it was actually the intent to primarily promote christiianity in a public space. So we will never ever truly know.

 

Kevin R Brown wrote:

This is little better than when Christian fanatics freaked-out over D&D years and years ago, or skateboarding ('Yes, 'Natas' is 'Satan' spelled backward. It is also a common enough name - the male form of Natashia - where the skateboards are manufactured' should ring a bell, for those around for that one) or rock music.

 

Christian Rock Music is an excellent example, their primary intent is to get the message of Jesus and Christianity across to the masses and make it palatable. It was just another vehicle they decided to exploit after they learned that rock music wasn't going to go away and the majority of people were upset over it being labelled as devil's music.

 

The only way Christianity can succeed is by changing with the times and manipulating our society so that you see and hear it everywhere, and they will employ any means necessary within the law of doing as such.

 

If they want to worship fine, if they want to display religious symbols within their own private property fine, if they want to believe the earth is 6000 years old then that is just fine with me, but don't manipulate public property and public insititutions for their own selfish and greedy ends.

 

I have a line, and they shalt not pass!

 

Regards,

UltraMonk

So, essentially, your opinion is that Christians should have zero access to creative expression, because it might be used to promote their worldview?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote: Guys, if

HisWillness wrote:

 Guys, if they were set up on private property, nobody would have a problem. They make it clear that private funds were used, but it's on public property.

I know. And I'm calling foul on you saying that they can't display Christian imagery in public.

If I'm allowed to wear a t-shirt with political message on it while I'm walking down the street, and if artists are allowed to express themselves through evocative sculptures that they set-up on display in public, Christians have the same right (whether or not you and I like it).

I don't want this to be the precedent that sets in motion an avalanche of litigation over different public displays, and leades to some retarded level of censorship.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Proper Gander
Proper Gander's picture
Posts: 83
Joined: 2007-11-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Proper

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Proper Gander wrote:

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.

That's a slippery slope.

If we say, "That's a religious symbol on pulblic property!" and cry foul, what's to keep lobbyist groups from using the precedent against other symbols?

"That's a religious symbol on your t-shirt, and you're on public property!"

"That's a political symbol on your hat, and you're on public property!"

"That's an anti-war symbol on your picket sign, and you're on public property!"

 

So when and how do we shut the door after we've opened it?

The religious symbol is on my T-shirt. My t-shirt is private property.

The political symbol is on my hat, and my hat is private property.

The anti-war symbol is on my picket sign, and my picket sign is private property.

Neither my t-shirt nor my hat is set up on private property. I guess my picket sign could be set up on public property, but then that would be breaking the law if I didn't have permit to put it there - which I couldn't be given if my picket sign holds a religious message (I don't think there's a law separating the gov. from anti-war signs, but if it is, then it's the same for that). This is the difference: the cross is set up on public property, my clothes aren't and my picket sign is fine as long as it isn't set up on public property. Carrying it over public ground is fine, though, just like carrying a cross while on public ground is okay.

"Nobody will ever win the battle of the sexes. There's too much fraternizing with the enemy."


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:I know

Kevin R Brown wrote:

I know [that the monuments are on public space]. And I'm calling foul on you saying that they can't display Christian imagery in public.

To be clear, I'd just be siding with the law of the land. If it's not cool by enough of the voting public, then that's my concern. If the voting public there wants to turn the whole area into Christy McChristland, that's their concern.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
If I'm allowed to wear a t-shirt with political message on it while I'm walking down the street, and if artists are allowed to express themselves through evocative sculptures that they set-up on display in public, Christians have the same right (whether or not you and I like it).

Absolutely, and again: if that's the law of the land. I'm not sure artists really are allowed to express themselves through evocative sculptures in that area, whereas your t-shirt wearing right is definitely not in question.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
I don't want this to be the precedent that sets in motion an avalanche of litigation over different public displays, and leades to some retarded level of censorship.

Of course. There's no reason to escalate the level of control over people's expression. But the slippery slope here isn't exactly looming large. The public space of highways in America has a short history of Burma Shave signs and other forms of advertisment. In that cultural context, the highway is a space for advertising, not artistic endeavour. It would be a stretch to say that there's a form of expression being threatened here.

Personally, it's not the battle I would fight. Fox News spun it like everyone knew Fox News would spin it: like a slimy, two-bit tabloid. But if you live in the states and you believe you can be free of other people invading your publicly shared space with religious expression, it might be a bit grating to see that advertisments for the afterlife can be put up with impunity anywhere a private citizen wishes. 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


sandwiches
sandwiches's picture
Posts: 75
Joined: 2008-03-13
User is offlineOffline
I don't know about you guys

I don't know about you guys but I want to actually CONVINCE people that religion and theism are irrational. I don't want to make them feel forced or cornered. One thing most atheists seem to completely miss -- and I see this every time I watch the Atheist Experience show-- is that whether we like it or not, Dawkins, Harris, RRS, Atheist Experience, or those atheist litigators are our de facto spokesmen and representatives and, quite frankly, most of them are terrible at it. The issue of the crosses is only a symptom of a bigger issue, in my opinion.

Our public face is horribly tarnished by people who seem  to lack any diplomacy skills. In Atheist Experience I see the hosts loose their patience, mock the callers, and hang up on them. Quite honestly, it reminds me of the Bill O'Reilly show, sometimes.

I have noticed that most of us approach the issue as "Well logic and the law is on my side, so there!" And while I agree on both counts of that claim, we have to realize that we live in a society with emotional beings. We have to be sensitive to their beliefs, emotions, and desires. Calling them idiots, ignoramuses, etc will not help the cause against the common folk. Just watch the religious shows and most of them are constantly smiling, trying their best to treat everyone nicely, etc. They're very charismatic people and they know how to work the crowd. We desperately need people like that.

Having said that, there will, inevitably be times when we will have to use the law or other less "amicable" methods to make sure we don't get trampled on but we need to pick our fights carefully and not get overzealous lest we get labeled as the fundamentalists that we can sometimes appear to be.


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:So,

Kevin R Brown wrote:

So, essentially, your opinion is that Christians should have zero access to creative expression, because it might be used to promote their worldview?

 

I wrote all that and you got that out of it?!??!

 

So I have to ask in response then, so you agree with them using the reference book Of Pandas & People in public classrooms? After all it could be classified as creative expression.

 

Are you debating me just for the sake of debating me, playing devil's advocate? Then please stop wasting my time.

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.

 


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
UltraMonk wrote:Kevin R

UltraMonk wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

So, essentially, your opinion is that Christians should have zero access to creative expression, because it might be used to promote their worldview?

 

I wrote all that and you got that out of it?!??!

 

So I have to ask in response then, so you agree with them using the reference book Of Pandas & People in public classrooms? After all it could be classified as creative expression.

 

Are you debating me just for the sake of debating me, playing devil's advocate? Then please stop wasting my time.

 

No, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate.

You're effectively saying that what a person puts on display in public to mark their dead is as threatening to you as what people use in schools to teach children how the universe works / was formed. I think that's absurd.

Why litigate? Why not just fight back with a big grin on your face by doing something Christians would find outrageous, then call them on their hyprocrisy, rather than letting them look like the heroes?

Off the top of my head, what I think someone should do is make the biggest print-out of a nude model they can afford to and use it to mark the spot where one of their own personal heroes or a family member was killed. Now rather than simply looking like a weasel, you look like you're trying to make a point, and we'd perhaps get something accomplished with this small-time grovelling.

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Kevin , as I was trying

Yeah Kevin and Sandwich , as I was trying to convey .... "Fuck You" images everywhere ....

  OPEN communication   ....   what is public / private?  Well , we are not individuals .... that much I do know  , and so evolving LAW of community??? .....

When will the time come of no need for laws ???  Well, when we are free, and all the gold is shared .... and so Jesus wept ..... as I DO this day .....  /  

 as the band here tonight jammed, 

Creedence Clearwater Revival - BAD MOON RISING

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZeZm7KQJT1o

   1-  4 - 5  chords ....     AMAZING !    NOT !

but I LIKE !  hey the 2 -3 -6 is cool ,

  ... later ..... add dim !  

Hey let's mix it up ! Cause we can ....  we are free to JAM !  PROOF !

Bill Evans Trio - Autumn Leaves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89B6OmBuG4A

   .... another version ? Of course , we are GOD !

  The "swing" ....

Let's go swinging !   

"Autumn leaves"  ... AGAIN !  breaking the rules !  ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1o1Hwpo8Y

AND wow too you ZackKim !

Autumn Leaves

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgajZ33_0Kk

  .... and on and on it goes ....   

 

   


UltraMonk
Posts: 100
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:No, I'm

Kevin R Brown wrote:

No, I'm not playing Devil's Advocate.

You're effectively saying that what a person puts on display in public to mark their dead is as threatening to you as what people use in schools to teach children how the universe works / was formed. I think that's absurd.

 

Normally I would quite agree with you Kevin, I'm big on defending the rights of all people, however that doesn't mean people can do whatever they want because then they would be infringing on other people's rights.

The reason I object is because it sets a precedent. If we do as you suggest and do nothing then there is absolutely nothing to stop them from erecting 12 foot high memorial's that look like christian crosses all over the country.

It is similar to what the following quote implies

Quote:

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.

Kevin R Brown wrote:
Why litigate? Why not just fight back with a big grin on your face by doing something Christians would find outrageous, then call them on their hyprocrisy, rather than letting them look like the heroes?

I fully understand that, look at it from the point of view that what they have done is intentional in trying to actually promote Christianity. We cry foul, we bad guys, they good guys. We don't cry foul, 12 foot high memorial's that just so happen to look like Christian Crosses start appearing everywhere. We are screwed no matter which way we turn. If indeed it is their intention, it's a beautiful idea.

Then after the crosses now dot the landscape of America they can start bringing other things in on public property, afterall we didn't object to the 12 foot high memorial's that coincidentally look like Christian Crosses.

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Off the top of my head, what I think someone should do is make the biggest print-out of a nude model they can afford to and use it to mark the spot where one of their own personal heroes or a family member was killed. Now rather than simply looking like a weasel, you look like you're trying to make a point, and we'd perhaps get something accomplished with this small-time grovelling.

Good idea in theory, however such a display is illegal and they'll just cry that us evil atheists are trying to subvert their children with pornographic images. Regardless that it isn't actually pornography, just a nude photo, most people will jump onto the pornography angle. I'm also pretty sure that trying to draw a comparison between the nude photo and the memorial's won't work.

Kevin, make no mistake, there are hardcore christians out there that will use fair means or foul that challenges the law to change America and other countries into a Christian Theocracy.

So if you are still for the idea of 12 foot high memorial's that mysteriously look like Christian Crosses then it might be a good idea to go down to your local Christian church and sign up for the work gangs to construct and place them all over the place. Smiling

Regards,

UltraMonk

 

 

: Freedom - The opportunity to have responsibility.

: Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you.