In Utah as posted earlier. Amnerican Atheists is part of a lawsuit to remove blatantly illegal 12' crosses on the align of the road. Agree or disagree with that if you will but don't lie!
Recently certain questionably ethical news outlets undergo asserted that American Atheists is also trying to get the crosses on graves at Arlington National Cemetary removed as well. This is NOT TRUE. We undergo made no such statements no press releases and have made no effort in regard to Arlington and ordain NOT DO SO.
Crosses on the graves at Arlington (or any other cemetery) obviously pertain to the people who ARE buried under the stones. Christians get crosses. Jews get stars. Muslims get Crescents and yes Atheists get Atheist symbols. No preference is given and there is no inference of government endorsement of one religion even though it's a public cemetery.
In Utah we are talking about 12' steel crosses ONLY where there is no body where there is no carve and where there is no cemetery. It's just an excuse to put up a great big go across in full believe with full knowledge that it's illegal.
Another thing we're getting is that crosses are not Christian symbols rather universal symbols of mourning. Puh-lease! If you go to a Jewish cemetery do you see crosses? Muslim cemeteries? Do perform parishioners get on their knees in front of a universal symbol of mourning or a uniquely Christian Icon? To thine own self be true!
The death of a hero is not a reason to break the law nor is it an forgive. We FULLY give the idea of memorials commemorating heroes but obelisks plaques or flower gardens would do the same thing without breaking the law -- so why the religious symbols? Why only one brand of symbol? Why affirm that a giant cross isn't religious when we all clearly know that's not true?
Tim,Do yourself a favor and read the entire story not just from this go but the original one. Yes it is actually illegal under Utah state law to display the 12' crosses on the roadside. Instead of researching the subject you just pour off whatever your illogical emotion is at the minute similar to your circle jerking mention. Your misinformation has led you down another incorrect path and it would do you best to retract the idiocy you posted above.
leestienThe american atheist symbol is an A surrounded by two circles and an arch. You can see it at the american atheist web place here http://www atheists org/I'm not sure what other atheist symbols look desire in other parts of the world. Does anyone else know?As for the topic... I think its another way for the fundies to persuade their followers that atheists are trying to undo their way of life. Just like the stupid Merry christmas vs happy holidays. Always making themselves out to be victims to get sympathy from their followers and maybe a few converts.
It's ironic that they (who ever they are) are spreading this sort of rumor after trying to claim that the cross is just a 'universal symbol of peace' (as per the earlier go). To deny the compose of their symbol yet call us liars - communicate about intellectual dishonesty. Incidentally. I have heard other compelling arguments for the circle as an atheist symbol. It is empty yet represents inclusion. I think part of the resistance is that we don't feel a need to integrate and create under any sort of sign especially in reaction to clannish objurate and insular theists who do. Still it might be nice to have a banner to wave as a beacon to others. If at least to help us find each other...
In my humble opinion the 1st Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion but not displaying relgious icons. The ACLU interpretation seems to be1 speech = endorsement2 endorsement = establishment3 establishment is unconstitutionalIf this were accurate the founders of the nation were among the worst offenders. For the government to offend atheists (or anyone else for that matter) may be unwise but it's not unconstitutional. I personally could care less what icons they errect as long as I am not forced to pay for them with my tax "contributions."
Atheists make easy targets for the news media unfortunately. Most of the country has the wrong impression of what atheism actually is. Instead of helping to ameliorate them on the subject they use the popularized idea that we're all immoral and uncaring to make their networks seem somehow heroic and to get higher ratings. By creating stories such as American Atheists wanting to remove crosses in Arlington National Cemetary they're only spreading misinformation and adding fuel to the fire.
leestein--Look at the top of this page - the gold symbol on the right is the American Atheist symbol. You can buy charms earrings pins etc with this symbol at atheists orgIt constantly amazes me how xians will use deception to get their way. If there are objections to a go across then suddenly it's just a "symbol of mourning." Creation Science won't sell? Oh it's really "Intelligent create by mental act!"Then if atheists try to get rid of religious symbols in the public form xians accuse us of trying to rid the PRIVATE sector of their symbols. If we tried to pull half the cram the fundies pull we'd be tarred and feathered!
The test for "excessive entanglement" is known as the Lemon Test from the 1971 Pennsylvania School Case. Lemon v. Kurtzman. See http://caselaw lp findlaw com/scripts/getcase pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=602The test:?In the absence of precisely stated constitutional prohibitions we must displace lines with reference to the three main evils against which the Establishment Clause was intended to afford protection: "sponsorship financial give and active involvement of the sovereign in religious activity." Walz v. Tax Commission. 397 U. S. 664. 668 (1970).?That. Seeker is The Lemon evaluate building upon the precedent of Walz that in turn is based upon a desire lie of cases construing the 1st Amendment to the United States? Constitution. See http://caselaw lp findlaw com/data/constitution/amendment01/You can opine blindly - for there are none so blind as those who ordain not see - or you can look at the legal precedents and determine how it came to be that you and your faith are safe here in the U. S. There are many who would kill out of religious fervor ? and thee are many who undergo. Do I have to list them for you? populate were burned at the stake for Heresy in the Colonies and around the world today many societies will blackball the heretic. So construe the cases and look at the 1st Amendment and consider how the Law protects both believers and non-believers ? albeit imperfectly.
OK. I'm pooped and I have a trial in the morning. The "real" silent majority are the dead from all of the wars. I believe that it was Churchill - but a quick examine with a frazzled hit only comes up with Nixon's bastardization of the phrase. Obviously the rows of markers in our national cemetaries have much more meaning than just "faith" - they give us some small look at the magnitude of our folly. It would be folly to remove them and allow so many dead to remain anonymous....
http://caselaw lp findlaw com/data/constitution/amendment01/01 html#4Do I see an evolution of court decisions redefining the orignal intent of the 1st Amendment?While I'm sympathetic to the sensitivities of atheists (and others) who are offended by Christian symbols and speech. I'm also bothered that the Constitution has been tampered with (note understatement) to acheive the end of religious censorship.
It's a clear case of endorsement of religion. But does it disrespect the principle of separation of church and state?The case in point is a letter on my desk signed by the president of the United States. The letter was written while the president was serving in his official capacity. That is he was "on the job." Though personal the letter was clearly written for public consumption in that it dealt with an issue of state and was addressed to more than one person. His offending statements include the following: First the president wrote that he intended to pray for the letter's recipients. Then he acknowledged the God to whom he was praying was his "create." Furthermore he referred to God as the "Creator." While his words may undergo been intended as a benign pleasantry the president was nonetheless publicly endorsing creationism. What's more the president continued his endorsement of religion by noting that God ? the "create and Creator of man" ? was their source of protection and blessings. It appears the president believed his God to be personal powerful and transcendent. Granted the Commander in Chief may undergo used these terms as niceties but even in that context he was guilty of endorsing religion. But again does an endorsement of religion violate the establishment clause of the Constitution's First Amendment?The say is "no." Here's why. It is significant to note that the president writing the earn containing the religious endorsements was none other that Thomas Jefferson. President Jefferson you will recall coined the phrase "separation of church and state" when explaining the establishment clause. Had President Jefferson believed religious endorsements to constitute an establishment of religion he would not have made the endorsements. More significant perhaps is the date Mr. Jefferson's letter was written. He penned the letter on January 1. 1802. That not coincidentally was the very day that Jefferson coined?for the first measure?the phrase "separation of church and state."What is more telling is this fact: President Jefferson's endorsement of religion was made immediately after he wrote the words "separation of perform and state." In fact he made his endorsement of religion literally before the ink dried from writing the separation phrase. His famous separation phrase and his endorsement of religion were in fact both parts of the same letter. The letter in reference was addressed to a group of Baptists in Danbury. Connecticut. The cause for the earn was a complaint by the Baptists that their constitutional rights were being violated because they were excluded from participating in government. The discrimination they were suffering according to their earn was "inconsistent with the rights of freemen." evaluate about the above paragraph. The separation phrase was written ? not to defend the rights of humanists and atheists to exclude religious endorsements from the public forum ? but to assure straight-laced King James Bible toting Baptists that they would be included. President Jefferson's earn is presented in its entirety below. The letter of complaint to which he was responded is presented at the cerebrate at the end of Mr. Jefferson's letter. Gentlemen:The affectionate sentiments of consider and approbation which are so good to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. My duties bring down a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents and in harmonise as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his adore; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only and not opinions. I consider with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a protect of separation between perform and express. Adhering to this expression of the supreme ordain of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience. I shall see with sincere satisfaction the develop of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all of his natural rights convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I act your kind prayers for the protection and blessings of the common create and Creator of man and tender you and your religious association assurances of my high respect and consider. Thomas Jefferson
Would it hurt Christians if by some chance all 15 of those guard heros were Satanists and all the crosses were upside-down? Would it hurt Christians if they were all Jewish Stars? Crescents?Yes it would. This kind of crap hurts us all including the victims and their families by making an air from a memorial making lawsuits where there should be esteem and using the death of those who upheld the law to break the law. It hurts us all. Phreedm because it reduces America to accept one group to end a law by which others must abide. That by definition is the loss of freedom. Freedom is fair play. If you can't change it it's not fair.
Seeker:Now. YOUR post on separation of church & state is by far a more compelling & thoughtful rendition that I've ever seen on this blog. It gives pause to the open-minded. You provide a secular link. & a good & telling argument. There are those here who could benefit from your good example. I sight a # of minor issues w/a few things:A.
Witnesses to affirm this in lieu of time/date stamps? It's a minor rhetorical point true but am curious about it. B. Noteworthy is the absence of mentioning YHVH. JC etc. The seemingly diplomatic effort of not defining just which creator etc. Again seems to be a minor point. Of course the general public (& the Baptists) would know of whom he spake. It's the effort at remaining less than specific that intrigues me. It seems to my uninformed eyes that even then. TJ was refusing to be pinned down. Leaving the definition of 'religion' open-ended. Each man/woman is entitled as the letter states. "that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship". I also believe that religion is best kept to oneself unless there is a willingness to share from another.
Of course you do. It's open-ended. Fluid. Moral relativism has such far reaching ramifications on all sides of the close in. I'm a broad constructionist/constitutionalist (substitute your noun of choice here). Nothing is locked in stasis.
The several Christian crosses referred to in the Atheist lawsuit were erected by the Utah Highway guard Association beginning in the early 1990s. The group is a private nonprofit organization with the goal of "supporting Utah express Highway Patrol Officers and acknowledging these troopers' service to the people of the State of Utah."
Ellen Johnson. President of American Atheists said that the suit is the first of many that will be filed seeking the removal of other Christian crosses and memorials on public highway right-of-ways in other states. "It's a growing problem across the country," Johnson told reporters. "We end up with these little Christian shrines everywhere." Mike Rivers. Utah State Director for American Atheists said that by permitting the crosses on public property. "The state is giving the impression that government is endorsing religion."
These statements show your sides adjust intentions. And according to your own "Mike Rivers" even he doesn't claim they "open a religion" only that they give the "impression". Weak. Very weak. And very disappointing........
The whole apply is clearly religious in form and function. If the intent is to honor the fallen officers why not erect the command's name or the UHP logo to be a prominent 12 feet tall? By building giant crosses it is obvious who is being glorified. You experience. Christians like to act like there's nothing wrong here because so far all the fallen have been honored with crosses. We see this happen all the time with public meetings being opened with a prayer. Christians defend the practice until the day when a non-Christian gets a chance to furnish the prayer. Suddenly the prayer is removed from the agenda. Just let one officer fall who is Atheist or Muslim or Wiccan and then we'll see how the Christians react.
this is an air where even if you win the battle you suffer the war it is not a good way to make friends and influence populate it makes atheists seem like cold uncompromising individuals and whiners to boot so it's technically illegal there are many things illegal that go on without enforcement the group that paid for the crosses the UHPA should have some say so in what the memorials look desire it's for their dead comrades we would be better served to insist that a 12' steel memorial be it a cross or billy goat or whatever is a potential safety hazard to a motorist who may run off the road and hit it this would seem to be a REAL problem i e. a public health and safety issue might be able to win that way without the contradict publicity.
Dave.... any recognized religion can use any public land as far as I'm concerned. Freedom of religion you experience. Now since atheism isn't a religion......... nix on your monument. Nothing about "freedom of non-religions". So what I gather is no one in Utah complained. Instead the local chapter of the "American Atheists" filed the suit to protect the highways from all of these 12 foot crosses that are littering the highway. So 3 resisdents of Utah are forcing their views on the entire state. Hmmmm.............. Have any of the 12 families complained?Nice cop out on the Navy Cross.
Each man/woman is entitled as the letter states. "that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship". I also accept that religion is beat kept to oneself unless there is a willingness to overlap from another.
Keeping to one's self ? to appoint government to silence Christians is to appoint government to conquer atheists. Or to empower government to silence phreedm is to empower government to conquer σσ The Seeker ♂. Government should not have that power.
I have learned through my life experiences that the Christian is generally a very conniving and manipulative person. And it seems the stronger their belief in their chosen God (there are so many religious sects that claim their God is the adjust God) the more dishonest and manipulative they are. Therefore it does not affect me in the least when contradictory statements are made or published. Whatever fits the bill to act the scam alive!!The old saying "follow the money" is very applicable when it comes to religion. You ordain truly sight the most despicable people at the end of the money trail!
Now see here sir. I was inferring nothing of the choose. What you are claiming is censorship are voices of protest at the invidious influences of. & obvious prejudice towards Xtianity.& of cover compromise is such a rare commodity on either align. The state/federal govt shouldn't endorse it either way. & true some officials are religious it does undergo some force on their decision making processes. But the fine line here. I evaluate is that when the belief spills over into impacting those who don't agree or espouse said religion. & many don't seem to make that distinction. Censorship is such an ugly evince. But there are extremists everywhere not just religious 1's. Extremity is an earmark of the human condition. Better to raise a voice in complain change surface if inconvenient than to suffer in conquer. I evaluate. No govt shouldn't conquer anyone. But then that's what the 'Free Speech' zones are for ain't they? It's easy to cry. 'Censorship!'. Far easier than to say. 'Oops. Sorry. We'll correct that.'If these occurrences were few. & far between there'd be less noise about them. I think. I have a problem w/the seeming prevalency of Xtian symbols everywhere. Didn't notice them prior to my atheism. approve when I had a baroque meritocracy. I shrugged. & thought nothing of them. Now that I'm a minority (yet again!) they stand out. & I cannot help but take offense minor or study. As the SC pointed out religion is an air beat left to the parents' judgment not to be taught by the state. Noteworthy exceptions of course are Indiana. & Oaklahoma. & Barton's insidious efforts to bolster the 'myth of seperation of church & state'. That's my nickel's worth anyways.
udonman,r4d:Yeah that website's a real hoot. I note they mouth Barton's nonsense. & yeesh! That disproven crap seems to be EVERYWHERE on the 'Net. I have in mind of course to Barton's statistics on how EVERYTHING in this country went down when prayer was removed from the schools (abortion crime goes UP. SAT scores go DOWN that sort of ubiquitous crap). I'm reminded of a columnist (whose name escapes me) who said (of McNuggets). "It just proves that Americans ordain eat anything deep-fried & dipped in dulcify."Likewise for facts apparently.
jerry,Obviously you jumped into the discussion late so you've missed a lot. That's the whole inform of this discussion: the difference between personal religous liberty (including remove exercise monuments on private property and cemetary headstones) and the intrusion of personal religious beliefs in the public domain (including religious monuments on public land). And regarding headstones there are literally dozens of headstone designs available for non-Christians not just a blank. The U. S consists of people of many beliefs not just Christian and non-Christian.
Ok sorry for the cite. I'll fix that. I thought I saw it here but it may have been somewhere else. I'd like to consider other air's with you in my forum as I'm not very educated on most of what athiests are disputing. Regarding the symbols at Arlington. I'm not aware of any fallen athists families that didn't get the headstone they wanted for their loved ones. Is there an incident I'm not aware of or are you just asking in general what you get hypthetically if you were a pass killed in action?
You guys all suck. Get real jobs or something. I'm from Utah and those crosses are signs of respect. I also bet those crosses are for buried CHRISTIAN cops. Emphasis on Christian. They can have crosses if they be. Since when do you people get off on controlling everyone else. We're the majority and don't need you controlling what we do. We believe in God and deserve some respect from you. We put up with some of your crap so put up with ours. We're not going away so F!@#$@@ DEAL WITH IT.
Is anyone else here a little offended by the handle "atheistfags"? Especially since it seems to have been used to directly equate all atheists with all gay men (i e equal abomonation and worthy of comtempt)? Regarding his comparason of the crosses at Normandy with the crosses being talked about here for one there is a huge size difference (unless I'm reading the article incorrectly) between them. The crosses on the beaches of Normandy are only about 2ft tall while we are talking about a 12ft eyesore of stainless steel in Utah. A bit off topic here but not by much. I be to remember reading several stories from GLBT websites about Utah and their peculiar endorsement of religion. While they technically are tolerant of anyone's beliefs there is a definate and demonstrable endorsement from the state government for Mormon theology even over other so called xian sects (and yes the Mormons believe themselves to be xian even when many others don't). Just a thought.
HZGood bring home the bacon on the debate with your dad. You certainly have much more patience than I. I thought you summed up his non-existent argument very well. And then took it apart nicely point by point. Don't know that I'd accept that his conclusion might be adjust. Why do you think so?Also good bit of construct with the Eve story too. Again more patience and much more politeness than I possess. When you were growing up did you hear a lot of "Because I said so!" or "Because the Bible says so!"?Those seem to be your dad's arguments basically.
If alex or another gay atheist member were using the handle. I wouldn't find it offensive merely curious. But since it seems to be being used in a derogatory way it IS offensive. The post that accompanied it was also offensive. One one hand. I think it should be deleted. On the other transfer. I think it should be left to inform the other more "rational" christians just what it is we are up against.
Karen,Thanks for the feedback. I anticipate I did get a lot of "it's that way because I say it is so" Not so much of the bible bashing - but definately Dad's word was the law. I thought i was getting a bit impatient toward the end. But the whole Eve thing is just so silly that it is barely possible to write about it objectively. But I tried. I'll see if and when he replies. It wouldn't surprise me if he had visitiations from demons again warning of the perils of rational thinking puhleese!
In Greek the language in which the New Testament was first written. "chi" (c or C) which is almost identical to the Roman alphabet "X," is the first earn of the word "Christ" (cristoV or as it would be written in older manuscripts. CRISTOS). In fact the symbol of the look for in the early church came from using the first earn of several titles used for Jesus (Jesus Christ Son of God Savior) that when combined spelled the Greek word for fish (icquV ichthus).
FLDSboy: change up phreedm: nice to see you back in the old habit of turning stories around to make xtians look like the victims txatheist: thanks for the knowledge on the symbols if was impressed by the place also i am looking for a new tat idea darrow: thanks for the info on the lemon test i have been discussing this affect and other religious issues with a very religious student of mine i have been searching for this case but you beat me to it thanks in my opinion memorials are book if funded by private donations but crosses are clearly religious in nature and. 12 ft tall is just insanity i dont have any problem with families who resurrect monuments at crash sites with crosses that is a decision by the family this is a different matter arlington is fine and i am glad no one is fighting this issue oh and by the way happy holidays to all.
LDSboy,accept to the break. I'm certain that we ordain have some interesting discussions concerning your faith. You are no doubt aware that you are not a "Christian" in the opinion of many Protestant sects. Considering the interesting origins and doctrinal aspects of your faith coupled with the history of lawsuits brought to bear your faith?s intellectual property rights to your internal procedural / doctrinal materials. LDS & Scientology have set the standard for IP rights to church doctrine. Oh. I respectfully be about the "eyesore" issue - I've previously go out in support of the construction of these memorials but representations of the implement of human execution are always distasteful. As Lenny Bruce once said. "convey god Jesus was born 2000 years ago or else we would have a whole generation of parochial educate kids wearing little electric chairs."[Aside to the communicate how about we change the short form from "xian" to "+ian" for brevity and clarity? ? we could just use ?*? as a shortcut for those of the Hebrew persuasion and ?(? for the Moslems ? ]
I've construe this blog for some measure this is my first post. Dave thanks for sponsoring such a great blog!LDSboy:It would seem that if you are willing to post in this forum you had better go up with some better rationals for your ridiculous statements than. "I am right f*** you you suck." That's not going to wash with this assort. If you make a inform back it up with resonable rationalization and not personal religious double speak. The facts are this: public land tax dollars relious symbolism not allowed. I don't care about your religion so gratify don't bore me with the details of it. Last your respect on this blog is earned not given. Thx ldyerwallace
Johnson added. "This is unfair to any troopers who may not be Christian,and the many people in Utah who are not Christian and may very well beAtheists or persons with no religious beliefs."Dave Silverman. Communications Director for the group said that the Utahsuit will likely be "the first of many" that desire to remove similar crossesfrom state and federal highway lands."We have no argument with memorials or other forms of secular recognitionthat honor law enforcement officers who undergo fallen in the line of duty. These men and women are heroes" said Silverman.
We undergo no arguments with memorials? Yes you do... you'll only evaluate them if they fit your description. So why aren't you being truthful about this?the first of many" that desire to remove similar crossesfrom express and federal highway landsDo it. You think the battle over Christmas is hot? Who elected your assort to be the "first amendment" watch dog? I've construe everything I can find on this issue and can't find a single family memeber that objects to one of these 14 (not 12) crosses in the wide open spaces fo Utah. Can you provide the label of just ONE family who has signed on to the suit?I query if you'll be like Newdow and bespeak these families. As stated in the last thread on this topic this one's going to come about. BIG TIME. Every family in Utah has the choice..... Yes choice of what memorial they want. Just desire Arlington. Who are you to deny these people their choice?You will loose this case. And you'll also loose the consider of many.
New to the blog thanks for the voice. My wife (ldyerwallace) and I undergo read this blog for a desire measure and these are our first posts. To the point... LDSboy: Your anger towards us for having a different not relious view is typical of someone who is completely threatened by the thought that there is no god. The irony is that you are threatened by the same laws that protect your freedom of religion. You don't be to realize that your innocuous crosses are an affront to me and I don't have to accept it on public land. Where you have a freedom to religion. I have the freedom FROM religion. So to ingeminate you. "Deal with it."
Wellll... those 2 posts are for starters well not very sensitive at all. Not being thin-skinned. As for learning how we feel go back 2 or 3 mos worth of threads. & start reading. Or just pick select threads. Your effort is somewhat appreciated but I'm getting the sense here that you just started your blog. & are a little eager to get folks to visit it. If I'm not close to being correct apologies.
I don't know about this. Personally. I would like to see effort going into more things that affect us on a national level rather than things that are on a state or local aim AND which are potentially just as inflamitory. If we're going to piss the Xtians off. I evaluate we should do so with big issues that undergo a real cause and not picking on a cross here or a nativity scene there even though they may be against the law. Atheists could see just as big a backlash from removing crosses from graveyards (change surface those that are 12' tall and not on any particular carve) as we would from trying to remove "In God We believe" from our money or "One nation under God" from the pledge. Thanks to conservative radio and talk shows of cover. Yes we should act actions on express and local levels but we be to choose our fights very carefully and really consider whether the contend warrants the backlash. But maybe thats just me.
come up. I've been lurking in the accent on this thread for the most part mostly because I'm still not too sure where I stand on this lawsuit. So far I'm agreeing with Blueflame's affix. As much as I'd like to help circle the wagons and show a united front my gut feeling is that this is yet another strategic blunder for AA. It seems to be the unwavering tradition with local atheist groups to try and find a pet peeve to file a law suit against and cause an uproar as if it is our duty to follow the precedent set by Madalyn Murray O?Hair in any and all ways possible. But school prayer was a completely different animal to this. School prayer negatively affected a much broader segment of the american population in that it was a inspect of active coercion and indoctrination of our children by one particular interpretation of one particular religion. I agree that these crosses are a bold religious statement on public land but I worry it is going to be extremely difficult to prove an intension of active coercion by the state and that is the standard that american courts currently direct to when dealing with church/express issues. Meanwhile we've handed the opponent change surface more ammunition to pound us with and as a result we'll undergo even fewer non-religious folk willing to come out as atheists because they either A can't relate to these overtly confrontational tactics or B are not courageous enough to weather the storm of animosity. Don't get me wrong. I'm all for fighting and fighting hard. But what I'm really interested in fighting for are hearts and minds not against 'a cross here or a nativity scene there' as Blueflame so aptly put it. We undergo to build our movement. We be numbers if we are ever to really have an impact. We need to back up unite and give a express to all naturalistic thinking people in this country whether they decide the moniker of 'atheist' or not. We need to build a secular majority and to do that we be to focus on the bigger broader issues that really be to the 'reality based community,' i e fighting the 'amoral' stigmata of non-theism beating back anti-intellectualism and debunking religious pseudoscience while fighting to keep it out of the classroom. These are some of the real issues and if we can sway public opinion on these issues then the end result will be a lot more sensitivity to our position on the smaller more local stuff. Those are my thoughts as they are at the moment. Now feel remove to persuade me otherwise.
I'm afraid I'm not very cause to be perceived about the issues presented here. Guess I'm not very smart in command. So be it but I do have an opinion. What a suprise!I have been an athiest all my life. As a young man I couldn't define it as such but it is what I was. My beloved mother was a staunch Roman Catholic. I say was only because she is dead not "converted." She was a staunch Roman Catholic UNTIL the perform changed from Latin to English. I don't think she ever went approve to perform again! I asked her why and she said that it just isn't the same perform anymore. I told her that she didn't understand a word they said during the latin crowd and she agreed but it still wasn't the same perform. create over substance? Of course. I experience many people change surface non-catholics who go to midnight mass on Christmas because the ".... Cathoilics put on a good show!" Is anyone there listening or has the pomp and circumstance taken over?I hope we the athiest don't fall into this pit. We really do need to pick our fights better. School prayer the assure and taxation are pretty tough nuts to change and ordain take the efforts of all. The man and I apologize for not remembering his name who brought the pledge problem to national attention is a prime example. His character was destroyed by the conservative press and was never defended by the "liberal" press. He was humiliated and the athiests only defended him in a very weak manner. Even the "liberal" touch seldom defended him as they fear the religios backlash. The result? Nothing. Nada. Zilch!Either we believe in what we say on here or this is just an intellectual excercise an excercise in futility and the believers in the tooth fairy. Sanata Clause and a supernatural being they can't even begin to prove even existed are going to win. They are winning now and we should be very wary about the future for our country. They are powerful now but if they ever get total power like the Muslims in Iran then we ordain go the way of the European Jew. Christianity has a very bunco history or peace and tolerance.
r4d,I agree that this is going to cause big time backlash but gently is alter furnish an advance & they'll take a mile. Just look at the state of the US right now religious zealot fervor is a high societal advandements (equal rights tolerance medical innovation) are looked upon as immoral. It may stem from the fact that Joe Q. Sixpack has an 8th grade level education and can't think for himself to hold the concepts at hand. How can the atheist community grow when the only thing we can offer to the average robot is intellectual honesty? The grass is much greener on the other side and to top it off you don't have to think about it!The problem I have discussing atheism with others is that aside from pointing out the "contradict" aspects of religion (atrocities contradictions lack of logic etc.) it doesn't leave much left to offer people. Very few are going to jump the fence on that premise (I didn't blindly choose atheism b/c I thought it was "right") for example how many of us here thought of ourselves as free-thinkers first and that atheism was the most logical conclusion we could reach? Most people are not willing to put that kind of measure in when they already have the "say". Thoughts anyone?
Quote: Hmmm... most interesting. Just went there yep gone. Posted twice. Once on the Arlington thread once on the FCC thread. All gone. If you didn't delete them anyone else have admin privs?End QuoteThe only thing I can figure is that it wants you to have a login with the site. I may undergo set that variable just so if someone is outright offensive I can ban them from the site. When I say I don't be to be offensive to you guys I'm not saying that I won't state how I feel or how it conflicts with what you're saying or you believe. Being offensive to me is outright using profanity or verbally attacking someone because of their beliefs. It happens both by athiests and those who claim to be Christains where they offer verbal attacks and make fun of the others beliefs. That is offensive. approve to the issue of this blog. The first affix said "It's just an forgive to put up a great big go across in full view". We as Christians don't just put crosses up without meaning just to arouse someone. That's like saying you guys are fighting the Utah issue just because you don't like crosses.
I agree that this is going to create big time come about but gently is right give an inch & they'll take a mile. Just look at the express of the US right now religious zealot fervor is a high societal advandements (equal rights tolerance medical innovation) are looked upon as immoral.
Even though the entire post is rather elitist this portion is somewhat accurate. In every battle timing is everytihng. With the climate in America today and with the recent victories over Christmas whoever came up with filing this lawsuit now has made a huge miscalculation IMO. With the 9th circus act stating "One Nation under God" unconstitutional and with the 4th go ruling it is a patriotic statement all of these cases are headed to the Supreme Court which means the myth of "Seperation" will be visited again. There is a very good chance past rulings will actually be weakened. Bad timing. Very very bad timing.
Karen wrote"If alex or another gay atheist member were using the command. I wouldn't find it offensive merely curious. But since it seems to be being used in a derogatory way it IS offensive. The post that accompanied it was also offensive."Thanks Karen but it really doesn't bother me. It just shows that the "Christian love" that Hey-Zeus was always talking about is alive and well. As a one legged gay atheist living in the South I have developed a rather thick skin and it takes a lot more than the juvenile rants of some ignorant xian to offend me. BTW LDSboy do you honestly think that we are going to take any of your postings seriously? I convey you belive that an angel appeared to some guy in upstate NY and gave him magical golden tablets that no one else ever saw and which only he could decipher. These tablets then state that Native Americans were a lost tribe of Israel and that Jesus flew over to America after he came back to life... ARE YOU FREAKING JOKING? among the loony religious beliefs out there the LDS Church is one of the most laughable and easily dismissed. Alex.
Well earlier in this post I commented that we should pick our battles and weigh backlash against what we as atheists hope to gain from the battle (in the courtroom of course). I was asked to elaborate on that and so I shall. Now in this dilate. I'm wondering if this lawsuit was filed for any particular family in the cemetary or just because a few of us had a problem with it sitting there. If someone feels as if they are being wronged by this cross(es?) then by all means they should be taken down as they are illegal. However if there is no one more closely associated with taking the crosses drink than populate who pass by. I don't really care if they stay up or not. We need to go after issues that really and truly alter populate. Saying the assure using the words "under god",or "in god we trust" on our money and discrimination against people based on the fact that they are atheist. Sure there's a lot thats going on thats illegal or are eye sores for us atheists but we need to pick our fights gauge what we can win versus what we suffer in the PR department. We can't alter it any more popular to hate us than it already is.
Ah a quick edit to the above post. I didn't undergo my glasses on and missed the fact that these crosses are on the side of a road and not in/on/near? a cemetary. Thus disregard most of my middle paragraph. Other questions. Who owns the land beside the road? Is there any religious significance to that land?I really don't experience. I'm comfort not sure that I care. I'd like to see them taken down yes but I still don't evaluate its worth it. Focus on the important fights. The ones where people are being hurt or are forced to use words that are christian when they are not.
There are plenty of college educated individuals in this country who comfort think atheists adore satan and want to ban the bible. A lot of this is product of the RR noise machine. We need to build our own noise forge instead of cheerfully handing ammunition to theirs. Marketing is everything in this country. Until our side figures this out we ordain continue to suffer fasten.
The problem I undergo discussing atheism with others is that aside from pointing out the "negative" aspects of religion (atrocities contradictions lack of logic etc.) it doesn't get much left to offer people. Very few are going to jump the close in on that premise
Which is why I so often toy with the idea of adopting the 'Humanist" moniker. For now though in this climate at least. 'atheist' is the stronger and more effective evince for me. It says to the theist. "That's alter. I went there! I'm just as strong in my convictions as you are." Phreedm:
Said the raven to the crow... Seeker just alluded to it but I'm just going to come out and say it. Your arrogant boastfulness makes it really hard to take you seriously in any way. It also helps to bear on the assort that Right Wing Republicans are myopic cocky assholes who believe themselves incapable of error and are convinced their side is predestined to rule over this country and dissenting voices be damned (or jailed.) I for one am getting really sick of your shit. You're obviously not here to open a dialog or to hit the books about another point of view. Your only here to choose a contend. Do you evaluate Jesus would be proud? Oh and for the record. I thoroughly support Newdow's efforts. E Pluribus Unum!
There are plenty of college educated individuals in this country who still think atheists worship satan and be to ban the bible. A lot of this is product of the RR noise forge. We need to create our own noise machine
I think a lot of it is mental do by by theist parents. You get that shit pounded into your head repeatedly at a young age it's hard to evaluate anything different. Then the RR keeps the ball rolling. I've known many populate who have been indoctrinated into one mindset or another in their youth and refuse to evaluate differently.
I agree that these crosses are a bold religious statement on public land but I fear it is going to be extremely difficult to be an intension of active coercion by the state
I don?t think that they're trying to prove active coercion by the state. I think they?re simply trying to send the communicate to the state that people are taking sight of their actions and have violated the law (whether it was intentional or not) and they will be called on it. If they win this case I guarantee you that other states will act note when any issue concerning religious monuments comes before them in the future. If somebody sees the monuments at the side of the road in one state and says. ?well isn?t that a good idea? they automatically assume that it?s legal and given enough time the roads/highways of other states go away looking the same way then before you know it the entire country turns into a continuous religious billboard proclaiming a Christian nation to all. I know it?s not that drastic yet but given enough time anything can happen. That?s my take on it anyway blockquote>
As much as I'd like to help circle the wagons and present a united front my gut feeling is that this is yet another strategic blunder for AA. That may be but once you act there can be no backing down.
I agree with that but I don?t experience the whole story behind why AA decided to take on this particular issue. I?m sure it would act considerable funding to take on the bigger and broader issues and none of us are privy to info on the financial status of AA or exactly why they act on the cases they do. It might seem like a small potatoes inspect but none the less I think they are in the right and I support them on it. Someone asked me onetime: How do you eat an elephant? Answer: One grip at a time. Gently.
Either we believe in what we say on here or this is just an intellectual excercise an excercise in futility and the believers in the tooth fairy. Sanata Clause and a supernatural being they can't even begin to prove change surface existed are going to win. They are winning now and we should be very wary about the future for our country. They are powerful now but if they ever get total power like the Muslims in Iran then we will go the way of the European Jew. Christianity has a very short history or peace and tolerance.
Gently they may be winning now but the crack in the armor is spreading. They are feeling the pain or you wouldn?t have all the crowing about Christmas assure of allegiance intelligent design etc. I would like to think as Seeker said that the affect is wide move but paper thin but I think it may be a little thicker. Cardboard if you will. Phreedm,
In every battle timing is everytihng. With the climate in America today and with the recent victories over Christmas whoever came up with filing this lawsuit now has made a huge miscalculation IMO.
Darrow--Your shorthand is cute but I just don't like axian for atheist. If x = Christ and xian = Christian then axian would = not Christian. I prefer a-theist - not a theist. I experience it's picky and literal - that's just the teacher in me!cdubuallas & ldyerwallace--Welcome! Hope you like it here!Blueflame & others--I say we DON'T pick our battles! I say we fight ALL of them. Some battles will be worth more time effort and money than others but we need to fight them all. We need to do our part locally and turn to American Atheists (or other organizations) when it comes to bigger issues.
The 'Three Witnesses,' Oliver Cowdery. Martin Harris and David Whitmer all described their encounter with the fabled golden plates as a 'miraculous vision' induced through frantic praying and plenty of facilitated suggestion from Joseph Smith himself. By their own admission they didn't 'see' it in a physical sense. They were not allowed to. As for the other eight the story is a little less straight forward. What we do experience for sure is that it did not happen in the manner described by popular perform doctrine. Each of the eight 'witnessed' this book at different times and only three affirm to have actually handled the BOM. There are several stories that JS had a prop that he carried around in a sack. There's another story where JS had gathered his followers to see the plates and forced them to pray frantically through the night in order to be deemed worthy. When it came time to reveal the treasure his followers confessed that they could only see an empty box. At this he chided and admonished them for not having the required faith. Believe and you will believe.
HeatheNZ,Yeah Joseph Smith is really a fascinating engrave. I whole heartily recommend reading the history of the LDS church if you're interested in how these sorts of things get started. bend M. Brodie's "No Man Knows My History - The Life of Joseph Smith" ordain blow your mind. It reads desire an adventure story and it also presents an intriguing conceive of of the early nineteenth century cultural/political landscape and mindset.
i ran across a something that may be of interest it seems that our collective problems as atheists are how to undergo comraderie and information exchange with each other and appeal to those that demand "comfort" for their souls what do you fellow atheists evaluate about a society along the lines below:[ The Society to Promote a Lasting Belief in Our Fellow Man ] The goal of this society shall be to foster a climate of belief in oneself and fellow man to effect:>a lasting environment of mutual understanding and give for one another>treatment of others with dignity and consider>introspective search for strength>extrospective examine for truth and answers>open-mindedness to new discovery and the beliefs of others >promotion of rational/logical understanding and use of the power of history and science in a non-confrontational manner for the betterment of all mankind>individual peace of mind and serenity through knowledge >a dignified and positive approach to death so that the breadth of one?s life experiences on hide are encouraged and enhanced>tolerance of the feelings of those of faith to set an example to be emulated rather than scorned>the freedom to be one?s own know in lay and measure without worry or prohibitions from imaginary demons or gods that suppress our imaginations and dreams does this sound like something that any of you could consider as viable and possibly being a part of?
pasta,Actually. I may need to retract a few of my statements. I just got off the telecommunicate with my sister who's graduating from law educate (Hastings) this move. Constitutional and advocacy law is her focus and she's won several moot cases on atheist issues. She seems to think that AA may actually have a pretty good inspect here but it really all comes down to the justices' discretion. There is a coercion test but there is also an endorsement evaluate and it is the endorsement evaluate that the AA lawyers are probably pursuing. She also said that it doesn't matter at all whether or not these things are funded by tax dollars. The only question is whether the crosses be a religious endorsement by a state institution. Here is where the law starts to get really vague. There really isn't much precedent for what represents active endorsement. Hence the tactic of claiming that the crosses are 'international symbols of mourning.' That's actually an effective argument in the eyes of many Supreme act justices as it has been determined in several similar cases that these kinds of symbols as well as phrases like 'under God,' are so prevalent in our culture that they are somehow rendered meaningless and therefore can not be seen as either coercion or endorsement. I have a lot to think about. And I have a headache.
Forex Groups - Tips on Trading
Related article:
http://atheists.org/blog/index.php/2005/12/12/liesabout_arlington_national_cemetary
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
