Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

Nonsense. The concept that Jesus Christ is the living son of God was, and is, very offensive to observant jews. Many have died in the arguments over that point.

It's their business not to get upset over it now, but they have every right to demand a menorah on the same site.

And don't get me started on what Muslims think of the whole concept of Christ's nativity.

What about the views of Jehovas' Witnesses? I find those guys very annoying but they have a problem with any holiday celebration.

Which I'm sure they would be allowed to.



Except Muslims view Jesus as one of the prophets...



Best way to get a Jehovas' Witness to leave you alone is to say you're a Mormon and they run off and never bother you again.

Anyways, should we not celebrate 4th of July because of Jehova Witnesses demand it not be celebrated...

So a menorah is ok. What if the freedom from religion guys come up with a symbol? Can they display that?

I mean personally I'm not a joiner but if someone who doesn't believe in a god still feels the need to be part of a group and go to meetings and whatnot, hey, whatever.



Best way to get a Jehovas' Witness to leave you alone is to say you're a Mormon and they run off and never bother you again.

Anyways, should we not celebrate 4th of July because of Jehova Witnesses demand it not be celebrated...[/quote]

As a lifelong resident of Utah i can assure you that telling them you are Mormon doesn't work that well.

Personally I just get them to confirm their concept of the elect and the estimated size of their church and then ask them why i should favor a religion that gives me such poor odds.

I suspect that the JW's would prefer that we not spend tax dollars celebrating the 4th of july, and they do have a point.

If you want to talk specifically about Henderson County, they have said they are open to putting up more displays.



You were the one that posted the information from the Ellwood City case. You put up the banner and asked how it could be refused. We responded based on that case. HerrGrimm asked a specific question about the layout of the Texas display and so the conservation changed back. Now you are claiming that Inuyasha is confusing everything, he is not, you are.



In the Texas case the atheists originally wanted the nativity withdrawn from the display. Now they want their banner put up. As far as I am aware, the county has not so far refused to put it up; only stating, that the nativity is not going anywhere. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/12/09/athe ... s-display/
Remember that it was in Ellwood, where the authorities refused to put up the atheist banner.



Maybe, they do have that 'A' pin. That however, would be up to the relevant city to work out.



A good deal of these displays do have a Menorah on them. In the Ellwood case where the atheist banner was refused, there was a menorah on the site. The problem is and we have been over this, many times, is that the government is not obliged to accept all displays.

An "A" Pin eh? Not sure the atheists would go for that. To the Muslims Allah is gods name. To the Jews, Aleph (א) is the first letter in gods name. Not sure the Atheists would walk around with the symbol for God pinned to their shirts as recognized by many biblical religions. But I do think I don't want this post read by too many atheists because of their lack of general knowledge, it would amuse me greatly to see an Atheist walking around with God's name pinned next to their heart.

I was referring to the 'A' pin worn by many senior atheists and used by many of their organizations.

Yeah, but that's really just another way of saying "god".

A, Alpha, First. Etc.

I already like it.

Yeah, I like it also, it is far less confrontational but it is still distinct. If they wanted to put that image up along with a statement of basic principles, perhaps not at Christmas, I would certainly be supportive of it.

The problem is, that atheist movements have tended to define themselves in opposition to established religion. Look at any of their websites, take the Atheist Foundation of Australia; most of their articles just attack religion. Look at some of the titles 'the Devil, unjustly maligned', 'the superstition trap', 'Witch Hunts and the Christian Mentality', 'What did Judas Betray?', 'Christianity is False and Immoral' etc (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles). These are hardly well thought out articles, most are just popular pieces worthy of the high standard of Pravda.

doesnt matter where and what time of year,

freedom of expression and all that.

The footage which you did not show, and the precedent of proximity you first said was not relevant then admitted it "counted for something" (page 10).





So...



That bolded part must be the borderline part of the "straw man". I fail to see why you would make big deal out of this if it did not offend you or attack your Christian belief system.



Well, most people might think the Nazis "ought not" to march in Skokie. And you "ought not" to desecrate the flag. And you "ought not" to protest funerals to bash gays. And you "ought not" to refuse the Pledge of Allegiance, etc. None of which matters. You did say the message was offensive. And Inuyasha said it was meant to offend Christians as well. And again I ask, why are you so entrenched in this issue if it did not offend your Christian viewpoint? It is offensive to you, right? I think there might be an underlying theme to your position.

EDIT: Can you just clarify if the Westboro Baptist case decision was reasonable? A simple yes or no would do.

The "A" reminds me of the Scarlet Letter.

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... lboard.jpg

That is a pretty weak spanner throw. I did not ignore that precedent in question, I just used the more relevant one of Lynch. Proximity only counts for something when the displays are not in the same area. The displays we have been discussing so far, have all been located in the same general area as one another, so the precedent is not really all that applicable.





Understand that when I talk about causing offense I am not talking about private speech, but government speech. Please do not equivocate between the two they are not the same thing. The endorsement test works both ways, a specific dis-endorsement of religion, like the banner, whose authors admit is anti-Christian clearly would be disqualified on the grounds that it failed the test. It is ok for you to offend, it is not ok for the government to say, 'there is no Gods' and that 'religion enslaves minds'. Like I said, I have no real problem with an atheist symbol, like the 'A'.



You seem to be missing the point. The nativity is most likely legal, the attempt to remove it is not a valid one. The city is under no obligation to show an additional display, though they are open to them. That does not mean that they have to put up a display that is blatantly unconstitutional. I have a problem, because the main reason for the suits that the FFRF is filing is to gain attention, to offend and to obfuscate.



A simply yes or now, would not be a good description of my views on the subject. It was a ruling in favor of private speech. I don't know where I stand on the issue, free speech laws are quite different where I am, here defamation and libel laws are quite strong. I actually see advantages to both methods so I am withholding judgement.

Hi 91,

Your legal reasonnings are defective as applied to federal law of the U.S.A.

The Bill of Rights here also apply in, and to and for, each State. With religious rights of speech, solicitation, display, etc., all are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court said the Fourteenth Amendment "embraces the liberties guaranteed by the First Amendment. The First Amendment declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The Fourteenth Amendment has rendered the legislatures of the states as incompetent as Congress to enact such laws." This applies to smaller governmental entities too!! !

The Civil Rights Act made religious discrimination illegal, and the Courts have held the choice of "no religious belief" as protected the same as an explicit religious belief as a matter of belief and as matters of practices. Therefore, the Courts have held that the choice not to engage in a religious practice as protected, and the practice of exercise of disavowing the practice of religious belief is also protected from discrimination, with the additional protection with the freedom of speech. Hence, no government entity can prohibit free speech in public places and most more private places, neither the government nor private entities servicing the public can discriminate against against religious actions, displays, speech, distributions, etc. without due cause. For "due cause" examples, google "two-ton ten monument", and look for Dr. Dobson and/or Pentecostal Christian churchgoers added to the details, as not being "allowed" to disrupt state court foyers/access/pleadings.

No State official can be authorized to determine "what is a religious cause" to function in the denial of any free exercise of religion, and the local government can only act to deny any rights to express, display, distribute, etc. "religious" material/information/symbols with "due cause" that does not "discriminate" against that that is legally protected, which includes atheists with the religious in all the same manners. The length of time period, location, etc., cannot be subjected to any discrimination either (Texas tried to limit Civil Rights as rights to be practiced limited to 3 hours a day, which is ridiculous, but..... ).

I listed the citation to the park monument case to highlight an important distinction, and you not only missed the nature of the distinction, but you also got it backwards.

As to your latest post, "seperate but equal" has been rejected decades ago, so telling any atheist to exercise rights only in the alley doesn't pass muster, nor does limiting rights to adverse timings, lightings, conditions, proximities, or permits, unless all other protected rights are subjected to the same LEGAL due cause.

You are disingenuous in confounding "private" versus "public" of protected individuals and groups with the "private" and "public" of the governments, speech or otherwise. The government displays historical documents and artifacts that say what you claim cannot be said, and the Library of Congress is full of much of such also.

All cities in the U.S.A. are obligated not to discriminate against, or for, on the basis of religious anything, except for legal due cause. Since Jesus is a Coco-de-mer tree, I have the protected equal right to display writings and photos of Jesus in that manifestation, as equal to any other's right to display what is often called a creche.

The Westboro Baptist case was a ruling in favor of freedom of speech in public places, The Westboro Baptist members also have the right to post displays: "State officials say that after a lawsuit a couple years ago to allow the nativity scene, they cannot discriminate among holiday displays": http://www.sondrak.com/index.php/weblog ... ness_sake/

Tadzio

Pleasant Grove City v. Summum. The government does not have to endorse all private speech in its public speech. You even cited the case, how could you miss that. It was not even a dissenting opinion, the supreme court unanimously agreed,



That would be the case with regards to private speech, not public speech. If the displays were on private lawns the government could not stop some and not others (it probably could not stop any) but that would be private speech. When it comes to public speech, the government is not obliged to endorse all private speech. Unless you intend to argue that nativity display on public land is private speech (at which point the case against the display vanishes) your point lacks merit.



Sure, you can put it in your lawn if you want to, but the government is not obliged to put it in theirs.



It was a ruling in favor of private specch in public places, not government speech on state owned land.

Hi 91,

When it comes to the law in the U.S.A., it is very clear that you do not know what you are talking about.

http://www.spokesmanreview.com/breaking ... p?ID=18181

Tadzio