Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

You stated the sign was unconstitutional, right? I had some doubts about the wording of the sign, but apparently the phrase has been in the Wisconsin Capitol Rotunda for the last 16 years. FFRF was started in the late '70s. So I am afraid the sign being unconstitutional does not fly, since apparently no one cared for 16 years. You have to change your argument a bit.





The correct answer was Yes. If you do not understand why, get some books out and start reading critically. Otherwise, please stop talking like you know what the First Amendment is.

EDIT: By the way, the burden of proof is on you to show that Roberts's court has been reasonable. I expect to see some cases. If they all involve protecting Christian groups I would not be surprised.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 15 Dec 2011, 6:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

If that logic could fly then just about every nativity on public land would be ok. They have been around for centuries and no one challenged them until relatively recently. Place the text in line with the endorsement test, it clearly is a dis-endorsement and it's proponent says that it is anti-Christian.



The Westboro Baptist case had to do with the free exercise clause, not the establishment clause. Government speech cannot work outside of the endorsement test and an athiest banner written like the FFRF one would not successfully pass it.

That's funny you tried to use my "no one seemed to care" as an actual argument to my case. You said the sign was "blatantly unconstitutional," and I show you it apparently isn't, and now you give this argument how an exclusively Christian object would be OK on public land. Explain to me how we should suppress this sign because it is anti-Christian. Because Inuyasha and you are using that for a reason. Please do not use the First Amendment to impose a blasphemy law. Because it is anti-Christian and "predatory" has nothing to do with anything. I showed the sign has been in a government building for years, so there is something to it, and now you have to scramble to some other argument.

I also found that the phrase has been in the Illinois state capitol for 2 years in response to a creche being placed inside the building. In fact, the Nativity display is still there. I guess if you have the sign and the creche together, it is OK, right? I fail to see why the sign should not be displayed based on my research. If you remove the notion that it is offensive to Christians, I do not see an argument here at all, now.

Also, if the FFRF display was around secular images, that would be fine for you, right? I am just saying, because I am willing to bet in the Wisconsin Capitol it is next to the "Holiday" Tree. If you say the creche is OK if it is around secular symbols, I do not see why the FFRF sign shouldn't be allowed, now that I think about it.



Last time I checked you said Roberts's court was reasonable about First Amendment cases. I asked you if the Westboro Baptist case was reasonable, and you said you did not know for sure (despite saying freedom of speech allows freedom to insult). Now you are changing my question to something else, since apparently you cannot answer softball First Amendment questions. It was quite obvious this was an open-and-shut case. My argument is, "Because something is offensive does not mean you should suppress it." This tangentially applies to this case as well. You are saying the sign is "anti-Christian," "confrontational," "offensive," and "predatory" as a reason for your argument, which I have repeatedly shown you cannot do. You said nothing in these words that indicate your "other" argument that the government has a right not to show it (which apparently the WI and IL State Capitols have no problem with), which I can only believe it is because you think the sign is "anti-Christian," "confrontational," "offensive," and "predatory". Can you show a way these views have not significantly influenced your argument? I fail to see it. Please do not try to hide your real motive for doing this. You are simply trying to make a blasphemy case, which for some reason you think is legitimate to do in America.

Did you just miss Tadzio's link above? I'll show it to you again.

The fact that the sign has been displayed previously, does not make it constitutional, all it means is that it has not been ruled on.



I am not using the First Amendment to impose anything other than the constitution. The endorsement test does not allow for government to endorse or disendorse religion or religious practice. Government speech is subject to a level of scrutiny that private speech is not. An FFRF member, while exercising their private speech, is free to put up an anti-religious or anti-Christian message. The government is not free to make the same statement as it is covered by the establishment clause NOT the free exercise clause. The government cannot put up an anti-Christian banner any more than it can put up one that is anti-atheist. If you cannot grasp this point, then we do not have much to discuss.



The reasoning behind this statement is flawed. When the government makes a decision to display the banner, that does not make the banner legal, if it did, government would have a much easier time avoiding these sorts of law suits in the first place. You did not 'find' that phase and display it to me, I was the first person to mention that these displays have been set up side by side previously on page 8.



The banner cannot be 'balanced out' in the way you are attempting, a specific anti-Christian and anti-religious banner would, most likely, be unconstitutional on public grounds no matter how much you surrounded it with rainbows and lollipops. In Van Orden v. Perry the court approved the placing of the Tend Commandments in a secular context because it did not have an 'intrusive' religious (or non-religious) endorsement. The Ten-Commandments has a place in the history of the development of law as a concept; it was in a legal display. The banner's language is specifically and intrusively anti-religious and anti-Christian made to be put up during Christmas. You cannot bend the a specific statement with a footnote that says 'any resemblance this banner may have to a dis-endorsement of religion is merely coincidental'; it is by design, a disendorsement.



My Christian faith is not on trial here.

That's a convenient argument. How exactly do you know it has not been ruled upon?



How is a creche not anti-atheist? Note my entire portion of why I am arguing is not here, and you have to keep saying it because you have nothing else to go on. Probably because you embarrassed yourself not knowing a simple First Amendment case.

Are you going to respond to Tadzio's link saying you have no clue what you are talking about?







There you go making the 'confrontational' argument again...and the 'predatory' argument, which I have repeatedly dismissed as a viable argument.





What is the word for that bolded sentence? I want you to tell the posters here. Because that is your true intention.

You really don't like this sign, do you?

Also, looking at Lynch vs. Donnelly again, it appears numerous anti-Christian groups were extremely offended by the ruling.

In this academic article, it is noted:



Justice Blackmun's opinion on Lynch notes:



This piece also talks about the Lynch case. While you might not agree with everything, please note the very last sentence. Redlich wrote this in the March 26, 1984 New York Times, partly because of a complaint from a Jewish student mentioned here.

So, you keep making the argument about the creche standing, although numerous non-Christian groups were apparently appalled by it. But because you are offended at the 'anti-Christian' message the sign says, it is OK for you to stop it? Would you consider taking your creche down if these groups were offended and came to you? Probably not. So show some respect in return.



Everyone here on this thread thinks you are making an argument to defend Christianity, not the First Amendment, including me. Prove them wrong and answer the question.

Case law is searchable. I used both Google scholar and my university login, it has not been ruled on. If you have evidence that points the other way, legal precedent for example, I would be interested to read it.



You still have not provided a sound argument as to why one can dismiss it, nor do you seem to have a strong grasp on the concept of precedent. The argument you are making seems to be more against the Supreme Court and Precendent as it presently stands. The court does not share you interpretation and you have provided no evidence what-so-ever to suggest either that it does or it should.



If I was offended by what atheists thought of my religion I would not post in the PPR.



Good for them but personal offense and a couple of dollars will get you a cup of coffee at a local diner... but it will not buy you constitutionality nor precedent.



This is not about what I think, it is about what the Supreme Court thinks; once again, you need to understand that precedent is binding upon lower courts and that most supreme court decisions contain a level of stare decisis. If the nativity bespoke an insulting message under the legal definition, then it would have been ruled that way by those empowered to interpret it. In law there is a distinction between how someone can interpret something and what is a reasonable interpretation of a thing. In the case of a nativity, I won't deny, people can be insulted by it when it is part of a secular display. The supreme court has ruled however that a reasonable person would most likely not find it insulting. The supposedly 'reason' filled FFRF spokesmen admits that their banner is anti-Christian, there is no need to equivocate between he definitions of what is reasonable; they expect and intend it to be insulting. We have precedent in support of my interpretation, conjecture and spite in support of yours. I am capable of admitting when I am wrong on a subject, but you have given me no good reason to think that I am.



He made a conjecture and supported it with no evidence, he did not interact in any way, much less a substantial way with my position. If it is ok for him and you to ignore my arguments it is ok for me to disregard his ad hominem.

BTW, I have answered your question.

Last edited by 91 on 16 Dec 2011, 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.

I just wanted to highlight this, because I meant 'non-Christian' instead of 'anti-Christian'. By the tone of your response, something tells me you did not read my sources, because you would have realized this slip-up immediately. The ruling was bad, but you accept it because it favored you. I just want to show people this part of the post again. It just shows your real intolerance.

Don't tell me about the Supreme Court and precedent. I'm the one showing sources, not you. I'm the one giving proof, not you. You just have your opinion and some twisted view of the Justice system here. You just choose to ignore it because you hate atheists and the like.

Last edited by HerrGrimm on 16 Dec 2011, 11:33 am, edited 1 time in total.

If you want to claim that the decision is bad then by all means do so. I will listen and respond to your arguments, I may even agree with them. However, you have been claiming that the banner is constitutional, clearly it is not, precedent tells us it is not. There is a clear endorsement/disendorsement test within the precedents that a banner designed to be anti-Christian would not meet.

But let us separate this claim from the claim that a nativity ought to be unconstitutional, in spite of precedent. Further, I do not 'accept' it because it favored me. I personally don't think the state actually does endorse religion by putting up a nativity at Christmas at all. Here in Australia, we are far more secular in practice than you are (we have a much higher percentage of non-believers), but we have government endorsed Christmas Carols, school chaplains, religious education and nativities on government property. Our constitution has almost the same language when it comes to religion but our courts have interpreted it very differently.

OK, so...before I say anything, why don't you define what 'confrontational' and 'predatory' mean. There is one case that comes to mind, but I want a groundwork of what you think of it.

Is not more confrontational than a graphical display about how Jesus is truly God.

Both are an assertion of beliefs, Christian or Atheistic. That you find it more offensive to place the Atheist one in public property than the Christian one talks a lot more about your own bias and intolerance than anything else.

I would keep the definitions pretty broad. The Westboro Baptist sign, that they are proposing for a Christmas display would be both. I would put the banner from the FFRF in roughly the same category; mainly because their respective proponents expect them to be. Something like the atheist 'A' symbol and a nativity are pretty harmless so I don't have a problem with the display of either.



I note with interest that you failed to quote the end part of the banner, 'Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds'. A pretty glaring omission on your part.

Nonsense, if you want to find the nativity offensive then that is your choice, the FFRF spokesman describes their banner as anti-Christian, they expect it to be interpreted a certain way, it is not open to misinterpretation on my part. If however you insist, that a baby in a manger with some angels around it is truly insulting then I suspect you are just intolerant of opposite points of view. The fact that you take no issue with the display of an actually anti-Christian banner and rail against a nativity scene kind of proves Inuyasha's point in the thread title.

just as you choose to find the assertion of non belief offensive.

There is a wide gap between can and reasonable. The Supreme court says that a nativity in a secular display is not offensive. The same test they used on the nativity can be used on the banner and the banner, as we have discussed fails.

I personally just don't understand, this Bamyan attitude that sees the beauty of the other side as being judgmental. When I watch Carl Sagan, I can experience his wonder of the universe, when I read Dawkins I can appreciate how he wants to see the world. In a free society, a man is still required to see the other side's point of view. Even though we as a society have rejected this view; instead preferring to push that which we disagree with, outside of our line of sight. That standard , is just not good enough when it comes to the public realm. By all means, Vex can be as intolerant of my religion as he likes but that does not mean that we are compelled to cater for an intolerance that refuses to see beauty in the other side. We can distinguish as a society, between what offends people and what offends reasonable people, the supreme court does and we ought to. Otherwise, we will end up putting the opinions of bigots above our own. We will label all the colors of our culture as offensive and churn them through a blender, until all that is left is the beige of an asylum's walls.

The message the FFRF put forward, is designed to insult, the nativity is designed to reflect the season.

Mayor Tony Court summed it up perfectly: “It’s offensive,” Court said. “Nothing in our display challenges or puts down what others believe. I don’t think you can say that about the banner the group is supposed to be sending.”

Dan Barker, from the FFRF said he that it is 'an Anti-Christian message' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKvA-9abh2E about 3:10 into the video).

Nonsense. A nativity scene is a direct challenge to my non-christian views.

Sure, but not being offended isn't a right in America. Neither is it the responsibility of the state to make sure you're not offended.