Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

Hi Inuyasha,

Have you tried a U.S. Supreme Court decision for clarification?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 73_ZO.html

Next, here's a "different" for a tolerance test for "tolerant" true-believers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleasant_G ... _v._Summum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summum
http://www.summum.us/philosophy/principles.shtml

You probably prefer the "Cato View" here (with unexpected loopholes that are "deep"):
http://www.cato.org/pubs/scr/2009/Pleas ... -Garry.pdf

Just think, "Government Speech Doctrine" might make the Two-Ton-Ten Monument
a permission-slip for the True Church to regard, and solve as, all Americans Pagan,
and subject to the Cure-4-Catharism:
http://www.heretication.info/_cathars.html

Tadzio

You cannot blame all athiests for the actions of a few a**holes...if they don't want to look at the display they do have the option to look the other way or go home if its going to be that big of a deal for them.

Solution: forbid the display of any exhibit pertaining to religion on public property. The atheists can buy their signs to put up on private property and religious folk can put their religious exhibits up on private property also. Religion should be kept strictly out of the taxpayer funded portion of the public domain.

The only signs that should appear on public owned streets are street name signs and traffic direction signs.

ruveyn

Vexcalibur wins the thread.

I don't think that is a solution and I think the US Supremes would agree with, as government would be deprived of its power to chose. A government's ability to say yes to some displays and no to others, with regards to 'temporary displays' is well established. Tadzio's Cato institute article page 282 does a very good job of pointing this out. The Supremes have already found a solution (though they did not rule on establishment). Permanent displays are a different matter, others have pointed out, implicitly McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky where the Ten Commandments were removed under the establishment clause, but there can be very little doubt that Pleasant Grove City v. Gary, substantially weakens the range of that precedent's applicability.

I think that Inuyasha is correct in his statement that this case is predatory in it's intent.

I used the Cato institute article to illustrate the dangers of seeded possibly short-sighted erroneous assumptions, which has just been actualized by example: (with unexpected loopholes that are "deep").

Tadzio

So, you finally hit the jackpot. It is the Christians at the city hall that are intolerant towards the atheists' belief that there are no gods.

A nativity scene states the belief that Jesus is god. A nativity scene is as offensive to other religious as an atheist banner that says that all gods are myths.

Unfortunately for the Christians abusing city hall property, you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either allow the atheists banners or stop it with the nativity scene.

The easy solution is to eat their pride and allow the atheists to put a banner that says there are no gods. Just like they allow a nativity scene that says there are. But of course, the easy solution would require the christians to admit that there are people out there who think different to them.
Do you think a Christian nativity scene does not mock Jews, Muslims, Atheists and Buddists? At the very least it mocks their intelligence.




Why are Christians allowed to state their views in the courthouse lawn but atheists aren't? Denying the atheists their banner is censoring a view about religion. So, Do you mean that it it offends you to have a different belief displayed in courthouse property? Join the club. I love the irony here. It turns out that you and the Christians at the city hall are doing exactly what you first accused the atheists of doing. You are the ones trying to throw away a group out of the city hall lawn.

This is an act of discrimination, there is no other name. You also claim that other religious symbols are displayed. I would take the wild guess that there are no Satanic pentagrams or sacrificial pagan lambs in there. Why do you think the city hall entitled to pick what religion (or lack of religion) is offensive and what is not? It is of course not. Either admit all groups that submit their 'nativity scene' or don't admit any at all.

When I first heard of this , I would also think that a better secular nativity scene would have been better, like I would totally like a godzilla tree. But now that I think about this. That banner stating There are no gods, no angels, no hell hit the jackpot. As it disclosed the true intolerance of the city hall. If religions are allowed to assert the existence of their gods in nativity scenes in public property, the atheists should be allowed to assert the non-existence of deities.

----
What about Jehovah witnesses? Do you really think they are comfortable with the statements of Jesus birth being on the 25-th and that Christians are supposed to celebrate the pagan holiday? Nativity scenes will offend people of other beliefs, so you are not really against offending people, you are just against offending yourself if others are offended, to hell with them. Great to see a snippet of your mind..

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 11 Dec 2011, 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

You mock the spaghetti monster? You intolerant wino

Isn't Jesus a clear mock of the Flying Spaghetti monster?

I admire the US constitution. It is about "Freedom of religion". It is not "Freedom to join any of the three mainstream religions and shut it if you are a minority". People are as free to join a mock religion as they are to join Christianity. This city hall is trashing the constitution by claiming they can decide what is a proper nativity scene and what isn't.

-----------------
I love this thread. It shows exactly what is the problem with the Christian fundies in America. They feel entitled to bully atheists out of public property. But when the atheists react saying "Hey, don't do that, it would be against the constitution", they are the ones that make whole posts crying about how Atheists are intolerant and want to destroy nativity scenes.

I demand a giant golden statue of Zoroaster that rotates so that it always faces the sun be placed next to the nativity scene.

Amen! Or Ameen as the case may be.

ruveyn

^ So mote it be! ^

Wasn't my idea. I've always liked the nativity scenes. They're part of the holiday.

As long as there is one (just one) atheist taxpayer, his sensibility should be given even standing with that of believers. Or do you think the majority ought to rule what is right and what is wrong?

ruveyn

Is this the same Dominique made famous by this smash hit from the 1960s?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5CBasBX6Rw&feature=related[/youtube]

Christians are not second class citizens regardless of atheists wanting them treated as such. To deliberately put up stuff to mock and offend people due to their religious beliefs on public property does violate the Establishment clause.



Muslims consider Jesus to be a prophet... You can also argue a secular side to a nativity scene that honors a man that changed the world, which would be true.



Sorry but mocking people for their religious beliefs is crossing the line. You wouldn't be saying what you said if a Christian group put up a sign saying that 'atheists are a bunch of heathens that should burn in hell...'



To fire right back the easy solution would be for Christian groups to start counter-sueing accusing the Atheist group of using lawsuits for the purpose of harassment, and people have actually gone to jail for using lawsuits for harassment purposes.

The atheist's sign was deliberately made to be inflammatory and to bash people of a certain religious belief. So there is grounds to bar it from being allowed to be put up.



The nativity scene isn't attacking atheists or any other group. There are symbols there from other religions that are allowed to be put up.

The atheists just chose to try to offend everyone else, which is blatently obvious, I might add. That is why their sign is not going to be allowed.

If atheists want to come up with something that isn't deliberately designed to piss Christians, Jews, and Muslims off, then they might have an argument. As it stands right now though, the Atheists don't have a case.



I don't think that line of argument is going to get very far because it would piss off animal rights activists...



Actually it demonstrated the intolerance of this particular atheist group. I don't think people should have to tolerate people putting up signs on public property that were deliberately designed to mock their religious beliefs and offend them.



The nativity scene is not designed with the intent of offending people in mind, the Atheist's banner however was purposely designed with the intent to offend Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

There is precident for removing the Atheist's banner because of that fact, while leaving up the nativity scene.