Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

Hi Inuyasha,

You might try google images for "Fred Phelps creche" for more Christian viewpoints.

Next, some smart-aleck will try to ban singing at a crech, or have Meese et. al. lable it with his infamous "Kiddie-porn" stickers (sorry, some self-identified Christians have already tried that over "graven" or something).

"Most bizarre of all, Fred Phelps and members of his Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan. — the anti-gay group infamous for protesting at military funerals — wants to erect a sign with a ditty called “Santa Claus Will Take You to Hell” (sung to the tune of “Santa Claus is Coming to Town”). Only in America."*
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008 ... atheis.php

Having "autistic ears", I know how this works in public places:
http://padresteve.files.wordpress.com/2 ... -group.gif

Tadzio

*"Even in December, a right for one remains a right for all Inside the First Amendment" By Charles C. Haynes, First Amendment Center senior scholar, 12.21.08:
http://www.firstamendmentonline.org/com ... x?id=21030

P.S.:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... ene-stays/

Last edited by Tadzio on 11 Dec 2011, 6:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

No. It is not. It does not say "Christians, Jews and Muslims are stupid and smell". It is a picture of people holding a banner with their belief. That there are no gods, no angels and no hell.

It says all religions are myths. It states disbelief. When a Muslim says that he beliefs in Allah, he is as 'offensive' to Christians as an atheists saying he does not believe in gods. When a Christian says that he believes in Jesus birth being Dec 25-th he is offensive to Jehova's witnesses.

The question you cannot answer with a straight face is why are Christians stating their beliefs less inherently "offensive" to you than an Atheist saying that all religions are myths.


PS: Stating that there is no hell is as hopeful and cheerful for a Christmas message as you can have.

Finally, the supreme court decision says nothing about "offensive nativity scenes". It says that for you to be able to put a Christian nativity scene and it not be considered an endorsement by local government of Christianity, you have to allow other religious and secular groups to put one too.


In most discrimination cases, there are precedents of previous discrimination, that does not make it all right.

Does anyone have a link to the banner?

From what Inuyasha says, I would say it is similar to this one:

[img][800:622]http://ffrf.org/uploads/images/Staff%20Photo%20Banner.jpg[/img]

(But I think not the same, because this link is for another location, casually also in Texas? Unless Ellwood and Henderson County are the same??????????? )

In the case of Ellwood, all the atheist organization did was submit that very picture, framed. Imagine that, a bunch of atheists in a picture holding a sign. That's obviously the most offensive thing to ever be done for Christmas. And all that would have enabled the Christians to legally plant a nativity scene. Probably much larger and attention-calling than the framed picture.

But of course, stating your beliefs = Completely inoffensive if you are a Christian. But if you are an atheist it is more offensive than the drawing of a transexual doing love to Jesus dressed as a Racoon while Buddha is looking.

All you've done is prove my point about atheists lieing when they claim they are being tolerant.

Why would I ?

* I am not an atheist.
* I am proudly intolerant towards religion and any other irrational belief that brings chaos, destruction and hassles to the world.

I know what is really offensive to your kind about that picture. It is not the banner that says "there are no gods blah blah blah". It is the people around the banner. They look like normal people to you and it really messes with your mind, the idea that there are group pictures like that imply that there is nothing odd or strange about not believing in your God. And of course, that vitriolic revelation is the least thing you would like to include next to your in Christmas propaganda.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 11 Dec 2011, 8:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Since you are claiming you don't believe in God and say it's an irrational belief, you are an atheist...



The banner falls under what a reasonable observer would find offensive.

How is it offensive, except to those who are afraid of difference?

Attacking someone's religious beliefs and implying that they are a somehow uncompassionate, stupid, etc. Is an attempt to offend people because they are religious which is the sign's original intent.

That is why it has no grounds to be allowed on public property, a statue of a baby in a crib with people around said baby is not offensive and is not attacking anyone else's beliefs.

It is not an attack of anyone's beliefs. Its an open statement of their beliefs. You are further revealing your intolerance and bigotry, as well as ignorance, of atheists

So a sign deliberately designed to offend people is okay, because the people you think are stupid will be offended...

Why don't you look up flamebait sometime, cause that sign would clearly qualify.

Psh, what attack?

In the UK people were condemned via one advertising campaign to burning in hell unless they were Christians, which is why the Humanist Society started their Bus Campaign.
Here's the article that kicked it off: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t.religion
Here are details of the campaign: http://www.humanism.org.uk/bus-campaign

Are all you fundies this delicate, Inuyasha? I really thought you were made of stronger stuff - or if not you, then at least your faith.

Its not deliberately *offensive*, it is deliberately *accurate* of what they think

I never, ever see you lambasting the Westboro Baptist Church which, though they are accurately portraying what they think, do it in an extremely offensive manner that is plainly meant to incite rage in some and "righteous" hatred in support of them in others. The message on that atheist group's banner is absolutely harmless. And the only way you can possibly prevent people like them from presenting their views is by limiting free speech and further by closing the needed gap between church and state. Either everything is okay, or nothing is okay.

Why? Are they a religion? The constitution does not allow for the endorsement of one religion or the prohibtion of the free exercise thereof. Interesting how atheists want to be regarded as the same as a religion, only when it suits their own purposes.

I personally don't think a temporary display is that much of a bother, if someone wants to use public land to give a talk on Bastille day, then by all means the government can allow them, that choice however does not mean that non-preferentialism requires them to put up a speaker from the monarchist side. Choosing a statue of liberty does not mean they have to also accept a statue of autocracy. The supreme court ruled in favor of government speech and against some forms of non-preferentialism.

Last edited by 91 on 11 Dec 2011, 8:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Keep repeating that.

The sign states their beliefs. They believe that there are no gods, no heaven, no hell , no angels and most likely they don't believe in Sasquatch either. It is true that all the Cryptozologist, New Age angel cults and Christians would get offended by people stating publicly that they don't believe in their stuff. However, you got to notice that since Christianity, Islam and Judaism are mutually exclusive a Muslim/Christian/Jew openly stating his beliefs in a similar way to the atheists in question is as offensive (ie: Not really offensive) to a Muslim/Chrostian/Jew/Atheist.


I don't believe in your god. Or in a god of sorts or in a team of superhero gods with multiple arms for that matter. I believe in something though. I think pantheist is the closer tag that matches my current beliefs, but I change them frequently. I don't really like talking about this, a belief ought to be a very personal thing. I do consider my choice irrational, however. I also stated not that belief itself is irrational, but that religion is irrational. Also, if my crazy belief encouraged me to justify arbitrary moral, I would be a bigot. And I hate bigots.

---
Thanks for joining 91, Inuyasha was feeling lonely in the circus of religious poster screwups.


Atheism is not a religion but it is a religious view and thus fully protected by your constitution. You can curse and wish guys like Washington or Jefferson to go to hell for being so inclusive and tolerant. But besides that, you can't do much to change it.

Aha.


Ridiculous argument. The supreme court was clear. (It was also wrong, displaying nativity scenes is against the constitution and the requirement to allow scenes from multiple religions and secular groups is just a poor attempt to justify their demagogic, anti-freedom decision.) And of course the ruling was not about monarchy vs liberty.

However, I would say that proselytizing in the city hall lawn would not exactly be considered ethical. Thus your analogy is kind of broken.

Sure the land is paid for by pubic dollars. It's essentially rented by the members of the state be them atheist or theist. The constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state, merely that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. No laws are being written for either side. A court ruling is not a law.

If the land is rented by all the people in the state, then everyone has fair use of that property. 335 says out of the year there's nothing religious posted on this land, but maybe 30 days out of the calender year a religious theme might be erected.

Is it unreasonable that religious people might want a religious scene on public land since they are effectively partial renters of that property?

Does that give atheists the right to demand the land never be used in such a fashion knowing full well the land is being funded by both religious and atheist dollars?