Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

Exactly it is not.

So, allow the Atheists to put their framed group picture with a small banner that says there are no gods, no heaven, no angels and no hell? K PLZ THX.

I'd have no objection to that any other time of the year. But to do so at the same time the religious scene is erected is effectively crashing the party and not allowing for fair use.

It's like having room mates who want to party a couple weeks out of the year but when they do, you go into the party and start playing loud annoying music they don't like. That's not a fair use arrangement.

I'd tolerate a baby jeebus diorama just fine if they let me put one of these next to it

born of extra virgin olive oil, no doubt

Even though Henderson County is being sued because of this, I see the nativity scene staying because that's what the majority of people there want. Probably just an instance of "majority rules".

Why not? There are a lot (and I mean a lot) of cultures and groups that celebrate things during this period of time. Not just Christians. Not just atheists. Not just shopping crazed pagans.

It certainly goes against the spirit of the constitution - Freedom of religion and that stuff - To have a city hall suddenly decide that December is "Atheists can't express themselves in our lawns" month. I don't really think it is ethical. Make up as many loopholes as you wish, it does not sound right.

We are in a three month periods that is sacred as heck for Muslims, should that mean I am not allowed to make a drawing of Allah holding a bomb during this month? Or that Christians are not allowed to go to mass and read the bible that says Jesus Christ is the only god? I'd say not.

Majority rules doesn't fly in the USA. Well, maybe you can fly it at half mast, upside down.

USA is a Republic, nor a democracy, that protects the individual from the masses.

Christians don't have a monopoly on the solstice season. A lot of atheists/pantheists/other freethinkers also celebrate with family this time of year, and displaying nothing but a creche is effectively stating, this month is OURS. To take the housemate metaphor, it's like your housemate monopolizing the house every single thanksgiving and saying that you can't use the oven to cook a turkey because they're doing a giant tofurkey that takes all the space, year after year after year after year. And that your family are murderous carnivores who eat their own children, btw.

Theists are constantly offended by the mere existence of atheists; even the most inoffensive of signs are regularly vandalized and refused space. Given that, there was no reason for the atheists to do anything but make a frank statement of their beliefs.
http://www.examiner.com/humanist-in-hou ... ow-houston
http://ezinearticles.com/?Dont-Believe- ... id=3268050

Well unfortunately I have to live with you too.

And I disagree with that behavior also.

What do you know about what a reasonable observer would think?

I think separation of church and state means that the government can't tell people what religion or sect they need to be. Plus there is also the freedom of speech issue, and if the city hall can have a nativity scene on its premises, then the atheist group (or any other religious group) is allowed to have their own display there, provided there is room. And if there isn't enough room, then the problem is that city hall's lawn is too small.

Context is important. I would not necessarily agree that the sign itself is predatory. What is predatory is that this complaint has been made, despite the fact that the Supreme Court has already made it's decision on the matter and that the nativity scene is, most likely, perfectly legal. The nativity scene does not have an slogan, it simply is. The placing up of the sign made by the atheists would most likely constitute an endorsement of their position. Whereas the other displays the Hanukkah and Kwanza symbols, also do not have an explicit endorsement of their position imprinted on them. The atheist banner was irrelevant to the seasonal reason for the displays. Where the action of the atheists became really predatory was that they did not ask for the Hanukkah and Kwanza symbols to be removed, only the Nativity; either that or they wanted their banner placed right next to Baby Jesus's manger (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... -can-stay/). That gives us ample reason for us to conclude that this was designed to insult. To work under the other premise would just be an exercise in obscurantism.



Whose constitution? I am an Australian remember, so far no Australian court has ruled on the matter, so to claim full protection would be premature. Atheism is a perspective on questions of ultimate concern, but it would be misleading and presumptuous to claim that it had a message.



No, I just used the arguments of the United States Supreme Court. They found in their case Pleasant Grove City v. Gary that temporary displays do not violate the establishment clause. Pleasant Grove displayed the 10 Commandments, but not the Seven Aphorisms of another group, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pleasant Grove. The example of the Statue of Liberty was from Justice Alito. The Nativity Scene has been integrated with a secular message in accordance with the finding from McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky.

Last edited by 91 on 11 Dec 2011, 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Also, if the nativity scene violates separation of church and state, an atheist (or any other faith, or lack thereof) display would also violate it.

I don't know, sometimes I feel like it's all just advertising for the various religions. Does the courthouse allow coca-cola ads on it's property? Political campaign ads? Kind of throws the "neutral, objective arbitrator" thing out the window.

the sign were not there if the nativity scene wasnt.

mute point.

False, because of what the Atheist group wants to put up and where they want to put it in a manner that is deliberately designed to offend Christians.

91 is absolutely correct on this.