Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

not every group needs to be recognized... done democratically it would reflect the group as a whole much better. If a sizable group grows then they too can have representation but the dominant belief or tradition should be respected above all.

I'm an atheist and I think nativity scenes, on public property or otherwise, are mostly harmless. They're just part of Christmas. I can't see how anyone would be converted to Christianity by viewing a nativity scene. In contrast, the Freedom from Religion banner does appear to be an attempt to convert people to atheism. It's more akin to one of those obnoxious Christian billboards that say, e.g., "CHRIST DIED FOR YOUR SINS" than a creche.

Then it is alright for Christians to offend atheists, but not alright for atheists to offend Christians? What can be offensive by making the statement: There is no God or some such. That is not an insult.

ruveyn

They're not "harmless", as know-it-all act-on-any-whim true-believers have assumed that a nativity scene on public property/government-property means that's the law, as in their version of "Christian Law", and will at times beat people to death who do not openly endorse those values.

The court's have also held that "in print/writings" have more protections than symbols or art-works (just examine cases on pornography/security, as more control on photos/videos than writings).

Of course, the right of display of the "nativity scenes" will vanish if Occupy Wall Street Protesters costume as scene members upon evictions.

Then, the Americas were a horrible place, since no natural explicitly religious symbols were present before religious humans created them. So that's "proof" that nature prefers those "atheist" heathens, and true-believers try to destroy nature as much as possible for being "against" them.

In countries, with a Christian minority, are "bad" countries when they practice "majority religious rule" too, but with the fickle majorities here, it is suddenly "OK" when practiced here by many true-believers.

It is also as if Other States' citizens should keep out of other State's practices, but if the practices are approved by citizens of other countries, then that particular intrusion is suddenly welcomed and works as evidence of Universal "Wisdom" for true-believers for the practices.

This also may work as proof of Extraterrestrial intelligence, as the extraterrestrials are smart enough to avoid any form of communications with humans.

Tadzio

Your fail is showing again. You're basically saying that what atheists think is a deliberate affront to Christians. You intolerant sack of frozen mixed vegetables

That was uncalled for. I just had to console my bag of frozen mixed vegetables and reassure them that I would devour them with pleasure, all in due time. Be patient my frozen ones. Pay ne heed to the uncouth ruffian off yonder.

I doubt it was the original intent of your founders to say "You are free to make any religious choice as long as it is a sizable group".


Works the other way too. If the nativity scene is all right to be placed in there, then so would the atheist display.

I for one think neither should be put in there.

But the Supreme court decision was clear. If you want a nativity scene on public-founded property, you should allow other groups - religious or not to put their own display too.



First of all, Supreme Courts are temporary and only human. I do not think their decisions should be considered to be written on stone and never challenged again.

Second, yes, the Supreme Court made it's decision and the decision is clear. The nativity scene is legal as long as other groups are included too.


I am not sure if you are aware that you are full of crap in this one. Placing a nativity scene right in a courthouse lawn is quite an statement. For once , the nativity scene asserts the nativity myth was true. Angels exist. Kid Jesus is god and that atheists, Jews and Muslims are all going to hell. That the Christian slogan is cowardly hiding bellow some cute figures does not mean it is not there.

If you go past the disruptive ad in Inuyasha's link you will find exactly what the motivation of the baptist is:



Let us not fool ourselves. By the inclusion of the nativity scene in front of the courthouse, the Baptist pastor is saying that the US is founded upon Christian values and that the other religions don't belong there. If the text I am quoting is not a downright admission of that motive, then I don't know what would be.

Bingo.



No, I said that the sign or the other item they want to put up directly above the nativity scene is a deliberate attempt to offend Christians and convert people to atheism, which is a fact. Stop deliberately trying to misrepresent what I actually said, same goes for Vexcalibur and Tadzio.



How is a statue of a baby in a crib offensive from a reasonable standpoint?

The Atheist sign is blatently mocking people that have religious beliefs, the nativity scene isn't mocking anyone.

I will say this - I get it when certain groups insist on this in major cities and major metropolitan areas; just that if you have some rural township courthouse where the citizenry are still cut of a very old-fashion sort of cloth.

I think the trouble right now is that there is still a flank of atheism that's hurt, wounded, criticized, and hence more activist and less people-friendly than many of us; likely then again I'm guessing they're older than people like myself and perhaps have had sharper criticisms levied on them for it. Personally though I don't see where having a nativity scene in and of itself does something to ill-effect Christian outlook on the law or the separation clause, however I do understand that in more multicultural areas its a valid concern than that, technically speaking, you would want either all groups or no groups.

What church comes up with an Atheist banner?

If it can be put up, then what's stopping a banner that has a message from a fortune cookie from being put up?

You are being disingenuous again (which is extremely unbecoming). That is not just a baby that sh*ts in its diapers. It is God, Himself in mortal form.

ruveyn

^^ Exactly.
If that's really all there is to it, Inuyasha, then the banner is merely a strip of paper with squiggles on it.

How is a framed group picture offensive from a reasonable standpoint?

You keep repeating that. But the banner says "There are no gods, no heaven, no hell, no angels. Etc. Religion enslaves minds". It is the belief of the Atheist group. Is it true or not? Well, I don't think that matters, if the Christians can put their diaper baby in the courthouse lawn, there is no reasonable argument to say that the atheists can't place a group picture there.

It does not say "Religious people smell" or anything like that. It is just stating the atheists' position about religion. And *shocking* It seems they don't believe in any of that.

The question you are constantly failing to answer is why is a nativity scene - An assertion by the Christians that there was an angel visiting Jesus Christ at birth and thus the Nativity scene is true, Jesus is god and Jews, Jehova witnesses, Muslims, Atheists and Gays are going to hell - Is allowed whilst an atheist banner saying that there are no gods isn't. Your attempt at a defense is to say that the atheists were mocking Christians, which is not true as they are not mocking Christians any more than the Christians behind the nativity scene are mocking Atheists by simply stating their beliefs.

And that's the irony anyway. You started the thread talking about how intolerant atheists are against a nativity scene when in reality it was the Christians that were being intolerant to a group shot of people with a banner that says there are no gods. You started the thread to imply that it is evil to try to censor others during Christmas, yet you are now exactly in that position.

Let's ask kxmode about this

* A statue representation of Jesus: Isn't that a sin under the view of many Christian sects? This nativity scene is a statement not only that America is a Christian country but also that those Christian sects are wrong.
* An angel is there. Isn't this statue of an angel an idol? Isn't this angel worship?

So what if you think that way? Even if we assume the banner was a deliberate attempt to offend Christians and convert people to atheism. It is likely protected speech and the supreme court has not said anything against offensive nativity scenes or attempts to convert. The worst of it is that you are pretending like the Baptist pastor that put the nativity scene did not have the intention to convert people and offend non-Christians himself. It does not help that he admitted it. Let me quote that again so that you don't succeed on keeping attention away from the smoking gun.


The objective of the nativity scene is to show those filthy non-Christian Americans what Real America is about and that it was founded by Christians for Christians and all the other sorts of "completely harmless" bigoted Christian rhetoric. From now on I'll try to include this quote in all my replies to you because you like pretending like you weren't caught with your pants on fire and like to discuss things that were't already addressed before as if that never happened.

I could be wrong, but I think it's just a piece of plastic or ceramic.

How much information is actually stored in a nativity scene? It's just a statue of a baby in a manger with some other statues of animals and people clustered around it to someone with no knowledge of Christianity.

Oh, and if anyone is inspired to respond that "the writing on the Freedom from Religion banner is just a string of graphemes to someone with no knowledge of reading," please just don't.

The writing on the Freedom from Religion banner is just a string of graphemes to someone with no knowledge of reading.

I asked you not to tell me that.