Atheists that claim they are tolerant explain this

Post Reply New Topic

Since Inuyasha says I proved his point then I would say that his point was that theists feel entitled to discriminate others and push for nativity scenes yet are hypocritical, because they show fierce , intolerant opposition when atheists dare to do exactly the same.


Sure. It is a relief then that the banner in question is small text in a group picture that does not mock Christians but rather states the atheists' belief.

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 12 Dec 2011, 9:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The banner's message was promoting discrimination...

Atheists stating their belief, that there are no gods, no heaven or hell.

Yeah, that "promotes discrimination".

It is so unlike a nativity scene and its message of hate. Gays be damned. Jews will go to hell. Etc, etc, etc.

Inuyasha, I know that you are very strong in your anti-reality stance, but you are overdoing it.

Please do not splinter your responses so much. I know when you get confronted you splinter and spam but please give us some contiguous prose.

Its a big lawn, most places that set up alternative displays do not do so on top of one another. It is a strange request to insist on being right in the middle of a display instead of adjacent. In all other cases where atheist signs have been erected next to nativity scenes, the demand has been for them to be placed adjacent and in some cases (especially where the display was entirely Christian) they have been. The demand was extraordinary and highly confrontational.

Further, the demand is itself disingenuous. The letter states that in their view, the display is unconstitutional and that therefor the city ought to place their banner in the middle of the display, next to the manger. If we assume the case in their letter is true, then adding the banner would not render the display constitutional. All adding the sign would accomplish is the addition of a banner to an unconstitutional display. So they seem perfectly happy with what they view as an unconstitutional display, so long as they are in it. Adding their banner would certainly make the display more non-religious, but there are also multi-faith symbols and secular images present so it would accomplish nothing from a constitutional point of view. Thus, citing it as being unconstitutional, even if it is (and it most likely is not), then using that line of argument is blatantly dishonest on the part of the FFRF.



Exactly why it should not be seen as a primarily religious display. Point 5 of Justice Breyer's concurrence in Van Orden v Perry states that a physical setting of a display that 'suggests nothing sacred' can be taken to suggest a secular message. That and the other religious icons and the secular images also reinforces this point. As to the fact that the Menorah not fitting with the nativity scene, this actually reinforces my point that this is not the endorsement of a particular religion. Rather it is a display that promotes the season. The atheist message does not fit with this. Other cities have refused the idea that atheists are simply celebrating the winter solstice or the season because a) we never hear this during the summer solstice and b) the non-religious images were already included in the display. Santa and Reindeer are mostly secular images and they are associated with the season, the message 'God does not exist, there is only the natural world' is hardly a seasonal atheist message and therefor has no place in a city's seasonal display.



That comment is exactly 100% wrong. Pleasant Grove City v. Summum, as I mentioned allows an amount of government choice on these matters. In this case, the Seven Aphorisms were not needed to be displayed next to the 10 Commandments; last time I checked theses were written messages. This case held (with no dissent) that government was not required to support all private speech. Justice Alito commented that: 'such a situation could put government in the position of accepting permanent monuments with conflicting messages, that do not represent the values and ideals of the community, or removing all monuments from public space'



The city has received no requests from adherents of these faiths but they are open to local adherents who want to put up a display of their own. I am however, sure Henderson County, Texas is positively overflowing with worshipers of Krishna. Please note the underlined passage in the previous paragraph.



I missed that part of the display, the message must have been stashed in one of the wise men's pockets. Please get real Vex.

The Constitution says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Congress is not involved with this courthouse at all so it is not against the Constitution. Also, prohibiting the display seems to violate the constitution as it is prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

So... you never took a civics class in high school? You're completely unaware of the past couple centuries of American legal history?

For the record, the courts have long since incorporated the first amendment against the states- that is to say, they have held that state governments as well as the federal government are obliged to enforce all provisions of the First Amendment. By your exact same reasoning that the protections in the Bill of Rights apply only to actions taken by the federal government and not to the states, then it would be perfectly legal for a state government to impose harsh censorship laws, establish an official church, ban all other churches, shut down newspapers disagreeing with a given ideology, search anyone's house without a warrant, detain their citizens indefinitely without trial, deny legal counsel to the accused, and arbitrarily seize any piece of private property they want.

Do you understand now why your argument is absurd?

But in PGC vs. S, we're talking about the donation of a permanent monument for installation on public land.

Which is a little different from a seasonal display.

Also, those Summum guys make mormons look perfectly normal. And they're not just a minority constituent, they're small enough to disappear as a rounding error.

What? Is there a 'Down with Christians!' somewhere on that banner in really, really fine print?
Your computer screen must have a fantastically higher pixel count than mine.

Well, lets look at that banner text again. Taken from your post pages back:



Speaking as an atheist, I find this to be a positive and life-affirming message. Please point out to me which part of it is discriminatory.

Also, the assertion that the circumstances of Christ's birth are not a matter of doctrine is patently absurd.

To be perfectly blunt based on where they wanted to put the banner, the entire banner is promoting discrimination and deliberately trying to offend Christians because they are Christian...

I'm sorry that you can't recognize that fact, but that's the truth.

Justice Alito in his writing concurrence considered temporary displays to be different, in that the government was not obligated to be more careful in selecting permanent monuments. He also mentioned that displays that are permanent were more likely to be associated with their owners. "even long winded speakers eventually go home with their leaflets and holiday displays are taken down; but, permanent monuments endure and are obviously associated with their owners", from this we can reasonably infer that temporary events and displays are less associated with the land they are on than permanent ones.



I am sure Henderson County, Texas is overflowing with Atheists.



Strange, I don't think many people would find a sentence with the world 'enslave' in it to be life-affirming.

It's affirming b/c it shows the way out of enslavement and hardened hearts, like the four noble truths of Buddhism.

As I pointed out earlier, the banner in question is inflamatory and the fact some people here can't even recognize that fact speaks wonders about their tolerance or lack there-of.

If the standard by which insult is to be decided is a harmless nativity with reindeer, a Christmas tree, frosty, gnomes, carolers and some religious symbols, then a statement that reads 'faith enslaves' would certainly qualify. If you are going to engaging special pleading, at least be less obvious about it.

If that does not meat your definition of an insult, then perhaps this does; I posted it on the last page and so far no atheist has even mentioned it, much less condemned it.

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/ ... to-a-cross

The same sort of banner was sent to Elwood City, Pennsylvania. The Mayor declined to raise it for the following reason

“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.”
http://www.trivalleycentral.com/article ... 433190.txt

Last edited by 91 on 13 Dec 2011, 2:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Darling, the point is not that atheists should not be offended, but that the state should not endorse one belief above others.

It isn't, we have been over this, many secular and muti-faith symbols are in the display and the government has a right to decline to show others. This has next to nothing to do with constitutionality, in many places, atheists have a displays of their own and I did not see the FFRF complaining about them. Given that the display already has secular images in it, the adding of the banner would not necessarily make it constitutional, if their underlying argument is correct and no endorsement is legal, then the adding of a banner would not change a thing. If it is about non-preferentialism, secular and multi-faith symbols are already in the display. The secular position is already represented and supreme court precedent does not oblige the city to display everyone's requests.

If representation of all views is a problem for you, this ought to make you mad;
http://www.dailynews.com/opinions/ci_19531617