Atheist messages displace CA park nativity scenes

[Andara Bledin]

There's no reason the city can't use the spaces itself to set up a lovely seasonal display with lights, snowmen, snowflakes, etc.

First off, the city didn't do jack shit with the space. They allowed others who chose to participate to pay money to the city to be allowed to use some specific spaces for a specific amount of time during a specific date range.

There are certainly some atheists who want to push religion out of the public eye. But when you see how much power religion (Christianity in particular) has in this country, who can blame us?

I can and will blame everybody who wants to stifle anyone else's religion. That is absolutely counter to every part of what the First Amendment decrees.

Right. But the Constitution does NOT give governmental entities the right to practice faith or religion of any kind. In fact, it forbids it.

I'm not even sure why this is being brought up. It's completely irrelevant to the topic in this thread as no government entity was practicing any faith or religion of any sort.

That's actually a good question. From what I understand, the stuff they use to justify their hate is in the same text as that used by moderate christians to justify their actions.

The problem is that the hardline zealots think they have a line on the Truth. A lot like the hardline anti-theists, to be honest. Neither one is in the right, but they're both so certain that they are that nothing said to them has any affect because since they know the Truth, everyone else must be wrong.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

I can and will blame everybody who wants to stifle anyone else's religion. That is absolutely counter to every part of what the First Amendment decrees.

Au contraire!

The FA prevent the government of the US stopping people exercising free speech. Individuals in a private capacity can do as they please within the confines of the law. This includes arguing against philosophical or religious viewpoints.

The problem is that the hardline zealots think they have a line on the Truth. A lot like the hardline anti-theists, to be honest. Neither one is in the right, but they're both so certain that they are that nothing said to them has any affect because since they know the Truth, everyone else must be wrong.

The hardline zealots do have their instructions directly from what is claimed to be the voice of their deity, so there are grounds for them to think they have the line of the truth. I'm always baffled as to how they always seem to concentrate on the 'no happy bum fun' part instead of the hair cutting or shrimp or pork or whatever.

Actually, I'm not baffled. I'm saddened that we've not grown out of witch hunts and tribalism as an effective method of mass control.

Rapscallion

[Andara Bledin]

Actually, I'm not baffled. I'm saddened that we've not grown out of witch hunts and tribalism as an effective method of mass control.

I think I, and pretty much the entire rest of the people in this thread can agree on that point.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

From what I understand, the stuff they use to justify their hate is in the same text as that used by moderate christians to justify their actions.

That's totally a different question you just answered.

I hear people say that moderate Christians need to try harder to shout down the extremists.

What, specifically, do you want me, and Andy, and all the other moderate Christians on here to do, to 'try harder.'?

[Rapscallion]

Well, it's getting tangential to the subject, but I don't see that their hatred is wrong according to the same text every christian bases their faith on. You could accept that the bible has some rules that in a modern context are very valuable on how not to shit on other people, but at the same time you have to accept that there are some very nasty bits of the same text that give succour to the bigots and lunatics out there.

As I said, good luck with that.

Rapscallion

[draco664]

Actually, I'm not baffled. I'm saddened that we've not grown out of witch hunts and tribalism as an effective method of mass control.

Rapscallion

Well, humans are social animals. Tribalism is built right into us. The problem is that there are people out there who want power over others, and the levers and switches to humans are pretty much standard. Giving people something (or someone) to hate and fear is a great way to control them.

[Panacea]

If the moderates are trying to shout down the hardliners, they need to do a better job of it. I can say honestly I've never seen any mention of people trying to stop the lunatics. It might happen, it might be the media concentrating on the fringe, but everything I've seen shows that it's accepted.

Well, the problem for the moderates is, in order for them to shout down the hard liners they have to become just like the hardliners. Which kinda defeats the purpose. This is the exact same problem moderates in Islam have in countering the hateful messages of Islamic extremists/terrorists.

However, there is hope. Moderate Christians do make efforts to counter the hard liners by demonstrating in support of marginalized groups such as gays, or against groups like the KKK or the Westboro Baptist Church nuts. Education seems to be the real message here, but it falls flat when it's drowned out by the hateful speech of people like WBC, or "mainstream" Christian leaders like Franklin Graham (who has been capitalizing and abusing his father's good name).

There are christians and there are christians. Not all are like you.

Rapscallion

Why, thank you! <bows> Locally, I'm condemned to hell by the local zealots for saying basically the same kinds of things on my local blogs that I say here. Personally, I think that for whatever sins I may have to answer to God for, sticking up for the persecuted will not be one of them.

Right. But the Constitution does NOT give governmental entities the right to practice faith or religion of any kind. In fact, it forbids it.

Not quite. The Establishment Clause of the FA prohibits the establishment of a state religion, and bars laws prohibiting the free exercise thereof. That's not the same thing as banning government from participating in religion. I think that if public spaces put on regular displays commemorating the holidays of all faiths (even non-faith) then that is the real solution to religion in government. I would love to see government make official note of Yom Kippur, Ramadan, and the holidays of religions like Buddhism and Hinduism: I think it would be a wonderful celebration not only of faith, but of the diversity the US has acquired through including so many beautiful and unique cultures into the American experience.

And I'd be fine with a day to celebrate the advance of reason and science as part of that plan. In fact, I'd love that too: I'm still a scientist, as well as a person of faith.

Then again, there are some people who don't see a problem with that, either. I had one person tell me that atheists should just "shut up" and realize that they're still getting a fair trial even if there are religious images all over the courthouse. Yeah, I feel really confident when the people in charge of my fate think I'm a sinning heathen who's going to burn in hell. (This is the kind of stuff that feeds my knee-jerk reaction to hate anything religious - I'm trying to work on it, though.)

Well, you are getting a fair trial. A person's religion rarely is a trial issue, so the jurors are unlikely to know the religious preferences of the defendant. And that's what jury selection is all about; to weed out people who might prejudge a defendant on that basis.

Well, I'd be careful about telling them that they're wrong. You're automatically a satanist if you do that.

Rapscallion

Ah, I see you've visited North Carolina.

Actually, I'm not baffled. I'm saddened that we've not grown out of witch hunts and tribalism as an effective method of mass control.

Rapscallion

As am I. Every so often I hear of efforts to ban the wearing of pentacles; I invariably voice opposition to those efforts. If I can wear my cross, other people can wear their religious symbols. And should. Attempting to suppress the religious expressions of other people is wrong, wrong, wrong!

[Seifer]

I think that if public spaces put on regular displays commemorating the holidays of all faiths (even non-faith) then that is the real solution to religion in government. I would love to see government make official note of Yom Kippur, Ramadan, and the holidays of religions like Buddhism and Hinduism: I think it would be a wonderful celebration not only of faith, but of the diversity the US has acquired through including so many beautiful and unique cultures into the American experience.

Sadly, a lot of people in power are either too immature or too scared to understand and/or accept that concept. I remember a thread earlier about a Christian Republican woman helping to pass a law that gave tax money to private (religious) schools, and was then surprised that Christian schools were not the only ones getting money. It was like she forgot other religions exist.

If our government figureheads can get it in their heads that they're representing EVERYONE, then I think they could handle actually representing everyone. Until then, I wouldn't trust them with the responsibility of coordinating such an event.

Well, you are getting a fair trial. A person's religion rarely is a trial issue, so the jurors are unlikely to know the religious preferences of the defendant. And that's what jury selection is all about; to weed out people who might prejudge a defendant on that basis.

Am I? Considering how easy it is for information to "leak" nowadays, I wouldn't be overly confident - especially if I'm being tried in an overly religious community. In a large city that's truly diverse, I might feel a bit less nervous (I'd still have a problem with it). In a small town in the Bible Belt, where no one has ever met anyone who didn't believe in God? Holy shit, I'd be terrified of them finding out my non-religious beliefs. (Which is sad because it shouldn't matter.)

Though the jury selection process is meant to pick out those who have bias, it's not a perfect system. We're humans, and everyone has a bias of some kind.

[Nyoibo]

Am I? Considering how easy it is for information to "leak" nowadays, I wouldn't be overly confident - especially if I'm being tried in an overly religious community. In a large city that's truly diverse, I might feel a bit less nervous (I'd still have a problem with it). In a small town in the Bible Belt, where no one has ever met anyone who didn't believe in God? Holy shit, I'd be terrified of them finding out my non-religious beliefs. (Which is sad because it shouldn't matter.)

Though the jury selection process is meant to pick out those who have bias, it's not a perfect system. We're humans, and everyone has a bias of some kind.

If that were the case you'd have a good case for a change of venue.

[Seifer]

If that were the case you'd have a good case for a change of venue.

And again I have to jump through hoops to get a fair trial. Why is it okay for a courthouse to be so proud of it's religious bias that it offers it up as some kind of trophy?

My point is that the government shouldn't wear a bias like it's a medal. Having religious monuments in a government building (like a courthouse) is wrong because, even if it's not the intention, it showcases religious bias. Why can't a courthouse simply do what's it's supposed to do and offer impartial judgment? Why are religious symbols necessary in a courthouse?

If a courthouse wants to have a monument in their lobby, why not the constitution? Isn't that document of some importance to our legal system?

[Duelist925]

And again I have to jump through hoops to get a fair trial. Why is it okay for a courthouse to be so proud of it's religious bias that it offers it up as some kind of trophy?

My point is that the government shouldn't wear a bias like it's a medal. Having religious monuments in a government building (like a courthouse) is wrong because, even if it's not the intention, it showcases religious bias. Why can't a courthouse simply do what's it's supposed to do and offer impartial judgment? Why are religious symbols necessary in a courthouse?

If a courthouse wants to have a monument in their lobby, why not the constitution? Isn't that document of some importance to our legal system?

Nobody here is arguing for a government to show a bias. There is no reason for a courthouse to have a religious monument in it.

And no one here has argued for that. The closest anyone's gotten is the argument that leasing out the public park to private citizens or groups to set up holiday displays isn't wrong, so long as everyone has a fair shot.

[Seifer]

Nobody here is arguing for a government to show a bias. There is no reason for a courthouse to have a religious monument in it.

And no one here has argued for that. The closest anyone's gotten is the argument that leasing out the public park to private citizens or groups to set up holiday displays isn't wrong, so long as everyone has a fair shot.

People were coming up with reasons as to how an atheist would still get a fair trial, even if a courthouse had a religious monument in it. It almost seemed like making excuses, but I'm going to give everyone the benefit of the doubt and take it as playing the devil's advocate.

[Hyena Dandy]

Saying "An atheist can still get a fair trial" is not the same thing as saying "It is a good idea to do this."

[Seifer]

Saying "An atheist can still get a fair trial" is not the same thing as saying "It is a good idea to do this."

It's still excuse making, and it's because of those excuses that people talk themselves into accepting unfair circumstances. It's exactly like the person I was speaking to in the first place. According to him, it doesn't matter if a monument of the 10 Commandments is in a courthouse because, "you'll still get a fair trial!" While I find this utter bullshit (just a personal opinion), it mostly irritates me because it's just an excuse supporters make to keep such monuments in government buildings.

[Ghel]

And a government entity was not in this case, so what's your point?

The displays in question are on public (as in, government-controlled) land, correct? Then if the city is deciding who can or cannot use that land to put up a display, they may be endorsing religion. Either endorsing one religion over another or endorsing religion over irreligion. Which is prohibited by the US Constitution.