It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New York Atheists Angry Over 'Heaven' Street Sign Honoring Sept. 11 Victims

page: 9
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
So please explain to me how you're going to prove in a court of law how this is "in contravention of the Constitution"?
edit on 22-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Easily, because one group is funding the religious sentiments of another.

Also, if the depth of your argument is that a particular phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution it's likely you'll have a difficult time recognizing our rights and how to preserve them.




posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


Also, this isn't even a street name. It's a psuedo street name that goes under the actual street. Like this is the honorary street of Oprah Winfrey in Chicago. Whereas the street (I don't know what street that actually is, so I'm going to make it up) is actually Waubash.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
That's probably because you have strayed so far off topic. This topic is not about who payed for it. It's about Atheists being angry because the word "Heaven" is used on a street sign.


Right. And they're rightfully angry because they don't want the religious sentiments of a particular group to be paid from the public coffers.


"extrapolating money by force'? Care to explain that one?


It's called taxation.


And yes, this IS an issue of honoring 911 victims, 7 of them to be precise. And the fact that Atheists are in an uproar because of one noun (as a previous poster said).


Sorry, I don't consider deeming those victims to be in "heaven" to be any kind of honor. And anyone concerned with religious freedom has every right to be upset about that one word.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Annee
 


LOL I wasn't writing that as an argument for the street. It would be a bad argument. I was simply making light of another street. But I do understand how you came to that conclusion.


Let's simplify this. I already brought up the city offering privately funded street signs. But they would also have to accept "No God Avenue" - - "No Heaven Avenue" - - "Allah is Great" - - etc etc.

How ever this sign was funded - - for equality they must offer the same right to ALL groups - - or not at all.

Why the sign was made and what it represents is not relevant to Separation of Church and state. Using public money to display a religious belief is not OK.

Its that simple. Emotional reasoning is not relevant. And don't tell me Heaven doesn't have religious connotations.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Ryanp5555
 


Also, this isn't even a street name. It's a psuedo street name that goes under the actual street. Like this is the honorary street of Oprah Winfrey in Chicago. Whereas the street (I don't know what street that actually is, so I'm going to make it up) is actually Waubash.


Who paid for it?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:47 PM
link   
people who get offended by such silly nonsense offend me.

that is all.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by projectvxn
So please explain to me how you're going to prove in a court of law how this is "in contravention of the Constitution"?
edit on 22-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Easily, because one group is funding the religious sentiments of another.

Also, if the depth of your argument is that a particular phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution it's likely you'll have a difficult time recognizing our rights and how to preserve them.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1 a street sign is not a law and does not require a law to be. 2 the term 'heaven' does not favor one religion over another. Calling the street "Jesus of Nazareth Parkway" or "Prophet Mohammad Avenue" would qualify, this does not. The street sign is also not establishing a state religion. It is simply a noun.


edit on 22-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by projectvxn
So please explain to me how you're going to prove in a court of law how this is "in contravention of the Constitution"?
edit on 22-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Easily, because one group is funding the religious sentiments of another.

Also, if the depth of your argument is that a particular phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution it's likely you'll have a difficult time recognizing our rights and how to preserve them.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1 a street sign is not a law. 2 the term 'heaven' does not favor one religion over another. Calling the street "Jesus of Nazareth Parkway" or "Prophet Mohammad Avenue" would qualify, this does not. The street sign is also not establishing a state religion. It is simply a noun.



Well said, I couldn't agree more.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn


E1 a street sign is not a law. 2 the term 'heaven' does not favor one religion over another. Calling the street "Jesus of Nazareth Parkway" or "Prophet Mohammad Avenue" would qualify, this does not. The street sign is also not establishing a state religion. It is simply a noun.



Heaven is a religious term. Sorry - but you can not dismiss it - to try and make this non-religious.

It is not simply a noun.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
1 a street sign is not a law. 2 the term 'heaven' does not favor one religion over another. Calling the street "Jesus of Nazareth Parkway" or "Prophet Mohammad Avenue" would qualify, this does not. The street sign is also not establishing a state religion. It is simply a noun.



1. It doesn't have to be a law to violate the First Amendment
2. The term heaven most definitely is exclusive to those religions which believe in it.
3. What basis do you have to determine what "qualifies" and what doesn't?

Sorry, but publicly-funded government of any kind is an institution that has no business operating as an outlet for ANY religious sentiment. We have tax-free institutions in place for that.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


Heaven for thousands of years meant sky. It wasn't a religious term until we began to impose the notion that heaven is a place, rather than it's proper meaning.

Heaven is, in fact, a noun. And while it may have religious connotations, the term itself does not favor one religion over another. And naming a street sign Heaven does not make it a religious act, or a law supported by the political establishment.

Heaven is also used to describe non-religious sense of euphoria in modern vernacular. Like when you eat a heavenly piece of cheesecake.
edit on 22-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Ryanp5555
reply to post by Annee
 


LOL I wasn't writing that as an argument for the street. It would be a bad argument. I was simply making light of another street. But I do understand how you came to that conclusion.


Let's simplify this. I already brought up the city offering privately funded street signs. But they would also have to accept "No God Avenue" - - "No Heaven Avenue" - - "Allah is Great" - - etc etc.

How ever this sign was funded - - for equality they must offer the same right to ALL groups - - or not at all.

Why the sign was made and what it represents is not relevant to Separation of Church and state. Using public money to display a religious belief is not OK.

Its that simple. Emotional reasoning is not relevant. And don't tell me Heaven doesn't have religious connotations.


Look if the city was accepting privately funded street signs, in a limited forum then they can limit speech to certain grounds and to discussion of only some subjects. However, they are going to have to make sure that their action is reasonable and viewpoint neutral. Which means, yes, the government must allow both sides of the atheist god debate. However, where they have to choose 1 name for a particular street, they probably can make that choice. At the end of my post I edited in a statement saying I did not realize that the sign said "Seven in Heaven," which to me makes this a stronger case for the atheists. They are implying something totally different than just a street named Heaven.

So, after finding that out, I agree that there is a violation if this is publicly funded. Here the non-secular purpose would be to say that these people are in heaven, a religious belief. The primary effect would be to advance religion in saying that these people are in heaven. And finally, the government would have been excessively entangled in religion by promoting that these people are in heaven.

However, a mere reference to heaven ALONE on a street sign can have other connotations, especially as it relates to 3,000 people being killed. I posted that comment without reading the article because my lone purpose here was going to be to take a crack at the red head boulevard.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 01:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 

Would these athiests be upset over the word "Church" in the yellow pages?

Just wondering. . . .



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn
reply to post by Annee
 


Heaven for thousands of years meant sky. It wasn't a religious term until we began to impose the notion that heaven is a place, rather than it's proper meaning.

Heaven is, in fact, a noun. And while it may have religious connotations, the term itself does not favor one religion over another. And naming a street sign Heaven does not make it a religious act, or a law supported by the political establishment.


I did not say Heaven wasn't a noun. You said it was "simply" a noun.

It is not "simply" a noun in the context of the message of this sign. It is clearly of religious intent.

Sorry - - no twisting of words/meanings - - - makes this sign non-religious in nature.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by CastleMadeOfSand
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 


Yet more insults and off-topic banter. Typical.

You never asked me any questions in the first place, so why am I obligated to answer?

Keep going, I insist. You are only bringing down the other atheists with you.

It's pretty obvious what you are doing. Sorry, but I'm not falling for it.

Come back when you can be civil.

Deny Ignorance!

DENIED!!!!


I didn't even start posting in this thread until you were already in offensive mode and had slung a few insults yourself...

I asked you what pervading has to do with the subject? How is it important? I guess my question "doesn't exist"... because you said so...

I was being completely 'civil'... until you started acting horrendously juvenile and offensive towards people for no reason and completely ignoring everything I was saying... I'm still of the firm stance that I am being much more civil than you; I am at least addressing everything you say and not being the literal definition of ignorance (ignoring the opposition and proudly acting like that is synonymous with victory), rather than just touting the opposite regardless of the lack of evidence to support such claims. Perhaps you could stop fabricating ad hominem "arguments" and I could be more "civil"?

Respect comes where it is deserved, not demanded; never forget that.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by projectvxn
So please explain to me how you're going to prove in a court of law how this is "in contravention of the Constitution"?
edit on 22-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


Easily, because one group is funding the religious sentiments of another.

Also, if the depth of your argument is that a particular phrase doesn't appear in the Constitution it's likely you'll have a difficult time recognizing our rights and how to preserve them.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

1 a street sign is not a law and does not require a law to be. 2 the term 'heaven' does not favor one religion over another. Calling the street "Jesus of Nazareth Parkway" or "Prophet Mohammad Avenue" would qualify, this does not. The street sign is also not establishing a state religion. It is simply a noun.


edit on 22-6-2011 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)


While I agree about heaven not solely referring to religion I have a couple things. In the grand scheme of things, its not going to matter if a law doesn't promote one religion over the other. If a school says we are going to allow kid X get on the intercom and say every prayer from every religion, that is state sponsored religious activity in violation of the establishment clause. Even if school says kid x you can lead a prayer before football games for our school sponsored games, you can say every prayer, and if those who don't wanna pray don't have to, that is state sponsored religious activity in violation of the establishment clause (this is of course assuming both schools are public schools). The word laws in the first amendment not only extend to laws but ANY state action. Meaning, as I was showing before, a school that allows prayer even where you can refuse to pray is in violation of the establishment clause because the public school is sponsoring it.



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:08 PM
link   
reply to post by TheOrangeBrood
 


Would you care to demonstrate how I was being "horrendously juvenile and offensive towards people for no reason and completely ignoring everything I was saying."

Put them in quotes please.

You won't find any, so please stay on topic or don't participate in this discussion.

Are you going to contribute, or are you going to continue attacking me?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 


Atheists need to find ways to justify their existence and feel relevant. They do this by complaining about a street sign, complaining about nativity scenes, complaining about the ten commandments at a court house, and complaining about "under God" in the pledge of allegiance.


Yeah, those pathetic bastards. They don't even believe in religion yet they go out of their way to preserve the religious freedom of all Americans.


And how exactly do they do that?



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by Ancient Champion
 

Would these athiests be upset over the word "Church" in the yellow pages?

Just wondering. . . .



I'm atheist and I live on Church Street in Toronto. Atheists aren't offended when things aren't offensive. Dismissing the religious-inspired deaths of heroes of the 9/11 tragedies by saying "It's okay, religion actually saved them now that they're dead".... you can push these "beliefs" all you want if it makes you feel better... if you fund such operations personally and on personal property. There is no reason that tax payer should be forced to pick up a bill for a change based on religious values that many civilians that make up the population do not subscribe to. Personal interests are personal interests, so do them personally. It really is that simple.
edit on 22-6-2011 by TheOrangeBrood because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2011 @ 02:12 PM
link   
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof......"

10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So, since CONGRESS didn't make any law, and since we have State's Rights, it seems to me that this is a shut case. The state (New York) can make a sign that has the word "Heaven" (which doesn't point to any particular religion), and that the atheists are simply trying to impose THEIR religion of "no religion" on everyone else.



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join