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.

 

Santa Monica atheists declare war on Christmas

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


Nope, I think they should get drawn up on any signs of those types.

I would be perfectly happy if it was a level playing field, but it isn't. And, it won't be for some time.

Ideally I would like it to read 'freedom from religion', not 'freedom of religion', but that is my personal view. Until that becomes the legal view, I will abide by current laws.


There is no law against claiming the falsity of a religion. That is freedom of religion, in a nutshell. EVERYONE IS FREE TO BELIEVE AS THEY WISH. Meaning if I wish to believe that christianity is false, I have every right to do so.




posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MisterFister103
These atheists have the right to put whatever they want on a billboard if they pay for it......however that doesn't mean it's not stupid.


It is not stupid and it is not about Christmas.

It is about equality and separation of church and state.

Hey! Let's talk about Christians trying to force themselves in non-Christian areas of the world.

Then cry about it when they get the boot or attacked. They seem to think they have every right to force their religion - - where its not wanted.

I was raised Christian - - I am fully aware of their arrogant self-entitlement.

They do not - - nor should they have any special entitlement to display on government sanctioned property.


Hey I was raised a Christian too. I know all about their arrogant self-entitlement as well. Atheists and Christians are very similar in the sense that they both love to shove their own beliefs down everybody's throat. It's an annoying, and useless practice. Hearing a stark Atheist and a devout Christian debate is a comedy of a situation whenever it gets played out. Both sides really just need to live and let live. There is no harm in having Christmas decorations displayed in any venue.

Separation of church and state is in place so people aren't persecuted for having different beliefs. It is not there so that anytime anyone is 'offended' by a religious oriented decoration, they can complain about it and waste everyones time.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And? Not being able to prove them wrong has nothing to do with it. When talking about religion, nothing i s proven. It is all about 'faith'. If they cant prove it true, why is it illegal for me to claim it isnt? Pretty much the same thing there, dontcha think?


You can thank the science community dating back centuries for this little issue in our legal system.

It comes from a fundamental understanding that anything is possible until it is proven impossible.

Sadly, I do believe the harm from removing that would far out weigh the benefits.



Atheists have the same right to have faith that christians are wrong, as the christians have to have faith that they are right.

Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence that christianity is true, therefore, the absence of any proof on their side backs up the atheist position.


Incorrect. Freedom of religion only covers religions. Unless Atheisms (and I would no longer declare myself as an Atheist if this does happen in Canada) is willing to become a religion, they have no actual protection under freedom of religion acts and laws.



Atheism IS protected by freedom of speech, and assembly. It is just as protected as christianity. And it is not illegal in any way to claim that a religion is wrong. It's called opinion, and again, it is backed up by freedom of speech.


And not one of those things will protect you from slander or libel (which is this case). Or any other illegal activity for that matter.

Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to lie. Until we can prove definitively that religion is false, we can't claim that it is.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I am free to believe what I wish.

I am not free to claim anything.

I am only free to believe.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   
I just wanted to add that the 'freedom of religion' laws were implemented to stop people from persecuting others due to their religion.

It was not designed to give others the right to persecute.

Which seems to be a common fallacy made on these boards.

Same goes for 'freedom of speech'.

You are only free to speak as long as you are not saying something illegal, untrue, or unproven.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 





Um, no athiests would not have the right.


I'm fairly certain that freedom of religion means that a person is free to declare a lack of religion.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I have read the OP, and the associated news stories. I did not see anyone saying Christians are not able to erect Christmas displays on private property. I did not see anyone protesting a display on church owned property. I did not see anyone protesting a display on a advertising billboard.

All I saw being protested were various religions being allowed to use government owned property to display religious messages. Why is anyone having a problem with this? I didn't give my approval for these displays. It's my government too. If a religion wants to commemorate a holy day they are free to either use church owned property or rent other privately owned property to display that message. They are not free to use government property.

YOUR religion and MY religion do not belong in OUR government. Period.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I let my dislike for organized atheism taint my first comment. I've come to shun all religions because I seriously hate the us vs. them mentality that I see in just about any organized religion.

People of all beliefs should be allowed the opportunity to see a reflection of their religion displayed in public places. If not, then no one should be allowed to display their belief. The lottery to win the space for the displays is fair enough. Every religion had the chance to get in the lottery and win the use of a public space.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
And? Not being able to prove them wrong has nothing to do with it. When talking about religion, nothing i s proven. It is all about 'faith'. If they cant prove it true, why is it illegal for me to claim it isnt? Pretty much the same thing there, dontcha think?


You can thank the science community dating back centuries for this little issue in our legal system.

It comes from a fundamental understanding that anything is possible until it is proven impossible.

Sadly, I do believe the harm from removing that would far out weigh the benefits.



Atheists have the same right to have faith that christians are wrong, as the christians have to have faith that they are right.

Not to mention the fact that there is no evidence that christianity is true, therefore, the absence of any proof on their side backs up the atheist position.


Incorrect. Freedom of religion only covers religions. Unless Atheisms (and I would no longer declare myself as an Atheist if this does happen in Canada) is willing to become a religion, they have no actual protection under freedom of religion acts and laws.



Atheism IS protected by freedom of speech, and assembly. It is just as protected as christianity. And it is not illegal in any way to claim that a religion is wrong. It's called opinion, and again, it is backed up by freedom of speech.


And not one of those things will protect you from slander or libel (which is this case). Or any other illegal activity for that matter.

Freedom of speech does not give a person the right to lie. Until we can prove definitively that religion is false, we can't claim that it is.

1)You are missing the point though. I can state, flat out, that christianity is false. That is my free speech. I dont have to prove it, nor is it illegal for me to state it.

2)I am not speaking of freedom of religion for Atheists. I am speaking of free speech. Christianity is false. Is my stating that belief slanderous?

3)To be a lie, one must prove that that which was said was false. If it cant be proven false, it cant be a lie, plain and simple.

Care to provide some legal precedence proving that stating a religion is false is slanderous?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


I am free to believe what I wish.

I am not free to claim anything.

I am only free to believe.

False. I am free to claim anything that i wish, when it comes to religion. That is the joy of freedom of religion.

If I wish to put up a billboard stating that it is my religious belief that christianity is a lie, and we are all governed by a giant squid with the head of an emu, that is my right.
edit on 16-12-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:14 PM
link   
Also, for anyone who would like to argue that atheism shouldnt be protected by the first amendment, i suggest you research Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) and Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38 (1985).

The supreme court begs to differ.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
If there is a God, why did he let atheists win almost all of the randomly assigned display cases in Santa Monica?



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by autowrench
 


Um, no athiests would not have the right.

To have that right (under freedom of religion) they would have to declare themselves a religion as well.

And atheism isn't a religion...right?


In reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom Jefferson wrote:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by autowrench
 


Um, no athiests would not have the right.

To have that right (under freedom of religion) they would have to declare themselves a religion as well.

And atheism isn't a religion...right?


Absolutely false. The supreme court has stated that:
"At one time it was thought that this right [referring to the right to choose one’s own creed] merely proscribed the preference of one Christian sect over another, but would not require equal respect for the conscience of the infidel, the atheist, or the adherent of a non-Christian faith such as Islam or Judaism. But when the underlying principle has been examined in the crucible of litigation, the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

www.atheist-community.org...



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by MisterFister103

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by MisterFister103
These atheists have the right to put whatever they want on a billboard if they pay for it......however that doesn't mean it's not stupid.


It is not stupid and it is not about Christmas.

It is about equality and separation of church and state.

Hey! Let's talk about Christians trying to force themselves in non-Christian areas of the world.

Then cry about it when they get the boot or attacked. They seem to think they have every right to force their religion - - where its not wanted.

I was raised Christian - - I am fully aware of their arrogant self-entitlement.

They do not - - nor should they have any special entitlement to display on government sanctioned property.


Hey I was raised a Christian too. I know all about their arrogant self-entitlement as well. Atheists and Christians are very similar in the sense that they both love to shove their own beliefs down everybody's throat.


Really? How many Atheists do you know in everyday real life?

Please state where an Atheist has tried to shove - - what? Non-belief down your throat - - in every day real life.

ATS discussion does not count.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by tamusan
reply to post by Annee
 


I let my dislike for organized atheism taint my first comment. I've come to shun all religions because I seriously hate the us vs. them mentality that I see in just about any organized religion.

People of all beliefs should be allowed the opportunity to see a reflection of their religion displayed in public places. If not, then no one should be allowed to display their belief. The lottery to win the space for the displays is fair enough. Every religion had the chance to get in the lottery and win the use of a public space.


Absolutely!

Usually in these type conflicts - - - if you reverse the situation - - - it becomes more clear.

If Atheists were allowed displays and Christians weren't. Would the Christians just accept that?

You know they wouldn't.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 


You are using a reference to a case about a persons rights in jail to justify public libel?

You might want to try that in a court sometime.

As I stated previously, freedom of religion protects your right to believe what you want, it does not protect your right to persecute others.

It in fact defends that religion from persecution.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


You are absolutely wrong.

But please, explain how my saying christianity is wrong is persecution. Please, explain. This should be good. I am also still waiting for you to provide ANY legal precedence to back up your claims. Shouldn't be hard afterall, you are the one claiming that it is illegal.
edit on 16-12-2011 by captaintyinknots because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by peck420
 


I suppose that you have to define persecution. I laugh at Christians when they ask "Why do you persecute me?" I often feel persecuted by the religious.

www.thefreedictionary.com...



per·se·cute (pûrs-kyt) tr.v. per·se·cut·ed, per·se·cut·ing, per·se·cutes 1. To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. 2. To annoy persistently; bother.



posted on Dec, 16 2011 @ 06:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Montana
 


A big star for you, Montana! Very well said. Perhaps we are all learning to stay on the topic at hand, and in this case, it is Separation of Powers, and Government owned land, and the erection of a religious display on that property, a clear affront to the Constitution, and an affront to our Freedom of Religion.




top topics



 
2
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join